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

by leave—I move:

That the consideration of private senators' bills not be proceeded with today.

Question agreed to.

Back to questions I began asking yesterday, particularly on the one-off adjustments. Can the minister confirm whether the existing clause for the register of take—the working out of the register of take and the debit or credit—is currently an existing clause in the Water Act that allows for a reasonable excuse? Can the minister confirm that that reasonable excuse clause remains and will still apply to the one-off adjustments?

Yes, I can confirm that the clause remains. I'm advised that it is strengthened by an additional requirement for an action plan to be developed where a reasonable excuse is to be exercised.

While I am on my feet, I would also like to table a revised supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

Thank you for that clarification. Is it correct that one-off adjustments will be either debit or credit, depending on when the formula is applied? So, if a water resource plan area or SDL resource area is found to be in credit through that one-off adjustment process, that credit will then apply; by the same token, if it is found to be in debit, the debit will apply, noting the reasonable excuse clause?

Yes.

I love a simple answer. That makes things very easy. The amendments appear to add to the Basin Plan. The existing methodology for the register of take is in the Basin Plan. It would appear that these amendments mirror that methodology for the one-off adjustment. It's unclear why a one-off adjustment would be required, given that debits and credits are cumulative. But am I right to say that, under the existing plan, the register of take is set to zero on the accreditation of water resource plans, and what this adjustment will allow is for it to have been set to zero in 2019, at the same time as the original Basin Plan intended, and to use the methodology to estimate what it would have been, given there were no water resource plans existing? So this will only apply to areas where water resource plans weren't in effect in 2019?

In answer to the latter part of your question, yes, this applies to places where the water resource plan was not in place in 2019 as required. And, broadly, yes, it does seek to facilitate the circumstances where, notwithstanding the late provision or the water resource plan that took place between 2019 and the subsequent period, it can be recognised and made visible in the accounting.

For absolute clarity, when a water resource plan is accredited, this methodology will apply and the register of take will then be updated. That will be the one-off adjustment. This is not an adjustment to sustainable diversion limits; this is an adjustment to the register of take.

This is not an adjustment to sustainable diversion limits; this is just an adjustment to the register of take.

When the water resource plan becomes accredited—it won't be done now for areas where there is no water resource plan; it will be done when a water resource plan is accredited. That adjustment will take place, and then it will go forward with the standard compliance regime.

():  You are correct that this mechanism would be initiated at the point in time when a water resource plan is accredited. I'm advised that your broad characterisation that, once adjusted, it would then allow the standard protocols to apply is correct.

In relation to these government amendments and, in particular, this amendment that Senator Davey is asking about, I want to clarify that this is an amendment that the Greens negotiated with the government specifically for our support for this bill. That is because we have seen, consistently for years now, the system being gamed. The longer you hold out, the more water you can suck while everybody else is doing the heavy lifting. New South Wales, in particular, has gamed the system. It's time that that stopped. If we want to reinstate integrity, trust and accountability into this system, we need this measure in place. I want confirmation from the government that this is something that we fought hard for.

I think you are quite capable of telling your own story about the role of the Greens political party in Australian politics. But you are quite correct that this is one of the many matters that the government has been happy to discuss with the crossbench and, in particular, with your party. We agree that integrity in the plan and in the implementation of the plan is important. As I have previously explained to the chamber, this amendment seeks to provide equity and fairness for all basin states.

On this same theme, currently the New South Wales water-sharing plans apply in the same way as the water resource plans. Why haven't these assessments been done just utilising the water-sharing plans? Is there a reason why it hasn't been done to date by using the existing state regulations that are in place?

Thanks for your patience while I checked, Chair and Senator Davey. These are reasonably technical questions, and I wanted to make sure that I had the correct advice to provide to you.

I'm advised that the water-sharing plans follow an accounting methodology that was based in New South Wales legislation. You may know from our discussions that I was, in fact, once involved in the processes that sought to establish the first of those water-sharing plans. The water resource plans are a requirement of Commonwealth legislation. They have their own distinct characteristics that are required to be accredited as water resource plans, and they are a precondition for accreditation under the plan. For that reason it was necessary for New South Wales to take the steps to establish water resource plans in addition to the water-sharing plans that were already in place.

Is there an expectation that there will be big differences, and therefore a big adjustment, from the current estimates? There have been estimates underway as to what the take has been in regard to these areas with no water resource plans. Does the government expect that applying this methodology will lead to big adjustments or big differences in those estimates?

I will see if we have anything that I can provide in relation to that. I suspect the answer is, pending the accreditation of all water resource plans, that we'd be unlikely to speculate about their content. But if we do have any advice that I can provide I'll come back to you.

I'd like to ask the minister to confirm, in relation to this amendment, the role of the inspector-general in all of this to enforce compliance on extraction limits and water resources plans. This is a really important part of ensuring integrity and assuring the Australian community at large—in particular, the local communities in these basin regions—that there is a cop on the beat and that, when we put in place an inspector-general for water compliance, the inspector-general can actually do their job of ensuring water compliance.

This amendment itself doesn't change the role of the inspector-general, but you're correct that the inspector-general has a series of powers that include monitoring, implementation and establishment of water resource plans, and the government has been careful to ensure that in the broad the inspector-general does have the powers and resources necessary to perform the role that's been established for that position.

Could the government please go to the commitment taken in relation to creating a public tracking mechanism on the department's website to track the Australian government's progress on recovery of all targets?

Senator Hanson-Young, you're right that you and I struggled under the previous government to extract adequate information about progress, particularly in relation to the 450 gigalitre target but also in relation to other aspects of the plan. The government is committed to providing regular updates on the department's website that will give the public an understanding of how we are going in making progress against the targets so that we have appropriate transparency around the recovery targets that we set.

Could the government please confirm the commitment the minister has made to the Australian Greens in relation to commissioning an independent audit of water across the basin to be conducted by the inspector-general?

I can confirm that the government has had discussions with the inspector-general about this question. That role, of course, is an independent role, and the way that the person in that role performs his duties as a matter for them. However, our expectation, based on those discussions, is that an audit of the kind that you describe is under contemplation, and the inspector-general intends to undertake an audit of this kind. The specific details about how they will perform that and the particular matters that they will contemplate as part of that are yet to be finalised.

Just on the public tracking, because it's relevant, there is already, and has been ever since 2012, online tables published by both the MDBA and the department in all its guises as to water recovery—what the targets were, what the shared recovery targets were and what water recovery has been. So how is what is being mentioned here going to differ from existing publications and going to be more robust? Will you start publicly tracking where contracts are still in negotiation, for example?

Thanks very much, Senator Davey. We will work through the specific format of the information that can be provided. Our broad objective is to ensure that progress is clear to the public and that the government and the basin states are generally held accountable for our progress in implementation. We don't intend to publish commercially sensitive information; that would be one of the constraints that we would observe. But we are yet to finalise the specific information that would be published. The broad objective, however, is to enhance transparency.

So we're going to keep doing what we're doing, but we're going to say we're doing it better. That's essentially what I hear in that. I also want to come back to the fact that this bill is before us without a regulatory impact statement, and we are advised that there will not be a regulatory impact statement provided. Given that, and following on from Senator Lambie's question to you yesterday, I want to understand what work has been done to estimate the socioeconomic impacts of this bill and the cost of delivering this bill to the Australian taxpayers.

Thanks for the question, Senator Davey. There obviously are a huge number of studies in the public domain focusing on the economics of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. There are over 100 such studies. They've been undertaken by multiple people, through academia, government reports and consultants, using different methods. Inevitably, they focus on different factors—industry characteristics, water trade, water use, land use, demographics. Our broad challenge isn't that there is too little information in the public realm about the economics of the basin and about water in the basin.

Our approach has been to try and design an overall architecture in the act that will provide the government a range of options to recover the water that is necessary to implement the plan. We've been advised that, under current policy settings, it won't be possible to implement the plan, and it's on that basis that we've brought forward the reforms that are contained in this bill. The final design of the water recovery program is not yet complete. Indeed, the bill does not commit the government to any particular method of water recovery. It simply removes restrictions that are presently in place and gives the government options to complete the plan. To that extent, we are not yet at the point where economic analysis of a particular set of measures or interventions could be undertaken, because we haven't concluded what kind of interventions we intend to utilise.

You asked about the cost to government. I think the minister has been fairly clear that, to the extent that the government engages in water recovery, we wouldn't intend to publish those figures, because of the potential for them to impact on the market generally and on our ability to obtain best value for taxpayers.

I completely understand the market implications. Following a Senate estimates, I think it was inadvertently announced by the department that they would be buying 46 gigalitres of water, and there were immediate market impacts, even though it was months before the tender process commenced. I understand why the minister won't make announcements about market operations, but I think it is fair that the Australian public understand how much the total quantum of this continued water reform would be, how much funding is available through existing pools and how much new funding may be required to finalise the Basin Plan. Can the minister take us through the funding that is left in existing pools, including how much is left available in the Water for the Environment Special Account, how much is left in the efficiency measures funding bucket, the constraints easing funding program and the Bridging the Gap funding?

Senator Davey, I'll see what I can provide in terms of the specific figures that you are seeking. We provide regular updates through the ordinary budget process. However, I'm advised that the particular thing that this legislation does is to unlock funding from the Water for the Environment Special Account in the order of $1.3 billion for more options.

The original Water for the Environment Special Account had $2 billion, if my memory serves me correctly. I think $200 million was set aside for easing constraints, so that left $1.7 billion. If there's $1.3 billion remaining that this legislation unlocks for other purposes and if that funding is found not to be enough to meet the target of 450 gigalitres of water recovery through the range of options that this bill will unlock, will that funding be supplemented?

These are questions for the budget, Senator Davey. I don't intend to pre-empt budget decisions in the discussions here.

I appreciate the budget processes. Industry groups, water brokers and other groups have tried to estimate how much this might cost the budget, and there are various figures. I think the NFF found it could be up to $5 billion just to purchase the extra 450 gigalitres. Argyle Capital Partners estimated the cost could be up to $10 billion. Other water brokers have looked at the whole shortfall and estimated it could be up to $20 billion. Has the government undertaken any economic work to actually estimate the cost of this water recovery, to facilitate the budget processes?

I don't think I can add a great deal to my earlier answer, which is that updates will be provided as part of the budget, and, of course, any budget decision is subject to analysis. In the particular example you're referring to, we've indicated that we don't intend to make public the quantum of resource identified for buybacks for the reasons I explained earlier. I have also explained that the precise mix of levers and tools to meet the targets is yet to be finalised by government. This legislation simply seeks to unlock the capacity to utilise the widest possible range of tools to meet the targets that are in the plan.

While I do appreciate the minister's continued assertion that they don't want to make announcements which could impact the market, I will just note that previously both Minister Wong and Minister Burke routinely issued media releases outlining how much funding was available in total for each general tender round. They were also quite public in how much money was available deliver the Basin Plan. Now we have a government which went to the election declaring transparency and a new way of governing, but what we continue to get is silence and a refusal to at least announce the total figure available so that Australian taxpayers can understand what this reform is going to cost them. Back in 2011 we saw work done by the CSIRO, trying to assess the amenity value in undertaking this water reform. They did a big survey across the nation to understand what the value of a healthy river was to people. People said that it was invaluable until they were asked what they thought if it cost them about $20 a week, and then all of a sudden the value ratio fell. And we continue to see this government hiding what it's going to cost Australian taxpayers.

What I'm really asking—all I'm asking—is this: has the government done the work? Has the government modelled what the cost of this reform would be to the taxpayer?

Senator Davey, government takes decisions in the context of the budget and of course we do the necessary analysis to support those decisions.

What I'm hearing is that you're not willing to be open and transparent about the expectation of the cost of this reform to the Australian public.

I totally reject that characterisation. I've explained to you the very sensible reasons why it is that the government has indicated this aspect of the budget is not for publication. It is to avoid distorting the water market and also to ensure that we obtain best value for the taxpayer.

In my efforts to get a better understanding of this reform and where we are, I wrote to the Parliamentary Budget Office and asked them to cost delivery of the Basin Plan in full, with the provisions for these water recovery targets. The response I got back said, 'Following consultation with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, we have come to the view that there are no existing analytical models that the PBO would be able to rely upon to cost this proposal, especially given the potentially significant market impacts this proposal could result in.' They went on to say, 'The proposal has been assessed as unquantifiable, due to the unique and volatile characteristics of the water market,' and, 'Large-scale purchase of water in the MDB and the potential for market distortions, as well as the quality of data, aren't available.'

Basically, they came back and said that they cannot make assumptions regarding how long the general tender process would be, or the potential impact. If the PBO can't cost it, and if it's determined that it is unquantifiable, how can the government be confident they understand the cost of this reform on the Australian taxpayer? I'm not asking this time for a figure; I'm asking how you can be confident that you're—

Senator Davey, the targets that we are seeking to implement are the ones that have been agreed on a bipartisan basis since the plan was established. The decision to pursue water recovery to address overallocation in the basin and to provide for a healthy, working basin that could support communities, environment and economic activity is one that I thought was an agreed position across the chamber. This bill doesn't seek to change those targets. What it does do is offer opportunities for more time, more options, more money and more accountability. That is the overarching framework for this bill. It will deliver more water for the environment, more certainty for farmers and industries, more financial support for affected communities, more protection for native plants and animals, and more hope for Australia's most important river system. That's why the plan was put in place in the first instance.

I have already indicated to the chamber that the final design of any water recovery options has not been completed. I've also indicated to you that of course the government undertakes the necessary analysis for any budget decisions that are taken in the context of the budget. Finally, I have indicated to you that the particular costs associated with water purchase are not for publication in the budget, for reasons to do with impacting on the market and ensuring that we obtain good value for taxpayers.

Minister, I just want to ask you: has this plan been agreed by all states that are in the Basin Plan?

Senator Hanson, I apologise for the delay. I am seeking the information that you're looking for so I can give you accurate information about where we are up to in our discussions with states and territories. The Basin Plan is a shared responsibility across all of the basin states, and, of course, we are engaging with them regularly. I'm just looking for an update on where we are up to in our discussions.

My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that anything to do with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan must be agreed to by the Commonwealth and the states. If that be the case, have they agreed to your legislation, which was originally drafted by your government, before coming to this chamber?

Minister Plibersek recently announced a historic agreement to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, and that includes 450 gigalitres of water for the environment. That agreement is between our government, the New South Wales government, the South Australian government, the Queensland government and the Australian Capital Territory government. All basin states were briefed on the changes proposed in the bill before it was introduced.

Part of your bill is to lift the caps on the buyback. Was that agreed to by the states?

Senator Hanson, I can refer you to the minister's public statement at the time, which was publicly released. As I indicated, there is an agreement between our government and the New South Wales, South Australian, Queensland and Australian Capital Territory governments, and all basin states were briefed on the changes proposed in the bill before it was introduced.

You are not answering my question. My understanding is that there has to be an agreement between the states to do with the Basin Plan and the Commonwealth for anything to be put up. Was there a total agreement right across the board on your bill with regards to this legislation before you put it up in the chamber? Is there a total on agreement on the full proposal in your legislation by the states?

I don't know if I can add to the answer. Of course the Commonwealth is able to legislate in the matters that are in our powers, and we bring legislation before you very confident that we have the power to legislate in the way we propose. We are also in regular discussions with basin states, and the minister has reached an agreement about the approach with the Commonwealth, the New South Wales government, South Australia, Queensland and the ACT governments. That provides a range of additional supports for those governments to work on full implementation of the plan, and we were pleased to be able to work with them on this.

In light of the fact there have been numerous amendments put to this bill which will impact on communities across all the states involved in the Basin Plan, what is your proposal now, if these amendments get up, to have a consultation process with the states that they will agree with these amendments as well?

We will continue to work very closely with all basin states on implementation of the plan. Incidentally—you didn't ask about this—we also intend to work closely with communities in the basin about implementation of the Basin Plan. This legislation seeks to give the Commonwealth government and all of the basin states more time to work through this. The plan was not on track when we came to government. We received advice that it was not on track and that, under current policy settings, it could not be implemented. It's for that reason we are bringing legislation to the chamber and it is also for that reason we continue to talk to our state and territory colleagues.

This is basically about water buyback and the 450 gigalitres, plus I see you want another 315 gigalitres in approximately 700 gigalitres to buy back, which is equivalent to—just for the public to know—about 1½ times what is in Sydney Harbour. That's the amount of water you want to take out of communities from irrigators. What's more important in Australia to this government? Is it to the farming sector, who require the water to grow their produce to feed Australians and to export, or is it the environment? What's your priority?

I don't think the government would consider that we have a binary choice between these two things. A sustainable healthy basin is essential for the productivity of the farm sector and for food and fibre production in Australia. The origin of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was actually to address the challenges that were being produced for basin communities as a consequence of poor management over the basin over many decades. That was the origin of the decision that was taken to establish the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The millennium drought really laid it bare. It became clear there were some very significant problems. You'll recall that parts of the basin dried up. The mouth of the Murray closed. Water didn't flow out to the sea. The whole basin system felt this. It devastated communities and industry and the environment. These things are connected. Water supply to Adelaide was threatened. Water was severely restricted to almost 4,000 irrigators in South Australia; 33 wetlands didn't receive water, risking long-term damage to their ecosystems; and, as the Lower Lakes dried up, acidic soils were exposed and damaged the quality of the water that was left in the river. The Basin Plan was a response to this acute crisis in the system, which actually made it clear that our agricultural activities, our communities and our environment are all deeply linked within the basin itself.

We live in a country where we do have droughts and bushfires. It's in our history. That's evident. The fact is the Labor government is insistent on bringing half a million people into this country. This requires more water, more services, more food that we need to provide for them. Our farming is an essential part of this nation and has been ever since it was founded.

The fact is that governments—your government, previous governments—have actually made a hell of a mess of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It's been poorly managed and the way that I see it now, and I hear it constantly—I've actually been there, and I've been to the mouth of the Murray-Darling, and I can't get my head around why you're so intent on taking the 450 gigalitres to flow down the river, to flow out to the sea. That is water that's required, and you just want to it to flow out so that you can keep the mouth from being silted up, but you've still got dredging that goes on. So, the mentality is 'let the water flow' so you won't have to dredge. But you're going to have to always dredge because you're actually changing the concept of it by putting barrages in what was classified, really, as salt lakes. They're not the freshwater lakes that people claim they are. They're not freshwater lakes; they were always salt lakes before the barrages went in. So you're destroying communities.

I went to a dairy farmer as well. He has a fantastic operation. He said: 'Pauline, I cannot expand my business because I can't get the water. I cannot even afford the water.' Our dairy industry is shutting down in Australia, and it's the same with growers, irrigators, because they can't get the water. That's why I asked for your priority: is it the farming sector or is it really the environment? I've been down there and, yes, we've gone through drought, but that has recovered, so it's not so much about the environment. Things could be put in place to look after the environment—I'm all for the environment—but this is pure bloody-mindedness, where we're headed with this. And with the number of amendments that have been put through here, especially put up by the Greens and other ones, you are actually destroying the bill. I do not believe the states could possibly agree to what you have before this parliament.

For the life of me I just cannot understand why, Minister, part of this bill you've actually agreed to is that you're going to give—you've got a deal with the Greens to allocate $100 million to help the First Nations people to participate in the water market. Why?

Thanks, Senator Hanson. Yes, the minister has announced that the Labor government has increased the financial commitment to First Nations water ownership from $40 million to $100 million. This is in recognition of the delays since the original funding was announced by the previous government in 2018. Those delays have caused a significant erosion in the value of that investment. We expect purchasing towards this to commence early next year. We continue to work closely with First Nations people on the basin and on the design and delivery of this program, including on the enduring water-holding mechanism.

We have 50 per cent of Australia under native title claim. And then both the government and the opposition passed the land and sea council, so basically Aboriginals have control of water above and below ground and in the Commonwealth waters. Water is essential to the farming sector. Why would you do a deal to give another $100 million of water allocation to the Aboriginal people purely to make money out of when these people don't hold land to produce food or anything else? It's purely to make money out of it at the expense of the taxpayer. I don't get it. Australians won't understand it either. There are other avenues of grants for Aboriginal people to be able to buy their own water. There are royalties and everything else that they have. Why are the taxpayers funding this again? Minister, how much of our water in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is in foreign ownership or hands?

Senator Hanson, would you mind repeating your question for the minister, please?

I'd like to know how much water in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is actually owned by foreign investors.

I'm advised that it's approximately 12 per cent.

I was advised that it's closer to 20 per cent. Minister, do you agree with that?

That's not the advice I have, Senator Hanson.

I tried through a senator's office to find out via Victoria and New South Wales who owns this and I was refused that information. Why?

Senator Hanson, it's difficult for me to comment on a discussion you've had with a senator, because I'm not aware of the details of the request or the response.

All I said to you was that I requested to know who owns the water and the water licences. You've told me that you have carriage of this and you consult with the states. You have carriage of this bill. You are in control of this legislation. Why can't I find out on behalf of the Australian people who owns the water licences?

():  Senator Hanson, thank you for your patience. There are a number of different policy settings that are relevant to your question. I was just asking the officials how I might best answer you. I am advised that there is a register of foreign ownership of water entitlements and you can obtain online a public report about the registrations. The one I have before me is as at 30 June 2022. You can find this at foreigninvestment.gov.au should you wish to look.

The reason I was taking time to consult with officials about this is that in some ways your question goes to the level of transparency more generally around the water market and how it operates. There is a place where you can obtain information about foreign ownership, but, more generally, the government considers that the water market does require reform so that it operates in a more accountable, efficient and fair way, so the bill does a number of things. It introduces a clear and consistent framework for water market conduct and information across the basin. It introduces new water market functions and powers for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. It creates a framework for a new mandatory code for water market intermediaries, so people buying and selling, and some data reporting requirements. It creates new insider trading and market misconduct prohibitions. These things are all a consequence of quite a long period of policy reform, including a review by the ACCC, I believe, into the operation of water markets. The government does recognise that these markets require reform to operate effectively.

Minister, the Commonwealth has been buying up water licenses to recover your environmental loads—is that correct?

At different times, since the commencement of the Basin Plan, the Commonwealth government has recovered water for environmental purposes, and it is held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and utilised for environmental purposes. These go well beyond keeping the mouth of the Murray open, an environmental objective you referenced in an earlier contribution. They are also utilised for watering wetlands, for ensuring the health of the rivers themselves and sometimes for topping up overland flooding events to ensure bird breeding events can be sustained or fish spawning activities can be catalysed. The Commonwealth has learnt quite a lot over the period of the operation of the plan about how to best use those water entitlements to produce environmental outcomes.

The Commonwealth doesn't allocate licences; it's the states—is that right?

That's correct, and it's why the creation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was done in partnership with the states and territories—because the states and territories have a significant role in administering the Murray-Darling.

How much money, over the period of time of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, has the Commonwealth spent of taxpayers' dollars buying back these water licences or the water allocations?

I'm just looking at a table on the website, which you may wish to consult at some point too. If you check the website of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, there is a page titled 'Table of water reform funding in the Murray-Darling Basin', and it says:

Since 2007, The Australian Government has committed $13,293 million to implement water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. Funding is split between these 4 broad areas:

In the section on purchase, it indicates that the total funds spent on water purchase is roughly $2.8 billion.

So the federal government has spent $2.8 billion over the period of time, but you didn't allocate the licences; the states did. The states are still allocating licences. Why haven't you reined in the states to stop them allocating licences? They're actually selling the licences, making money out of it, and the Commonwealth is actually buying the water allocations back. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Thanks, Senator Hanson. You point to an important feature of the way that the Murray-Darling system operates. You're right that states and territories are responsible for allocating water entitlements in each of the basin states. A core part of the Murray-Darling Basin process was to ask each of the states and territories to put in place what's called a sustainable diversion limit in each of the catchments within the basin and to ensure that there was a cap on the amount of water that could be extracted from that system for productive uses. This reflected the scientific advice about the ecological and environmental consequences of going beyond those caps. They also, of course, have economic consequences, because, in the end, if systems are overallocated, depending on the particular state, it can diminish the reliability of the entitlement that is held by some users in those systems. At the time that the Basin Plan was put in place, this was increasingly a problem in some states as a consequence of the mismatch between the licences that had been allocated and the water that was in fact available.

Minister, what are you putting in place to rein in the states from actually allocating these licences? If you feel that there is more water needed for the environment, why are you allowing them to hand out more licences to these people?

I was speaking earlier, in response to a question from Senator Davey, about the water resource plans. These are the plans that need to exist in each of the catchments to show how much water is going to be made available for productive uses—that is, for licences. States do have a constraint, under the plan, on how much water they can license for take.

There has also been an increasing focus in recent years on the role of the inspector-general and their capacity to enforce the extraction of water out of the systems of the Murray-Darling Basin. That's an important enforcement mechanism that sits on top of the policy mechanism that the water resource plans represent.

Minister, you told me to go to the website, which I have done. I've just received the information here. I asked you who owns the licences. There's no indication of names whatsoever. Actually, the register does not list licences or details of owners; it is just by country. That's what I have here. It has just been given to me. It is foreign held water entitlement by country, as at 30 June 2022. The Australian people might be interested in hearing this, because I'm sure they're not all capable of rushing to the website to try to find it. It says: Canada, 833 gigalitres; United States of America, 711 gigalitres; China, 323 gigalitres; United Kingdom, 315 gigalitres; Singapore, 174 gigalitres; France, 159 gigalitres; Germany, 154 gigalitres; Hong Kong, 134 gigalitres; Switzerland, 116 gigalitres; and Netherlands, 106 gigalitres. The total for the top 10 countries is 3,025 gigalitres. That's foreign interest in our water in Australia. It's not a renewable—well, it is renewable, actually, because it falls out of the sky for the use of the Australian people—yet we have foreign owners actually taking billions of dollars out of this country every year and controlling our water.

Australian people would be absolutely gobsmacked and disgusted to know that there is so much foreign ownership of our water and yet our own farming sector are going under. They are on their knees in times of drought when they're trying to run their businesses. As I said, dairy farmers want to run their businesses here in Australia, but they can't get the water they require to feed our nation and to keep communities that are dependent on this water viable. If the farming sector goes under, the communities will die, because that's where their income comes from.

Minister, why haven't we got a list of names? How do we know that it's not China, the CCP, that owns the water? How do we know who actually does own our water? Why do we have so much foreign ownership of our water? This water is really no-one's to own and make a profit out of. This water should be available to the Australian people and their communities, not be traded. You said earlier that you believe in looking after our farming sector. Then why don't you go back to having water with land, so farmers have an entitlement? If you have farming land and are producing food here, why is there not automatically an allocation of water that goes with that land? Would that be something that this government would look at?

I blame the Howard government for this. When they separated water from land in 2004, that's when the problem started. You can change this. You can allocate some water with land, and, if there's anything above that, then, fine, they can trade that amongst each other and allocate the water. But why don't we get it out of the hands of foreign ownership? Why don't we put it back in the hands of the Australian people? Give it to our irrigators. Give it to our farmers. Give it to these communities. Let them own the water. Don't let it go to foreign ownership. The water falls out of the sky. It doesn't belong to any individual or to whoever pays the highest price for it. Will you consider giving back water with land and water entitlements to our farming sector and these communities?

That's not our policy, Senator Hanson. And, just for clarity, it's not the effect of the bill before us.

You've actually just put a nail in the coffin of a lot of these communities and the farming sector out there, because it's not part of your policy. That's not what this is about. It's about coming up with the answers—working out and solving problems in this nation—to help all Australians. This government has no regard for the farming sector of this nation. Why? Because you don't get the votes in those seats. You're not interested.

There's another thing that I'll tell this government it can do: look at building other water resources—dams. Put things in place so that we will have water security in this nation. You haven't even considered that. You have no vision for the future. You put up policy in this place, time and time again, that you actually amend or change along the way. I asked you: 'Have you consulted with the states?' I don't believe you have, because my understanding is: the states aren't happy with this deal that's been done. As to all these amendments that are going forward, do you know what? I don't believe the states are going to agree. Now that you've put up all these amendments, what a bloody mess this is! This Murray-Darling Basin Plan is an absolute mess. You haven't got it right.

It's another bill you have not got right because you haven't done the consultation. You haven't been out to these communities. You haven't spoken to these people. You haven't spoken to the irrigators, the farmers, that you are driving under, in these communities, right across the whole sector—all because South Australia wants the water to flow out to clear the silt. What a waste of water that is—for the water to just flow out into the ocean. You're not worrying about the communities. You're a hopeless government.

Minister, my questions go to the level of consultation that this government has done in its efforts to turn the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on its head, to turn its back on the agreement reached by the former Labor government when the plan was set up, and to really betray the rural and regional communities throughout the basin, and, in particular, those communities in the southern connected basin, who have done the heavy lifting with respect to water recovery.

I note that the government has chosen to get rid of the socioeconomic-detriment test that Labor, Liberal and National Party water ministers agreed to. There was a consensus, an understanding and an appreciation by state ministers that further water removal would cause severe economic and social detriment, and so they crafted a very sensible way to assess that detriment. This government has walked away from that agreement. This bill and its consequences will hang around the neck of Tanya Plibersek and Anthony Albanese's government when we see the social and economic devastation that will be wrought as a result of the bill before us.

Minister, research shows that in my home state of Victoria the northern dairy industry will be severely, inevitably and devastatingly impacted by your decision here today. Research shows that 80 per cent of the milk cheque is spent within a 100-kilometre radius, not supporting just that local farming family but supporting a service industry in the nearest town—the sporting clubs, the schools, the hospitals and the supermarkets, all employing people, all ensuring that communities have social amenities, because these types of amenities don't exist if people aren't spending money at their local IGA, haven't got kids to play football and netball or don't have a sherbet on a Friday night at the local pub. These amenities only exist in these rural communities because the milk cheque gets spent within a hundred kay. Dairy employs large numbers; it is not just a mum-and-dad operation. Farms in the Goulburn Valley and throughout northern Victoria can employ upwards of nine people. There are a hundred employed in the dairy business network. That is over $7 million in wages, grain trucks—two grain trucks every 10 days delivering feed for the stock—artificial insemination technicians, dairy technicians, plumbers, electricians, fertiliser agents, spreaders, tractor repairers, accountants et cetera. That is the reality of the economic footprint that this government seeks to shut down. The Albanese government talks a big game on local jobs, but not if you're one of the nine million of us that don't live in a capital city, not if you're in small business, not if you're in primary production, not if you live in Shepparton, Tatura, Kyabram, Cohuna, Mildura or Swan Hill. What analysis has the government done on the direct and indirect economic impact of the decision that is before the chamber?

Thank you, Senator McKenzie, for your question. You won't be surprised to hear that I don't accept your characterisation of the way that this government thinks about regional and rural communities. Actually, we are interested in supporting healthy, sustainable communities right across the basin, and all through regional and rural towns across the country, actually. Jobs in community is a focus for the government and will continue to be so.

You ask about analysis around the impact of this bill. It is important to understand what this bill does and does not do. It essentially provides more time to deliver the remaining water based on expert advice. When we came to government, the advice to us was that the Basin Plan could not be implemented on the current policy settings, nor could the water infrastructure projects be completed within the necessary time frames. I think you understand—I'm certain Senator Davey understands it—that the consequences of not completing those projects on time are quite significant for rural communities. It is one of the reasons that the bill seeks to establish more time for states and territories to complete the works that they have committed to.

The bill does include the capacity for more options to deliver the remaining water, including water efficiency infrastructure projects and voluntary water purchases. It includes more funding to deliver the remaining water and to support communities where voluntary water purchasing has flow-on impacts, and it includes more accountability, which is a matter that we have already discussed in the chamber this morning. The specific mechanisms by which the government seeks to recover water across the basin are yet to be finalised. This bill creates options, but the detailed implementation arrangements are yet to be finalised. But of course the government intends to consider the economic and social impacts of any policy measures that we implement.

Minister, when a bill comes before the parliament, usually you will have done an impact assessment. My question remains: what analysis has the government done to assess the impact of removing 450 gigalitres additional to the plan—because that was never part of the plan—and removing the socioeconomic detriment test? What is your understanding, as you stand here today? I ask that because I'm hearing from people who are saying that jobs will be lost, businesses will go out of town, dairy production will fall and there will be impacts on food manufacturers, such as SPC in Shepparton, Saputo in Cobram, the Tatura Milk factory, that employ hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people. When dad or mum loses their job, that has significant social impacts in these communities. I have heard your answer. I asked a very simple question: what analysis has your government done to understand the economic impact of the legislation that we are debating on affected communities and, in particular, on the dairy industry? You haven't answered the question.

():  Senator McKenzie, you'll be aware that there is an enormous amount of economic analysis in the public domain about water and the Murray-Darling Basin. I spoke about it earlier in answering questions put to me by Senators Davey and Hanson. The government is well aware of the analysis, and we are aware that, in some cases, the voluntary purchase of water may—

Senator McKenzie?

For the second time, I've very directly asked the minister to articulate the impact. I'm not asking whether or not she's aware that analysis has been done. I want to be assured that this government knows the impact.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Is there a question—

Direct relevance: what is the analysis?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young.

I have questions for the minister on the government's amendment sheet ZC243, which, I understand, is the one before us now. There are a number of elements to this. We've talked about the changes to the register of take, which are obviously important. I would also like the government to expand on the changes to the objects in the act, given that they are a fundamental part of the agreement with the Australian Greens for support in this bill. I'd also like the minister to outline the other integrity measures that the government has agreed to undertake in relation to getting the Greens' support and allowing us to strengthen this bill and to outline the complementary measures to this bill.

Thank you for your question, Senator Hanson-Young. I will say at the outset that the government has been very pleased to work with the crossbench generally in relation to this bill and, indeed, with all senators who have engaged in good faith with the government on these important issues. We were pleased to be able to arrive at an agreement with the Australian Greens about how we might approach this, and we thank the Australian Greens for their constructive approach to the discussions. We know that when we work together in a constructive way across the chamber it is possible to improve legislation here in this place, and we're grateful for the efforts the Greens have made.

We understand there are a range of amendments that will be moved by the Australian Greens that the government intends to support. These, amongst other things, will create a range of new and important features of the act, including the capacity to withdraw unviable SDLAM projects, and also to ensure that any government, any minister, will take all reasonable steps to recover the 450 gigalitres of environmental water by 31 December 2027. I realise that does not summarise all of the things that the Australian Greens intend to do in your amendments, but these are important amendments, and we will be pleased to support them.

You asked about First Nations people and the objects of the act. I understand that this was an area that the Australian Greens sought to raise with the government, and we were pleased to engage with you on that question. We agree that the objects of the act should be amended to acknowledge First Nations people. There is presently no specific object in the Water Act or purpose in the Basin Plan that relates to Indigenous people. This overlooks what First Nations people tell us, which is that there are important values that they receive from their use and their connection to water.

In response to that and your representations, the amendment in relation to the objects will ensure that the use and management of basin water resources takes into account spiritual, cultural, environmental, social and economic matters relevant to Indigenous peoples, including in relation to their knowledge, values, uses, traditions and customs. The amendment seeks to incorporate elements of the Echuca Declaration, which was adopted by the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations and the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations in 2007. It also includes terminology from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The amendment will ensure that genuine consideration of matters relevant to Indigenous people takes place and can improve Indigenous peoples' outcomes and benefit overall basin water resource management. It responds to a number of recommendations that also came through the Senate committee process and the Productivity Commission's interim report, which reviews the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Minister, what is the economic impact on the dairy industry of this bill?

I was answering questions from Senator McKenzie earlier. She raised to make a point of order, and then we seemed to move on. I'm quite happy to re-engage with Senator McKenzie on this set of issues. As I've said, this bill seeks to create a range of new capacities that will allow government to implement the plan. That is something that the government that you were part of, Senator McKenzie, comprehensively failed to do. When we came to office the advice we received was that this plan could not be implemented on time under the current policy settings. We have undertaken the work necessary to get the plan back on track.

I have indicated to you that the arrangements by which we would utilise the tools that will be established should this legislation pass are yet to be settled. But it is our intention that modelling will be undertaken by ABARES. That will be used to understand any local impacts. As you know, the government also proposes that, where there are impacts on local communities, there will be resources made available to those communities to assist them should voluntary water buybacks take place as part of water recovery.

Do I take from that that economic modelling or analysis on the job losses of primary producers—our farmers—and food processors and from the local small businesses in country towns and regional centres throughout the basin hasn't been undertaken as yet?

I'm indicating to you, Senator McKenzie, that the government's implementation arrangements following passage of this legislation are yet to be finalised. But, yes, we have asked ABARES to do this work because, of course, the government will seek to understand the economic impacts of any specific implementation arrangements.

What I'm hearing, Minister, is that this government is asking the parliament to sign off on a backflipped Murray-Darling Basin Plan which seeks to go into the market, remove the caps on buybacks and take the 450 gigalitres that was never supposed to be recovered unless there was already an understanding of the social and economic impacts. You're doing away with those protections for these rural communities—that's what I understand—because the analysis isn't happening until later. We're being asked to effectively sign a blank cheque and in blind faith accept that the Albanese government will understand the impacts and will do the maths on the impacts, but it won't stop you from taking the water from these communities.

Senator McKenzie, you will doubtless characterise the government's policy settings as you like. I can explain to you the approach we are taking. We came to government with clear advice that, as a direct consequence of the approach taken by the government that you were part of, the plan was way off track. Water had not been recovered against the 450. State projects were behind. Accountabilities were not being observed by the Commonwealth government and by the series of ministers under the Liberal and National parties that were supposed to be looking after the Murray-Darling Basin.

We have worked hard to consult with states and territories and with communities about what steps could be taken to get the plan back on track, and this bill is a consequence of that work. This bill, as I have set out, seeks to create a broader range of tools to allow government to implement the plan. It seeks to remove impediments that are presently in place to implement the plan. You ask: will we take an interest in the wellbeing, the welfare and the livelihoods of rural communities and the people who live in them? Of course we will. I have already indicated to you that the government is yet to finalise the precise mix of tools that we will use for water recovery necessary to meet the Basin Plan. This bill will give us a wider range of options—one of which is voluntary buyback.

We recognise that voluntary water purchases are a sensitive subject, and we also recognise that in some instances they may have localised economic impacts that are challenging for communities. As part of the package that we are bringing forward, the government does intend and does propose community adjustment assistance. This was canvassed with basin states, and, in order to understand what assistance will be necessary, of course the government will undertake analysis.

The government has asked ABARES to provide us advice that work is being undertaken, and it will be considered in the context of finalising our approach to implementing water recovery to meet the objectives of the plan. I will reiterate the point I made earlier, which is the objectives of the plan historically have been bipartisan. People in this place have understood that something needed to change in the Murray-Darling Basin, that we could not go on as we were and that, if we did, there would be real consequences—more fish deaths, a continuing decline in bird breeding, water quality that is not up to scratch, challenges in accessing water entitlements because of pressures on each of the catchments. These things are unsustainable. We are seeking to have an honest conversation with the Australian public and with basin communities about what we can do together to meet them and overcome them.

The water amendment bill ensures that the 450 gigalitres will be removed from the basin. Everything you have said thus far doesn't actually answer the reason why you are going after the 450. That was never part of the Basin Plan. It was a political deal at the time, and I was in the chamber as was Senator Hanson-Young. I think we're the only people in the chamber today who were there at that time.

The protections around that 450 were strong and were made stronger by Labor water ministers, by Liberal water ministers and by Nationals water ministers because, over the last 10 years, we have seen the impact that water recovery has had. The indiscriminate water buybacks Swiss cheese our irrigation communities, which is why, when we came to government, we made sure that we had a more holistic approach rather than the scattergun approach of the former water ministers in the Labor Party, particularly Minister Wong, whose policy impact was not only wasteful spending of taxpayer money but had a devastating impact on basin communities.

This bill actually removes that 450 gigalitre protection, so I want to understand why given you are dismantling the protections within your own act and dismantling the additional protections put in by state based ministers, including Labor based ministers. My home state water minister, who is Labor, does not support legislation before the parliament because it is the southern connected basin in Victoria that has contributed over 50 per cent of the water recovered and it is our communities that are doing more with less—but enough is enough. I want to understand, not the ABARES modelling that you will do in the future or the consultation that you think you might do in the future.

It is a big call for the government to remove those protections, your own protections, and the protections arrived at through state ministers. You are dismantling that framework. So I assume, if you are dismantling that framework, you understand the impacts and won't leave it to ABARES to tell you how devastating it will be and that you will consider it, because, at the end of the day, what you're doing with this legislation is coming for the 450 irrespective of what ABARES will tell you.

If you were really concerned about the social and economic impacts of your policy, you would not dismantle those protections for community industries that your own former water minister Burke wrote into the legislation and that your state Labor water ministers, particularly from Victoria—Lisa Neville—wrote in and agreed to, because they are on the ground and have seen the impact. What modelling have you done on the economic impact to our rural towns and communities as a result of the buyback regime that will be unleashed following the passing of this bill?

Minister, if you can't answer the question of what modelling has been done on the economic impact of your legislation—and, Assistant Minister McAllister, I do appreciate this isn't your legislation, this is legislation that you're representing Tanya Plibersek on. It is clear that she has not done her homework, but that absolutely doesn't surprise me when it comes to this government because, along with Catherine King, Clare O'Neil and a whole raft of ministers in the other chamber, it seems attention to detail when getting legislation before the parliament is not something you really care about. It's actually more about fulfilling ideological positions, which is exactly what this is about.

If the government hasn't done the economic modelling on the removal of the 450 and the dismantling of those socioeconomic protections that you actually wrote into the bill in the first place, can you tell the chamber what will be the risk of these changes on production in the dairy industry in the southern connected basin?

I have provided a number of answers which set out the way the policy reform is being undertaken. We've received advice that the plan cannot be implemented under the current policy settings, and for that reason we have sought to engage with basin states and with stakeholders to put in place a set of policy arrangements that will allow us to implement the plan. Part of that involves broadening the range of tools available to us for water recovery. Part of it involves extending the time available for the states and territories to complete the projects that they have committed to, to recover water prior to reconciliation. These are important features of this legislation. They are not the only features.

You have obliquely made reference to the arrangements for socioeconomic assessment in relation to the 450 gigalitres. You've also made the assertion that the 450 gigalitres was never part of the plan. This is simply not right. The 450 gigalitres is part of the plan, and the government intends to deliver it. The fact that the National Party spent a decade, under the previous government, trying to undermine that feature of the plan can't change the history, which is that the 450 gigalitres is a commitment and we need to respond to it.

In terms of the policy arrangements, Senator McKenzie, currently the 450 gigalitres can only be recovered through water efficiency projects, and you're right that a socioeconomic test is in place in the existing legislation for those projects. They must have a neutral or positive socioeconomic benefit. That test will remain for water efficiency projects. However, if passed, voluntary water buybacks would be enabled by this legislation. We do expect that they will have some modest socioeconomic impacts at an aggregate basin scale, but there may be uneven and localised negative impacts. For this reason, the proposed legislation does not propose a neutral or positive socioeconomic test to be applied to voluntary buybacks as part of the 450 gigalitres program.

Should negative socioeconomic impacts be identified due to water purchased towards the 450 gigalitre target, the federal government will make transitional assistance funding available. I spoke about that earlier. This assistance would assist communities that have the highest vulnerability to further water purchase and the lowest adaptive capacity. It will support investment that aligns with existing regional development plans and help communities adjust. And I should say that the assistance we are providing is more than any previous government has provided under the Basin Plan.

I go back to my original point: the Basin Plan was well off track when we came to government, a consequence of being deliberately undermined by individuals in the government that you were a part of Senator McKenzie. We are determined to get it back on track. This bill is part of that process.

Minister, one of the things that was raised with me by all stakeholders was the concern about water quality. There was recognition that quantity is important but quality wasn't being focused on. I'm interested in what the government's plans are when it comes to water quality. Things like carp were raised with me constantly, along with other invasive fish species and riverbank erosion when the rivers are running full. What will be done for water quality across the basin?

Thanks, Senator Pocock. Your question relates to other kinds of measures that might be undertaken by the state government or the Commonwealth government to improve the environmental health of waterways and channels within the Murray-Darling system. That isn't principally what this bill is about; this bill is about tools for water recovery to obtain environmental water.

But of course these things are connected. Systems that have very low flows in them often see a deterioration in water quality, and systems that have very low flows in very dry periods are at risk of deterioration in quality—that can produce fish kills, for example. There are other features of water management within systems that are principally the responsibility of state governments, and those can support or impede—can prevent or catalyse—erosion, depending on the approach taken by the water authorities in the states and territories. These are all things we should be thinking about, but they're not the principal focus of the legislation.

Minister, you made reference to the level of consultation that's being done. It has been put to me by the dairy industry in Victoria, in particular, that they've kept turning up to engagement opportunities but they're never heard because they're in the wrong part of the basin and they aren't members of the Greens political party. They live in the basin and they want to be part of the solution; and the best decisions can be made when you make use of the people who are closest to the situation. The level of frustration and fatigue in these communities is from being silenced and, shall we say, compliantly listened to but not actually heard; everything they've been saying is falling on deaf ears. What I have heard this morning is that those socioeconomic protections are being removed. But I'm able to assist the minister on that, thanks to an FOI document from the Victorian government—and I can't believe this hasn't been fed to the federal government—which says that milk production is likely to be 33 per cent lower than without the Basin Plan. That is a drop in milk production of a third as a result of the decisions we're making here. If the Victorian government has done the modelling on the economic impacts, why don't you know the answers to my very simple questions?

Senator McKenzie, about three times now I have stepped through the policy process the government is working through. I have indicated the advice that we will draw upon in finalising arrangements for water recovery, including any voluntary buybacks. I don't have anything to add to my previous answers.

I know, Senator McAllister, that you have been sent into the chamber, effectively, to offer a fig leaf of assurance to the two million of us who live in the basin and the mighty industries that we represent, which feed not only our own nation but the globe. That was such a glib response, and it says me that the minister's staff who are sitting here in the adviser's box are doing you a disservice. They should have come to this place with the answers to what are incredibly basic questions, which my home state—and I never thought I would say this, but thanks to the Labor Party in Victoria—has actually done the work on. That's why the Labor Party in Victoria does not support your changes. It's because they've done the social and economic impact, and they understand what it will do. Families will lose employed parents; processors already on thin margins will be closed; and primary producers will go to the wall—not that it matters to the Labor Party or to Tanya Plibersek. She's got a bigger prize in mind, and it's not caring for rural and regional communities, the dairy industry or the horticulture industry. It's chasing down Anthony Albanese and seeking votes in a future leadership contest. That actually—

This is a point of order about imputations. I've allowed Senator McKenzie to make a range of observations about government ministers without interruption, but this is a point of order.

Senator McKenzie, would you care to withdraw the comment with regard to motivation?

I withdraw, if it assists the chamber. Being focused on where Labor Party voters live and vote rather than where food is produced—and, dare I say, where people that vote for the National Party and care about a productive, sustainable and prosperous agriculture industry are—seems to be the motivation behind the bill before us. There's a little bit of differentiation from Tony Burke, I might add. Tanya Plibersek has gone tougher and harder. I am concerned, Senator McAllister, that you are here doing the dirty work, shall we say, on behalf of a minister who hasn't bothered to understand the social and economic impacts. I can see that the advisers aren't giving you any assistance with the actual data that I know they have, because basin states have it and will have passed it on. If they haven't passed it on, it's because the minister hasn't bothered to ask. That is not impugning her motives; it is actually explaining her very clear motives, because she doesn't care about the social and economic impacts of this bill on our people.

That is why, this week, like we've had in Deniliquin, the Goulburn Valley took to the streets in Shepparton to protest against this government's decision to rip away their very livelihoods. There were convoys up and down Shepparton, but I would argue that basin primary producers need to bring that convoy to Canberra, be a little more French or Dutch, and shut down the federal government. We're a little bit out of sight, out of mind for the Labor Party. If you don't live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, this government doesn't give a stuff about your future or your family's future, and I think it's abhorrent. There are a lot of very, very emotional people, in particular in my home state at the moment, because we know what it'll mean. And it will hang around your neck. I hope that, every single time you hear about a job loss, the mental health impacts, children or social dislocation, you understand that you did this to facilitate your ideological bent for Sydney votes, Melbourne votes and I dare say Adelaide votes, considering the deal with the Greens.

This is a major rewrite of the plan, and, while Labor, the Greens and, I hear, Senator Pocock now may have shown utter contempt to those who live in the regions, I am not ashamed. As much as the government ministers and senators come in here and try and shame me and my political party for standing up for rural and regional communities, we take that as a badge of honour because we know you actually don't give a stuff. We won't take a backward step in trying to protect our towns, our industries and our regions. This bill goes directly against the bipartisan spirit in which the former Labor government constructed the Basin Plan, when Tony Burke worked with the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. Instead of telling Victoria to get stuffed, which this Labor federal minister has done to her own state Labor water minister, Minister Burke actually worked with basin states and said that it could only be delivered if it didn't negatively impact people. If federal Labor were serious about creating good water policy, they would amend this bill, they'd remove the 450 gigalitres of upwater, they'd remove the need for buybacks and they'd enable new offset projects and no further water would be taken until the Basin Plan concludes in 2024.

Imposing water targets at any cost with a natural river system is crazy. It ignores the science that we now have and neglects the fact that this is a natural river system. It's not a set of pipes you can just connect to each other. There are natural constraints. I have been at the Barmah Choke and that particular environmental asset is being degraded, instead of enhanced, by the way the recovered water is being managed. We have the science now. Let's use that instead of beating basin communities over the head time and time again with the blunt instrument of gigalitres, of volume.

So-called environmentalists who were really leftie activists have campaigned for water targets that have now been rubbished by the scientists. It's a pity we haven't heard enough from the scientists in this debate. In Senate inquiries we were able to get scientists in front of us and prosecute these ideas. They made it very clear that we know more now than we did 10 years ago when the Basin Plan was arrived at. We know how to use the water in a much more sophisticated way because we're actually measuring in a way that we hadn't before.

Alan Moran put in the Spectator Australia:

There is no serious soil or water salinisation in Australia other than that which occurs naturally. Moreover, it is ludicrous to suggest that farming is causing soil stress when both farm productivity and farm output has increased steadily for two centuries.

…   …   …

The bottom line is that, in pursuit of vastly overstated environmental gains, at least 16 per cent of the Basin's water that was previously used for irrigation is no longer available and a further 6 per cent is now being sought. Frontier Economics—

and I help you out again, Assistant Minister—

estimated the latter would mean $513 million a year lost in gross agricultural production. By severely reducing the productivity of the land, the existing plan will therefore wipe out some $2 billion a year in the form of losses in agricultural output incurred by irrigators and their employees, contractors and customers.

For those in capital cities who want to scoff and laugh at big irrigators that is just a faux political argument about mums and dads, kids at primary schools, football clubs and netball clubs that are going to go to the wall because you are chasing a volumetric outcome that won't even deliver you necessarily the environmental outcomes you seek. So they rightfully, through us, come here and expect some answers. Have you done your homework? Do you know how many job losses there are going to be? Do you know what the economic impact will be? I have sat here and listened today, and you haven't.

Minister Plibersek has been derelict in her duty. I never thought I would say, 'Well done, Tony Burke,' but I do because at least he worked with basin communities. This minister—I will say it again—has been more interested in chasing down Anthony Albanese and Labor Party leadership votes in the future than she has been in standing up for the communities she represents and using the best science so that we have a healthy river, healthy environmental assets and healthy, sustainable communities.

You've done a dirty deal. The Victorian Farmers Federation calls you out. The National Farmers Federation calls you out. Local governments up and down the basin call you out. The National Party and the Liberal Party call you out. We will be watching the devastating impacts of your ideological pursuit. I hope you wear every single one of them, because it is unconscionable what you are doing to basin communities today.

Minister, I listened to your answers to Senator Pauline Hanson's questions earlier. Minister, following on from your response to Senator Hanson early today regarding consent from basin states, has the council of water ministers approved the amendments to the Water Act contained in this legislation—yes or no?

The Commonwealth government determines what legislation we bring to this chamber, but you heard the answer I provided to Senator Hanson earlier: we are consulting with all basin states, and we have reached agreement about the approach we'll take with the basin states of South Australia, New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland.

Minister, I thought I heard you say earlier on that the basin states have given consent to this bill. Now you're saying you're discussing it with them, consulting them? What is it? Have they given consent?

Senator Roberts, I think the best answer I can provide is that it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government to formulate legislation and bring it in to the parliament. But, of course, we have been working with the basin states since we came to government to understand how together we could establish arrangements that would see the Basin Plan implemented. This legislation is part of that approach, and the approach that we are enabling through the legislation has been canvassed, and I've indicated to you that an agreement about that approach has been reached with South Australia, New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland.

You don't have consent from Victoria.

You're right, Senator Roberts. We continue to engage with the Victorian government about the best approach to implement the plan.

Does that then mean you misled Senator Hanson and the Senate in your earlier response saying you had consent from the ministers of the states?

Just for clarity, Senator Roberts, consent isn't the terminology that we utilise. We're working with the states and territories to reach agreement about the approach. Whether or not the Commonwealth government brings legislation into the government is a matter for the Commonwealth government. It's a relevant distinction. The evidence I provided to Senator Hanson was about the agreement that we had reached with the basin states that I have just named.

Minister, has the council of water ministers approved the amendments the government has advanced to your own bill—yes or no?

This bill is consistent with the agreement that we reached with the relevant basin states that I referred to earlier.

I take it then that they have not given consent, because they could not possibly have approved the changes when you amended your own bill on Monday and again today. Have you been on the phone with them?

The minister speaks regularly with her colleagues in the states and territories in the basin states. But, as I've indicated to you, Senator Roberts, the legislation that the Commonwealth brings into this parliament is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government, and the legislation before you is consistent with the agreement that we've struck with the basin states of South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT.

Thank you, Minister. I'd like to get more into the specifics of when, how and in what form. Can you please table the minutes of the most recent meeting of water ministers, where this bill would have been considered? I note those minutes have not yet been published on the council of water ministers' webpage, which is the normal procedure. Could you table them, please?

Senator Roberts, I don't have that document with me. I understand there's a communique that is on the website and in the public domain.

Minister, I would like to see the actual minutes. Could you table the minutes, please?

Senator Roberts, as I've indicated to you, I don't have that document with me for I think quite obvious reasons. I'll see what can be provided. But, as I've already said, the communique is on the website.

Minister, can you please undertake publish those minutes on the minister's webpage. That's the normal procedure, as I understand it.

If I have any further information to report to the chamber about your question, Senator Roberts, I will, but I've indicated that I don't have the documentation with me now and I will see what may be provided. I will make inquiries about what is appropriate.

I note your words were that Minister Plibersek had briefed state ministers. That was in your earlier exchange with Senator Hanson. Briefing is not agreement. The communique from the council of water ministers would normally be proof of an agreement. This has not been issued. Can you please prove that the government has agreement between the basin states for the amendments to your bill?

I've already answered this question a number of times. This legislation is consistent with the agreement that we have reached with South Australia, New South Wales, the ACT government and Victoria—Queensland, not Victoria; my apologies. So, for clarity: South Australia, New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland.

The Victorian water minister, on a question from a One Nation member of the Legislative Council in Victoria, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, advised that Victoria had not signed off on the changes. You note this in the bill's explanatory memorandum. On what basis did you not advise the Senate, in response to Senator Hanson's questions, that you did not have approval from Victoria? You have just admitted it now, but you didn't with Senator Hanson.

Senator Roberts, in my answers to Senator Hanson I listed the same states that I have listed to you now as the states with which we have an agreement.

Premier Minns in New South Wales has publicly stated that the New South Wales government is only signing off on water buybacks until all the SDLAM projects have been completed, and the Premier specifically set 2026 as being the deadline for non-buyback measures. Will the government be conducting buybacks in New South Wales, against the wishes of the New South Wales Premier?

The implementation arrangements for water recovery haven't been finalised, Senator Roberts.

Does the bill, plus the amendments you have agreed to for carriage of the bill, reduce the $700 million that Premier Minns has identified as the federal contribution to SDLAM measures in New South Wales?

The responsibility to bring forward SDLAM projects lies with the New South Wales government, as does the responsibility to cost them.

Will the government be making water buybacks in Victoria, contrary to the clearly stated position of the Victorian government?

My great apologies, Senator Roberts. I was just asking a clarifying question of staff. I might need you to repeat the question you just asked.

Certainly. Minister, will the government be making water buybacks in Victoria, contrary to the clearly stated position of the Victorian government?

The implementation arrangements for water recovery are yet to be finalised. What this bill does is to set out additional options for water recovery, including a wider range of infrastructure projects that might be funded or utilised and voluntary buybacks, which is the question that you are asking now. The government understand that we require a wider range of policy instruments to implement the plan. The advice to us is that, in the absence of a wider range of instruments and options, we won't be able to meet the plan's goals and targets. It's on that basis that we're bringing forward the legislation. But the specific ways in which we will approach voluntary water buybacks have not yet been finalised.

For clarity, can you inform the Senate as to the legal position of water buybacks in a state where the state government has opposed water buybacks? Specifically, does the state government have the power to block your water buybacks should it so choose?

The legislation before us enables voluntary water purchase. Voluntary water purchase can be undertaken, in the context of the market, from willing sellers. It's possible for any actor to enter the water market and make a purchase if there is a willing seller.

That leads to another question. What budget provisions are there for buying back water? What price is the basis of that budget provision, if any? What is the range of prices that you're expecting and that you're willing to pay? What's the upper limit on prices offered? What's the total provision?

Thanks, Senator Roberts. I provided information about this in response to similar questions from Senator Davey earlier in the debate. There is provision in the Commonwealth budget for voluntary water purchase. The relevant amounts are not for publication, and the reasoning for withholding those amounts from publication is the capacity for publication to impact on the market overall and also the need to preserve the Commonwealth's negotiating position to ensure we are able to obtain value for money for taxpayers should we make purchases.

Minister, many people will be affected by this bill: farmers, families, rural businesses, communities, whole regions, whole states—our whole nation. This bill is so irresponsible. The trademarks of your government in the last 18 months have been a lack of consultation, contrary to what opposition leader Anthony Albanese promised in his election campaign; and a large number of ill-conceived amendments, reflecting a dodgy deal with the Greens that compromises the people's interest, and which shows a lack of understanding, shows repeated contradictions of science and shows repeated contradictions of empirical evidence. Labor is now in coalition with the Greens, culminating in a joint press conference between Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Minister Plibersek on Monday. Will Senator Hanson-Young be given a ministerial portfolio? And what is the basis of Labor's deal with the Greens that enables passage of this hideous bill?

Senator Roberts, I'm not going to be too dismissive about this, but, seriously, you would be the first person to ask that the government take the time to work across the chamber to find agreement on legislation of national significance. It is not at all surprising that we have consulted with those senators who have reached out to us in good faith seeking to bring their own perspectives and experiences, and the priorities of the communities with whom they have the closest and strongest relationships, to bear on the bill. We are always willing to work with senators across the chamber to improve legislation. That has been the approach that the government has taken. Ministerial portfolios will continue to be allocated in the ordinary way.

Thank you, Minister. I am so pleased to hear that!

You won't get to be the minister for science!

Interjections are disorderly.

This bill does not confront the fundamental problem: the quantity of licensed and allocated water is greater than the quantity of water available. Increasingly, there are two classes of water holder: government, which is high security or equivalent, plus a small number of high security in South Australia; and all else is low security. The government is now stealing from the people: farmers, communities, Aboriginals. This is why Victoria is not in the plan. Therefore New South Wales and Queensland will bear the brunt of water losses from productive capacity. Minister, there's a lack of water-flow measurement across the basin, in creeks and rivers right across the basin, yet we're allocating water in the basin. The government is stealing water from the basin. When will you face up to, admit, and address this fundamental, core issue?

Honourable senators interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, senators on both sides! The minister has the call.

Senator Roberts, there is much in your last contribution that I think is not factually accurate. I don't really intend to go through all of it except to say this. At the heart of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is an attempt to address the problem you point to, which is that over many decades many valleys within the basin were overallocated, and that produces a number of problems. It produces pressure on the environment, because there is a limit to how much water we can take out of Australian river systems without there being quite significant consequences for the animals and plants that depend on them; it produces pressure on the quality of water in the system, with real consequences for agricultural activity and also for drinking water for communities in the basin; and it also produces real consequences for those who held entitlements—productive users who held entitlements—because in some states and in some valleys competition between users for access to water in those systems was reducing the certainty that could be offered to productive users in these systems. We can't go on like that.

The origin of the Basin Plan was an attempt to deal with this through an agreement between the basin states and the Commonwealth that would stretch over years and would start to see a better alignment between what could sustainably be withdrawn from the river systems of the basin and allocations. It is why, when people come into the chamber and make glib remarks about near volumetric targets, I disagree with them. Actually, the volume of the water that is taken out of the system does matter for all of the users in the system, and it is why bipartisan support was obtained for an adjustment of the extraction from the system in the original plan. It's also why it's a problem that we came to government and realised that, after 10 years of the Morrison, Abbott and Turnbull governments, the plan was off track, wildly off track. The legislation before us seeks to remedy that problem.

I can't remember if there was actually a question embedded in your last contribution. I'm happy to answer it if there was. I've forgotten, but you might need to remind me.

Minister, we find two points of agreement. You said, 'We can't go on like we are,' and by that you are confirming, if not intentionally then inadvertently, the lack of measurement of water flows across the basin is hurting. You also said the volume of water does matter. It's exactly why I need measurements. As we know, Minister Plibersek could go down as the minister who choked the Barmah Choke, because we see the environmental damage of collapsing banks right across Victoria and southern New South Wales—right across the Murray River, sorry, and parts of the Murrumbidgee. We see riverbanks, siltation of the river—we see the Barmah Choke, which is critical, being choked. The capacity has gone from 10,000 to 7,000. We see environmental damage. We see overwatering of forests. We see black water.

You said the heart of the problem is that we can't go on like we are. Heart deals with emotion. I want the data. My question to you was: 'Without data there can be no plan. Why do you call this a plan? Is that misinformation?' There is a lack of data on which to allocate water.

The responsibility for measuring the extractions from the system lies with the states and territories, and there's been substantial discussion about that between the basin states over recent years. The creation of the inspector-general, in part, responds to an overarching concern to ensure that we do have data, that measurements are being taken properly and accurately reported, because it is in the interests of all of the participants in the system that people can have confidence that the extraction is occurring and the system aligns with the licensing arrangements. In turn, it's important that the licensing arrangements align with what the science tells us is a sustainable extraction from each of the valleys. That is the essence of the plan. It's on that basis that the government comes to the parliament seeking additional tools and additional time to get the plan back on track, because these things are in fact, as you say, important.

Senator Roberts, you've made reference to government amendments and a number of senators have also. What I would like to do now is to move the amendments that the government is proposing. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (20) on sheet ZC243 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 2), after the heading to Schedule 1, insert:

Part 1A — Taking into account matters relevant to Indigenous people

Water Act 2007

1A After paragraph 3(f)

Insert:

(fa) to ensure that the use and management of Basin water resources takes into account spiritual, cultural, environmental, social and economic matters relevant to Indigenous people; and

1B After paragraph 20(d)

Insert:

(da) the use and management of Basin water resources that takes into account spiritual, cultural, environmental, social and economic matters relevant to Indigenous people; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 11A, page 7 (lines 19 to 22), omit subsection 86AJ(3A), substitute:

(3A) In conducting a review under subsection (1), a panel must also consider the effectiveness of the following:

(a) payments made, or expected to be made, under paragraph 86AD(2)(c) in relation to a purchase referred to in paragraph 86AD(2)(b);

(b) payments made, or expected to be made, from other sources in relation to a purchase referred to in paragraph 86AD(2)(b).

(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 10 (after line 5), after subsection 71(1B), insert:

(1C) If, after the commencement of this subsection, a one-off adjustment is to be made, as required by section 6.08D of the Basin Plan, to the cumulative balance for any surface water SDL resource unit for one or more relevant water accounting periods, a report under subsection (1) must also include the following information:

(a) the information mentioned in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) in relation to each of the relevant water accounting periods;

(b) any other information necessary to make the one-off adjustment.

(1D) The information required by subsection (1C) must be given to the Authority:

(a) if the register of take for the surface water SDL resource unit has already commenced as at the commencement of this subsection—in the first report given to the Authority under subsection (1) after the commencement of this subsection; or

(b) if the register of take for the surface water SDL resource unit has not already commenced as at the commencement of this subsection—in the first report given to the Authority under subsection (1) after the end of the water accounting period in which the register of take commences.

(1E) Expressions used in subsections (1C) and (1D) have the same meanings as they have in the Basin Plan.

(4) Schedule 2, page 12 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:

1AA Subsection 1.07(1)

Insert:

relevant water accounting period, in Division 1A of Part 4 of Chapter 6, has the meaning given by subsection 6.08E(4).

(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 13 (after line 15), after section 6.08C, insert:

Division 1A — One-off adjustment to cumulative balances for surface water SDL resource units

6.08D Determining one-off adjustment to cumulative balances from 1 July 2019

(1) The Authority must make a one-off adjustment, in accordance with this Division, to the cumulative balance for each surface water SDL resource unit, unless the register of take for the surface water SDL resource unit had already commenced as at 1 July 2019.

Register of take has already commenced

(2) If the register of take for a surface water SDL resource unit for which the Authority must make a one-off adjustment has already commenced as at the commencement of this section, the Authority must make a one-off adjustment in relation to the surface water SDL resource unit as soon as practicable after the beginning of the first water accounting period after that commencement.

Register of take has not already commenced

(3) If the register of take for a surface water SDL resource unit for which the Authority must make a one-off adjustment has not already commenced as at the commencement of this section, the Authority must make a one-off adjustment in relation to the surface water SDL resource unit as soon as practicable after the end of the water accounting period in which the register of take commences.

6.08E Step 1 — Calculation of annual permitted take and annual actual take for one-off adjustment

(1) This section and sections 6.08F and 6.08G set out how to calculate the one-off adjustment to the cumulative balance of a surface water SDL resource unit.

(2) For each relevant water accounting period for the surface water SDL resource unit, sum the maximum quantity of water permitted to be taken by each form of take for consumptive use from the surface water SDL resource unit (annual permitted take) in accordance with section 6.08G.

(3) For the same relevant water accounting period, sum the quantity of water actually taken by each form of take for consumptive use from the surface water SDL resource unit (annual actual take) in accordance with section 6.08G.

(4) For the purposes of calculating the one-off adjustment to the cumulative balance of a surface water SDL unit, a relevant water accounting period, for the surface water SDL resource unit, means a water accounting period that begins on or after 1 July 2019, other than the water accounting period in which the register of take for the surface water SDL resource unit commences or any later water accounting period.

6.08F Step 2 — Calculate and record the one-off adjustment

(1) For each relevant water accounting period, if the annual actual take is greater than the annual permitted take, the difference is a debit.

(2) For each relevant water accounting period, if the annual actual take is less than the annual permitted take, the difference is a credit.

(3) For each relevant water accounting period, if there is no difference between the annual actual take and the annual permitted take, the difference is zero.

(4) As a result of the calculations made under subsections (1) to (3), determine the one-off adjustment to the cumulative balance by summing the total differences between annual permitted take and annual actual take for each relevant water accounting period for the surface water SDL resource unit.

(5) If, in a relevant water accounting period, the circumstances mentioned in the example in paragraph 6.12(4)(b) apply, the one-off adjustment for the surface water SDL resource unit is to be adjusted by including the amount attributable to those circumstances as a credit, and subsection 6.11(5) does not apply to the relevant water accounting period.

(6) The one-off adjustment for the surface water SDL resource unit is to be adjusted to account for any disposal or acquisition of held environmental water for each relevant water accounting period.

(7) Record the one-off adjustment on the register of take as either a debit, a credit or zero.

(8) For the water accounting period in which the one-off adjustment is recorded, the cumulative balance determined under subsection 6.11(4) is to include the effect of the one-off adjustment.

6.08G How to calculate the annual permitted take and the annual actual take

(1) Subject to this section, the annual permitted take and the annual actual take are to be worked out using the method set out in the water resource plan for the surface water SDL resource unit for the purposes of sections 10.10 and 10.15.

Note 1: Section 10.10 requires a water resource plan to set out a method for determining the maximum quantity of water permitted to be taken by each form of take for consumptive use from the surface water SDL resource unit in each water accounting period.

Note 2: Section 10.15 requires a water resource plan to set out how the quantity of water actually taken for consumptive use by each form of take from each SDL resource unit will be determined after the end of a water accounting period using the best information available at the time.

(2) If the annual permitted take or the annual actual take cannot be worked out in accordance with subsection (1) because the data is not available for a form of take, the annual permitted take and the annual actual take are to be:

(a) the long-term annual average take for that form of take; or

(b) worked out in accordance with an alternative method determined by the Authority in consultation with the relevant Basin State before whichever of the following applies:

(i) if the water resource plan for the surface water SDL resource unit is accredited as at the commencement of this section—on or before the first 30 June after that commencement;

(ii) if the water resource plan for the surface water SDL resource unit is not accredited as at the commencement of this section—on or before 30 June of the water accounting period in which the register of take commences.

(3) The Authority must publish the method used on its website.

(6) Schedule 2, item 12, page 15 (line 18), omit "water access entitlement", substitute "water access right, water delivery right or irrigation right".

(7) Schedule 2, page 15 (after line 26), after item 13, insert:

13A Section 7.02

Omit "In", substitute "(1) In".

(8) Schedule 2, item 16, page 16 (line 3), omit "water access entitlement", substitute "water access right, a water delivery right or an irrigation right, or part of such a right,".

(9) Schedule 2, page 16 (after line 15), after item 19, insert:

19A At the end of section 7.02

Add:

(2) A reference in this Chapter and in Schedule 6A to a water access right, a water delivery right, an irrigation right or a water access entitlement includes a reference to a part of such a right or entitlement.

(10) Schedule 2, item 21, page 17 (lines 15 and 16), omit "that a water access entitlement, for a surface water SDL resource unit,", substitute "that a water access right, a water delivery right, or an irrigation right, for a surface water SDL resource unit, or part of such a right,".

(11) Schedule 2, item 21, page 17 (line 20), omit "water access entitlement", substitute "right, or the part of the right,".

(12) Schedule 2, item 21, page 17 (after line 28), at the end of subsection (2), add:

Note: Water access rights, water delivery rights and irrigation rights are types of rights that fall within the definition of held environmental water (see subsection 4(1) of the Act).

(13) Schedule 2, item 21, page 17 (line 29), omit "water access entitlement", substitute "right or the part of the right".

(14) Schedule 2, item 21, page 18 (line 5), omit "entitlement", substitute "right, or the part of the right,".

(15) Schedule 2, item 21, page 18 (line 9), omit "an entitlement", substitute "a right, or a part of a right,".

(16) Schedule 2, item 40, page 22 (line 30), omit "entitlements", substitute "rights, water delivery rights or irrigation rights".

(17) Schedule 2, item 40, page 22 (line 32), omit "entitlements", substitute "rights, water delivery rights and irrigation rights".

(18) Schedule 2, item 53, page 26 (line 6), omit "entitlements", substitute "rights, water delivery rights and irrigation rights".

(19) Schedule 2, item 60, page 27 (line 9), omit "entitlements", substitute "rights, water delivery rights or irrigation rights".

(20) Schedule 2, item 74, page 29 (line 18), omit "entitlements", substitute "rights, water delivery rights or irrigation rights".

I thank the Senate for providing leave for these matters to be considered together.

Essentially, under the Water Act and the Basin Plan, 30 water resource plans are to be prepared by basin states and accredited by the minister. Water resource plans underpin the water accounting for the Basin Plan, and they are key to its implementation. They were meant to be in place by 1 July, but New South Wales did not meet this time frame. New South Wales still has 11 water resource plans that are yet to commence. The first of these amendments enables the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to make a one-off adjustment for water resource plans that were accredited after 1 July 2019. I've spoken about this a little in response to questions from Senator Davey, but the adjustment would reflect the sum of combined annual permitted take and annual actual take calculations for each relevant water accounting period from 1 July 2019 to the year that the register commences. We've put this amendment forward to provide equity and fairness.

The second amendment expands the scope of the third independent review of the Water for the Environment Special Account, to ensure that the independent panel considers the effectiveness of socioeconomic payments made outside of the account. We've put forward this amendment because we want the review to recognise all socioeconomic payments that are made towards the delivery of the 450-gigalitre target, irrespective of its source. In the absence of an amendment of this kind, only socioeconomic payments made from within the WESA would be considered by the independent review. This is a response to some of the issues raised in the Senate committee.

Amendment (3) creates a new object in the Water Act, and purpose of the Basin Plan, relating to Indigenous people. I spoke about this earlier in response to a question asked of me by Senator Hanson-Young.

Amendment (4) enables the minister to specify a broader range of water rights as additional held environmental water entitlements. These are rights that are already included in the existing definition of held environmental water. They include water access rights, water delivery rights, irrigation rights and parts of these types of rights. This will provide the minister with a broader range of options to increase the volume of basin water resources available for environmental use in seeking to reach the 450-gigalitre target. I think they are the bulk of the amendments.

Chair, I seek the Senate's indulgence. The communique that the minister referred to earlier is not on the website. Could she print it out for me, please?

Senator Roberts, I'll see what's possible and provide advice to the chamber if I have something that I can table and give to you.

Thank you.

Minister, could you walk me through how the 'no socioeconomic detriment' provisions that are contained in the bill differ from the 'no socioeconomic detriment' provisions that are currently in operation?

Thanks, Senator Ruston. I'm not sure that your question reflects the actual bill before us. There is no change to the socioeconomic test. However, there are new provisions for water recovery to which the test does not apply.

Well, if you want to be tricky, we can be tricky. Let's be specific. What are the differences in relation to the socioeconomic provisions that are contained on the new application of new water as opposed to the existing provisions? What are the differences in the definition of 'socioeconomic impact'? How are you addressing socioeconomic impact under the new water provisions as opposed to how you're currently dealing with them for the 450 gigalitres?

Senator Ruston, I don't think it's helpful to call me names. I'm very happy to answer your questions, and I really was trying to understand the specific question you're asking of me.

I stepped through this earlier for Senator McKenzie, although I'm not sure if you were in the chamber. Currently, the four—pardon me?

My apologies for not being in the chamber.

That's no problem, Senator Ruston. Currently the 450 gigalitres can only be recovered through water efficiency projects, and the socioeconomic test remains for those water efficiency projects. They must have a neutral or positive socioeconomic benefit. However, voluntary water buybacks would be on the table for the 450 gigalitres should this legislation pass. Our understanding and our advice is that in the absence of the capacity for voluntary buybacks we can't meet the targets in the plan. That's why we're bringing forward the legislation, as the minister has often said.

Voluntary water purchase is expected to have a modest socioeconomic impact at an aggregate basin scale, but we acknowledge that it will have some uneven and localised negative impacts. For this reason, in the proposed legislation, neutral or positive socioeconomic tests will not apply to buybacks as part of the expanded 450-gigalitre program. Should any negative socioeconomic impacts be identified due to water purchase towards the 450-gigalitre target, the federal government will make transitional assistance funding available.

This is a bit repetitive for the other senators in the chamber, but I'll go through it, Senator Ruston. That assistance program will assist communities that have the highest vulnerability to further water purchase and the lowest adaptive capacity. It will help support investment that aligns with existing regional development plans and help communities adjust to be less dependent in a future with less water. The assistance we are providing is more than any previous government has provided under the Basin Plan and, as I've indicated throughout the debate this morning, it is because we consider we need every tool available to help us complete the job.

Thank you, Minister. So buybacks can have socioeconomic impact on river communities?

I've confirmed that that is the case a number of times through the course of this morning's debate.

You've made comment here that those negative impacts are identified. First of all, if you believe that there are going to be socioeconomic impacts, have you modelled the scale and scope of those, for particular quantities of water buyback, as part of the 450 gigalitres?

Thanks, Senator Ruston. I addressed this earlier, in response to questions from Senator McKenzie. The particular configuration of tools and their application in different locations is yet to be finalised. However, ABARES modelling is being conducted which will inform the final design of any water recovery program, and that modelling is not yet completed.

Thanks, Minister. I'm keen to understand, if transitional assistance is going to be made available, do we have a quantum around what that transitional assistance might be?

We haven't yet published that, Senator Ruston.

If you haven't published it—can I assume from that answer that you have identified a quantum; you just haven't made that amount publicly available yet?

I'm really sorry, Senator Ruston. I was listening to two things at once. Can you please just repeat the last bit, which was your question.

From the way you answered the previous question, I was wondering whether I could assume that you mean there has been a quantum applied to it, and it's just that it hasn't been made publicly available.

My advice is that the department has commenced engagement with basin states on draft design principles for the proposed Sustainable Communities Program. Peak stakeholders, including First Nations, CMAs, irrigators, environmental stakeholders and local councils are also being engaged on the principles that would underpin the Sustainable Communities Community Adjustment Assistance Program. Our expectation is that, should the legislation pass, that would commence next year. The quantum and delivery mechanism for this program would be finalised following passage of the bill.

On the back of your previous few answers, can I assume that the government has no idea about the likely impact on river communities of taking significant amounts of water out through buybacks—which, of course, means they can completely circumvent any need to avoid socioeconomic impact on river communities—and that the government actually does not understand, in any quantum, the kind of impact that is likely to occur to river communities?

No. The government is working through a series of processes, including through the ordinary cabinet processes, to establish the Sustainable Communities Community Adjustment Assistance Program. As you'd expect, information about the quantum and other features of that program are cabinet-in-confidence.

I put to you, Minister, that having the experience of the last 12 years of the implementation of the plan, and the water that has been taken out of river communities in the process of getting to the targets we've already achieved, there has been very significant impact on river communities. This brings in a piece of legislation that the government has admitted is likely to cause negative impacts to river communities, and we then find that the government hasn't even bothered to quantify that impact, despite the fact that we have got a whole heap of information that would be very easily and readily accessible in terms of the impacts that occurred along our river communities so far. The government is seeking to ask this chamber to pass a bill knowing it has significant negative impacts, I would contest, on river communities. Is that what the government's asking? They're asking the senators in this chamber to, hand on heart, come in here and vote for a piece of legislation that we know will have negative impacts on the river communities, including the one that I live in?

Senator Ruston, you can characterise it in various political ways. But I've stepped through the process that we are going through and the policy problem that we're responding to.

At the heart of the policy problem is the fact that the government that you were part of wilfully undermined and frustrated progress on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. You know that, and you know the impact that that has on basin communities, including communities in South Australia. The consequences of failing to tackle the challenges in the Murray-Darling Basin are quite predictable, because we've seen them before. We saw them in the millennium drought. We saw communities go without water for irrigation. We saw communities struggling to access drinking water. We saw fish kills. We saw dying red gums. We saw declines in the numbers of waterbirds. We saw declining tourism.

These are all risks that would come about if we'd continued on the pathway established by your government, which was a complete failure to progress the objectives of the plan, deliberately engendered by the behaviour of people in the National Party. Let's be quite clear about the problem we are seeking to tackle. I've been clear here about what the government has done in the months since we came to office. We've received advice about the plan and our capacity to meet its targets within the specified time frames. We've consulted with basin states and with a very broad range of stakeholders about options to get the plan back on track.

We are introducing this bill to do a number of things: to create more time for the states and territories to complete the infrastructure projects that they committed to—to generate water under the SDLAM arrangements—but also to give the Commonwealth more options in terms of water recovery, because the advice to us is that, in the absence of the capacity to utilise voluntary buybacks, we are unlikely to be able to meet the objectives of this plan. That doesn't mean that it is the only tool on the table. There are changes in this bill and amendments before this chamber that would further expand the range of other options available to the Commonwealth. But we are being upfront about the fact that voluntary buybacks will be required.

I've also been clear about the approach we'll take to implementing those where they are necessary. It hasn't been finalised yet, but modelling has been requested so that we understand any localised impacts. A program to support affected communities is also being worked through in consultation with the states and territories and with stakeholders.

Consistent with what we have seen from Labor governments past and present, what I'm hearing—and thank you for your comprehensive answer, Minister—is that the hard work, the homework, is now being done after the fact. Instead of doing the work prior to introducing this bill to the parliament, instead of asking ABARES to do the assessment beforehand and review the potential impacts, instead of costing what transitional arrangements might end up costing the Australian taxpayers before introducing this bill, you've introduced the bill and then said: 'Trust us. We're doing the assessments and we'll bring it in later.' This reminds me of what happened when the Basin Plan was being drafted, when the then Labor government went out with a massive chequebook and bought whatever water they could, from wherever they could, irrespective of what that water would achieve. They didn't even have a Basin Plan when they commenced water purchase.

We saw, in a classic example, the purchase of Toorale Station. They paid millions of dollars and had big announcements about 200 gigalitres returning to the Darling River through the purchase of Toorale Station, only to find out after the fact, when ecologists went out to Toorale Station and looked at the infrastructure there, that there was over 100 years of man-made ecology that had built up on that station. They found that just removing those levee banks and hoping that water would flow would actually have a negative environmental impact. There are still a lot of man-made levee banks on Toorale Station, but that purchase saw the closure of gins and the loss of jobs.

During my coalition backbench committee tour of the Murray-Darling Basin, we heard from the Bourke shire mayor that buying Toorale Station was tantamount to taking BHP out of Wollongong; the social and economic impacts were that significant. What we're hearing again today through these questions, Minister, is that you're not doing the homework and the assessments before asking this chamber to vote on something that will have significant impacts right across the basin, from north to south. It was the same everywhere I went, like in Dirranbandi and St George in the north. During the 2008 to 2010 buyback process, they saw a decline of businesses in their main streets—not farmers, not agriculturalists but businesses. I'm talking about hairdressers and car dealerships. They saw a decline of 27 per cent. In my hometown and the area of Wakool, we found that work done the MDBA to try to disaggregate other factors from the impact of water buybacks meant that over 200 jobs were lost. The footy club closed and the netball club closed.

In South Australia, in areas like the Renmark Irrigation Trust and the central irrigation districts, the Swiss cheese effect of water recovery programs at that time had a significant impact, not just on the costs to the remaining irrigators but also on the efficiency of those networks. People everywhere talk about the devastation and destruction caused by water buybacks, and yet you're coming to us again, Minister, saying, 'Let us go back into the market and let us use buybacks as a priority water recovery mechanism,' without having done the hard work of the assessment of what the impact would be—or even what it's going to cost us. I've already heard today that you're not going to tell us what it's going to cost us.

You've said that all options are on the table. But I've looked at your amendments to your own bill and I've asked extensively about the one-off adjustments. You also propose changing the definition of 'additional held environmental water entitlements'. You propose to change it from just being an arbitrary water access entitlement, substituting:

…"water access right, a water delivery right or an irrigation right—

and, in different areas—

or part of such a right,".

My question to you is: is that opening the door to other mechanisms, not just strict transfer of licence from one water holder to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder? Does that facilitate—particularly the 'or' part of such a right—the ability to enter into a leasing agreement?

Thanks, Senator Davey. In response to your specific question, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder already has access to entitlements of the kind that are described in the amendment; however, the amendment seeks to clarify that they may hold such water and use it for environmental purposes.

I will say though that it is a bit much, really, to be lectured to about the necessity to do one's homework by members of the Liberal Party and National Party, who did everything they could to sabotage this plan over the course of the last government. They didn't recover enough water to get the plan completed by its deadline, and they were told over and over again about that problem. They ignored the advice from experts that said the plan was off track. They had warnings since 2018 from the Productivity Commission's inquiry report and seven subsequent report cards from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

Of all the water that has ever been recovered for the basin, only 16 per cent of it was recovered under the coalition government. They shut down programs and introduced barriers to water recovery. Water purchasing programs were shut down. The Off-farm Efficiency Program had almost $1.5 billion available and only about $350 million spent. The on-farm efficiency component had $60 million allocated to it, and none of it was spent. This was not a government that was serious about the plan, and it has created the circumstances where we have come to government knowing the consequences of failure on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and determined to resolve the problems created over the last nine years.

So, yes, Senator Davey, there is a lot of work to do, a lot of homework, and we're stepping through it in a methodical way, working with stakeholders, putting in place the tools that will be required to meet the plan's objectives. We will also do the analysis necessary to support communities through a period of change.

I question your figures when it comes to, particularly, the On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program, because I know from personal experience that we actually conducted several rounds of that program from when we resumed government in 2017 through to, I think, 2015 or 2016; that program was ongoing. So money was spent from the program. There was a lot of work done while we were in government to look at how we could make water recoveries and water savings through alternative measures from your buybacks.

I think the last round of buybacks was held in our early term of government, when we were in government. But we saw the damage, and we looked at what the Labor government had written into the Basin Plan, particularly when it came to the 450 gigalitres, which has become this government's whole and singular focus, instead of actually focusing on other areas of the Basin Plan. We looked at those original words and we looked at what then prime minister Julia Gillard had actually said about the need to reduce social and economic harm. We listened to what then minister Tony Burke said at the Press Club and in the chamber when he moved his second reading speech. We also looked at the science, which shows that, without addressing constraints, recovery of the additional 450 gigalitres has minimal, if any, environmental benefit. So, yes, we were trying. One of my greatest consternations was that we did not get far enough on constraints management. And I will be interested to see how the new government goes.

But when it comes to my question about leases, in particular, you mentioned that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder already has leases in existence. Can you clarify for me if those leases form part of the water recovery totals or if those leases are beneficial on the side?

Just for clarity—and I don't assert that you are doing this deliberately, but my previous answer to the question indicated that that long list of particular delivery rights and mechanisms could be considered held environmental water; it was not in relation to leasing. The amendment that is before us right now—the government amendment that we're considering, here in Committee of the Whole—doesn't go to leasing. We understand that the Water Act already contemplates leasing, and so this amendment doesn't go to that.

That just creates more questions for me. Thank you for 'clarifying'! In relation to leasing, if the government enters into a leasing arrangement, will that be able to contribute to the 450-gigalitre water recovery target?

The act already indicates that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder can hold rights as a lessee. So, yes.

In relation to leasing, as to water entitlement owners, is it a one-way lease arrangement? Is it only that the Commonwealth must own the water and can lease it back, or can a water entitlement holder retain the ownership of the licence and enter into a leasing agreement to lease that water to the Commonwealth?

I wonder if it would help if I read section 108 of the existing act, because it makes it reasonably clear what is possible. That section defines 'Commonwealth environmental water holdings' and it sets out that these are:

… the rights that the Commonwealth holds that are water access rights, water delivery rights, irrigation rights or other similar rights relating to water; and

… the interests in, or in relation to, such rights.

And then subsection (2) goes on to say that, without limiting the above, Commonwealth environmental water holdings include rights of a kind referred to in that first paragraph 'that the Commonwealth holds on trust or holds as a lessee'. So, notwithstanding anything that happens in the chamber today, the Commonwealth can already hold water, as part of Commonwealth environmental water holdings, as a lessee. I'm also advised that, under limited circumstances, it's possible for the Commonwealth to lease water back to a productive user, but the circumstances are quite limited and they are time limited.

For clarity—because I have an interpretation here—leased water will only count towards Basin Plan targets if an entitlement is transferred to the Commonwealth; is that correct? The entitlement has to be transferred to the Commonwealth, and that would have to be done before the 2027 deadline, if this goes through. I just want absolute certainty that, when the licence is retained by a water holder but a lease is entered into with the Commonwealth, that will come off water recovery targets for the period of time that the lease is held.

The minister must be satisfied that the right, or the part of the right, decreases the amount of water taken for consumptive use relative to the benchmark conditions of development, increases the volume of the basin water resources that are available for environmental use and will contribute to enhancing environmental outcomes as set out in various sections of the act and the Basin Plan. There is an exception. Actually I don't think the exception is relevant to your question. Senator Davey, those are provisions in the bill that are before us, and they provide further guidance around the criteria that the minister would need to use to evaluate whether that right could be counted towards held environmental water.

Also for clarity: with something like an event based leasing arrangement that was contingent on seasonal conditions and environmental requirements at a point in time, is it the case that it would not count towards water recovery targets, even though it has a significant environmental benefit, because it is event based and not long term? Is my understanding correct that any lease that can currently count towards water recovery targets needs to be a permanent lease arrangement, not an event based arrangement?

I understand the question you're asking, Senator Davey. I will need to seek advice. It's very specific. Would you mind if I did so?

Senator Davey, the advice I have is that it's really dependent on the specific circumstances; it's difficult to answer in the abstract. The criteria are as I described to you earlier. The minister needs to be satisfied that it meets the tests that I read out earlier. The description you provided of an events based lease may or may not meet that requirement, depending on its specific characteristics. More generally, commercial mechanisms are of interest to the government. We want all the tools on the table to be able to reach the targets. The government are committed to consulting with water users about what might be possible to give us the best possible chance of getting there.

Minister, I was wondering, in further reference to the discussion you were having with Senator Davey: have there been any guidelines, scope or parameters put around other options? I notice the minister mentioned land use and water buybacks, off farm and on farm, and that all options are on the table. What are the parameters of the options on the table?

As I was indicating to Senator Davey just now, we are interested in the broadest possible range of options. When the minister has said all options are on the table, as you noted in your question, she has made reference to different ways in which we might obtain water. It's part of the reason that the legislation before us does set out those criteria for how a particular option or commercial option might be evaluated. It needs to do certain things for the environment to be counted as a held environmental water entitlement.

You said to Senator Davey that the specifics of the particular project would make it easier for you to respond. I was just wondering whether you, the minister or the department have seen the Water Futures Efficiency Program, which has been put forward as an option to assist with the delivery of the targets in the Murray-Darlin Basin Plan.

You asked about whether I, the minister or the government were aware of the Water Futures Efficiency Program. I am advised that the government are in receipt of this proposal—I think we would characterise it as a proposal—and they are considering it.

I know the government has had the proposal for quite some time, so I'm wondering: would the idea of a water-sharing covenant as a mechanism qualify under existing legislation as a held environmental water asset, and, therefore, would it—should it be accepted—count towards SDL? Do the parameters that you talk about enable that?

I don't think I'm in a position in the chamber to provide an evaluation of the specific proposal that you're speaking about. I've given the principles that the government would use in evaluating whether something was held environmental water. If I can provide additional information I will, but it sounds like you're asking me to evaluate a proposal that's before the government and is under consideration. I don't think we're in a position to provide concluded advice about that. I personally concede that I do not have detailed knowledge of the proposal.

Minister, I acknowledge there would be no reason why you would. This proposal has been with the government for some time. It's considered by the communities that live along the river as an interesting proposal. I would be keen if you could take it on notice, or your officials could take it on notice, to understand whether this type of product would meet the requirements of being a held environmental water asset and, therefore, whether it would count towards the SDL. It would be very convenient to know because it's an interesting concept. The minister has said that all options are on the table. I'm not asking you to say this particular proposal has been approved. What I am seeking to understand is whether the concept of a water-sharing—I will call it a water-sharing covenant for the sake of a better description. Are they the kinds of projects that would fit within the scope of this legislation as possible assets or programs that could go towards the SDL?

Senator Ruston, I think you'll understand that I need to provide a fairly qualified answer: possibly. But, yes, the government's bill that we're debating today does contain provisions that introduce these principles for held environmental water that deliberately seek to broaden the ways that we could strike agreements with productive users about water use and that could count towards environmental targets. That is the thinking. I can't provide you an answer about whether the specific details contained in this particular proposal would meet those tests, but it is our intention to create space for conversations of that kind and then to have some clear and public criteria that could be used to evaluate whether these proposals would meet the requirements of the act.

Assuming this bill goes through as it's designed, how quickly would the government be in a position to be able to provide the sector with the kind of advice around the scope of projects that would be considered? I ask this on the basis of having an innovative sector. I'm sure we will come up with some innovative responses. It would be interesting to know what sort of time frame before you can give them the certainty, because we certainly don't want them investing in things and wasting their time and effort if the government has no intention of considering them.

The advice to me is that, should the bill pass, the department will immediately begin working through some of the options that are before the department and working with proponents and engaging with communities more generally about other ideas they may wish to bring forward.

On notice could you provide this chamber as soon as possible with your evaluation of whether the concept of the Water Futures Efficiency Program is something that would fit within the legislation, subject obviously to its passage? I want to ask a quick question that's not exactly in relation to this. How much water is yet to be recovered to meet the full planned target?

It's in the order of 750 gigalitres.

Can you break that down into the types of programs that that sits within, so gap water, SDLAM or the 450?

I seem to remember having some very detailed exchanges with you about this exact same question across the estimates table when we were in different roles, Senator Ruston. I will seek advice and provide advice back to the chamber when I can. I feel certain that these numbers are available to us, but I do not have them at hand immediately.

Are the 750 gigalitres that you're referring to cap equivalent or actual water?

It's the long-term equivalent.

Okay, so what does that equate to in actual water recovery requirements or licences as we stand here today?

It really depends on the nature and composition of the entitlements.

Do you have an estimation? Given the basis of water already recovered, what would be the average extrapolation of 750 gigalitres of long-term cap equivalents?

As per the previous request, I will see what can be made available and will come back to the chamber.

Finally, before I hand back to my learned colleague, what percentage of actual water needs to be recovered of the water that is available for recovery?

In relation to your earlier question, I understand that 49 gigalitres are required for bridging the gap, between 190 and 315 gigalitres are required for the SDLAM projects and 424 gigalitres are required to meet the 450 target based on the volumes contracted to date. These are all expressed in cap equivalent.

I'm still interested in the whole leasing arrangements. Can you explain the amendments before us for changes to the definition of 'held environmental water'? Where they include the terminology 'or the part of the right' or 'part of such a right', what does that mean? If that is not a lease, what does it mean to acquire part of a right?

The advice I have is it simply confirms that not all of a right would need to be acquired if there was a commercial agreement that sought to obtain part of a right—that it could be counted towards held environmental water.

So an interesting concept, and I'm trying to work it through in my brain. If I was a water entitlement holder or a water right holder and I wanted to sell the Commonwealth part, say, 20 per cent, given the way that water access rights or water licences then get allocated, which 20 per cent of the allocation or the access would it be? Would it be the first 20 per cent, the last 20 per cent? It is very ambiguous. People who are looking at this for guidance, particularly when it comes to participating in a voluntary water purchase, will want to understand what it means.

It simply seeks to create the space for commercial arrangements. It doesn't seek to specify how that might be executed. As I've indicated previously, the government is open to working with productive users to look for commercial arrangements that could meet environmental objectives should they wish to propose them. This amendment simply seeks to create space for such an arrangement to be brought forward.

Would there be scope for a proponent to consider how a model may be proposed to the government? This does not require the government to accept any proposal nor does it necessarily mean the government will go out with some sort of a program to that end but it opens the door for conversations to be held about what a model might look like that will not then have to come before us for legislative change.

It is not the only part of the bill or of the amendments in the chamber that seek to open up space. It is part of what I think you and I would consider quite technical reforms that do seek to open up space for a broader range of commercial agreements so we can meet our targets. Minister Plibersek has consistently said she would like all options to be on the table, including thinking more flexibly about how the Commonwealth might engage with willing sellers if they do wish to engage in transactions with the Commonwealth or indeed with states and territories in relation to the same kinds of environmental objectives.

Minister, you mentioned that 16 per cent of water has been recovered under coalition governments and that means 84 per cent have been recovered under Labor or Labor-Greens coalitions. The late John Bristow said in 2007 that Australia had a wonderful water management, probably the best in the world. Then John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull as minister introduced the Water Act in 2007. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission, which had been working productively with the states, was changed to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Four years later, under Labor and Labor-Greens governments, Bristow said Australia had fallen to the world's worst water management.

Science and everyday observation contradict the Murray-Darling Basin Plan's basis, and this bill's basis. When will you do a review of the Murray-Darling Basin's core foundation, its impacts and its environmental, socioeconomic and economic destruction based on data?

Senator Roberts, we have come to the 12.15 mark, so we will have to wait until we next gather together in Committee of the Whole.

Progress reported.

Arrangements have been made for Senator Dodson to make a statement. Senator Dodson.

by leave—Thank you, Madam President, and thanks to the Senate for its indulgence.

I came to this place more than seven years ago as an opportunity pick by the then leader of the Labor Party, Mr Bill Shorten, when a Senate vacancy occurred in Western Australia. Colin Barnett, the then Premier of Western Australia, had to recall the Western Australian parliament to endorse my appointment, which was very generous of him. I want to thank both of those people for their part in giving me the privilege of serving in the wonderful state of Western Australia. And I want to thank the people of Western Australia for supporting me in subsequent elections.

To the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, I extend my gratitude for his response to the request by the First Nations peoples to have a voice enshrined in the Constitution. I pay tribute to his leadership and to his ongoing commitment to work with First Nations peoples.

I will formally leave the Senate on 26 January next year, saddened that my health no longer enables me to discharge my duties as a senator. I chose that date because it's three days before my 76th birthday, which I am looking forward to.

I have seen a few presidents come and go in my time in this chamber, along with a couple of prime ministers. Madam President, I want to thank you for the management of this chamber, and may you reign as long as we can be in power.

To all in this chamber, it has been a very special honour to have been amongst you. I have experienced being in both opposition and government; late night sittings; a double dissolution; re-elections; the consequence of section 44 of the Constitution on some politicians; and a failed referendum to recognise First Peoples, of whom I am one, in the Constitution and for them to have a voice to give advice to the parliament and the executive on matters that affect them.

As senators, we are indeed privileged to serve in parliament and on committees of the parliament. Committee service has also allowed me to get a better insight into some of those on the other side. In that regard, one of the most significant committees that I served on was the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's Juukan Gorge inquiry. I recognise Mr Entsch and those people on it. I also recognise Senator Smith, who helped me get my passport back off a plane when I'd left it in an international airport. I thank Senator McDonald for her father's great help to me at the time when we were dealing with Mabo, and Senator Canavan who sent me some really good well wishes when I was sick. Thank you.

I had the privilege of co-chairing a committee with Mr Leeser—I see him over there—and I want to thank him for the time we spent on the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. We both gained a lot out of that exercise, and I thank him for that. Both inquiries demonstrated how we can, regardless of which party we belong to, work together in a collegiate and constructive manner—not only to illuminate issues but also to make recommendations on ways that these matters may be taken forward towards resolution. That's always subject to the parliament, of course, and that onus is on all of us in here.

I want to thank my colleagues in the parliamentary Labor Party for their friendship and support. Many of them are here today and I thank them for that. I know that many are at the late Mr Hand's funeral in Melbourne and couldn't be here. I acknowledge Gerry Hand as well for the part he played in Aboriginal affairs.

My illness has meant that I was unable to travel in the lead-up to the recent referendum. I express gratitude to my colleagues for stepping up to carry some of the campaign burden in my absence. I acknowledge my fellow First Nations colleagues here today: Senator McCarthy and Senator Stewart. I'm not sure whether Marion is here, but I acknowledge her. I acknowledge Gordon Reid and, of course, the minister, Linda Burney, who is across the aisle today. I especially acknowledge the former member for Lingiari Mr Snowdon, for his friendship and for the generous way his family made my time in Canberra less lonely.

I want to thank my family and friends—some of them are in the gallery and some are not—for their understanding, their arguments and their patience, not only during my time in the parliament but throughout my whole life. I'm also very grateful to my partner, Carol, who is here, for her love, care and sacrifices in her ongoing support as I battle to get back more of my own physical independence.

To all those who sent me get well and support messages during my treatment and challenges with this illness, I thank you for your best wishes. That has meant a great deal to me; people who I haven't known have sent me messages, and that's a great compliment to this great nation. That's not because of me but because of the generosity of spirit that can be extended.

I also want to thank the many health professionals who have looked after me for the past eight months or so. I'll begin with Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health and Community Services here in Canberra. Julie and Beth are here, with Dr Eric—they were very critical in getting me off to the people who I needed to see when I was pretty crook! I thank you for that work and for your ongoing support, and all the staff there who looked after me with great care and concern over the years that I have spent here in Canberra.

I have also been looked after in the public hospital system over these past few months, at Canberra Hospital, Broome Hospital and by the dedicated team at Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth. Without them—without all of those professional nurses and doctors—I may not have been here today.

Throughout my absence from this place, I have been kept up to date on matters daily by my excellent staff. I want to thank them for their diligence, loyalty and good cheer, and for the professionalism with which they carried out their many duties. Brooke, Bronte, Jeremiah, Noah, Kaupa and Murray: you've all done me proud.

I also acknowledge the work of my staff over the years, and I extend my regards to all the staff in the parliament, in this Parliament House, who keep this place running and attend to our every need: water, lecterns or whatever it is. And to the Comcar drivers out there: I've often seen them in the cold, standing with their cars. They ferry us safely to and fro with courtesy, patience and good humour. And to all of you in the gallery today, I thank you for coming and being present, and for your support—not only for me but for the issues that you know are critical to the First Peoples of this country.

I leave here at a time when, in my view, the nation is at a crossroad on how to proceed on issues that affect Australia's First Peoples. But I cannot leave here without reflecting on the outcome of the Voice referendum on 14 October. I accept without demur the referendum result. The people have spoken. But that cannot be the end of the matter. It pains me that the result is said by some to have repudiated much more than an additional chapter in the Constitution. That sort of talk closes the door on recognising the uniqueness of the nation's First Peoples, the legacies of terra nullius and the policies of assimilation. Rather, I see the result as giving the nation a fresh opportunity to discuss substantive matters of reconciliation and, hopefully, to agree on resolution.

Social policies to address the disadvantage are one thing. But, more importantly, we must proceed from here under a human rights framework agenda. We can begin that journey by implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. Yesterday I tabled the report of the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs into the application of UNDRIP in Australia, which I hope this parliament will agree to progress further. Importantly, First Peoples want control and management of their own affairs. They want to have constructive input into finding solutions to the chronic poverty, disadvantage and dependency that many of our people live with. The application of UNDRIP will help facilitate that goal, but we also need for First Nations peoples to be able to achieve and enjoy economic independence. Sadly, we are not seen as contributors or achievers, despite the many achievements our people have made in these significant areas.

First Peoples need to create their own economic independence by leveraging up their significant asset bases. Government and industry have important roles in facilitating such objectives. I don't mean just those physical asset bases they own or hold but also those assets that have been alienated from them. The physical assets and the alienated assets both need to be contemplated in the process of creating independent economic opportunities for First Peoples. If you create wealth in the First Nations environment, we have the opportunity to reduce the need for the social and public sector outlays. Such approaches have to be constructive, however, and not punitive. We need to work on the positives and help people to participate in wealth creation and enhance what they are doing in the economic space far better than we've been doing to date. We need to be innovative and responsive to the initiatives promoted by First Peoples.

If these three things—social reform, human rights and the adoption of UNDRIP, and an economic program for independence for First Peoples—can be achieved, or at least embarked upon, then we will be able to contribute to a more substantive way of dealing with the reconciliation process and its challenges. It'll be far more meaningful for all of us, because everyone benefits. It's not just the First Peoples who would benefit. And it'll be far better than what we've had to date.

Being at a crossroads, any new path must lead us towards the substantive reconciliation that can contemplate and address the lingering legacies, the lack of equality and the need to resolve the substantive equality matters that continue. Truth-telling and agreement-making will be necessary and essential to that process. Ultimately, reconciliation must be meaningful and mutually beneficial for both parties: the First Peoples of this country and the complexity of those that constitute and make up the Australian nation.

In the wake of the referendum, it seems to me that we must again find, with renewed purpose, common ground on what this might look like and the form it might take into the future. The 60-40 split in the referendum vote demonstrates to me that we are a divided nation. We need to heal through honest and open dialogue, without the rancour and discord that infected too much of what passed for debate in the communication and chatter around the referendum.

We have the opportunity now to approach reconciliation on a basis of justice that will strengthen our integrity as a nation. Australians have become aware of these issues, far more than they were before the referendum process. They may not agree on everything. How unusual! Like the First Nations—they don't agree on everything either—Australians don't agree on everything, so don't single us out. But dialogue and honest appraisals are needed. We need a national process in order to facilitate us going forward in this area. This is an exercise I leave to the next generation—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth—of this country to pursue. Those with vision, those with ambition, those with hope, those who love this nation—I leave it to them.

My people, the Yawuru people, have a formula about reconciliation—without having known what reconciliation was, but a formula to that end—in words that I delivered in my first speech on 1 September 2016, words which I wish to impose upon you yet again for your reflection and contemplation: mabu ngarrungunil, a strong community where people matter and are valued; mabu buru, a strong place, a good country where use of resources is balanced, and sacredness is embedded in the landscape; and, finally, mabu liyan, a healthy spirit, a good state of being for individuals, families and community, whose essence arises from our encounter with the land and people.

And in those words, Madam President, I say guliya to you, and I will see you when I see you. Thank you.

It is rather overwhelming to make a senator's statement following a contribution like that. I might commence by reflecting on the amazing legacy of that giant of a man Senator Patrick Dodson, who I had the great privilege of sharing my day of delivering my first speech in this place with him. Sadly, he spoke first, and, of course, my speech was very much overshadowed by his amazing contribution. As they say, you start out as you expect to continue, and Senator Dodson, even in ill health, has made an amazing contribution to the lives of all Australians—Western Australians, in particular, and First Nations Australians. So, before diving into my statement today, I do want to pay tribute to a man I will always respect, and I thank him very much for his service to the people of Western Australia and this Senate.

I will start by talking about an event taking place in Tasmania today. The Forest Economics Congress is being held at the Museum of Old and New Art today. The congress is being convened by the owners and proprietors of the museum which, I have to say, is a little out of the box but certainly something worth paying attention to. I cast no judgement on the motives of the organisers or the approach that the organisers of this event are going to take, but I do have high expectations for the outcome. This congress has been put together as a means of trying to resolve that age-old question in Tasmania around the forestry industry and about whether or not it should exist in the form that it does today. I of course have very strong views, but there are 120 people gathering at Mona today, and over the coming couple of days, to talk about the future of this industry. I hope that, of those 120 people, there are people there who are struggling in this cost-of-living crisis—people who understand what it is like to wait for an indication from your employer of whether or not you have the resources you need to fulfil the contract quotas to enable your business to pay its staff. I hope the people who are attending the congress are looking not just at the pure paper-based economics and the pure environmental elements of the forestry industry but at the human element as well—the societal element and the impact on community. I hope that those people who are meeting have that in mind as they deliberate.

I would also like to recognise the Tasmanian Liberal Party, which preselected three very fine candidates on the weekend. On Saturday, Senator Claire Chandler and Senator Richard Colbeck were re-endorsed for our ticket at the next election, along with a very fine Tasmanian woman from the north of the state, Jacki Martin, who will make a fantastic addition to our Senate team at the next election. It is about the role of senators and members of the other place that I want to focus on . What we say and do here actually matters. What we do here for the people we represent in our communities and our electorate is what it's all about. It's about making a difference in their lives and standing up for the things that are important to them. I have every confidence that Richard, Claire and Jacki will do exactly that on behalf of the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party and, more importantly, for the people of Tasmania, who have shown their trust in us by sending us here. Hopefully, we will be able to increase our contingent by one by having Jacki elected at the next election, whenever that may be.

What we do matters. On that note, I was reflecting on a contribution made yesterday by a Tasmanian senator in this place. I was rather disturbed to read in Hansard the content of the contribution by Senator Polley from Tasmania. What we do here matters because what we do here has an impact on the lives of those we represent. Sure, there's a bit of politics played here. There are quips made. We obviously have opposing views on policies and the direction the country is heading in, from time to time. But actually making a difference for the people who send us here is central. It's important. It's what the job is all about. The contribution yesterday went nowhere near doing anything of that nature. It was a reflection on a member of parliament from the other place and nothing more. That's not what we're sent here to do.

That contribution could have been focused on things like health, infrastructure, education or doing things for Tasmania. Indeed, it could have been talking about the achievements of the government in the state of Tasmania. That would have been welcome. But we didn't get that, and I don't expect we'll see that much more. I question: where was the contribution highlighting that the Albanese Labor government took $30 million out of the Tasmanian visitor economy by canning the Cradle Mountain cableway project? Where were the shrill cries from a Tasmanian senator about that money being taken off the table and away from Tasmania? That was money for a project that would have transformed the visitor economy of the north of our state. There was not a peep out of those opposite. Instead, pure, partisan, petty personality politics was played in that contribution yesterday. There was not a mention of the 60 per cent cut to infrastructure funding for future Tasmanian infrastructure projects. At the moment, the Tasmanian government, in order to fund a project, could put $20 million on the table for a specific road, seaport or something like that. They'd then be able to extract a partnership funding agreement which would see $80 million delivered to the state of Tasmania to complete that project. Now, under this fifty-fifty funding arrangement that the Albanese Labor government has delivered to the small state of Tasmania, which does need help—and thank God for horizontal fiscal equalisation and the GST: it helps our state pay our way in health, education and other essential services—our state will only get $20 million from the Commonwealth. That's a 60 per cent cut in federal funding for infrastructure projects into the future.

Did I hear a peep out of the Labor senators from Tasmania? I didn't hear a thing. Instead, as I said yesterday, pure petty, partisan, personality politics is all we got. Where are they on things like Massy-Greene Drive funding being cut? The federal funding that was going into that important piece of infrastructure would actually grow the economy in the electorate of Braddon. We heard not a peep. What about the GP crisis we're seeing? We know that GPs are funded by the Commonwealth. We heard not a peep. There was no responsibility. Mr Mitchell, the member for Lyons, knew for 12 months that Greenpoint Medical Services in Bridgewater was going to face difficulty to continue to operate. Very little if anything was done, other than buck passing.

The job upon all of us, on behalf of our communities, is to make sure that we are standing up for our communities and what they need. What about the GST exclusion for the funding delivered to the waterfront stadium in Hobart? My colleagues in the Tasmanian contingent from the Greens, Senator Lambie, Senator Tyrrell and all Tasmanian Liberal senators have stood up and said that the Albanese Labor government should not take $240 million out of Tasmania's share of GST funding to pay for the stadium. Guess who has not stood up and said that, Mr Deputy President—the Tasmanian Labor senators. Where are they?

Instead, we are getting two-minute statements that reflect on other people in this place and petty, personal politics, rather than senators standing up for the people of Tasmania. I remind anyone who might ever read this speech, or indeed that might be listening right now, that the GST is how we pay for our health services in Tasmania. It's very important. It's how we pay for roads, in some respects, and also education—

And jobs!

and jobs—exactly. I'll take Senator McCarthy's interjection. There was not one mention of jobs in the contributions we heard yesterday. Instead, as I say, there is petty politics being played here, and Tasmanians deserve better.

That's why I'm so pleased that I'll be working with Richard Colbeck, Senator Claire Chandler and, of course, hopefully, Senator-elect Jacki Martin, to present a fantastic alternative for the people of Tasmania that will actually tackle these issues like salmon farming on Macquarie Harbour, which is under threat right now because the Labor government has funded the Environmental Defenders Office to attack the salmon industry that's been operating in Tasmania for 40 years. We talk about jobs; there are at least 5,000 jobs hanging off that industry. The Labor government fund the EDO to attack that industry in the hope of shutting down salmon farming on Macquarie Harbour. Again, there was not a peep out of my Labor counterparts over there on this very issue or the future of the MMG mine in Rosebery and the expansion of their tailings dam—not a peep.

On the issues that matter, they're nowhere to be seen. On the issues that matter to Tasmanians, you will not find them up here in your corner, Tasmanian brothers and sisters. You'll them up here making petty, partisan political points about people in the other place, rather than doing the job they were elected to do: standing up for Tasmanians and making sure that we get our fair share of GST, that our road and infrastructure funding is not cut and that salmon farming—the proud and sustainable aquaculture industry—isn't shut down because of the Labor-funded green activists in the EDO.

I look forward to hearing a contribution about what they're doing, but I suspect it won't be much.

I too acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of Senator Dodson and the beautiful ways in which he has done his politics in the years that he's been in this place.

I rise to speak on a persistent and systematic issue affecting so many Australian workers: unpaid overtime resulting from the creeping demands of technology, which we sometimes refer to as availability creep. It's an issue that our workplace relations system has proved incapable of addressing. The solution is clear: Australian workers need the right to disconnect—the right to turn off technology that takes their work into all of the rest of their lives.

Unpaid overtime is a systemic multibillion-dollar problem that robs Australian workers and their families of time and money. The 2023 Go Home on Time Day report revealed that the average worker donated five hours and 24 minutes of unpaid work to their employer every week. Young people do the most unpaid overtime, working a whopping seven hours and 24 minutes extra each week. This speaks volumes about the pressures on young workers, who are often insecure in their work entitlements and their workplace and are trying to make it in a highly competitive labour market. Workers feel the need to come in early, to skip their breaks, to stay back late and to answer phones and check emails outside of hours of work, due to their increasing workloads and pressure from employers.

Unpaid overtime is endemic. The evidence is clear: unpaid overtime has been exacerbated by the technology that enables availability creep. Communication technology is now a normal part of our working lives. Our phones make us contactable via email, text or calls wherever we are at whatever time of day, even well after we have clocked off. Added to this is the expectation of workers to respond. Not only are workers doing long hours at work but they are increasingly expected to pick up the phone and to answer emails after work, on weekends and often on holidays. Our workplace is now on the phone in our handbag, back pocket or jacket pocket. It is in vigorous competition with the rest of our lives, and many of us get drawn into a compulsion to answer the email and take the call, for fear that our job might be at risk if we don't. Technology that may have once promised freedom and shorter working hours has instead tethered workers to their phones and laptops, extending the length of the working week without pay.

Unpaid overtime is not some fringe issue affecting a small group of workers. It is ubiquitous. Seven in 10 workers report having done work outside their scheduled hours. It affects workers in every industry, every occupation and businesses big and small doing all kinds of work. Sessional university teaching staff are paid for only 60 per cent of the work they perform, for example. The extra 40 per cent, such as responding to student emails and providing support out of the classroom, is unpaid. I know that my colleagues who have been teachers for decades in our education system know how endemic unpaid overtime is amongst our education workforce running our schools. Disability and aged-care workers also suffer from availability creep. Workers in higher paid industries also donate their time to their boss.

Elizabeth Broderick's recent review of workplace culture in the consultancy EY found that about one-third of those employees were working 51 or more hours a week at least one week out of every four. EY workers talked about how they were expected to turn up for work and work under pressure. They described the workforce of hundreds of graduates as 'just cannon fodder'. One said, 'I wake up most days thinking I will lose my job.' It's the combination of technology and pressure that results in this availability creep—a competitive culture that is fuelled and intensified by technology, and work pressure that means that people feel they need to, and are often required to, be always available.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg of unpaid overtime and its consequences for Australia. The eight-hour day might have been won, at least in theory, many years ago, but the struggle over working hours is not consigned to the past. What happened to our eight hours for work, eight hours for recreation and eight hours for rest? Availability creep pollutes our leisure time and our care activities and it erodes our personal lives. Without proper protections in our workplace laws, Australian workers, their families and communities are paying a price. First and foremost, it costs workers their hard-earned money. The unrestricted access employers have to employees is costing the average worker seven weeks of unpaid overtime per year. This amounts to $130 billion in unpaid wages every year. Make no mistake: unpaid overtime is wage theft, and it represents a massive loss of earnings for Australian workers. Gone are the days of a fair day's work for fair pay, in light of the intrusive, unregulated technologies that break the boundaries around working hours.

Beyond the financial cost, there are untold physical, mental and social costs. During our select committee inquiry into work and care, workers told us about the devastating accumulation and the impacts of availability-creep on their mental health. Workers face the stress of work following them around 24/7, leading to burnout, low job satisfaction and the degradation of family time and relationships. So many workers are juggling their paid work with caring responsibilities—especially women, who struggle to balance care with their jobs while they have their job in their pockets, while they're in the playground, while they're waiting at the school gate and while they're with their family in the evening.

The physical and mental health toll of overtime also puts workers' safety at stake, as the risk of accident or injury significantly increases beyond the seventh hour worked in any day. We work to live; we don't live to work. Our labour law has lost sight of this basic principle. Existing workplace laws have proved inadequate to protect the boundary between work and the rest of our lives. It's now time for a new social contract, fit for a 21st century workforce and the kind of technology that can result in harmful exploitation. The solution is clear: Australian workers need wage theft to stop and the critical loophole for undercutting wages to close. Australian workers need their health, their safety, their social lives and their family lives protected. They need a right to disconnect.

A legislated right to disconnect would prevent employers from unreasonably contacting their workers out of hours and empower workers to ignore work calls and emails after hours, where those demands are unreasonable. In practice, this means a protected right to turn off your phone or computer outside your paid hours. And that means looking after yourself, your family and your friends. It means promoting a healthier work culture, allowing for genuine leisure and rest. This is one of the key recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care that I chair.

The right to disconnect is a modest measure, addressing changes in technologies, and it has widespread support from workers, unions and many researchers. Eighty-four per cent of Australians think that the government should legislate this right in the Fair Work Act, and many unions are championing the cause. Many authoritative Australian workplace relations academics have lined up and put their research evidence into this picture, establishing a strong case for a right to disconnect, recognising how it can play out in many different industries.

Beyond that support, the right to disconnect has already been integrated in existing workplace agreements in many workplaces. The Victorian police, for example, have the right to disconnect in their enterprise agreement and have had it there since 2021. In evidence before the committee inquiring into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill, the Australian Federal Police Association said that this right has worked extremely well in their workplaces in Victoria and has led to their support for a harmonised approach across the Commonwealth.

We are well overdue for this kind of protection for all workers. The right to disconnect needs to be adopted across the private sector, with a new general standard to assist all those Australian workers who at present donate their time, at a cost to their family. A right to disconnect is good for workers, good for families, good for communities, good for health and safety, and, in the long run, good for productivity in our workplaces and our country.

The Greens have already secured amendments in the closing loopholes bill that will improve working conditions. But rest assured: the Greens will take the demands of Australian workers to the government and secure a right to disconnect for all. We are overdue for this protection around working time in Australia.

I rise to raise ongoing deep concerns about school standards in this country. We all believe in the transformational power of education and how critical it is to young Australians and to the future of our nation. But there is a growing crisis and, again, today, I call on the Albanese Labor government to take the urgent action required to address Australia's declining school standards, which have become a national embarrassment and which are putting at serious risk our reputation as a nation that delivers first-class education across the globe. In shocking NAPLAN results released a number of months ago, one in three students is failing numeracy and literacy tests, with only 15 per cent of students achieving above the expected standard. On almost every score, Australian students are going backwards. That one in three students is not meeting expected standards in literacy and numeracy is absolutely shocking.

The NAPLAN results released mean students are twice as likely to fail than to excel in the classroom. Fixing this is not as simple as saying we need more funding. I'm not saying funding isn't an important issue, but the evidence makes it very clear that in the past two decades, despite a 60 per cent increase in school funding, our standards have continued to decline. The Albanese government needs to focus on the foundations of a good education—reading, writing and arithmetic—by mandating evidence based teaching methods in every Australian classroom.

Those school systems and those schools which have adopted proven teaching methods are flying. At Marsden Road Public School in Liverpool, Sydney, 90 per cent of students are from a non-English speaking background in a low-SES area of Sydney yet, by adopting the best evidence-based teaching and learning approach, by ensuring that students are taught explicitly, including, of course, the teaching of phonics, civics and citizenship, where children are taught what is expected of them—how to behave—this school has transformed the young lives of these children. Their NAPLAN results have gone through the roof in the last five years under the incredible leadership of the principal, Manisha Gazula.

Many schools are now adopting evidence based teaching and learning methods and they are seeing what a massive difference this makes, including the Canberra-Goulburn Catholic education system, which is also doing extraordinary work. I am deeply concerned that we haven't seen the momentum to focus on what works in the classroom under this government.

I have to say, this is not about the quality of Australian teachers, who are hardworking, so dedicated and so committed. They are being let down by not having the tools and resources and are being profoundly let down by university teacher training courses. The universities have been exposed as being completely deficient in providing adequate teacher training as a general rule. There are some exceptions. The IPA released a report last week that showed that one-third of all units of study in teacher training courses were about social justice causes and that only a much smaller number of units of study were devoted to literacy and numeracy. The IPA has done exceptional work in that regard. Teachers can only excel in the classroom if they are supported by the best evidence based teaching and learning methods. I note that the education minister, Jason Clare, has proposed some catch-up tutorials but, frankly, he is tinkering at the edges.

The government needs to urgently address the fundamental cause of these declining standards in our schools. I understand, appreciate and acknowledge the work of the expert panel into the next national school reform agreement. Its report was handed to government on 31 October but, unfortunately, it has been kept secret. I called through the Senate for that report to be made public and I will keep prosecuting the case. We need to see what this report by this panel, led by Dr Lisa O'Brien, is saying about what needs to happen in our schools. I'm very disappointed that the government, as we face the start to another academic year, is keeping this report a secret. We don't need more smooth talk from the minister; we need tough, tough action.

I just want to reflect on some of the dire statistics that the Australian Education Research Organisation has made clear. One in five year 7 students has the reading ability of a child in grade 4 and only 26 per cent of year 9 students are using correct pronunciation, with the majority writing at a year 3 level. AERO has also found that students who perform below expectations in their year 3 NAPLAN results are at risk of continuing to fall below par throughout their schooling. In other words, they never catch up. And our international PISA results—the Programme for International Student Assessment—are very grim. Twenty years ago, Australia ranked fourth internationally in reading, eighth in science and 11th in maths. Now we have fallen to 16th in reading, 17th in science and 29th in maths. Australia has lost the equivalent of one year's worth of learning over the past two decades. We were once on par with top-performing nations such as Singapore. Now the average 15-year-old Singaporean is three years ahead of their Australian counterpart. Next week, the next PISA results will be released by the OECD, by Mathias Cormann. We're holding our breath that Australia will perform better, but I'm not feeling overly confident—particularly after what our students endured through two years of the pandemic, when so many students were locked down and trying to learn under the most difficult of circumstances.

The battle to restore the high standards in our schools is compounded by declining attendance rates; an overcrowded curriculum; and a growing teacher shortage crisis, which the government is not taking seriously enough. Of course, providing teacher scholarships only to government schools, as if non-government schools don't matter, is really appalling. And we have the crisis with disruption in classrooms, where Australia is the 70th worst. I have to acknowledge Senator O'Sullivan, who is chairing a committee inquiry into classroom disruption. It's a major issue which is leading to so many teachers finding that they just cannot cope in the classroom anymore and are leaving the profession in droves. And we're seeing a really regrettable upsurge in activism in the classroom. The conduct of the teacher unions in relation to some of the activism over the last week, bringing Palestinian activists into the classroom, breaches of their code of conduct and their obligations to teach students impartially and without bias. Frankly, this should be condemned, and I do condemn this. I raised it in question time yesterday. Very regrettably, the minister who represents the Minister for Education in this place, Senator Watt, did not condemn the teacher unions for their frankly unacceptable conduct.

Then, of course, we have the Australian curriculum. I don't know what the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA, is doing. Learning First has just handed down a very good report. In an article called 'Curriculum crisis: a tale of politics over performance' by Paul Kelly today, the chief executive of Learning First, Ben Jensen said:

We were shocked there were only five topics dealt with in depth compared with 22 topics covered in depth in the science systems of other countries. The thing that just hits you in the face is when you look at the documentation side by side and you hear teacher after teacher saying that (the alternative) would be so much easier to teach.

ACARA is fundamentally failing our students, and the government needs to take notice of the fact that our curriculum, in so many respects, is not fit for purpose and urgent action is required on that front as well.

I live in Launceston but I didn't grow up there. I grew up on the north-west coast, and I have to admit that when I was young, Lonnie didn't have the best reputation. I moved to Launceston last year, and I will tell you what: reputations can be wrong. There is a great food and drink scene, it's a fantastic community with beautiful architecture and it has natural beauty. It feels like a big town, but it's in a growth spurt. With that comes all sorts of new opportunities—and a few growing pains too.

One key issue, and this is not a new one, is that many young people leave Tassie for the mainland. This migration leaves us with an age gap across various industries, but, in particular, it means jobs that are physically difficult face chronic and persistent labour shortages. Carers and nurses are on their feet. It isn't easy to do that in your sixties all day long. And have you tried getting a tradesman lately? You basically need a second mortgage to fix a leaky tap. We've been pretty unimaginative about how we fix that problem. We can't match mainland pay cheques, but our edge has historically been a far lower cost of living. That's an attractive alternative. Yes, we're paying less, but what we're paying will take you much further. Plus, we pay less tax. However, with rising housing and energy expenses, we risk losing that competitive advantage over time.

As the monopoly provider of electricity in Tasmania, Aurora Energy tax higher retail margins than any other state energy company in the National Electricity Market. We have the lowest wholesale electricity prices in the country. We have the lowest environmental costs. We're cheap on transmission. And yet on retail we're nearly double the national average. The state government would point to the rebates available to pensioners and concession card holders. But they aren't going to shape the decision of a 22-year-old—I wish I was 22 again—about whether to make life in Tassie or on the mainland. Cutting the retail margin on electricity to the national average would save consumers about $270 a year.

Another part of the solution needs to be affordable housing. We have areas that are ripe for development. I'm rather fond of the suburb of Invermay. It's basically custom-made for young people—not me! It has easy access to university and trendy cafes. It's even got a cinema; food trucks; small blocks, so there are no backyard laws to mow, and you can get to the CBD on your bike—not that I would. However, gorgeous historic homes sit alongside abandoned ones that are literally falling apart. It's dragged down the appeal of a whole street. Who wants to live next door to a dark, overgrown, abandoned house?

We have a tendency in Tassie to look at every problem and think the government should do something about it. This is one where I think the government should get out of the way. This is an opportunity for a private sector consortium to transform Invermay through strategic property acquisitions and targeted renovations. You need scale to make good on the investment opportunity. If you're buying one house at a time and flipping it when you're done with the renovations, every house on a neglected street goes up in price with every sale, so the return on investment from the first flip is eaten up by paying a premium for the house next door. But, if you do it in job lots, all your assets appreciate when you upgrade any of them. If they're necessary for the capital, government could offer support to reduce borrowing costs in exchange for a reserve in a share of the rejuvenated properties for affordable housing. We don't want all those being snapped up for Airbnb, and that's a way to prevent it.

Over the bridge from Invermay is Launceston CBD. It's a treat. While efforts have been made to reinvigorate the town centre, I hear local businesses complaining the rent is too high, which is creating empty shopfronts. Every extra empty shop leads to fewer visitors to the whole area. They're not just an eyesore but wasted potential. Small businesses aren't going to be able to afford a full year's lease at the current price, but they could afford a week's worth. So why not introduce pop-up licences that allow local businesses to temporarily take over retail spaces? The council could designate shopfronts that have remained vacant for over 12 months as eligible pop-up venues, and aspiring entrepreneurs could benefit. The pop-up licence holder can approach any landlord with any eligible property and ask to lease it short term. If they don't want to lease it to that person, they pay the council a price—$100 to $150. It's a win-win situation. It provides income to landlords during long gaps without permanent commercial tenants, and it gets people into town.

All of a sudden, it seems, it's come to everyone's attention that, as an Independent senator, I have a voice on things. I'm a little bit surprised by that. I'm here to pursue good policy, not to play political games. And I put that on the record for everyone to hear.

In the last couple of days, we've seen that the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 has been improved immensely based on good-faith communication and negotiation with Minister Plibersek. Open communication, good-faith negotiation and a willingness to engage and to improve legislation is what I am here to do. When it comes to considering the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, which will come before us next year, I see that there are elements of the bill that have merit, but, given the width, depth and complexity of this omnibus bill, I think the minister has overreached by putting so much into one piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear from the minister or his office, and he may want to reach out at an appropriate time. Like with Minister Plibersek, perhaps we can engage in a solutions-focused conversation and look at how we can make improvements to the legislation.

I do want to be clear, however, that I'm not using this speech to put markers in the sand on the IR bill. I'm here to tell the Australian people that I'm not interested in politics. I am here to pass the best legislation that this parliament can produce, which can only be done through good negotiation and goodwill. Improving and protecting Australia's national interest will always be at the heart of what I am here to do. The government's intention with this bill is to eradicate loopholes and ensure fair work conditions. I think this is a goal that we can all stand behind. It is in the national interest. For the confidence of all workers, the best thing the minister could do is put Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie's private senators' bills to the House and have them pass before the Reps take an early break tomorrow afternoon.

When we reconvene here in the Senate next year, our focus must be on refining the closing loopholes bill to create legislation that pragmatically benefits both Australian workers and business. My examination of the bill suggests that it could unintentionally disrupt many industries and escalate costs. A more nuanced, industry-specific approach could enhance efficiency and minimise upheaval. A primary concern that has been raised across many industry sectors relates to significant alterations proposed for casual workers. The central question that everyone is putting to me is: what is the specific problem that the government is aiming to resolve? It doesn't seem apparent. The flexibility offered by casual employment is crucial, especially for new job market entrants. We must ensure that any changes do not diminish these benefits. I've had both businesses and unions through my office, and both have raised concerns about the increased costs, complexity and potential productivity losses affecting around 2.7 million casual workers. Simplification of awards would go a long way to mitigating these issues, reducing accidental underpayments and simplifying employment regulation.

The bill also brings to the fore potential issues with the criminalisation of unintentional wage underpayments. While deliberate underpayments should be strictly penalised, accidental errors need a more nuanced response to avoid potentially unfairly penalising small-business owners. Our self-employed, independent contractors and tradies, who are all vital to our economy, will be significantly impacted if this bill were to pass in its current state. Their operational autotomy and need for procedural simplicity must be preserved. It is imperative that we reassess the bill's provisions to truly benefit Australian workers and businesses, aiming for a fair, productive and balanced work environment. I do not understand why the government would want to take away workers' 25 per cent loading.

Yesterday in question time when I was asking questions about the underfunding of our public schools, the Minister representing the Minister for Education said that he was sick of me lecturing him about the funding of public schools. So last night I put out the call to parents, teachers and students in our public schools and said, 'Share your stories of underfunding with me so I can bring them to the minister,' because maybe he will listen to them.

One parent wrote:

My child's teacher asked for stationary donations twice this year and the tuck shop was closed this semester as they couldn't find a convener for 2 days a week to keep it open.

Another parent, Daria, said:

We had a request to send in glue sticks to school because they had run out.

Glue sticks; they can't even afford them.

A teacher, Heidi, said:

I had parents ask me why I don't use more tech in class. My class laptops take 15-25 mins to boot up and log in—

Heidi, I can tell you, I have a been there—

and that's the good ones. It took 1.5hrs to do a 30min government test because the laptops wouldn't all log in.

I scour "buy nothing" Facebook pages with rich postcodes to see if I can ask the community to gift me things for class.

I have been explicitly told that there are photocopier limits and to be careful.

Another teacher said to us:

Getting to the end of term 4 and running so low on Art materials that I had to ration photocopy paper for drawing and had to just do a pencil drawing project. And I had to buy the pencils for the 300 students I would be teaching that week, in a demountable classroom.

Another teacher, Veronica, said underfunding of public schools means:

Being told I could no longer photocopy in colour for the dyslexic kiddos and paying for it myself.

Another teacher said:

Lack of funding saw me walk—

and I note that we are currently in a teacher workforce crisis—

How do you tell someone that there is no help for their child who had just destroyed a classroom and was laying in a foetal position under a desk. It was the straw that broke this 40 years experienced educator. We need early intervention in all areas. Learning and behavioural.

Another teacher, Mia, said underfunding to her means:

Teachers using their own money to buy textbooks for themselves and their students for curriculum. Also buying curtains for their rooms so they can see projector screens.

Another story that was shared by a student with my colleague Amy McMahon in Queensland says:

My school had cracked walls, broken bubblers, and faulty toilets throughout my time there. There were even a few lights that didn't work that sometimes weren't fixed for years....I live in a low income family that is becoming poorer with each passing year. Every year my parents are forced to fork out hundreds of dollars to spend on stationary, textbooks and excursions....Poverty is a major factor in success at school. Properly funding schools and eliminating out of pocket expenses would lift a financial burden on countless families which I hope everybody can agree is a good thing....Education is a right. Every child in this country deserves a good education at a quality school without having to shoulder the financial burden or suffer the effects of underfunding … Please fully fund our education system.

These are just a fraction of the stories that we received in less than 24 hours from parents, teachers, carers and students in our public education system. I have a message for the Minister for Education and the Minister representing the Minister for Education: I don't care how sick you are of me lecturing you on the underfunding in our public education system. I am going to keep shouting from the rooftop and I am going to keep lecturing until we see our public schools fully funded. Every single day that you fail to do that means another student and another teacher without the resources that they need for a fully funded public education. That robs every public school student in this country of their future.

I rise to pay tribute to an incredible man who has a lifelong legacy of caring for country and fighting against mines that make money killing our Mother. I speak of Arabana elder Uncle Kevin Buzzacott. Uncle Kev: you have given so much to our movement, have taught so many about our sovereignty in this country, peace, resistance, resilience from the frontiers of colonialism and capitalism. All love, respect and power to you, your family and close mob in your final days.

Uncle Kev has been back home on Arabana land over the past few months this year responding to the old people calling to protect country—fire country, sacred Lake Eyre on Arabana country that's being destroyed by BHP's Olympic Dam mining operations. 'I'm sitting on the old place,' he said a month ago. 'It's the most sacredest place on the Earth. We're here to protect that old place and stop the sacrifice from the mining companies and developers who want to develop it. We're born with the obligation and responsibility to look after the old place, not to destroy it. We're only borrowing the place from the kids, from the future.'

Long time friend Uncle Winiata writes: 'What a warrior, cheeky activist, great teacher, humorous, showman, Te Rangatira, mentor and kind man. He has received many awards for his resistance and advocacy, but he is affectionately known as the King of the Ferals. Always concerned about the people that never fitted in, he loved and cared for them on many levels. I write this memoir to a gentle spirit whose ego is never a motivation. It was a great honour to spend time with you, Uncle, at the Aboriginal embassy and various actions.'

Likewise, the impact cheeky Uncle Kev has had on me is profound. I remember when he rocked up at BHP with an invoice, an invoice for a trillion dollars, for stealing his water and his land. I remember his support at the Djab Wurrung protection embassy of my people, standing for sacred birthing trees. He said at one point: 'We need to make more of a noise, Lidia. Let's move the tents and cars onto the highway.' I said, 'I don't know, Unc. It sounds a little bit dangerous.' But he's a fighter and he's been fighting for this country and our water and our land. And now we can all learn from him forever. 'I know the country will win this argument,' he says. 'It might take a while, but I know it's going to win. These hills and mountains and the lake, they have been here since before these bastards ever came along.' And reminding us he is a part of country: 'We're going to still be here when they're dead and gone.'

Uncle said very recently, 'I haven't been around for 77 years for nothing. I've had an incredible journey, the greatest ever, and you all helped me make it that. I can't say enough. Keep that old fire burning in the belly and don't stop until we've won.' We promise to do that. We'll keep the fire burning and see you in the Dreamtime.

It's activists like this and elders like this that you won't see getting an Australia Day medal or any kind of acknowledgment from the colonial state that we're in today. They're the activists that get brushed aside and made out to be troublemakers and the bad people. They're usually the people that your police force run around trying to find to quickly lock up and get out of the way. So, Uncle Kev, thank you for your resilience, for your activism, for your leadership and for never giving up or giving in to our sovereignty in this country, like many, many have, and we only saw the yes vote and the people behind that. I took on your leadership and your advice. You said: 'This referendum is not good for us. It's not good for our country.' So here we are—still in the colonial state and still resisting. Uncle Kev, you're going to be with us forever.

It being 1.30 pm, we will now proceed to two-minute statements.

Earlier this month the city of Lake Macquarie hosted one of Australia's newest surfing events—the inaugural Let's Surf Lake Macquarie. This five-day event attracted 200 of Australia's most talented athletes. It included surfers from across Australia and from as far afield as Japan and Sri Lanka. Hosted at my home beach, Redhead Beach, the festival featured a drawcard World Surf League sanctioned Pro Junior event and a Surfing Australia ranked Cadet Cup. In the water, Australian surfers Harley Walters and Milla Brown claimed victory in the festival's drawcard event. In the Cadet Cup, Manning Gregory, Ocean Lancaster, Kade Kelly, Pearl Peters and Mali Adam claimed all the silverware in their respective divisions.

I congratulate those behind the scenes at Let's Surf Lake Macquarie, including event organisers, Warren Smith and Jack Antcliff, who delivered an exceptional event despite, at times, some horrid weather conditions. I was told that at one point Jack was lying in two inches of water, holding transmission cables above his head with lightning and thunder erupting around him. Thanks to this, more than 25,000 people tuned in online to watch the event on the webcast, and, when the sun finally returned, hundreds witnessed the action from the sand.

These events do not occur without the commitment of the administrators, volunteers and sponsors who are willing to throw their support behind regionally based events. Let's Surf Lake Macquarie was presented by the Lake Macquarie City Council, with support from Burton Automotive, the Hunter Melanoma Foundation, hit106.9 and Oasis Media. These partners continually support surfing in the Hunter region and, like me, they are determined to see more major events hosted in that region. The value of these events cannot be underestimated when it comes to unearthing our next world surfing champion, just like Mark Richards from the Hunter. If the success of Let's Surf Lake Macquarie is anything to go by, the future of Australian surfing has its feet well in the wax.

This week we saw more of the anti-union tactics the wealthiest companies in Australia use to crush wages and rights at work. The third-largest company in Australia, CSL, has been scheming to use a factory relocation to cut the pay of its workers by 15 per cent, with cuts to shift penalties, overtime and allowances. On top of all that, it has schemed to sack anyone who doesn't accept those cuts and to de-unionise the factory. It is literally written down in a company report that has been leaked to the media. It's straight out of the Qantas, Amazon and BHP playbook. Luke Hilakari from the Victorian Trades Hall Council said:

I just haven't seen it written like this anywhere before. It's next level. Just being so plain about reducing pay and conditions. It's just shockingly bad.

This is a company worth $133 billion. I have a radical view that a company worth $133 billion can afford to pay its people fairly and not use loopholes to rip them off. But, clearly, the Liberals and the Nationals have a different view. That's why they've fought tooth and nail to stop us closing loopholes before Christmas. Now what are we seeing? Yesterday the Minerals Council, which represents the biggest, richest companies in Australia, spammed 760,000 people with text messages saying that closing BHP's labour hire loophole will make the cost of living worse. It's the latest dirty lie in the BHP and Qantas funded campaign against the bill. The Liberals, the Nationals, BHP and Qantas are the economic mafia blocking vital cost-of-living relief and pillaging the wages of Australian families.

When I was first elected in 2017 one of the first things to come across my desk was a letter from Lisa McManus on behalf of Thalidomide Group Australia. It has been an honour to work alongside Lisa and Thalidomide Group ever since. Beryl, Lisa's mum, took two pills when she was pregnant. This event, which should have been prevented, changed the course of the rest of their lives.

Thalidomide Group Australia represents forgotten survivors of the pharmaceutical disaster that is thalidomide. Their ask was simple. Their letter was calling for help to get the right to win the justice that they so deeply deserved. Together, we achieved a Senate select committee into the support for Australia's thalidomide survivors. The committee made 11 recommendations. One of those was today's national apology to survivors, a momentous and long-fought-for moment.

An apology is only as good as the actions that follow, and that is why I and the Greens will continue to fight alongside Lisa and the community to make sure the actions that are taken meet the needs of the community. I commend Thalidomide Group Australia, Lisa McManus and the tireless campaigners and advocates that have brought justice for this community, for this group of human beings so deeply failed by their government, ignored so profoundly for so long, now acknowledged in parliament and together moving forward to a better life for all of them.

Before I make my contribution, if I could associate myself with the contribution of Senator Steele-John, especially on this day. The thalidomide tragedy impacted so many Australians. Congratulations to Senator Steele-John and all those senators involved in that process. I offer my sympathies and deep respect to all those who have sought justice.

I want to speak about the JSCEM's recent report. My good friend Senator McGrath, who is here in the chamber with me, played a key role in preparing a very thoughtful and measured, as is always the case with Senator McGrath, dissenting report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Just at a time when Australia is facing a cost-of-living crisis, what does the Labor majority on JSCEM think the solution is? More politicians. That is the answer—more politicians.

If I went out into the community where my office is based in the greater Ipswich region of Queensland and told the people of Ipswich facing a cost-of-living crisis that the Labor Party thinks the answer to their problems is more politicians—and not just one or two but dozens more politicians—they would be absolutely outraged. The answer is not more politicians; the answer is better policy made by the politicians here now. That is the answer—more common sense, fewer politicians. That is what the Australian people want. They don't want more politicians; they want the politicians here to come up with good policies that will address the cost of living. That is the answer, and the Albanese government is again showing how out of touch it is.

One in three women have experienced violence from a partner, a known person or a stranger since age of 15. A woman in Australia is killed by a man they know every 10 days. Indigenous women in Australia are eight times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be murdered. First Nations people make up more than one-quarter of all those hospitalised due to family or domestic violence, despite only making up 3.3 per cent of the population. In this year alone, as of 28 November, 54 women have been killed due to violence. It can be easy for some people to become desensitised to these facts and figures over time, but, as someone who grew up in a home that knew family violence, these statistics are visceral and they are personal. They also remind me of the reason I joined politics and the reason I stand here today.

Saturday 25 November 2023 was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. It also marked the start of the 16 days of activism against gender based violence campaign. Yesterday morning advocates and allies across the country came together in solidarity. I joined domestic violence campaigner and former Australian of the Year Rosie Batty, Djirra CEO Antoinette Braybrook and her team, and representatives from Respect Victoria and the ACT Human Rights Commission, along with a group of supportive advocates, to walk around Lake Burley Griffin in support of the 16 days of activism. It was empowering to walk across Kings Avenue Bridge holding the Aboriginal flag proudly and representing Aboriginal women. Together, we work to advocate, agitate, innovate, activate and create to end violence against Aboriginal women and children.

Strong evidence for one of the main reasons behind the decline of Australian education has been exposed this week. The benchmarking analysis released by Learning First chief executive Ben Jensen has laid bare the inadequacy of our science curriculum compared to others around the world. I've been warning about this in this chamber for a long time. It's not only that; numeracy and literacy basics are appalling also. This is an analysis the government should have done, and now we know why it hasn't. The report shows that, by the time Australian students finish year 8, they will have been provided less than half the science content than the average in other jurisdictions, including Canada, England, Japan, Singapore and the United States. In physics, our curriculum has 56 per cent less content, and in biology there is almost 70 per cent less content. So much for the clever country!

I attended dinner with some business leaders last night, and I asked what their priority was for the government to address. Almost all of them nominated improving education standards and outcomes. In addition to fixing the glaring shortfalls in the national curriculum, we also need better trained and better supported teachers. They also need more comprehensive training and support in the face of rising discipline issues in classrooms and increasing school refusal. We have to have dedicated teachers colleges in Australia. Since this was transferred to universities, the declines in education outcomes and standards have followed suit. As we saw last week, some teachers are more interested in recruiting activists among their students and indoctrinating them in radical causes. They're teaching kids what to think, not how to think. Let's get back to basics and teach kids what they need to know.

I rise again to speak in this place on the issue of regional Australia losing access to banking services. In a country town just south of Perth called Waroona—a vibrant agricultural town—they've lost their last bank. One of the big four pulled out, leaving them with no services in town and uncertainty over whether the bank's automated teller machine would be retained in the town. That leaves those in the community who bank with that particular institution—NAB—a hundred-kilometre round trip to get to their nearest branch. Whilst I know this issue is also reflected in urban Australia, I ask all those living in urban Australia to think about that for just a moment—a hundred-kilometre round trip to get to their nearest bank branch. But the community is fighting back, and I congratulate the Shire of Waroona for pulling its accounts from that bank. They decided that, given that bank is not supporting the town and the community, its local government will no longer be supporting that bank. I think that is a good thing. That community—particularly the shire president, Mike Walmsley—will look at what other options are available, including perhaps moving to a community bank in town. There is one in the neighbouring town of Pinjarra. Whether they can establish such a community bank, I will continue to look at ways to improve the situation in regional Australia, because banking services are still required. We need to ensure all Australians have access to high-quality banking services.

On 25 November we mark the start of 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. This is an opportunity for all of us to stand against violence, but we need to remain committed to ending gender based violence every single day. Violence against women continues here and abroad. Many women still live in fear within the confines of their homes, workplaces and communities.

In Australia, one in six women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous partner since the age of 15. I stand in solidarity with activists who are campaigning to end violence against women and children here in Australia and abroad.

In Afghanistan, my country of birth, girls are being denied education, in contradiction of Islamic and international laws and practices. In Gaza, the cruel, relentless, and indiscriminate violence continues against women and children, in contradiction of human values.

Our duty extends beyond borders, it transcends political divides and it demands a united front against the injustice suffered by all women around the world. I call on the Taliban in Afghanistan to allow girls access to education. I call on Israel and its government to end the indiscriminate killing of women in Gaza. Winter is about to come to Gaza. A humanitarian catastrophe stares at the conscience of every one of us. We must act. I call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. I call for unimpeded access to humanitarian aid without restrictions.

As Australians, let us condemn violence in all its forms and work tirelessly towards the safety and security of all women.

Tomorrow we'll see the inquiry into Workforce Australia hand down its report. I hope it's the start of significant change in our employment services system. The inquiry has placed a microscope over this system, including punitive and counterproductive mutual obligations.

The inquiry has heard from multiple witnesses that mutual obligations do not work and must be abolished. There are many income support recipients with reduced capacity to work due to disability, chronic illness, caring responsibilities—any number of life circumstances out of their control.

Yet, this system forces them to complete training and attend appointments that can range from irrelevant to degrading. Worst of all, if people can't meet these useless requirements, then their payments are suspended. These excessive requirements are for those who are not deemed job-ready. Others have to report their job applications into an online portal. This is a privatised system that seeks to control those living in poverty, punishing them, if they don't comply, by cutting their payments and entrenching them further in poverty.

Just yesterday the chair of the Workforce Australia inquiry, Julian Hill, in published comments, said that mutual obligations 'need to be broadened and tailored to the individual'. No, Mr Hill, we do not need this poverty surveillance system expanded or inserted further into people's personal lives. Mutual obligations need to be abolished: not adjusted, not 'tailored' and not 'broadened'—abolished. If we want thriving communities that can find meaningful, productive work, then we need to respect, rather than coerce, people. We need to respect their autonomy and engage with their interests and life circumstances.

I fear that these comments from the chair of this inquiry foreshadow more of the same from this Labor government. I hope not. I hope that, when the inquiry lands tomorrow, it'll be different and we'll see the beginning of substantial change. (Time expired)

Are we really surprised at how confused children are these days? Consider some things that we've told them. We've told them that Greta Thunberg is an expert. We've allowed a Swedish schoolgirl to lecture everyone and even berate world leaders at the UN as if she was some kind of authority. No wonder kids are confused.

We've told young people that Dylan Mulvaney is a girl. We've told them that Dylan is a girl because he says he's a girl. No wonder kids are confused.

We've told young people that Stan Grant is somehow oppressed. He's a journalist who's reached the pinnacle of his industry, but because he's Aboriginal we've told kids he's oppressed anyway. No wonder the kids are confused.

We've told young people that Joe Biden is a competent leader of the free world. The guy can't walk up or down stairs or string two words together. No wonder kids are confused.

We've told them that Bill Gates is a public health and vaccination expert. No wonder kids are confused. We've told young people that the Greens are environmentalists, when in reality they have more in common with Marxists. No wonder kids are confused.

A few decades from now, when you and I, Madam Acting Deputy President Grogan, are in our old age, we'll be looking at these young people whose sense of reality is completely twisted, who unfortunately will be making decisions on our behalf, and we'll throw up our hands in despair and ask each other, 'How did this generation become so confused?'

I rise today to speak on the outstanding community contribution of Mr Allan Gibson OAM, in particular his service to Hills Community Aid. Last week, after over six years serving as a volunteer on the board of Hills Community Aid—as public officer and, most recently, as president—Allan retired from the board. Hills Community Aid is an organisation delivering critical services across Greater Western Sydney. Allan is known by many across the financial services, banking and not-for-profit sectors and in his own community in Cherrybrook. Always generous with his time and in sharing his knowledge, Allan has been a valued and trusted colleague, friend and mentor to me and to others. Passionate about risk and governance, Allan has used his expertise to enhance the financial sustainability and risk management of many not-for-profits and community organisations.

When I was president and chair of Hills Community Aid, Allan kindly accepted my encouragement to join our board to help us navigate a period of renewal and rebuilding. He championed the Good Men Project, encouraging men to speak up, to promote respectful relationships and to encourage change in society by being positive role models to other men and boys. Allan is a great example of that.

Allan is also a 46-year member of the Uniting Church, generously giving his time on various committees, ensuring the sound management of a significant community and religious institution—a further testament to his lifetime of service and dedication. He was made an honorary life member of the Westpac Group Alumni, a company where worked for over 30 years and also served as a volunteer. I thank Allan for his service to the broader community and to Hills Community Aid. (Time expired)

Caps on political donations sound good in theory, but the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters are just another stitch-up from the major parties. Sure, their idea would cap the amount of money political parties and candidates can take in donations, but then you realise that a lot of the money funnelled to major parties isn't through direct donations; it's through fundraisers and membership fees. Those donations aren't covered by the donation cap. How surprising! That means the Liberal and Labor parties could still hold a fish and chip dinner fundraiser that cost 10 grand a ticket and it would be totally within the rules. Funny how that works!

The major parties are trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes. This isn't genuine reform to make things better; it's just a way to make sure that the two big parties are there to stay, while Independents and minor parties get squeezed out. That's because, while the Labor and Liberal parties squirrel away funds from their fundraisers and then spend up big at election time, Independents and minor parties will be the ones hampered by a cap. It's not a fair fight when the people who make the rules make them so there's a loophole in them for themselves. It's a classic David and Goliath battle. Independents and minor parties, like the Jacqui Lambie Network, are trying to go toe to toe with the political party giants, but we've got none of the resources or weapons to fight the battle.

The thing is, we've been winning. People are seeing the value of independent voices and they're moving away from voting for major parties. But put this in place and we won't stand a chance. We need more transparency around political donations, no question, but, as long as the major parties are the ones in charge of doing it, it will never, ever be a fair fight.

When I walked in here, there were 441 marks on this message stick, each of them a death in custody. Now it needs 114 more markings, because, as of today, there have been 555 deaths in custody. In fact, they're not deaths; they're murders—murders by the state. This year alone there have been 19 murders that we know of. This is tracked by the government on the website of the Institute of Criminology because, in your eyes, that's where we fit: criminals and numbers. In the words of journalist Amy McQuire, Darumbal and South Sea Islander woman—

Senator Thorpe, if I could stop you for a moment. Props are not allowed in the chamber.

I have permission, with all due respect.

Okay. I was not made aware of that.

You might need to check your notes.

I have no notes.

I have permission.

I will take your word for that.

Thank you. Great. Can I continue?

Yes, please do.

This is a message stick.

I'm well aware. There's no disrespect meant here.

It's part of the First People, the sovereign people of these lands before this place was here. I have permission. Thank you. Amy McQuire wrote:

For Aboriginal people, every death, every injury, every grieving mother, is remembered … We remember and we watch and we protest in the face of this national silence.

There is nothing shocking about the racist violence perpetrated by police. It is normalised and seen as a legitimate violence that was used not only to steal the country and assert white dominance but also to maintain it through the oppression of Aboriginal people. We know that the fundamental cause of these deaths is the criminalisation of our people and the conditions created by over 250 years of racist colonial domination. I will not stay silent on this. The families of those who have been murdered will not stay silent. The people on the streets will not stay silent. We will fill your ears with our pain until they bleed.

Today is a very important day in our country's history. Today we set the record straight on a tragedy that has affected so many Australian lives. Today the parliament delivered the National Apology to all Australians affected by the Thalidomide Tragedy. The opposition stands with the government in giving a heartfelt apology to the survivors, those who are no longer with us and their families. In doing so, we acknowledge the role of the Australian government in this tragedy.

Thalidomide was marketed as a safe drug for women to relieve morning sickness and nausea during pregnancy. In 1960, the Australian government allowed the importation of thalidomide into this country. No steps were taken to test the drug prior to its distribution and sale around the nation. And, unbeknown to expecting mothers, just one tablet could cause significant birth defects. As many as 10,000 babies were severely affected by the drug worldwide, and less than 3,000 of them are still alive today. As babies grew into children and then into adults, survivors have lived with a myriad of serious physical and psychological health issues. Along with the physical pain and difficulties they have endured, survivors also, sadly, have had to endure the pain of isolation, experiencing bullying, harassment and indifference.

I acknowledge the strength of those survivors, many of whom are in the parliament with us today, who never give up fighting for recognition of this wrong. Today's national apology is an important recognition of responsibility and the acknowledgment of a duty neglected. The apology represents the parliament's expression of our profound regret for this tragedy which has befallen so many Australian lives.

The shocking statistics of family and domestic violence in our communities are known to us all. In my home state of South Australia, we have grieved the deaths of four women in a single week. It simply cannot continue. On Saturday 25 November we marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the commencement of 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence. This activism matters. Activism like this has driven changes like the introduction of paid domestic and family violence leave in this parliament, and the agreement that underpinned the national plan to end violence against women and children within a generation. This activism will continue to matter. I acknowledge those activists on the steps of Parliament House last Friday, who stood together on this issue.

As they did that, I attended the opening of the Place of Courage:Ripples Across SA artwork in Murray Bridge, which serves as a permanent tribute to victims and survivors of domestic and family violence in that community. We gathered with hope and a sense of cautious optimism that we can change the conversation around domestic violence and that these sorts of commemorations make a difference. I want to acknowledge the dedication of the Murray Bridge Council and others who worked to make it happen, like Councillor Karen Eckermann, Mayor Wayne Thorley, Linda Martin, Melani Bassham, Tammie Hamilton and, of course, the Oxenham family. But, of course, while activism matters, it has to be underpinned by and deliver real change. Everyone in our community has a responsibility to deliver that. We have to change the inequality that underpins violence if we are going to change the statistics.

Thank you, Senator Smith. The time for statements has expired.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The latest national accounts from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that real household disposable income suffered its largest ever annual decline last financial year with Australian household incomes going backwards under Labor by 5.1 per cent. According to the OECD, this was worse than any other developed economy. With mortgage repayments also at the highest on record and bracket creep further eroding household budgets, can you guarantee that the third and final stage of the coalition's legislated personal income tax cut plan to deliver a lower, simpler and fairer tax system for Australian families will be implemented in full and as already legislated, just as you committed to repeatedly in the lead-up to the last election?

I welcome the question from Senator Birmingham. It is interesting how the opposition have a lot of questions for the Treasurer in this place but have none for him in the place that he actually sits. I think it's been some three months or more—

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, I'm very happy to! I'm merely pointing out that the Treasurer never gets a question from the opposition, but I get quite a few to the Treasurer. I would urge the shadow Treasurer that maybe he could ask his counterpart a question.

The stage 3 tax cuts are legislated. The government's position hasn't changed on the stage 3 tax cuts. I would draw to people's attention the pleasing results of inflation that have been released today, in the monthly CPI, which shows that inflation is moderating. We know that inflation has been the defining challenge of the economy that has led to cost-of-living pressures across Australian households. It shows that inflation did peak in the December quarter, and it is continuing to moderate, which is very good news. I'm sure it's news that everyone in this chamber would agree is positive. It is tracking along the way the Treasury forecasts and the RBA forecasts have set out.

We are pleased with those results. We're also pleased with the record low unemployment that has been able to be maintained, the 620,000 jobs that have been created under this government. The surplus, the fiscal discipline, the spending restraint that we have shown have all worked to make sure that the inflation challenge isn't made harder but is actually supported by decisions of this government.

Senator Birmingham, first supplementary?

The Labor member for Bennelong, Mr Laxale, has called for stage 3 tax cuts to be reversed, which would further increase taxes on Australian families and further erode household budgets. Rather than using a carefully scripted formula of words saying the stage 3 tax cuts are legislated and the government's position hasn't changed, Minister, will you give a crystal-clear commitment and say the Albanese government will deliver the legislated stage 3 tax cuts?

I've already answered the question. You can't force me to speak in a way that you find acceptable. I have answered the question.

In relation to the preamble, the Treasurer and I are pleased on this side to work with a very engaged caucus who represent their communities every single day. Every single day this government work as a team. We work as a team to make sure that we are dealing with cost-of-living pressures, as is our $23 billion cost-of-living package that is rolling out. And the CPI figures released today show the measures that you voted against and opposed and criticised have actually worked to reduce inflation in the economy rather than increase it.

Senator Birmingham, second supplementary?

In addition to tricky language on the stage 3 tax cuts, this week Labor ministers, as well as the Prime Minister, have refused to explicitly rule out changing the taxation treatment of the family home, despite the cost of housing also being at its absolute worst for Australians.

Here we go!

Senator Wong said, 'Here we go'. Minister, will you do what your colleagues have failed to do and rule out any changes to the tax treatment of the family home?

I disagree with the premise of that question completely. I've read the transcripts, and they have been explicit: there is no change to the tax treatment of the family home. People have made that commitment and have been clear.

I would again say that those opposite should think about the measures they voted against, like energy bill relief and others, that have worked to put downward pressure on inflation across the economy. That's the defining challenge that I hear a lot of criticism about from those opposite, but when it actually comes to voting, to making a difference and to putting downward pressure on inflation, they go missing.

They say no.

Actually, that's right. It's worse than going missing: they actually say no. They say no to energy bill relief, they say no to our investments in housing and they say no to our energy policies. They say no to extra Commonwealth rent assistance for needy households, to cheaper medicines and to 60-day dispensing—to all of those areas where we're giving cost-of-living relief, they say no.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I've called the chamber to order three times—

Senator Ruston, that does include you! When I call the chamber to order I expect the chamber to come to order. The interjections across the chamber from both sides are incredibly disorderly.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister outline how the Albanese government is focused on dealing with the immediate cost-of-living challenges that Australians are facing while, at the same time, building a stronger, more productive and more resilient budget and economy?

I thank Senator Sheldon for his question. It's an important question, and it's one that the Albanese government has been 100 per cent focused on since coming to government—how to address the cost-of-living pressures that are affecting Australians but also deal with the inflation challenge we inherited from those opposite. Again, I remind those opposite that the largest quarter of CPI inflation was under their government. The March 2022 quarter was when interest rates started being raised.

We are rolling out tens of billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief, which has been carefully targeted to help people with cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation. It's pleasing to see today that the ABS monthly CPI figures show that inflation is continuing to moderate, down from 5.6 per cent to 4.9 per cent. Our cost-of-living measures have been carefully designed to provide relief to households without adding to inflation. If we look at some of the areas mentioned in the ABS release today, we'll see that without our investment in the increase to Commonwealth rent assistance, rents would have been higher. The energy assistance package is a direct response to energy costs which were the result of a decade of failed policy from those opposite and is also easing cost-of-living pressures. It's clear that if it wasn't for this package—our energy bill relief—electricity prices would have risen higher than they would have otherwise over this period.

The opposition have no credibility when it comes to economic or fiscal management. We know that the economy has record low unemployment, our participation rates are at record highs, the gender pay gap is at a record low, women's participation is at a record high, business investment is up, industrial disputes are down, 620,000 jobs have been created, there have been two quarters of wage growth and a $78 billion deficit has turned into a $22 billion surplus. (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, your first supplementary?

Thank you for that very illuminating answer, Minister. Those are just some of the Albanese government's measures which are helping to deliver cost-of-living relief for Australians. Can the minister inform the Senate of any measures that are also helping to improve the health and wellbeing of Australians?

Thank you, and I acknowledge Senator Sheldon's advocacy for improving the health and wellbeing of Australians in a whole range of areas where he has focused his work, both before and during his time in the Senate.

Do you remember our issues with trying to lower the price of medicines? They have seen significant savings, over $200 million worth of savings, to people in their own pockets. Over 18 million scripts have now been issued from $42.50 down to $30. People will be interested to know that in Western Australia we have seen 2.1 million cheaper scripts worth $23 million. In Senator Sheldon's home state of New South Wales, 5.6 million cheaper scripts have been delivered. In South Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and in the ACT, people are saving money on their medicine scripts. (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary?

And there were 5.6 million scripts in New South Wales alone. Thank you, Minister. Can you elaborate on how the Albanese government's economic management extends beyond immediate relief measures like energy rebates and cheaper medicines to long-term benefits for Australian families, particularly in relation to child care? How is the government's approach to cheaper child care contributing to easing cost-of-living pressures for Australian families?

I thank Senator Sheldon for the question. We know on this side of the chamber that, when it comes to child care, it is one of the biggest costs for household budgets, particularly when your children are prior to school—the nought-to-five age group. Apart from mortgage and rent, child care is the biggest bill many Australian families will have to pay. That is why we stepped up in the election campaign to talk about child care when nobody else wanted to talk about child care. We put a substantial investment on the table to lower the price of child care to give families that help they needed.

For a family earning $120,000 with one child in care, their childcare costs would be about $1,700 a year less than they otherwise would be. Our cheaper child care is more than good cost-of-living relief; it is good social policy. It is about giving parents choice, particularly women, to work more hours if they want.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, I refer to the individual released from immigration detention following the High Court ruling and whose location is apparently still unknown to authorities. Can you confirm the Australian Border Force Commissioner's assertion that this individual failed to comply with the requirement to wear an ankle bracelet?

Thank you to the senator for the question. As you know, the government has been dealing with a High Court decision which required the release of a number of persons in detention, overturning a 20-year precedent. The senator would also know that the government was preparing for this possibility for some time, including ensuring that state and territory police, the ABF and the AFP were engaged. The government has also responded quickly to pass tough new laws prior to the court handing down its reasons, which included visa conditions, and I note the opposition was prepared to work constructively with us on this. I note also that the High Court has handed down its reasons, which enabled further consideration of what more can be done in relation to this cohort to ensure community safety.

Whilst we don't comment on individual matters, I understand that advice has been provided by the ABF. I don't have the precise terms in the terms that you quoted in front of me but, Senator Paterson, I will take it as read that that is the case and I would refer you to the answer of the ABF Commissioner.

Senator Paterson, a first supplementary?

The Guardian has reported this morning that 'Clare O'Neill has refused to rule out that a man was able to leave immigration detention without electronic monitoring because Australian Border Force failed to read out visa conditions to him.' Does this mean that previous statements by the government were in fact wrong and the government cannot guarantee to the Senate that the release of all these individuals from detention followed the correct process?

I am somewhat bemused that the opposition is attacking Border Force and criticising Border Force. I may have misunderstood the question, Senator Paterson, but it sounded to me like the opposition was being critical of the ABF and the AFP. We do back our agencies. They are working very hard to keep Australians safe, and we understand that they ought to be supported on that. We also understand that it's important that the legislative framework is as robust as possible in circumstances where the High Court has changed, I think, 20 years of precedent on this issue. We know that those opposite are very happy to shout about national security. They were also very happy to keep passing laws when they were in government that kept getting in trouble with the High Court and not being effective. You don't keep people safe.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson, a second supplementary?

Can the minister update the Senate on the status of the three other detainees who have been referred to the AFP for refusing to wear ankle bracelets? Have any of them been charged with any offence or have they now been fitted with ankle bracelets?

I'm not going to engage in a discussion in this chamber about operational matters other than to say that we support the ABF and the AFP in their work to ensure that Australians are safe and we will continue to do that. I would make this point. Those opposite are led by a man who seems to believe you make people safe by yelling a lot—I'm unsurprised—and by continuing to pass laws that were struck down.

Senator Paterson, a point of order?

On direct relevance: I asked about three detainees released into the community and whether the AFP has charged them, not the Leader of the Opposition.

The minister is being relevant. She has answered the first part of your question.

I think that asking directly whether the AFP have charged someone is, by definition, an operational matter. Like other ministers in such situations, I will not be engaging in that discussion. What I would say is this. We have seen laws passed with great fanfare by those opposite when in government—led and championed most loudly by Mr Dutton—which have not kept Australians safe, because they have been struck down.

This didn't happen on our watch!

Well, actually, it did. I'll take that interjection: 'This didn't happen on our watch.' Your laws were struck down. That doesn't make— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Senator Watt. Minister, I note your government's complete acquiescence to Peter Dutton's every unreasonable demand on immigration policy. You abjectly accepted his amendments to your legislation last week. You even said thank you to him. You've let him scare you into contradicting your own party's policy on mandatory detention. And yesterday you allowed him yet again to dictate your government's immigration policy by announcing a new preventive detention regime, exactly as he has been demanding. Minister, is Labor so focused on bending over backwards to accommodate Mr Dutton on migration policy that you are completely incapable of taking the action necessary to meet the real challenges of our times—like reigning in the rampant profiteering and price gouging by the big corporations that is smashing household budgets, like overriding— (Time expired)

Thank you, Senator McKim, for that jumble of a question. It started out with a bit of Home Affairs and threw in a bit of Treasury with a bit of Finance along the way. What we do know is that there's always Greens party rhetoric. That is the consistent thing we will always get in a question from Senator McKim and any of his colleagues.

Now, Senator McKim, unfortunately for you, what the record would show is that the party that has been going along with Mr Dutton in the last few days on these matters is none other than the Greens party. There was legislation that we attempted to pass through the House of Representatives on these issues this week to make our strong laws even stronger. My recollection of what the Hansard had to say is that one party voted for those laws—that party was called the Australian Labor Party—and the three parties that voted against it were the Greens party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. So, if you want to talk about who's bending over backwards to accommodate Mr Dutton, maybe you need to have a look in the mirror, because the Greens voted with the Liberal Party and the National Party on immigration matters in the House of Representatives only this week. We don't even need to go back to the past sitting weeks. Let's look at what happened just this week in parliament about 50 metres over that way. The Greens Party voted with Mr Dutton and the Liberal Party and the National Party to stop us from making tough laws even tougher. Maybe you don't talk to Mr Bandt. I know there are all sorts of weird Trot factions—the Di Natale factions, the skivvy factions—in the Greens party. I know you don't all talk to each other, but, if you had a look at what happened this week, it was the Greens voting with the Liberal Party and the National Party. So you'd better get you your facts straight before you walk in here and start asking questions of the Labor Party. We know where we stand on this issue. It's about keeping the Australian community safe. We make no apologies for passing legislation and trying to strengthen it, and it's about time the other parties in here backed us.

Senator McKim, a first supplementary?

I spoke about the big challenges facing Australians. Rents are now rising at the fastest rate since 2009. Are you going to actually do something to make unlimited rent rises illegal and unlawful or are you just going to wait for Mr Dutton to tell you how to respond? (Time expired)

Thank you, Senator McKim. We're obviously now straying well beyond home affairs matters, but I'm very happy to take any question about any portfolio that the Albanese government is dealing with. You talk about housing. I almost had a chance to do a whole week of it a couple of weeks ago, but you didn't give me the chance. I'm very happy to talk about what the Labor Party is doing about housing and why we're moving on this. I seem to remember that it was only about three months ago that we had a certain party in here that refused to back the Labor Party on our Housing Australia Future Fund for a number of months. It was something to do with a colour—that party. It was the Greens party who didn't want to back Labor to deliver more social housing in Australia. You finally caved in because we outmemed you for a change and showed that you were in dialogue and in lockstep with the Liberal Party and Mr Dutton, and you finally caved in. If you want to do something about housing, maybe you should listen to us a bit more.

Senator McKim, a second supplementary?

Minister, Coles and Woolworths posted a combined $2.7 billion in profit this year, off the back of higher price margins—in other words, off the back of price gouging and profiteering while millions of Australians are being smashed by increasing food prices. What are you going to do to bring the supermarket duopoly to heel, or are you just going to wait to see what Mr Dutton tells you to do?

Senator McKim, I'm sure that, because you've been a senator for a while, you know you are a long way from relevance. Senator Wong, are you rising on a point of order?

That is not a supplementary question.

No. Senator Wong, I will rule it out of order, but I will also give Minister Watt the opportunity to respond. Senator McKim?

Just in relation to your ruling, President: I remind you that in my primary question, I did talk about profiteering and price gouging by big corporations—

Senator McKim, that's a debating point.

so I do submit that the question is in order.

It's not in order, Senator McKim. Senator Wong.

Question time should relate to ministers' portfolios.

I have ruled the question out of order. I am going to invite Senator Watt to make a contribution, if he wishes to.

I'm very happy to answer that question, but I might do it in my capacity as agriculture minister, because I actually have been for some months now calling on the supermarket duopoly to cut their prices of food and, in particular, meat supplies. And do you know what? They've started to do it. I'm very pleased to see that Woolworths, after my calls and after calls from many other members of the community for them to drop the prices that they were charging consumers for meat, have started to do so, and it's about time the other retailers did so as well.

I make no apologies, again, for calling on the supermarkets to make sure that they are responding to the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are dealing with. They shouldn't be charging as much as they are for food, especially at a time when farmers are getting low prices for things like sheep and cattle, and, in many cases, for horticulture as well. So we will keep up the pressure on the supermarkets. I haven't seen a single Greens MP do anything about these issues. We know that all you actually do is come in here and ask questions so you can put it up on social media.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. On 8 November, the High Court handed down its decision that required the government to release a number of people from immigration detention. We know that the government is strongly opposed to this case and has taken action since then to keep the Australian community safe. Can the minister outline how the Australian government has responded to this High Court decision?

Thank you, Senator Grogan. As has been well documented, since the decision of the High Court on 8 November, the Albanese government has worked around the clock to stand up a joint AFP and ABF operation to impose strict conditions on those released from detention. The government also this week announced a $255 million boost to give our agencies and law enforcement the tools they need to keep Australians safe. We've introduced strict laws and strict conditions, like ankle bracelets, increased monitoring and strict curfews. We're doing all we can to ensure these strict laws are enduring and can withstand legal challenges, to maintain community safety.

I'd remind the Senate that the laws the High Court struck down were laws presided over by none other than the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Home Affairs. We all know Mr Dutton has spent years telling us that he had closed the back door to Australia, but, as I said yesterday, now we find out he left the front gate open and swinging in the breeze. Let's remember that when Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister in 2018, a boat ran aground in Far North Queensland, carrying 15 asylum seekers. Oh, we don't think about that, do we?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Watt, resume your seat. Order on my left. Order! Senator Cash, it applies to you. Senator Paterson! Please continue, Senator Watt.

They don't want to hear about Mr Dutton's failures in the Home Affairs portfolio. As I said, in 2018, a boat ran aground in Far North Queensland, carrying 15 asylum seekers. Who was the home affairs minister? Mr Dutton! Report after report found gaping holes in Mr Dutton's rorted visa system, which was letting criminals into the country. It was a visa system that allowed foreign organised crime syndicates into the country. These included the Albanian mafia, who engaged in drug trafficking, money laundering, slavery and sexual exploitation. Oh, wasn't Mr Dutton such a tough home affairs minister! He was so tough, he let the Albanian mafia into the country. How very tough of him!

This is the difference between our government and the opposition. We don't talk tough; we act tough.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! Order!

Senator Hume, I have just called order and you continue to interject rudely across the chamber. Senator Grogan, first supplementary?

Thank you, President. As the minister has referenced previously, on Monday in the House we witnessed the remarkable event of the coalition voting with the Greens against making tough laws even tougher. So when the government is trying to protect the Australian community, all we see—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Grogan, resume your seat. Order! Senator Grogan, please continue your question.

No, Senator Grogan, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, I have just called the chamber to order, about three times, and the minute Senator Grogan got back on her feet, you interjected again. You are disorderly! Senator Grogan, please continue.

I would like to thank the minister for his previous answer, which showed us some clarity about what has happened in the past. Can he please tell us how the Albanese Labor government is working in the parliament to make our strong laws even stronger?

Senator Grogan, they are very touchy about this, aren't they? They're very touchy when the facts are pointed out to them. This week the government brought amendments into this parliament to make our tough laws even tougher; to make sure that individuals like the one we talked about yesterday that Senator Dean Smith was so keen to get out of detention are kept away from schools and childcare centres. I would love to be able to report today that those protections were supported by the opposition, but Mr Dutton and the Liberals did what they always do. They said no. Just like they said no to energy price relief, just like they said no to cheaper medicines, this week they said no to keeping the Australian community safe.

Even more surprisingly, the opposition joined forces with the Greens to try to block those changes. The Greens, who call the government xenophobic and anti-refugee for keeping the Australian community safe, they are the new partners of the Liberal Party it would seem. I can't wait for the press conference with Senator McKim and Senator Cash standing side by side calling on the government to go softer on the people who are a risk to the Australian— (Time expired)

Senator Grogan, second supplementary?

When in government the now Leader of the Opposition had two failed attempts at making a constitutionally sound citizenship loss regime—I believe that's what you advised us, Minister. The High Court determined that these were an unconstitutional failure. Can the minister now outline for this chamber how laws are supposed to work to keep Australians safe?

Opposition senators interjecting—

You might want to listen!

It might be a novel concept for those sitting opposite, but the way laws are supposed to work is that they stand up in court. We know Senator Cash has never had a history of wanting to cooperate with the law. We know Senator Cash, as the Attorney-General, never wanted to cooperate with the law. And it seems that was their policy when it came to immigration laws as well.

We came to government facing a huge range of issues in the national security space left to us by the Leader of the Opposition. Let's be clear about Mr Dutton's legacy as home affairs minister. He talks tough on crime but, under his watch, the sexual exploitation of migrants, organised crime and people trafficking skyrocketed. He left our borders open. He let the Albanian mafia take hold in our country. He made our communities less safe. He presided over a broken migration program and, at the same time as he was talking tough on borders, he cut compliance officers by 50 per cent. And when he got around to finally legislating his laws, they got struck down. It wasn't just robodebt where we saw the coalition operating outside the bounds of the law, it was immigration as well. (Time expired)

Senator Hanson.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I'm sorry, Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Order on my left! I had called Senator Hanson and the disorder on the left side of the chamber continued. You are being disrespectful to a senator who has the right to put her question in silence.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt. This year's NAPLAN results show more than 16 per cent of year 3 students and more than 20 per cent of year 9 students are at or below the minimum standards in numeracy. Will the minister please explain why the Albanese Labor government has failed hundreds of thousands of young Australians in need of a decent education?

Thank you for the question, Senator Hanson. I think all Australians were concerned to see that the NAPLAN results that were tabled this year were lower than they have been—not in every single segment of the student population, but certainly in enough to be concerned—and unfortunately that continues a downward trend we have seen in those results over a number of years now.

I can't remember, Senator Hanson, whether the results that were published this year were in relation to tests that occurred this year—sometimes it's about tests that have occurred in previous years—but there is no doubt that the NAPLAN results of Australian children have been trending downwards for some time now. And that is exactly why, as I said in answer to a question from Senator Allman-Payne yesterday—

Senator Henderson, this is not your question!

the Albanese government is absolutely committed to making sure that every Australian school receives fair funding.

What we do find with those NAPLAN results is it's particularly students from disadvantaged backgrounds—whether it be that they're from poor families, from First Nations families, from rural and remote families—that are particularly struggling with literacy and numeracy. And that is exactly why, as I say, we are in the process of delivering more funding for schools and also making sure that those schools that particularly need assistance get more, because it is those schools that particularly cater to disadvantaged populations that do need more support. That is a fundamentally different approach to what we saw under 10 years of coalition government, where poorer schools, poorer students–whether they be state or non-state schools—were starved of the resources that they needed.

That is absolutely wrong, and that's misleading the Senate!

Senator Henderson doesn't like it when these facts are pointed out! But the truth is that schools in more disadvantaged communities do need more resources—

Senator Henderson still doesn't seem to accept that, so the coalition still doesn't think that's the case—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong?

Senator Henderson has been called twice and has not respected the President's call.

I was about to call Senator Henderson a third time, which is why I sat the minister down. Senator Henderson, you are out of order. If you want to make a contribution, that isn't at question time. It is at some other time during the sitting of the Senate. I ask you to remain silent. Senator Hanson, your first supplementary?

According to the Black Dog Institute, almost 47 per cent of Australian teachers are considering leaving the profession in the next 12 months, and more than 75 per cent of teachers report burnout often or all the time. Even the Queensland Palaszczuk Labor government's solution is to reduce school to four days a week. Will the minister please explain why the Albanese Labor government is failing to support teachers, at the risk of gutting Australian schools and accelerating the decline in education outcomes?

Thank you, Senator Hanson. I'll begin by commending the work of the Black Dog Institute. I actually met with them myself this morning, but more in relation to the support that they're providing by way of mental health for first responders. They do a fantastic job, whether it be in that space or for teachers as well.

There is undoubtedly a teacher shortage in our country. Too few people are becoming teachers and too many are leaving. In December last year, federal, state and territory education ministers agreed to the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan, which sets out a clear pathway to addressing teacher workforce shortages and providing teachers with more support of the kind that you're talking about. That action plan sets out 27 actions that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments will take to turn around this serious issue. Some of the priority areas for the action plan include: improving teacher supply, strengthening initial teacher education, keeping the teachers that we have, elevating the profession and better understanding future teacher workforce needs.

Senator Hanson, second supplementary?

According to a benchmark science curriculum analysis released this week by Learning First, the Australian science curriculum provides students with less than half the content of comparable jurisdictions overseas, including Singapore, England, the United States and Canada. Australian education is also two years behind in basic literacy and numeracy skills. Will the minister please explain why the Albanese Labor government is failing to keep pace with education standards overseas at great risk to Australian economic outcomes and the nation's international— (Time expired)

Thank you again, Senator Hanson; I welcome your interest in the educational standards of Australian students. It's something that, literally, our future will rely upon. Again, I'm not going to dispute the fact that we do have some catching up to do with a range of other countries overseas, particularly in the STEM areas you're talking about, and even in some of the literacy and numeracy areas that we were talking about in your first question. There's another form of testing which I think is still undertaken, called PISA. It's a form of testing in education that compares Australia to other countries. Again, we have been lagging other countries for some time and that gap is getting wider, not smaller.

Again, these are the reasons that the Albanese government is investing more in education and also targeting that investment, particularly towards the teachers that need support and to disadvantaged communities that need support, while at the same time overhauling the Australian curriculum to make sure that we are keeping pace with other countries as well.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday the High Court published its reasons for its 8 November decision regarding the NZYQ case. The case before the High Court, the orders made on 8 November and the reasons for the decision published yesterday all relate to a single detainee: NZYQ. On what grounds did the government release at least 140 detainees in addition to NZYQ? Is it the government's position that every single one of the individuals released could not have legally remained in immigration detention?

The advice I have is very clear, and that is that the High Court decision required the release of individuals in similar circumstances to NZYQ. That was the advice the government was given, and that was the advice that the government has acted upon. As I've said here in this chamber on a number of occasions, governments should comply with the law. All governments should comply with the law.

The proposition that the shadow Attorney-General is seriously putting forward in this chamber is that a government should act in a manner contrary to the law. I am surprised that somebody who holds such a senior position would advance something not just so irresponsible but so contrary to our system of democracy. We know with robodebt that is precisely what those opposite did, and we saw what happened—the dreadful outcomes, including the distress and loss of life of some Australians. We saw what happened, and I invite the shadow Attorney-General to read the report into robodebt. Perhaps she could get some instruction about compliance with the law by governments.

Senator Cash, a first supplementary?

On 30 May 2023, the government told the High Court it was an agreed fact that there was 'no real prospect of NZYQ being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future'. Yet reports in the Guardian show that just a week later the Minister for Home Affairs said she had operational advice about the case, and it was likely the government would 'avoid it by deporting him'. Did the minister sign off on the facts that the government put before the High Court?

Whatever is put before the High Court is the position of the government. In relation to resettlement, I would point out that many of the people who have been subject to this decision were people who were detained not by this government but by previous governments, and the opportunities for resettlement were obviously not carried through to fruition by previous governments. That is a self-evident fact. But I again make the point, as I did yesterday, that we may not—obviously, the government's position was advocated before the High Court. We argued for the constitutional basis which had been in place for some 20 years. That was not accepted by the court. Obviously, governments have to deal with that. The response of a mature government is to look to ensure community safety in a manner that is consistent with the law. It is not advocating for not complying with the law. (Time expired)

Senator Cash, a second supplementary?

What is the delay in the Albanese Labor government introducing preventive detention, which was given the green light by the High Court of Australia yesterday? Why is it that the Albanese Labor government is always on the back foot when it comes to protecting the Australian community?

The reflex to play the politics of division is extraordinary. Twenty-four hours later, the shadow Attorney-General is saying, 'Where's the bill?' But, even worse, how many hours is it after her party voted with the Greens against toughening up this legislation? You voted with the Greens! You explain to us your position. Is it that you don't want a delay, or is it that you team up with the Greens in the other place because you want more time? Wasn't that what they said? Their decision to vote with the Greens against tougher laws was, 'We want more time.' You can make up your mind. The Australian people know what you are. You have no plan. All you are about is division. That is all you are about.

While she's on a roll, my question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong. Reports now suggest that 20,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed and 8,000 of them are children. When do you think is the right time to call for a permanent ceasefire, Minister?

Senator Thorpe, I want to start by saying we mourn every life.

Not the deaths in custody!

Senator Thorpe, you've asked your question.

We have consistently called for the release of hostages. We have consistently, in affirming Israel's right to defend itself, made clear that our view is Israel should comply with international law and work to protect civilians. And we have said that consistently. We have welcomed the two-day extension to the pause of hostilities in Gaza, and we support the efforts of those—

Point of order on relevance: I asked simply when do you think is the right time to call for a permanent ceasefire?

The minister is being relevant to your question. Senator Wong.

I again go back to what I was saying, which is we welcome the two-day—

Answer! People are dying while you're answering.

Senator Thorpe, you've asked your question. I'm asking you to now listen to the answer.

We welcome the two-day extension to the pause in hostilities and we support efforts to continue extending the pause. I think we would all want to see not only the pause extended but also the hostages being released, as some have been.

What I would say to you, Senator Thorpe, is that we all understand the extent to which this is a divisive, distressing and painful conflict for so many Australians. It's distressing and painful for members of the Jewish community. It's distressing and painful for members of the Palestinian community. It's distressing and painful for many Australians. It is very important, if I may say, that we try and deal with the very strong emotions. (Time expired)

Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?

What actions are you taking to uphold international humanitarian law and prevent further attacks on innocent civilians?

Well, we raise our voice, and our voice has been very clear. We have called for the release of hostages. We have called for humanitarian access. We've called for the protection of civilian life. I've also said—and I was criticised by some—the self-evidence point that I would have thought all of us would want to see the next steps towards a sustainable ceasefire, but it can't be one-sided. What we see is progress on each of the calls we have made—the release of hostages, humanitarian access, protection of civilian life and steps towards a sustainable ceasefire. We've seen some progress with the arrangements which have been brokered. But, ultimately, what we wanted to do is to work for a long-term enduring peace, which, ultimately, does require a two-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians living securely and prosperously within internationally recognised borders.

Senator Thorpe, second supplementary?

What traditional aid funding will you supply seeing the Labor government has only provided $25 million when an estimated $1.2 billion is needed?

The senator is right: a lot more will be required. When we made our initial humanitarian assistance very early on in the conflict, I made clear at the time that Australia stood ready to work with others and to make further contributions to international efforts to enable the rebuilding of communities, of infrastructure but, most importantly of a peaceful resolution to the dreadful conflict we are seeing.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. Many households are feeling the pinch of cost-of-living pressures. Can the minister outline to the Senate what action the Albanese Labor government is taking to make things easier for families who are experiencing cost-of-living pressures, including through the social services portfolio?

I thank Senator Smith for her question, because I know she understands the many pressures that ordinary Australians are under at the moment. We know that many Australians, including recipients of government payments, are struggling in the face of cost-of-living pressures. That's why the Albanese Labor government is working every single day to deliver $23 billion worth of targeted and meaningful support.

We've strengthened the safety net for all Australians when they need it. We have lifted the base rate of working age and student payments to provide extra support to those doing it tough. We are providing direct support to hundreds of thousands of families in different settings and circumstances. This support is flowing into family budgets right now.

For single parents, who face the difficult challenge of balancing work and care on their own, we have expanded eligibility for the single parent payments until their youngest child turns 14—up from eight. As a result, over 65,000 single parents are receiving nearly $200 a week extra per fortnight.

For parents of newborns, the government is delivering the biggest investment in paid parental leave since it was introduced. We have expanded access to more families, including by introducing a $350,000 family income limit and made it much easier for both parents to share the care. Then, from 2024, we will expand the scheme by an extra six weeks—reaching six months in 2026. That's over $5,000 extra to help cover time off around the birth of the baby and help juggle care and work.

Senator Marielle Smith, a first supplementary?

Minister, after a decade of inaction by the former Liberal-National government in addressing housing and rental affordability, many families are struggling with the cost of housing. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government has sought to address a decade of inadequacy in housing policy and is helping families with rising rents?

I thank Senator Smith for her first supplementary question, and, yes, I can answer that question.

We know Australians have been struggling to meet the rising cost of rents, which is why we've increased the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent to 1.1 million households—the largest increase of the payments in over 30 years. For many families more rent assistance works alongside the extra support that we are delivering through electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and investment in bulk-billing. It's also important to remember that rent assistance is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to improving rental and housing affordability. The best solution over the longer term is to increase housing supply, and that has been a key focus for our government.

Senator Marielle Smith, a second supplementary?

Many Australians not currently in the workforce want to work, and it's critical that they have the necessary supports to re-enter the workforce. Can the minister outline what steps the Albanese Labor government is taking to support those Australians to find well-paid jobs, helping put more money into the pockets of families and workers?

I thank Senator Smith for her second supplementary question. The Albanese Labor government has overseen record job creation, and our employment white paper sets out a plan to help more Australians take up these opportunities. We're delivering on our commitment to get wages moving with annualised average wage growth of four per cent—almost double the average under our predecessors.

We've permanently enhanced the pension work bonus and doubled the employment income nil rate period, helping more people on working age payments and pensions to take up job opportunities. Our government has a comprehensive and positive plan to deliver cost-of-living relief to millions of Australians. We're working hard to deliver measures that will make a real difference now and into the future.

My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. With Australians in the grip of a cost-of-living crisis, will the Albanese government rule out creating any more politicians in this term of parliament? If Labor wants to create more politicians, will you first take your proposals for more politicians to an election and see what the Australian people think of your priorities?

I thank Senator McGrath for his question. As he would well know, this issue of parliamentary representation has been the subject of discussion and report by the recent JSCEM inquiry. The inquiry this week handed down its final report on the last election. One of the issues, of course, which it asks the government to consider is representation of particularly the territories in this place. It also raises the issue more generally of representation in the parliament. As an initial comment, I would—

Senator McGrath, on a point of order?

A point of order on relevance, the question was quite specific about will the Albanese government rule out creating any more politicians? I would ask you direct the minister to the question, please.

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

I can tell you this, Senator McGrath: we don't want any more coalition MPs in this place. We don't want any more. We've had enough. We've got enough of you already. We don't need any more of you. We don't want any more of you doing the sort of damage that you did.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Seriously! Order! Minister, please continue.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, I have spent quite a few seconds calling this place to order and the minute the minister got to his feet you began to get disorderly again. That is disrespectful. I'm asking for silence. Minister.

Ask some questions about the Victorian redistribution.

Senator Ayres! Order! Order across the chamber.

We've received the report of the JSCEM committee. You're on that committee, Senator McGrath. The government has a range of recommendations which include a whole lot of aspects of— (Time expired)

Senator McGrath, a first supplementary?

How much will these extra politicians cost the Australian taxpayers, who are dealing with a cost-of-living crisis?

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Well, on the point of order, the question is intrinsically hypothetical. It's about something which—

 Order! Senator Cash.

I appreciate that but it goes to a hypothetical outcome, not to government policy.

Senator Birmingham, on a point of order?

On the point of order, the minister in his answer directly referenced the JSCEM report with its recommendations for additional senators and additional members of the House of Representatives. It is clearly a supplementary question in order then for Senator McGrath to ask what that would cost.

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I'm going to rule it in order. It is part of the JSCEM report, and I'll call the minister to answer the question.

I thank Senator McGrath for his first supplementary question. What we do know about politicians in this place is that, if they are supported by Mr Dutton, they don't get the support of the coalition. Of course, we've just seen—

A point of order on relevance: the question was quite specific in terms of the cost of extra politicians. Peter Dutton does not support extra politicians. He wants better politicians and more common sense.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Cash! Seriously, you've had so much to say. I invite you, at some other point, to make your contribution.

Just responding to that point of order: if Mr Dutton—

Honourable senators interjecting—

There is disorder across the chamber!

If Mr Dutton wants better politicians, why hasn't Senator Rennick been re-endorsed? I understand he was one of the—

Senator Farrell, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that.

I withdraw.

Thank you. I'll bring you back to the question.

Minister Watt, you are not being helpful, nor are the interjections back.

The simple proposition here is that the issue has been raised by the JSCEM. You're on the committee, as I've repeatedly said, Senator McGrath. You're entitled—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I invite all of those senators who have been constantly interjecting to make their comments at some other point. Senator McGrath, a second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government wasted $450 million on the failed referendum. You are now proposing at least an additional 50 MPs and 32 senators. Isn't this another example of you having the wrong priorities in a cost-of-living crisis?

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'm waiting! Senator Cash, again! Senator O'Sullivan, again!

I thank Senator McGrath for his second supplementary question. We're doing nothing of the sort.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

In question time on Monday 27 November 2023 I undertook to provide further information in response to questions relating to national security asked of me by Senator Birmingham in my capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I advised the chamber that the Prime Minister is regularly briefed on national security matters. I refer senators to the Prime Minister's answers in the House this week on this issue, the public statement of the Deputy Prime Minister dated 18 November 2023, and the comments yesterday from the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, who said of the incident: 'It was unsafe. It was unprofessional. We don't have a direct relationship between our navy and the PLA Navy. This is an issue for government. I'm very comfortable with the way the government has dealt with it.'

I seek leave to move a motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, and at the request of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza to be moved immediately.

Today is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. There is nothing more urgent on this day than for the Australian government to call for an immediate ceasefire between all of the parties in Gaza. The current truce agreement is not even close to the time required for Gaza and its people to begin to heal. I will read to the chamber the words of a Palestinian journalist in Gaza, Afaf:

Many of us did not dare go out on the first day of the temporary truce in Gaza. We were too afraid it would not hold. On the second day, we gathered our courage—

our belongings—

and stepped out.

The daylight illuminated the destruction caused by Israel's non-stop bombardment of Gaza over the past seven weeks. We did not recognise our neighbourhoods and streets.

…   …   …

The destruction was the first thing we saw. Then came the pain.

Amid the panic, alarm and scurrying to survive the bombs, many of us did not fully grasp the loss of loved ones, the wounds sustained, the lives, bodies and dreams shattered and destroyed. Many could not bury their dead. Many could not grieve.

…   …   …

This pause has been more painful than the 50 days before it. It is the first time the people of Gaza were able to look at their open wounds, martyred children, slaughtered families, destroyed homes and shattered lives. Just imagine living for six days just to prepare and wait for your death on the seventh.

We have witnessed so much courage, strength and bravery of Palestinians within Gaza since 7 October. The bravery within a father who dives back into the rubble knowing that they are engaged in the digging out of their child; the bravery of mothers, despite their deepest fears, writing the names of their children upon the arms that have embraced them, so that their limbs can be identified if they're killed; the bravery of children who have lost their entire family and are orphaned in a dark and broken hospital; the bravery of medical workers who operate on patients without anaesthetic or painkillers, knowing that it is the only way; and the bravery of humanitarian workers who don't know whether they will survive, let alone whether those they support will survive.

Yet this government is not brave enough even to call for a ceasefire in the name of humanity. In the last seven weeks, it has not been able to find the courage even to stop its arms exports or admit that a total of $13 million in arms and ammunitions over the last five years have been sent to the State of Israel from Australia. The United Nations has said that there are billions of dollars that will be required in aid to Gaza, and yet this government has provided no more than $25 million. This is an insult to the humanity of the Australian community. It is a profound failure of moral clarity. It is a profound failure to connect the work we do and the responsibility we have in this place with the human beings in Australia and around the world who need the courage of people in decision-making spaces right now to match theirs.

I call on the government to choose the side of history that you want to be on when we look back collectively on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People next year. Right now, the Labor government is leaving a bloody stain on its legacy and on the broader Australian democracy. It must call for a ceasefire now.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question before the Senate is that the question be put.

The question before the chamber is that the standing orders be suspended.

I move:

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

Honestly, where do you even start with this rabble that we see on the other side? It is beyond embarrassment that the people that occupy the government benches—I'm not even sure they realise they're the benches they're sitting in; nor do they realise what the role of governing is—clearly don't understand the fundamental basis of every single government this country has ever had, which is that its primary role is to keep Australians safe. What we see is that those opposite are absolutely failing on every account. There's the lack of cohesiveness that we see from those opposite. We have Minister Wong yelling at this side of the chamber for allegedly playing politics, while we have Minister Watt getting up with nothing but personal smears. If they want to talk about playing politics, perhaps they should turn around and talk to their own colleagues and suggest that when politics is played well and done right you play the ball and not the man.

We see from those opposite that fear has set in. They are feeling very nervous as more and more commentators talk about this term being a oncer; that they're a one-term government. The nerves are setting in. Everyone is getting a bit antsy and a bit edgy. So what do they do? They lower themselves to personal attacks. Yesterday we heard from one senator a two-minute statement that was actually nothing but smears on the opposition leader, Mr Dutton. There were absolute smears, there was denigration, there were imputations and there were plenty of points of order—something you don't normally see during two-minute statements. Those opposite have absolutely nothing to say about their own achievements because there are none—absolutely none.

Whilst we get answers when we ask about cost-of-living pressures and Australians doing it tough, we hear from those opposite: 'Don't worry about it. We've got a 10-point plan. We've done $23 billion in cost-of-living pressure savings measures.'

Hear, hear!

But what we hear is that caucus—I'll take Senator Walsh's interjection, because I'm not sure whether she was one of the ones who asked for crisis talks from the Treasurer to come and speak to the backbench because they were concerned that the 10-point plan is not even as good as the piece of paper it's written on; that the $23 billion they allege to be a cost-of-living savings measure for Australian families is having no impact whatsoever. There is nothing that is cutting through. There is nothing that's taking pressure off any Australian families. If you listen to those opposite, those of you in the gallery, you've never had it so good. It's all going tickety-boo under them. There's no cost-of-living crisis. Everyone's having a great time thanks to the achievements of this government.

I know cost-of-living pressures are hitting every Australian in their hip pocket, but what is even more concerning is the fact that this government has been caught asleep at the wheel when it comes to the recent High Court decision. We've heard consistent contradictions. I think that's the only thing we can call them: consistent contradictions. We had Minister Watt come in on day one and say no-one was going to be released until the reasons came out. Then he came in the next day and said: 'Actually, I have to correct the record. People are being released as we speak.' Then we had Minister O'Neil and Minister Giles out there saying: 'There's nothing we can do. This is a decision of the High Court. We need to respect the High Court.' That was quickly repudiated by the fact that what is the point of the government if you don't legislate? What we're actually here for is to put laws in place, and those laws are there to protect Australians.

Those opposite missed the boat. They were caught asleep at the wheel. They're now talking about the relationship between the Greens and the coalition in what was one vote in the House this week. I can promise you: if we had a little diagram of that, there's much more collusion over there between the Greens and Labor. They just get upset when the Greens cheat on them and come over to us—clearly monogamy's not their strong suit. They talk about the bill that they're going to look to for preventive detention. There is no bill. The reason no-one has seen it, can talk about it or can give any details is that there is no bill. It hasn't been drafted yet. This is how asleep at the wheel this government is. We've had Clare O'Neil talking tough, saying, 'No-one is going home until we have these measures in place.'

I have a point of order—

Oh, I'm sorry—the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Urquhart. I apologise. The Minister for Home Affairs says we're not going home. But, unfortunately, we may go home, because the bill is not even drafted. This government is a joke, and you need to apologise to the Australian people.

The opposition's approach to the challenges and the opportunities that our nation is facing today comes straight out of the Liberal Party's tired old playbook. It's straight out of the bottom drawer. When it's time for them to work together with us, unite the country and put the community first, they don't put their heads up. They put them right down—

There's no bill! We need to see the bill. Draft the bill—we might support you.

and they reach right down, Senator Hughes. They reach right down to that bottom drawer, where your playbook lives. They're talking down our nation's security and literally shouting at us across the chamber instead of working with us to fix your laws.

Senator Hughes?

On a point of order, Deputy President, I feel I was being impugned there by Senator Walsh, because she's actually misleading the Senate in saying that we're not working with her when there is no bill to work on. She should be honest with the Australian—

Senator Hughes, please be seated. There is no point of order.

The opposition are shouting at us instead of working with us to fix your laws, which were struck down. They're voting with the Greens to slow down our response instead of working with us. They're seeking to divide the community rather than to unite. Let's be clear: building social cohesion in this country should be a bipartisan goal. Community security in this country should be a bipartisan issue. But, whenever the opportunity arises, whether they're in government or in opposition, they love nothing better than to reach into that bottom drawer and pull out the tired old Liberal playbook—page 1: division; page 2: fear; and page 3: opposition. What's on the rest of the pages? Nothing. They're blank. The opposition have nothing positive to offer our nation—not in the last wasted decade of their government and not today. Nothing.

Let's finally talk about some facts about our nation's security today. Let's talk about our community's security. Let's look at some facts about our economic security today. After a decade of cuts, freezes, low wages and attacks on the poor, Australians today can be incredibly proud of their hard work. There are more than 600,000 people in new jobs in the economy. That is a good thing for those Australians and a good thing for our nation. Unemployment is at historic lows, and that is a good thing for everyone who wants to find work. It's a good thing for our nation. Wages are growing at their fastest pace in a quarter of a century. That is a good thing for people's ability to support themselves and their families.

It is a good thing for our nation, Senator Hanson. More women are working too, and for better wages as well. That is a good thing. It is a good thing for women, and it is a good thing for our nation. Finally, this country is positioned to take advantage of the renewables revolution that is on offer to us right now, today, to add value to our critical resources here and export our renewable technologies and renewable energy to the world. Our economic security will provide the strong foundation that our country needs as we move forward through this global, post-pandemic inflation challenge—a challenge which we can see from today's results is moderating, Senator Hanson. After two Labor budgets, our budget position is secure as well. We have the first surplus in 15 years. We have one of the strongest budget balances amongst the G20. Our AAA credit rating is secure.

The opposition should be standing with the government to continue to strengthen our economic security. That's what those opposite should be doing. They should be supporting new jobs in renewable energy, instead of opposing them and proposing nuclear reactors in everyone's backyard. It's the only idea I've heard of from those opposite.

Who's playing the fear card now, Jess?

Do you have another idea, Senator Scarr? I haven't heard it. I haven't heard a single idea from you on energy policy or economic security apart from that one. You put it forward. It's your idea. We'll focus on the solutions that Australians need while you focus on fear and you focus on division.

Credibility—we heard the sermon about fear and division and then what did we hear right at the end of the speech? 'The coalition are proposing a nuclear reactor in everyone's backyard'—give me a break. The fact of the matter is that nearly every single OECD country around the world, nearly every single advanced economy around the world, has nuclear power and Australia doesn't. That puts us at a material disadvantage.

Under the opposition leader, the coalition and my very good friend Ted O'Brien, the MP for Fairfax, have been running a very good campaign to educate and to try to get a discussion going around nuclear power because the reality is that, unless we move forward on that front, this country is going to be at a material disadvantage to all of our trading competitors around the world. That's the reality. 'Nuclear reactors in everyone's backyard'—give me a break. There was a sermon on fear and then 'nuclear reactors in everyone's backyard'. Goodness me.

If you listened to the last contribution, you would think everything is wonderful in Australia. Let me show you the canary in the coalmine. The Salvation Army said in their media release in the lead-up to Christmas:

This year's appeal coincides with new research by the Salvos, which found over 12.8 million Australians (62%) are more stressed about their finances this year compared to 52% at the same time last year.

Over the last 12 months in the lead-up to Christmas the number of Australia's concerned about their finances has gone up by hundreds of thousands. That's what's happening on the ground.

Australians will be going into debt to pay for Christmas. These figures are shocking. Thirty-one per cent will be seeking to use a credit card to pay for Christmas expenses. That's up from 18 per cent last year, so an extra 13 per cent of Australians will be putting their Christmas expenses, so they can enjoy Christmas with their family and friends, on their credit card, for goodness sake, and will be paying extraordinary interest rates. Fifteen per cent will be relying on buy-now pay-later options. That's up 7.6 per cent, so twice as many Australians will be going into debt to finance their Christmas holidays. Yet those in the gallery just heard a government senator tell us that everything is wonderful in Australia. They are so disconnected from the Australian people. It's extraordinary.

Listen to this from the Salvation Army. This isn't a politician; these are people at the frontline in terms of helping people in need in this country. They said:

… almost a quarter of Australians (23%) will struggle to afford enough food to eat this Christmas …

What country are we living in? This is Australia, for goodness sake. Twenty-three per cent will struggle to find enough money to afford enough food to eat this Christmas. Yet you just heard that contribution from a government senator telling us how wonderful everything is—there are renewable jobs and everything is fantastic. Twenty-three per cent, nearly a quarter, of Australians will struggle to put enough food on their Christmas table.

You heard the senator opposite refer to today's inflation figures as if they were good news. Well, whilst Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, referred to the supposed 'good news' that came out from the ABS, I actually looked into the detail. Don't listen to the spin and the talking points; always go into the detail. And what does the detail tell us, in terms of the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released today? The cost of food has gone up over the last 12 months by 5.3 per cent—5.3 per cent. That's food—one of the basics. Senator Gallagher never mentioned food in her contribution earlier today, and that's the reason: it went up from 4.7 per cent in September to 5.3 per cent now—an extra 0.6 of a per cent. Housing, plus 6.1 per cent; transport, plus 5.9 per cent; insurance and financial services, plus 8.6 per cent—this is the reality of Australia under Labor. (Time expired)

I think the people on the other side are misleading the chamber, in that they seem to think that we are saying everything's rosy. We are continually saying, and we understand, that household budgets are tight. We have said that for a very long time. We also understand, and we've recognised, as we've stated, the impact from the cost-of-living pressures. We understand those and inflation. We know that they are being felt around kitchen tables around the country. We know that people are paying more for things that they can't do without. We understand all that. But the Albanese government's No. 1 priority remains addressing the inflation challenge.

We did hear Senator Gallagher, in her answer to the question asked by Senator Birmingham, say that the pleasing results on inflation that have been released today in the monthly CPI show that inflation is moderating. So we know it's moderating. We know that inflation has been the defining challenge of the economy; it has led to the cost-of-living pressures bridging across Australian households. The results did show that inflation peaked in the December quarter, but it is continuing to moderate. That has been one of the major priorities that we've been addressing. That's why—again, because of inflation—we are rolling out the billions of dollars of cost-of-living relief that's carefully calibrated to take some of the edge off some of the pressures that people are under, which, the ABS data shows, shaved half a percentage point off inflation in the September quarter. That's relief that those over on that side voted against in this place.

This month, we've tripled the bulk-billing incentives to support 11.6 million eligible Australians, including children, pensioners and other concession card holders, to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. It means that, if you've got a sick child, or you're a pensioner or a concession card holder, you can access a GP without any out-of-pocket costs. You'll be bulk-billed. That is a magnificent saving for 11.6 million eligible Australians.

The Housing Australia Future Fund is kicking off. That's supporting the delivery of 20,000 social homes and 10,000 affordable homes across the country.

There are further instalments on our energy rebates, and the ABS data shows that, without those rebates, prices in the September quarter would have increased 18.6 per cent instead of 4.2 per cent. I met with a guy the other day in Devonport, my home town, and he said to me, 'Thank you.' I said, 'What for?' He said, 'Thank you for the energy rebate, because it has made the cost of living for me, on a low income, easier.'

We've done all this at the same time that we've delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years. We've overseen wages picking up to grow at around the fastest rate in a decade. And we've seen over 560,000 jobs created since we came to government. That is a record for a new government. So those over on that side might think—

Honourable senators interjecting—

I sat here and listened to contributions and I did not interrupt, so I would appreciate it if people didn't interrupt, because it is totally disrespectful.

Those are the issues: looking at jobs, coming in and creating those in the first year of government, and the cost-of-living relief in the employment white paper that was released in Adelaide in September included even more support for Australians who we know need it most. As part of that release of the employment white paper, we will make two key changes for pension and income support recipients to help ease the cost of the living and help people into work if they want to work. That includes starting on 1 January, pending the passage of the legislation, all new pension entrants over age pension age and eligible veterans will have a starting work bonus income bank balance of $4,000 rather than zero, and existing and new recipients will retain the current elevated maximum work bonus balance limit of $11,800, rather than $7,800.

There are many, many more things that I could go on with—electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increasing rent assistance, more Medicare bulk billing, cheaper medicines, boosting income support payments, fee-free TAFE training, building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and creating more jobs. We are getting on with that job.

What a rousing contribution that was! I almost fell asleep at the wheel.

So disrespectful!

There was no room for interjections, and that's because there was so much silence in the room. That is what you expect from this government. It's staggering. It's the sort of thing that JFK would have been proud of.

We are now facing the possibility of having that contribution replicated 32 times in this building, if the recommendations of the Labor dominated Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters are ultimately taken as a policy position of this government. For those playing at home—and let's hope there aren't many of them enduring what we've seen in the last little period, but there might be—and for anyone listening out there, I would ask them whether they had on their drink card game 'the introduction of yet more politicians into this building' as a line item. I certainly didn't have that one on my card six months ago. But the government are so focused on the big issues in town that they want more union organisers and labour lawyers and public servants to come and grace us with their contributions in this chamber, so much so that we're told, to the shock of those of us on this side of the chamber, we need another 28 House of Representatives MPs—another 28 times we'll have to endure that—and another 28 senators, which would represent an additional four senators per state and an additional four territory senators. What a pleasure that would be!

It's a bit squeezy!

Absolutely right, Senator Reynolds. I take that interjection as a useful contribution. But, having said that, if we don't have those extra MPs, we will miss out on Labor MPs posing with dogs. That'll be something we'll miss out on—the opportunity to pose with a dog. If you don't have policy, bring an animal! We'll also miss out on things like repetition of talking points in the chamber. That's another thing we'll miss out on if we don't have another 28 senators in this room. That will be disappointing.

What we won't miss out on is the calculation. I was sitting here listening to the question that was posed quite reasonably by this side of the chamber, which was: how much is this going to cost? You can comfortably say that every member of parliament in this place would cost upwards of $2 million a year, when you factor into account all the various salaries, the travel, the waffle. You've got to pay for the waffle. You can't not have the waffle! Who's looking out for the waffle? That's about $2 million per person, so you're looking at $150 million extra for that. So that ain't value for money.

Question agreed to.

I know I've only got two minutes, but that was a very interesting debate you were having there on the extra senators and the cost to the taxpayers. 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 school education.

I'll tell you what: the future of this nation is about our children and the education they're getting, and it is at the lowest it has ever been in our history. The kids are being dumbed down. Sixteen per cent of year 3 students and more than 20 per cent of year 9 students are at or below minimum standards in this country. Other countries are way ahead of us. I'm talking about Canada, England, Singapore, China—you name it. So many people are far ahead of us. I've been speaking about this for years. I spoke to the coalition government about it as well.

The fact is that you're pushing our teachers into the universities, when they should be back in the TAFE schools, the teachers colleges. That's where they should actually be learning to teach, and not going through the universities, which they don't need. We are pushing those through that are below standard, and that's why a lot of these teachers are illiterate themselves and cannot teach properly. They don't get support from the government. The curriculums that are being putting up are absolutely useless. We don't teach our kids about critical thinking. They are being brainwashed by the lefties that have been pushed through the university system. We are failing our future generations, and it is a shame.

Another big point here is that 47 per cent of Australian teachers are considering leaving, when we have fewer teachers now than we have ever had for the number of students. Do you know what the Palaszczuk government in Queensland want to do? Reduce it to four days a week. They want to shut schools down. That's what they want to do, in a situation where the kids don't even know where they are with their education. Seventy-five per cent of the teachers are burnt out. Why? Because they've lost control of their classrooms, because they can't control their classrooms. We are losing teachers in droves.

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 immigration policy.

We have a situation here where the Labor Party has become utterly subservient to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. They are acquiescing completely and abjectly to every single demand he's making on migration policy. The Labor Party have rolled over, and they're allowing Mr Dutton to scratch their collective tummies. They have accepted every single draconian amendment that Mr Dutton has put up to the Labor Party's recent migration legislation, including an amendment that required the Labor Party to vote against its own policy on mandatory sentencing. They've even said thank you to Mr Dutton for the way he's conducted himself. And yesterday Labor again allowed Mr Dutton to dictate their migration policy settings by announcing a new preventive detention regime, exactly as Mr Dutton called for only a couple of days ago.

Now, the problem with appeasing people like Mr Dutton is that, every time you give him what he wants, he will just take another giant step to the right and go again. The truth doesn't matter, reality doesn't matter and consistency doesn't matter to Mr Dutton. What matters is that he is dragging the Labor Party to his preferred policy position on migration.

The trouble with Labor is that it is so fixated on becoming subservient and acquiescent to Mr Dutton on migration policy that it is failing to take the action and to intervene on the massive challenges facing Australians. It is failing to intervene to stop big corporations from profiteering and price gouging. It's failing to intervene to bust up the market power of Coles and Woolworths, the big supermarket duopoly, and, as a result, Australians are paying too much for their food and too much for their groceries. It's failing to intervene to override the RBA on interest rates—in fact, it wants to give away the power that it currently has to do so. It's failing to intervene to make unlimited rent increases unlawful. It's failing to take action strongly enough on climate change. It's failing to stop approving new coal and gas projects. It's failing to stop native forest logging.

Labor needs to understand that it is here to govern. It is here to intervene when things are not going well. It's here to rein in corporate power and it's here to ensure that food and grocery prices are affordable for ordinary Australian people. It's not doing that, because it is 100 per cent focused, in the most blinkered of ways, on delivering Mr Dutton's migration agenda.

What we will see, I predict confidently, is that now that the Labor Party has given Mr Dutton absolutely everything he wants on migration policy over the last three weeks—since the High Court announced its decision which effectively rendered indefinite immigration detention unlawful in Australia—the next set of demands will come forward from Mr Dutton. The Labor Party needs to draw a line in the sand. The Labor Party needs to tell Mr Dutton that enough is enough: 'We're not going to be subservient to your every whim and we're not going to simply roll over and do whatever you ask us to do on migration policy. In fact, we're going to step up and start to govern. We're going to rein in the big corporations who are profiteering and price gouging. We're going to take action to make sure there are no more coal and gas mines approved in Australia. We're going to make unlimited rent rises unlawful. We're going to step in and use the power that we have to override the RBA, which is smashing interest rates up and punishing poor people and young people for a problem that they aren't causing.' That's what the government needs to do.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices this afternoon, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for seven sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the National Portrait Gallery of Australia Regulations 2023.

by leave—I move:

That the consideration of private senators' bills not be proceeded with on Thursday 30 November 2023.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

President as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I am pleased to present the Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023, which amends the Customs Act 1901 to impose a penalty leading to a product ban on importation into Australia of goods involving child labour.

The focus of the bill is on allowing importers to change their supply choices, the penalties including bans which are included in this bill are a last resort.

The bill seeks to keep families together and protected from forced child labour.

The bill extends the power of the Department of Home Affairs to take action in relation to a good being imported into Australia that is reasonably suspected of having a good involving child labour in the supply chain. This could be a material that forms part of the finished product. Or it could be the product itself was produced or assembled using child labour.

The bill does not cover secondary touchpoints such as packaging, transport or machinery used in production. These are not common occurrences and almost impossible to identify. The bill concentrates on the two areas any importer should rightly know—what is in the good they are importing and who made it.

In this bill the definition of child labour includes any work, whether paid, unpaid or forced. As a result of placing the emphasis on education, this bill is designed to break the poverty cycle affecting children and their families in developing nations.

The definition of child labour draws on the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition which considers the education status of the child. Child labour occurs where a child aged under 14 misses compulsory schooling to work.

The definition of schooling is important. The ILO treats 14 as the point at which leaving school does not economically disadvantage the individual. Many countries though have mandated education that ends at much younger ages. Parts of South Asia are only 9, the Congo where child labour is used in cobalt mining has a compulsory school age of 16.

This provision—using the school leaving age as the cut-off for "child labour" does not let any country "off the hook". It is not Australia's place to specify a higher age for work than the country itself requires. The whole point of the ILO definition is to ensure every child receives compulsory schooling, and in that process, is equipped with knowledge to advance their economic status. It remains a sovereign right of each country to specify at what age that is.

The definition of schooling applies whether there is a school available or not. Restricting work opens the opportunity for school. Work is also available outside of school hours.

Legislation to eliminate child labour from supply chains has failed around the world. Only the United States has passed such legislation. The failure often results from conflagrating adult slave labour with child labour in the same bill. These are different issues and require different solutions. For this reason the bill only addresses child labour.

A second reason for frequent failure is a perverse humanitarian justification for child labour. Children who work contribute financially to their families and village. Some argue that banning child labour takes away this income and results in more hardship.

Child labour reform done correctly does not have to look like that.

Drawing on the ILO definition makes child labour about education. As a result this bill does not fall into the trap that so many well-meaning attempts have fallen into over the years. The 48-month arc between detection and banning means importers have time to work with suppliers down their supply chain to correct their labour practices.

This process allows ethical suppliers to ramp up production to meet additional demand. For example mines take time to ramp up, coffee plants do not produce a first crop for four years, and expanding a textile factory is a multi-year undertaking. Knee-jerk bans will lead to supply shortages that may encourage dishonest behaviour that undermines the intention of the bill.

Allowing a 48-month arc allows villages to rework their hiring practices and ensure children under the school leaving age are in school and income is instead coming from workers of an appropriate age.

The bill will not lead to price rises. Child labour is about exploitation, cruel exploitation for profit. Disreputable companies who use child labour bank the profit themselves. The final price Australians pay for these goods would be the same whether child or fair labour was used.

President, the bill operates through exception. This means most importers will not have cause to review their supply chain. Every importer should however ask themselves if there is a possibility their good may be a good involving child labour and investigate their supply chain to ensure this is not the case.

As good corporate citizens, importers should be doing that now. The bill has a delayed start of 6 months which allows the Department to resource the provisions. This allows importers who suspect they may be importing a good involving child labour to at least know for sure, so they can start corrective action.

There are multiple organisations who track goods involving child labour. Once the Act comes into force those organisations, or any concerned party would be able to advise Australian Border Force of a suspected good. If an authorised officer (in Australian Border Force), reasonably suspects that goods are imported, or intended to be imported, are goods involving child labour, the officer can issue a notice requiring the importer to provide further information or documents about the goods. Following the importer providing the information or documents, the officer can give another notice requiring the importer to take particular action to reduce the risk that the goods involve child labour..

The importer has three months on each notice to comply with the notice. . The importer will be subject to either civil penalties or a ban on the importation of goods if the goods are imported at a time when the importer has not complied with the notice. The issuing of the notice is subject to judicial review..

One Nation has written the bill in this manner because we are not trying to fine anyone, or ban anyone, we are trying to make sure every Australian can go into an electronics store, a paint shop, a clothing store or into the supermarket and buy a product that is free from child labour.

The issuing of the notice is subject to judicial review.

The bill imposes a sliding scale of penalties leading to a total ban on importation after 48 months. A sliding scale is used to allow importers time to check their supply lines, and then make changes necessary to become compliant with this legislation.

Sliding scale discourages importers from stalling or covering up with no intention of actually fixing the problem. The longer they get away with deception the higher the ultimate penalty. Worst case will be an immediate ban.

There is a deception happening right now. Some household names and internet cult heroes who protest their products are free from child labour award supply contracts to companies whose business plan is based on child labour. This is public information.

There are companies who, for a fee, provide a certificate of compliance to these mega corporations which is fraudulent. Not worth the paper it is written on. For the first time this reputation white washing is trapped and penalised in this bill, using a penalty for providing false or misleading information.

It is time for the truth to come out and for these corporations to fix their supply chain.

Penalties are calculated on a percentage of the value of the good, or a fixed penalty where the value of the good is not able to be determined, whichever is greater.

Prohibition under 51B of this bill is automatic, if at the time of the import, the importer has failed to:

a) comply with the requirements of a notice to give information or documents or to take a particular action in relation to the goods; and

b) 48 months has elapsed since the end of the period in which the importer was required to comply with the notice.

It should be obvious the bill is not a bill that will result in massive fines being imposed or kneejerk bans on goods that the country may actually need. The bill is designed to allow the Department to work with importers of offending products to change their supply chain.

Penalties are not retrospective. Even if a good is identified as involving child labour the importer can work with the Department to correct the breach and as a result avoid a fine.

The Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023 seeks to prevent products being made using child labour, instead encouraging miners and manufacturers to change their practices. The bill seeks to keep families together and protected from forced child labour.

The bill does not seek to deprive families of even a meagre income, the reverse is true. The bill seeks to ensure every child can go to school and break the poverty cycle while work falls to those older children who have been to school and who can now take their place in the labour market.

I recommend the Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023 to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 398, relating to the infrastructure review authored by Mr Mike Mrdak AO, was agreed to on 27 November 2023, requiring the review to be tabled by 5 pm on 28 November 2023, and

(ii) the order has not been complied with, as the Minister has only tabled the executive summary to the report and not the full review, as ordered by the Senate; and

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim over the documents and orders the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table the Independent strategic review of the Infrastructure Investment Program, in full, by no later than 5 pm on 29 November 2023.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Cash, I move general business notices of motion Nos 413 and 414 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 413

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on 30 November 2023:

(a) all signed and unsigned ministerial submissions received by the Attorney-General's office relating to the Australian Human Rights Commission's appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor;

(b) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; and

(c) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Prime Minister and/or his office in relation to Australian Human Rights Commission's appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 414

That there be laid on the table by the President of the Human Rights Commission, by no later than midday on 30 November 2023:

(a) all correspondence between the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General and/or his office in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor;

(b) all correspondence between the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor;

(c) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence between the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and Commissioners in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; and

(d) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence relating to the decision of whom to appoint as legal representation, in relation to the Australian Human Rights Commission's appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor.

The question is that general business notices of motion Nos. 413 and 414, standing in the name of Senator Cash and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 415 relating to the stage 3 tax cuts before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 1 pm on 6 December 2023:

(a) any modelling undertaken by the Department of the Treasury since 21 May 2022 on the likely impact of the Stage 3 tax cuts on inflation;

(b) any modelling undertaken by the Department of Finance since 21 May 2022 on the likely impact of the Stage 3 tax cuts on inflation;

(c) any correspondence between the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance since 21 May 2022 regarding the likely impact of the Stage 3 tax cuts on inflation;

(d) any correspondence between the Department of the Treasury and the Treasurer since 21 May 2022 regarding the likely impact of the Stage 3 tax cuts on inflation;

(e) any correspondence between the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance since 21 May 2022 regarding the likely impact of the Stage 3 tax cuts on inflation;

(f) any research and modelling undertaken by the Reserve Bank of Australia since 21 May 2022 on the likely impact of the Stage 3 tax cuts on inflation; and

(g) any correspondence since 21 May 2022 regarding the likely impact of the Stage 3 tax cuts on inflation between the Reserve Bank of Australia and:

  (i) the Department of Finance,

  (ii)   Treasury,

  (iii) the Minister for Finance, and

  (iv) the Treasurer.

The question is the general business notice of motion No. 415 standing in the name of Senator David Pocock as amended be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

The government has said it's happy to have its opposition to this motion taken, so we will cancel the division.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Public Service, by no later than 1 pm on 6 December 2023, the full copy of Ms Lynelle Briggs AO's final report delivered to the Prime Minister following her recent inquiry into possible breaches of the APS Code of Conduct by Mr Michael Pezzullo AO.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 416, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023), amends the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny Act 2011 to allow the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human rights (PJCHR) to consider the rights contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, known as the UNDRIP.

The UNDRIP is historic, it is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of Indigenous peoples around the world, and not just First Nations people of this continent we now call Australia. The UNDRIP is particularly significant because First Nations people of this continent, Elders, academics and activists, were involved in its drafting.

Despite this country endorsing the UNDRIP in 2009, and committing at international forums to take actions to implement the UNDRIP and promote the equal enjoyment of all rights for our people, there has been no meaningful action.

The Australian Government has failed to implement the UNDRIP into law, policy, and practice across all levels of government.

This amendment barely scratches the bare minimum of what is required to achieve justice for First Peoples, and is not a substitute for implementing UNDRIP into Australian Law.

This is a simple recommendation that has broad support. The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended this, and unequivocally supports the amendment, alongside leading human rights academics, civil society, and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, recommended this amendment in her report after her 2017 visit.

It is uncontroversial, common sense, and critically important to ensure that human rights as they apply to First Peoples are at the very least able to be considered in the deliberation, development and review of policy, legislation and practice.

There is urgent need to seek, respect and put into practice the input of First Peoples on issues that affect them, to observe, respect and promote their inherent rights which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.

Parliamentarians must ensure that First Peoples from each language group impacted by legislation participate at every stage of the legislative development process, to co-design solutions that are feasible, viable, desirable, user-centric, and compliant with the UNDRIP and the rights to self-determination, and free, prior and informed consent.

Realising these rights is a key challenge as pointed out by Taungurung man of the Kulin Nation, Jarrod Hughes, who said the understanding of self-determination must move beyond platitudes; it is necessary to develop mechanisms which translate principle into practice.

The Productivity Commission Review on the National Agreement on Closing the Gap stated that any semblance of shared decision-making is rarely achieved in practice, there is a 'government's know best' attitude, and "too many government agencies implementing versions of shared decision-making that involve consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on a predetermined solution, rather than collaborating on the problem and co-designing a solution."

The adequacy of how this input and participation into the legislative development process is facilitated is the responsibility of all parliamentarians, and this engagement should be assessed by the PJCHR, in the same manner as human rights impacts are currently considered.

However, the inherent rights and freedoms of the First People of this country should be more than a consideration where compliance is scrutinised by the PJCHR, an advisory body whose decisions are non-binding, in a system where core human rights are procedurally ignored, breached and legislated away.

The government has a long, well-documented record of serious human rights violations, of not just First Nations rights, but all human rights. As outlined by Caitlin Reiger, CEO, Human Rights Law Centre "as a wealthy, stable democracy, Australia could lead the world on human rights, yet too often Australian governments fail to respect people's human rights in critical areas."

Communities suffer a range of rights violations in quality of life, safety from the state and empowerment, and are vulnerable to arbitrary or political arrest, such as

This situation is in part due to the unique status of this country amongst other democratic nations, where Parliament is the only body capable of engaging in processes of rights protection that extend across the full spectrum of human rights that this country has agreed to be bound by. No role is provided to the courts, nor is there at the federal level a national Bill of Rights, Human Rights Act or any other instrument that could allow the courts to strike down laws that contravene the spectrum of human rights.

A key example is the Northern Territory Intervention legislation package, including the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act 2007, where the Federal Parliament with no warning, and no consultation, moved swiftly to seize control of the daily lives of residents in 73 targeted remote communities. It overrode the limited legislative protection offered by Racial Discrimination Act 1975 to introduce racist legislation that would have been unthinkable in non-Indigenous communities. This legislation was passed a mere nine hours after introduction and had severe consequences.

Although under international law, obligations for international human rights extend to all levels of government, from the Federal to the local, the lack of a Bill or Charter of Rights at the federal level, while not lessening the responsibility to comply, makes it extremely difficult to claim their rights or to hold the government to account for the obligations it already bears.

This highlights a key problem with the work of the PJCHR. While it does fantastic work, the scope of its power is limited, hindered by inadequate compliance by parliamentarians particularly as it relates to statements of compatibility, and substantively there is little evidence that its work has influenced policy, served as a trusted bipartisan guide for legislators, provoked public debate and enhanced human rights discourse in Australia.

Further as it does not receive bills until they are introduced into parliament, the PJCHR must race against time to undertake its full analytical, information gathering and reporting processes, which often involves complex human rights issues, before the passage of legislation. This is occurring within a political system where the Bills that contain egregious human rights abuses are introduced, debated, and passed within a day with bipartisan support from the Labor and Coalition parties. No legislation needs to be passed urgently enough to not be reviewed for its human rights compliance, and compliance with human rights, and the UNDRIP needs to be the priority.

Until we have a stronger human rights framework, it is the responsibility of every single person involved in the development of policy, practice, and legislation to put principle into practice and stand up for human rights, and for the health, happiness, and prosperity of all who draw life from this land, whatever the cost.

A new approach is needed, a rights-based approach, and it is the responsibility of everyone in this countries governance system to dismantle racist practice, policy and legislation and prioritise systemic change through the harmonisation of and coordination of legislation for compliance with human rights and the UNDRIP, across all levels of government.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

A letter has been received from Senator Tyrrell:

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

A $528 million ship that won't fit under the Tasman Bridge is just the tip of the iceberg of problems at the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD). The Labor Government needs to restore AAD funding back to 2022-23 levels, and resolve the ongoing issues before Tasmania loses its status as the gateway to the Antarctic.

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 made by the whips.

A lack of funding, failure to address competing priorities, and staffing woes have plagued the Australian Antarctic Division for far too long. We heard it all in the Senate inquiry into AAD funding. Tasmania relies on being the home of the AAD and its status as the gateway to the Antarctic, but the AAD is in chaos. There's a ship that won't fit under the Tasman Bridge, a toxic culture, and serious questions over the future of certain programs and expeditions. Any funding shortfalls will mean fewer jobs for Tasmanians, fewer scientists coming to Tassie for our research programs and a loss in our international standing as a leader in this field. Gutting the AAD would be a disaster for Tasmania, and that's why Tasmanians should care about what's happening with the AAD right now.

Tasmania is world leading in the scientific, policy, logistic and advanced manufacturing work that supports Australia's position in the Antarctic. The economic contribution of the AAD to the Tasmanian economy is huge. The AAD is based in Kingston and employs around 400 people. It also supports 947 jobs directly and even more indirectly through Tasmanian businesses and the wider community. The average wage at the AAD is approximately $130,000, which is 70 per cent more than the average Tasmanian wage. These huge wages by Tasmanian standards trickle down into our local economy. The Derwent Valley, the Huon Valley and Cygnet all benefit from these jobs being based in our part of the world.

We know that these jobs are at risk. Seventy non-ongoing employees haven't had their contracts renewed and 40 scientific positions were advertised but never filled. Recruitment has been put on hold indefinitely. Fewer people means that each project, program, voyage and expedition is at risk. It means fewer jobs for Tasmanians. The AAD also attracts people from across the world to Tasmania. Antarctic expeditions and conference delegates filled 7,000 hotel rooms in Hobart in 2019-20. That's a huge economic boost for not only Hobart but the whole state.

The AAD also supports the University of Tasmania's world-class Antarctic and Southern Ocean areas of study. At the moment UTAS hosts 52 PhD students and many more through bachelor's degrees. Our little university attracts domestic and international students who want to work in this field. If the systemic funding and culture issues within the AAD continue, they will jeopardise Australia's position as a leader in the Antarctic region and that would be devastating—devastating for Tassie's local economy and devastating for our world-class education. The writing is on the wall.

Hobart needs to remain the home of the AAD. The AAD needs to be properly funded to ensure that Tasmanian jobs aren't lost, but funding also has to be used efficiently. There are huge issues within AAD regarding budget mismanagement. The most obvious money pit of despair comes in the shape of a $528 million ship. The RSV Nuyina icebreaker is the problem child causing a ruckus in Australia's Antarctic program. It's too big to pass under Hobart's Tasman Bridge safely. So, instead of travelling four kilometres to Selfs Point to refuel, it now has to travel 660 kilometres to Burnie—saying 'Burn-eye' is the posh version! It's a waste of time, energy and, most importantly, money. It's expected that in the 2023-24 financial year it will cost almost a billion dollars for the ship to travel to Burnie, and that's just a temporary measure. The Tasmanian state government is currently looking at alternative sites for refuelling, or using fuel barges. Who do you think will have to pay for that? Tassie taxpayers will probably foot the bill for this stuff-up. Maybe it will come out of the AAD budget. Either way we can't afford it, and taxpayers are paying for the mistake.

We're still not sure how it happened in the first place. Resolving issues around RSV Nuyina should be a priority for the minister. If we want to keep our gateway status—and we definitely do—we need a ship that does what it was made to do and docks where it's supposed to. When science trips years in the making get cancelled at the last minute because there are issues with the ship, it causes a ripple effect. These scientists may never make it down to the ice to finish their research now. This is important research that was already funded. To have your life's work ripped out from under you because a ship isn't working properly is absolutely shattering. The Labor government needs to restore AAD funding back to 2022-23 levels and resolve the ongoing issues, especially with the ship, before Tasmania loses its status as the gateway to the Antarctic.

I say, 'Go team Tasmania,' and I congratulate Senator Tyrrell for bringing forward this matter of public interest today, which I feel very strongly about, as I'm sure all Tasmanians do—and even some Western Australians, perhaps as honorary Tasmanians as well! I really do have to go to the key point here in Senator Tyrrell's MPI, and that is about what is at stake because of Labor's decisions and mismanagement of this policy area. It is, as Senator Tyrrell points out in her MPI, our status as a gateway city to the Antarctic—the home of the Nuyina, the home of leading Antarctic science and research, and the home to all of those people that work in that field.

That is exactly what is at stake here. We have great institutions, like the AAD, whose funding woes we know all too well about. Of course, it is now incumbent upon government to come back to the table and do what we've done for so long here: have a multipartisan approach to supporting the AAD. There should be no politics—just our support across the board for the work of this agency, which is so critically important for climate science and fisheries management. Of course, in the new world we live in, where there is a heightened degree of geopolitical tension, we need to make sure that the AAD is well funded to manage the territory that is so important and of interest to other entities and states that may not have the same interests that we do.

Of course, Senator Tyrrell has rightly gone through the issues that we face here as a state. It's not just the people that work at AAD, or the people they collaborate with at CCAMLR or the CSIRO, or the international partners who come in and work with them on an annual basis. It's all of those contractors—those medium and small businesses that provide the services to the Australian Antarctic Division and other agencies. They're all at risk as well. The people that work in those businesses, who derive an income and support the regional economies that they live in, are all at stake because of what we're dealing with here.

I have to wonder what the Albanese Labor government has got against Tasmania. I ran through a list of things earlier today that the Tasmanian Labor Senate team is not doing for Tasmania, and I should have also mentioned standing up for the AAD. We talked about stadiums and lack of support for salmon farming, but I do wonder where they are on this very issue. It does have to be a multipartisan approach, and I acknowledge Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Tyrrell and others here who have expressed their unwavering support for this entity—the AAD—and for ensuring that it has adequate funds moving forward. I look forward to hearing from Senator Brown, who is down as the government speaker on this list, about what the Albanese Labor government intends to do to remedy this problem—to ensure that Tasmania and Hobart remain the gateway to Antarctica and the home for the RSV Nuyina. It's a terrific vessel, with its own problems, of course, and I'll come to those problems in a moment and also to those I believe are responsible for them, who aren't in this chamber.

What are Labor going to do? Are they going to fix this problem? Are they going to do what is incumbent on a government, whoever is in, to make sure that Australia does not jeopardise its place as a leader in Antarctic science? Or are they going to squib it and say that there's nothing to see here, giving us the usual lines, which we heard through the Senate inquiry that's currently underway.

As for the Nuyina, the Swiss army knife of the Antarctic, as it was coined by the former director of the AAD Mr Ellis—a terrific individual—and it not being able to fit under the bridge, well, that is a joke. What a ridiculous situation for us to be in. But do you know what? We are in this situation and it needs to be fixed. There are highly paid bureaucrats at both TasPorts and the AAD who should have one job—that is, to fix this. To send it to Burnie, a four-day round trip, to refuel to then head down to Antarctica is a ridiculous proposition. There must be cheaper and better approaches to this, and it is incumbent upon the government to fix this. Finger-pointing will not get us anywhere. Trying to say it is someone else's fault does not change a damn thing, and this is where the Tasmania Labor Senate team need to do their job. They need to stand up for Tasmania and they need to agree with the content of Senator Tyrrell's motion.

I'm looking forward to my good friend and colleague Senator Brown making a contribution on behalf of the Albanese Labor government to acquiesce to the demands of this letter, because, if she does not, if the Tasmanian Labor Senate team does not do what is right, then they are jeopardising Hobart's status as a gateway to the Antarctic, jeopardising the jobs of hundreds if not thousands of Tasmanians, and it would be a national if not international shame for us to lose that status. I look forward to that contribution and I hope it is the right one.

I too welcome this matter of public importance put by the Jacqui Lambie Network and thank Senator Tyrrell for bringing this matter forward today. As usual, we have Senator Duniam come in here and point fingers. He is not into blame games but he points the finger at a Labor government knowing full well that the problems that Senator Tyrrell has been highlighting happened under the former government's watch. But before we talk about—

Here it comes. Here we go—10 of neglect.

 I will take that interjection. Yes, it has been 10 years of neglect and chaos. But before I talk to the history of where we are today for the Senate, I would like to ease—and I'm sure Senator Duniam will be happy to hear—the concerns of the senators in this chamber by making it clear that the government has an unwavering commitment to the Australian Antarctic Division. An integral part of that commitment is about cleaning up the mess and the budget blowouts left by the former coalition government. I know Senator Duniam is well aware of the mess that was left behind. He has been part of a Senate inquiry about the budget blowout. It is a serious concern. It was a budget overspend.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Brown, can you please resume your seat. I would like to remind all senators in the chamber that interjections are disorderly. I am requesting that they cease.

As I was saying, it comes as no surprise to the Senate that, under the former government, Australia's Antarctic Program was mismanaged and lacked the leadership necessary for a world-class scientific resource organisation because of the former government's inaction and what can only be described as a mishandling of the Australian Antarctic Division. When Labor came into government, we had to spend crucial resources and time to have three separate inquiries in no less than 18 months.

The Albanese government is working hard to clean up Mr Morrison's mess. We are working hard to get the Antarctic Program back on a secure footing. Our priority is supporting critical science and permanent jobs in Tasmania. I will point out that there has been no government decision to cut the funding to the Antarctic Division. The world-class RSV Nuyina research ship is up and running after years—years—of delays under the former government, and taxpayers had to foot the bill for expensive rental boats to stand in for the RSV Nuyina while it was out of action. Our government has locked in significant long-term funding for the Antarctic Program. In fact, the AAD budget is going up every year for the next three years, with an additional $75 million for the program by 2026-27 as part of our $804 million investment over the next decade.

Earlier this year, Minister Plibersek tasked the Australian science council with undertaking a review of our Antarctic science funding model to inform the 10-year science plan. We are moving past the chaos and mismanagement of the former Liberal government. You can't get a better example of that mismanagement than the fact that the previous minister, Sussan Ley, delivered a ship that cannot even refuel because the Tasmanian government won't let it under the bridge. These are facts. This is true. It has caused considerable—

What are you going to do to fix it?

Senator Brown, please resume your seat. Interjections are disorderly. Please refrain from talking to each other across the chamber. Senator Brown.

As I was saying, it was under the watch of former minister Sussan Ley that a ship was delivered that can't refuel in Hobart because the Tasmania government won't let it under the bridge. So a decision by a former coalition minister has left Australian taxpayers out of pocket because the ship has to sail to Burnie to refuel. That is the calibre of what we've come to expect from the Liberals: completely inept and completely asleep at the wheel. I will again say to the chamber that the Australian government is completely committed to the Australian Antarctic— (Time expired)

Just a few weeks ago, at a parliamentary friends of the Antarctic Division meeting, we had some of the world's best climate and Antarctic scientists present to us. They presented this report, On thin ice, which I'm about to read from. Its full title is On thin ice: a science briefing about changes in Antarctic sea ice. It's a very chilling report. It says on the front page:

This life-support system for Earth may be faltering.

The scientists who gave us this presentation were from the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership and the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, led by Professor Nathan Bindoff. The message was very clear to senators and MPs who were at this meeting: what we've seen this year in the Antarctic is unprecedented. I think the exact words the scientists used were that they were 'confounded and dumbfounded' by what they had seen.

This report goes into a lot of detail. It's only four pages but it says, 'The sea ice is melting because the oceans are warming, and the oceans are warming because we're burning more fossil fuels,' and on the back page it urges, as strongly as possible, action on reducing emissions. It clearly says that 1.5 degrees is not going to be enough. A target of less than two degrees almost seems unachievable right now given the recent data. But this is the future we are facing.

So at this time in history, we are cutting science programs to the Antarctic. The AAD Senate inquiry, which is currently underway, has told us already that 10 science programs were cancelled this summer because there wasn't funding or support for those programs. We know that it's going to cost $875,000 to send the boat to Burnie to get it refuelled. You could cut that up a lot of ways, but that's up to 30 jobs over the summer period—you can only access the sea ice for three months a year—or it could be a dozen full-time positions for paid scientists on programs.

It is so tragic that the marginal sea ice voyage last year was cancelled. We have not been down to study marginal ice movements for 10 years. The Australian Antarctic Division has not had scientists on the ice for 10 years. That's partly why we were dumbfounded by our observations this summer. And even though we pushed the AAD at our hearings, asking, 'How are we going to get the scientists down there as quickly as possible?' there still is no clear plan on how we're going to get these world-beating scientists down in the Antarctic to do their job.

I just want to address a couple of elements of this motion here today. Absolutely I support reinstating the level of funding to the 2021-22 financial year, which is in the report. But I actually think we need to go well beyond that. As referenced by Senator Brown in her contribution, the minister asked the Australian Antarctic Science Council for advice on how to proceed, or go forward, on the AAD. That report very clearly said that the Australian Antarctic Division needs a significant restructure—all the funding programs across all of the institutions that access the Antarctic, including the scientists within the AAD. It is not fit for purpose. It is confusing. It is inefficient. And four reports in the last decade have urged various governments to restructure the AAD.

Yes, I would like to see the funding restored, but I would also like to see a much better process going forward to make sure science is prioritised. Any week now we're going to get the decadal plan for Antarctic science. It's taken years of many good people working on it, and that will help inform what we need to prioritise in the Antarctic. But you know what? We cannot do that and put science at the front of the Australian Antarctic effort if we don't have the funding and if we don't have a government that prioritises that.

I'm optimistic here today—I'm happy to say it—that the Labor government is going to do the right thing. They will put science at the front of the AAD and they will fund scientists to get down onto the ice. Next year, we don't want to see another dozen programs cancelled for the sake of a couple of $100,000 because the boat has got to go elsewhere. We've got to fix that mess. And, to be honest, we've got to stop the blame game. We've seen it from both sides today. It's not helping the scientists, it's not helping the Hobart community and it's not helping us tackle climate change if we play politics with this issue. Let's come together, let's fix it and let's get on with it.

The Albanese Labor government welcomes this matter of public importance moved by the Jacqui Lambie Network, and we thank Senator Tyrrell for bringing it to the attention of the Senate. But let's be very clear: it's okay for people to say we shouldn't be blaming each other, but on the same token I'm not going to listen to the debate by those on that side of the chamber who are trying to blame everything on this government when, in fact, it was the mess that they left behind. It's just another mess that they left behind. I want to put it very clearly on the public record that this Albanese Labor government is committed to Hobart and to Tasmania for the AAD.

It was the former government who sent a delegation to visit while the ship was being built, and they were advised on at least three occasions that the ship was going to be too big to go under the bridge in Hobart. The reality is that bridge has been there for some time. What we've ended up having to do is spend more money to go further along the coast, up to Burnie, to have the ship refuelled. Since we've come into government, we've had no less than three inquiries into the failings of the former government, and I can assure you that no-one on this side is going to take any advice from those opposite about how to protect and support the AAD and retain that in Hobart and Tasmania. We're certainly not going to take advice from the contribution that was made by the previous Liberal senator.

What we are very keen to do and what is a priority for us is to secure the AAD's program and to dispel the myth by those on the opposite side of this chamber. They have been going around with another scare campaign, saying that we are cutting funding to the AAD. There's nothing further from the truth, which was borne out in those inquiries. We will be doing what has to be done to secure our investment in this world-class RSV Nuyina research ship. After all these delays under the former government, we are now having to spend more money on rental boats so that ship can be refuelled. That isn't a good use of money. What it does show, though, is the mismanagement of the former minister, Sussan Ley. She couldn't even manage to get the ship built on time, let alone build one that could go under the Tasman Bridge in Hobart, where the ship would always need to be refuelled—that is its home.

The Albanese government has locked in significant long-term funding for the Antarctic Program. In fact, the AAD budget is growing every year for the next three years, with an additional $75 million for the program by 2026-27. That's part of an $804 million investment over the decade. Labor's funding for the Antarctic Program in the budget papers is higher in every year than it was when those on the other side were in government for that 10 very long years.

Australia's Antarctic scientists are doing a terrific job with the research being conducted on the Denman Glacier, on the million-year ice core, on the icecaps, on the greenhouse gases trapped in the southern atmosphere and on so much more. Labor knows that we need the best science to guide Antarctic research. That's why this government is implementing the recommendations of the independent O'Kane review into Antarctic science, including the development of a 10-year Australian Antarctic Science Plan to deliver on our scientific and geopolitical priorities.

That's what we're doing; that's what Minister Plibersek will undertake. She is listening to the scientists and we have undertaken to act on that review. We're implementing a plan for the next 10 years, unlike when those opposite were in government. As usual, they left this centre in chaos and mismanagement, and this has now brought shame not only on the Liberals at a national level but on the Tasmanian Liberal government as well. I can't get a better example of this than the fact that the former minister Sussan Ley delivered a ship that couldn't even refuel because the Tasmanian government wouldn't let it sail under the bridge. (Time expired)

I congratulate Senator Tyrrell for bringing this motion to the chamber, because it is an important one. But I have to say that the inane argument from the government that everything is all somebody else's fault—somebody else designed the ship wrongly and it can't go under the bridge, which is the source of all the problems—

Always blaming someone else!

What do you want us to do? Change the bridge?

Senator Colbeck, can you resume your seat? I'm going to remind the chamber that interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Thank you, Senator Colbeck.

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. The previous government sourced a larger ship because it needed a larger ship for the purposes of what was being done in the Antarctic. Yes, it is longer; the last vessel was a bit over 90 metres and this one is 160 metres. So it has a wider beam by five metres. The Tasmanian government does a risk assessment for vessels travelling up the river, but the suggestion that everything has to go pear-shaped because of that is absurd.

I received a text message from a friend of mine—a former senator in this place, actually—last week. They had the contract to refuel the previous ship, the Aurora Australis. Guess what? They used to fuel it at the berth. They used to truck the fuel down from Selfs Point to the berth to fuel the ship. I have to say that this carry-on about, 'We've got to go to Burnie,' is the biggest load of garbage I've heard. Get on and fix the problem—if they have to build a barge to bring the fuel down, then fine. I'll tell them that when Metco had the contract to service the Aurora Australis, they used to fuel it at the berth by using trucks brought down from Selfs Point. Get over it! Stop making crazy excuses and stop trying to design distractions from the problems that you've created through your funding arrangements.

People from the AAD aren't saying that funding has been cut for no reason: they aren't making this up. Programs aren't being cut for no reason. Senator Whish-Wilson agrees, and I agree with him, that it happens sometimes. Funding should be restored to its previous levels. Senator Whish-Wilson's arguing for a higher level of funding based on the research, but at least maintain the funding so the programs can be maintained. A review or another inquiry isn't going to employ the people that Senator Tyrrell mentioned. Those jobs aren't going to be filled by an inquiry. That's not what's going to happen. What the government should be getting on and doing is ensuring the programs that have been cut, which should be happening this summer, can happen. That's what the government should be doing. This 'it's all the previous government's fault' stuff is wearing thin. Labor are in government now. It is their job to make sure the funding is there to run the programs. They hold the Treasury benches and the Treasury purse. They should be making sure that the programs that need to be run can be run.

The Tasmanian community are a bit tired of hearing the same old talking points. They don't believe them. There are simple fixes to these problems, and Labor should stump up and do them, not come out here and run the talking points. Deal with the issue. Fund the programs, so the people can be employed.

It's been quite rightly pointed out that AAD has a whole range of very important partners that operate in the Southern Ocean: IMOS, CSIRO and CCAMLR. That's really important work that is important not only to Australia but globally. It has a really important role and it should be appropriately funded. We're not interested in excuses, and we're not interested in, as others have said, the blame game. Labor holds the Treasury purses. Find a solution to the refuelling issue. It's not a surprise that it went the way that it has, and it's not a fault in the design of some sort. It's the fact that we wanted a bigger vessel so we could do more things. It's an outcome of that.

This childish garbage that we're running with needs to stop, and the government needs to step up.

The time for the discussion has expired.

A letter has been received from Senator McKenzie:

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

The Albanese Labor Government's cuts arid delays to critical infrastructure projects lack transparency, are a drag on productivity, make our roads less safe, will delay much-needed upgrades in regional Australia and in our congested suburbs, and fail to account for the impact of their increased migration agenda.

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 made by the whips.

On 16 November the Albanese government revealed the truth of its infrastructure agenda: Labor actually doesn't have a plan for infrastructure. It's got a plan to bring an additional 1½ million people into our congested suburbs and regional centres, but it has absolutely no plan when it comes to infrastructure. It has no vision to build the road and rail projects we need across this great country to accommodate the growing need. After 200 days of what was supposed to be a short, sharp review, the government released its response to the independent strategic review of the Infrastructure Investment Program. Two simple phrases encapsulate the government's response: more cuts and delays to infrastructure, and an incredible lack of transparency on how Labor spends Australian taxpayers' money.

The government announced $7.4 billion of cuts to critical infrastructure projects. It is no wonder that local councils from Queensland and the Queensland Deputy Premier are here in this building today to press their case against these cuts. Labor also quietly—without announcement, I might add—axed the Roads of Strategic Importance program, which invested in upgrading regional freight routes designed to improve our national productivity. You'd think, when the productivity of the Australian economy has a zero in front of it, these are exactly the types of things that the government needs to invest in. How do we get our product quickly and safely to where it needs to go? Not doing so makes productivity decrease.

These cuts come on top of the $9.6 billion of infrastructure project cancellations, cuts and delays in their first budget, last October. The reaction to these cuts has been visceral. And why wouldn't it be? There is seemingly no justification for many of the cuts to projects.

Take the M7-M12 Integration Project in Sydney. It will provide improved road access to Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport and for the people of Western Sydney. This is a project that is already under construction. It was not supposed to even be part of the independent review. In her wisdom, Minister King has cut it. Is it any wonder the state Labor government in New South Wales is up in arms?

Time and time again, in the sea of uncertainty that surrounded this announcement, the minister has refused to release the full independent review. Minister King has released the full review from Jane Halton, she's released the independent review on Inland Rail by Kerry Schott, but she's refusing to release the independent review done by Mike Mrdak. He is a former departmental secretary of mine, and I have absolutely no doubt that there is nothing in that review that the government should be worried about. He's an excellent public servant. Yet she's refused. She's handed out nine pages—nine pages that actually contradict the list of projects cut and delayed that she handed to journalists in the same closed-shop press conference.

'Diabolical' was how one Labor MP described the Albanese's government's cut to infrastructure in today's Australian. The paper said the unnamed Labor MP 'panned' Minister King's cuts, linking her performance to the government's home-grown inflation and cost-of-living pressures, saying there were 'clearly a lot of huge costs that are really impacting people, like transport and tolls'—and I'm sure that was said very sarcastically. If that's not a reference to the Albanese government's cosy relationship with Qantas, protecting that corporation's public profits and sky-high ticket prices at the expense of the travelling public, then I don't know what it is. Month after month we read reports of Qantas flight cancellations and delays, and, while the Labor Party is cutting infrastructure, it's also bringing in another 1½ million people, just making the congestion worse.

It's not just the coalition that's saying these cuts and delays by Catherine King are wrong.

'Minister King'.

Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Just a reminder to refer to people with their correct titles—'Minister King'.

'Minister King'. It is the Labor premier in Queensland. It is the Labor premier and ministers in New South Wales. It is Labor premiers across the country who are decrying the fact that this government has turned its back on building critical road and rail projects that will actually help to get our truckies and our travellers home safer and sooner. That is exactly what she's supposed to do.

I would like to start off by saying that the Albanese Labor government has reformed Australia's infrastructure pipeline, ensuring our investment in the nation's infrastructure grows the economy, improves productivity and takes pressure off inflation. But I do think that the members of the community are exhausted by the rhetoric of those opposite.

It's important, I think, for the chamber to be reminded about why we're here having this debate today. The Liberals and the Nationals left us with a mess to deal with, after nine years of infrastructure policy that had no direction. And this matter of public importance has been brought to us by none other than the opposition, who were the architects of colour-coded spreadsheets, a coalition who disregarded public funds—your taxpayer dollars—so much so that the office of the former minister, who's the author of this matter of public importance, conducted a parallel process to judge applications made to the $100 million Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program, which led to a skewing of grants towards coalition target and marginal seats.

The former government made promises without ever thinking about how to deliver them, often not even talking to the state and territory governments they would later rely on to partner with. The former coalition government showed no regard for the spending of public funds on infrastructure projects—absolutely no regard. They were a government of announcement after announcement, promise after promise and false hope after false hope, leading local communities to believe that they were committed to fixing their local roads and infrastructure, when the reality was that they were happy to have a photo and a social media post. But guess what? After blowing the infrastructure pipeline out from 150 projects to over 800 projects, very few of those projects have actually been built. As a result, the former coalition government left an infrastructure pipeline full of undercosted projects and a challenge to manage deliverability in the context of rising inflation and supply pressures.

There is no better example of the coalition's failures than the hopelessly mismanaged Urban Congestion Fund, full of imaginary car parks in marginal seats—projects that would require 200 or 300 per cent more investment to actually deliver and years of delay. The coalition announced a $15 million commitment for a car park in Melbourne's inner east, at the Balaclava train station, despite the fact that the land was already set aside for public housing. The coalition's Commuter Car Park Fund paid $115,000 per parking space for a project in the Melbourne suburb of Berwick, which the Auditor-General found was nearly three times the benchmark price. Thirty million dollars was allocated for a 600-space commuter car park in the Liberals' former seat of Robertson. This was despite there being no documented reason for selecting Gosford as the location of a car park and with no site having been identified to build it on. You wouldn't read about it. Really; come on!

Then there is the Napoleon Road upgrade—a classic example of the utter dismissal of funding merit based projects. This commitment, funnily enough in former MP Mr Alan Tudge's seat of Aston, was made without any consultation whatsoever. The $50 million that was allocated to upgrade Napoleon Road between Lysterfield Road and Kelletts Road was $223 million short of the actual costs required to deliver the project. And the personal favourite of mine and of many 'rural and regional residents' of North Sydney was the North Sydney swimming pool, which was funded through a funding stream earmarked for regional communities. Here it is—look at that regional community!

Senator Brown, please resume your seat.

It's a prop! It's outrageous.

It was a flop; I don't know about a prop.

It would be helpful if the rest of the chamber could allow me to remind Senator Brown that props are not allowed in the chamber.

My apology.

You have six seconds left.

As I said, it was a personal favourite of mine that North Sydney was regarded by the National and Liberal parties— (Time expired)

The Albanese government is making secret cuts to infrastructure projects. Twice now the Senate has passed my motion, forcing the government to hand over the full infrastructure review that they used to justify cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in projects. Twice, the government has opposed transparency and accountability about its secret infrastructure cuts. How many more times will the Labor government keep secrets from Australian taxpayers?

This is the Labor review that concluded the Emu Swamp dam at Stanthorpe should be cancelled. Only three years ago, this southern Queensland town was in severe drought and ran dry. They had to cart in millions of litres of water by truck just to survive. Up to 50 trucks carted water hundreds of kilometres every day for 15 months. On what basis did the Labor government conclude Stanthorpe doesn't deserve a dam? We might never know. The government has so far refused to hand over the review that justifies the decision. If Stanthorpe doesn't have water, Stanthorpe will die. The Labor government needs to answer why they believe Stanthorpe should be left to die in the next drought. It has literally been hung out to dry.

One Nation will keep fighting for those answers and we will fight for more dams across Queensland. What we need in Australia is productive infrastructure to build our competitive advantage—our productive competitiveness. We need dams that agriculture can use to boom. We need cheap power, from which the entire economy will benefit. We need functional roads that don't have potholes big enough to destroy a car's suspension.

Australia needs visionary, nation-building projects—infrastructure projects like the Iron Boomerang. Right now, every year, we send 900 million tonnes of iron ore and 360 million tonnes of coal overseas. We ship it overseas. Those are two essential ingredients to making steel, which we largely import. We put that dirt on a boat, places like China buy it, they turn it into steel, they make things like unproductive wind turbines out of the steel, they put them on a boat and they ship the wind turbines back to Australia in the form of steel, where our dopey government buys it off them.

We should let private enterprise build the Iron Boomerang track linking our iron ore and coalmines, so we can make the steel right here in this country. The government doesn't even have to build Iron Boomerang. They just have to promise they won't get in the way, and then private money will pay for it. That money is already knocking on the door. These are the kinds of nation-building infrastructure projects that would be on the horizon if One Nation had our way. We certainly wouldn't be cutting productive infrastructure, like dams, in secret as the Labor government is doing. Before all of that we need accountable and transparent government. Labor continues to prove it will never be transparent. Their secret infrastructure cuts are just the latest example of a government that's afraid of explaining itself to the voters.

It is a well-known saying, 'Build and they will come.'

Field of Dreams!

That's correct. It was also said before that, but I will take the interjection. Thanks, Senator Scarr.

The core purpose of any government is to build infrastructure to provide essential services. But what we have here is a Labor government that, rather than building infrastructure, wants to tear it down. They're not: 'Build and they will come.' They are, 'Come on over' to half a million immigrants, and, 'We're going to knock the infrastructure down.' Only an archaic, nihilistic government that wants to destroy the country would do the opposite of what should really happen.

We've seen all of this before when it comes to Labor governments. I saw the horror in Queensland throughout the late nineties and early noughties when the Beattie-Bligh government privatised all of our infrastructure and gave it away for peanuts. They sold the Port of Brisbane for six times earnings. They sold a monopoly for six times earnings. They sold the forestry plantations, some of which were freehold, for five times earnings. They sold our airports. Back then they actually, ironically enough, sold the wind and solar assets as well. So they didn't even back their own belief in renewables back then because, as we know now—and Anna Bligh today is president of the ABA, the Australian Banking Association, they can't help but sell infrastructure.

When Paul Keating, a former Labor prime minister, was Treasurer he sold the Commonwealth Bank. We can see the devastating impact that has on the regions today as services are being withdrawn. I know. When I grew up in the seventies and eighties—I grew up in a small town of 3,000 people—we had a maternity ward because the great Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen built infrastructure. He opened up the Bowen Basin coal deposits. He plonked down a railway line. That railway line paid freight to the Queensland government. It paid royalties to the Queensland government. The ports that were used to export coal from paid the merge charges to the Queensland government, and that recurring revenue paid for recurring costs.

But, no, what the Labor government loves to do is to sell or tear down infrastructure and replace it with poker machines. That's what we've got. They replaced the infrastructure with poker machines. All that did was destroy lives, especially in the regions, and take money out of the regions and give it back to those big, nasty gambling machines in the ivory palaces of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. What's happened is that we have lost our maternity wards.

This is what happens when you have a government, especially the Labor government, that wants to deal with this Marxist ideology of feelings and identity politics instead of getting back to the basics of dealing with the things that matter. The role of government is to provide essential services. You build infrastructure that generates recurring revenue, and that recurring revenue then pays for recurring costs. You don't worry about all the fancy stuff and wallowing in self-pity and the guilt porn and the fear porn. You get on and you start building. I will invoke Ben Chifley again. I think this is the third time I've referred to him in the last week. Labor governments of old would build dams. They built Snowy Hydro. That's not what the Labor governments of today do. I'll make an exception for one senator in the chamber, who I know is a blue-collar worker at heart, but he's a dying breed within the Labor Party.

Okay, I'll make two. You too, Senator McCarthy. You love your infrastructure. That's good. Well, you need to lobby that left-wing faction and get them to start building. You've got to start building. The horse comes before the cart. The horse is the infrastructure; the cart is our hospitals, schools and police. As I've said before, if you can't find the funding for those things we can issue equity. We have to stop issuing bonds—paying foreign countries to use their currency—and start issuing equity in our own untapped wealth to fund this infrastructure so we can get this country moving again.

Senator Sterle, star of the moment, you have the call.

It's not very often that people say nice things about me. Anyway, thank you, Senator Rennick.

You do, Senator Brockman. Can I start by saying I have the greatest respect for some of my colleagues on the other side of the chamber. That's well known. I have a lot of time for Senator Roberts and I think he's a gentleman. I'm not going to disparage him; I just want to correct the record. I was the one on this side of the chamber that backed Senator Roberts's request for the Iron Boomerang inquiry. I said at the time that I'd back anything that's nation-building. But I do want to clear this up. Senator Roberts said that private money would build this rail, and we should get out of the way of private money. That was part of the proposal to the committee, but, as Senator Brockman, who is also in the chamber, would remember, there was a request for the Australian government to come forth with $350-odd million for a scoping study. I just want to clarify the record, you know? Anyway, we've got that one out of the way.

As to this matter of public importance, during the Morrison government, particularly in the last two years, we had an enormous number of announcements. There was announcement after announcement on infrastructure. I say to the good people who have the misfortune of driving along and listening to the Senate debates at this time: we have to tell the truth. I think most of us in this chamber and the other place were brought up with certain standards. Our parents taught us—it's part of our DNA—that if you're going to spend money you need to know there are two sorts of debt: good debt and bad debt. We also learnt we had to crawl before we could walk. I know I can always rely on Senator Scarr to bring out economics 101, the blue book. I haven't seen it pop out for awhile. I'm sure it won't be far from him during his next speech. We have to be able to live within our means. We encourage our kids to put a few bob aside. We say, 'Go out and buy a car, buy some new clothes, pay your board, but make sure you start putting money aside for a block of land or a house'—and we know how the price of houses is going at this stage. I'd be the first one to say, 'Thank god they were brought up like that.' I was brought up the same way.

Do you remember the grumpy old bank managers of the seventies and eighties? You could go in on your hands and knees and beg, but if you didn't have enough for the deposit you didn't get to borrow the money. Most of us grew up with that. But under Prime Minister Morrison—and I'm sure my colleagues opposite will shout me down—we saw in this nation for the first time that at every opportunity there was an announcement: 'We're going to build this bridge. We're going to build this highway.' He was running around the nation. We were going to do this and we were going to do that. That's a good thing if it comes off, but we got left with a $33 billion overspend.

This goes back to economics 101. You go around making these announcements, but the way it works in Australia is that all infrastructure projects are co-funded by the state and local governments. We all know that's how it's done, but we had Prime Minister Morrison making all these promises while not even talking to the state premiers, the state treasurers, local councils and local governments. It's all very well to have all these wonderful announcements—crikey, it's great stuff—but there was no intention to build them.

As most of you would know if you've tried to get a tradie or a labourer, we're also now going through a phase of massive labour shortages, and no more so than in the construction industry. What we have seen in this great nation, unfortunately, since the pandemic came and moved sideways, for some strange reason is about 2,200 construction companies—and a lot of them were in the cottage building industry—go broke, shut their doors and leave people with unfinished homes. I know that's not the same as building a bridge over the mighty Fitzroy River, but we have to put everything into perspective.

It hurts us as much as it hurts the minister and everyone else. There's nothing worse than when you have to be the one who comes in with the books and the report that was sanctioned—and I couldn't think of a better person to do that report and that work than Mr Mrdak—and say to the communities: 'Hang on, there's no money. There's no state money. There's no money in the piggy bank for the feds. There's no local government money.' It's very easy when you are in opposition to throw rocks and to have a crack at us in government. I know I've exposed that pretty well in all my years too. By the same token, if the money is not there— (Time expired)

I too rise to speak on this matter of public importance. It is of particular importance to my home state of Western Australia. It's always good to follow Senator Sterle, a fellow Western Australian. I also know that Senator Sterle is also deeply interested in rural and regional roads, which is why I'm sure that, for all he just said, he was absolutely gutted and deeply disappointed by the fact that Labor's infrastructure review took the knife to mainly rural and regional projects—in fact, economic development projects that would have seen our great state stronger in the future.

You don't need to take my word for it, Senator Sterle; you can take the word of the Labor minister for infrastructure in WA, Minister Saffioti. I will read out what she said about the project cuts that this Labor government has delivered. Minister Saffioti said:

The regional road upgrades enabled key resource projects that propped up the Commonwealth's budget bottom line.

She told ABC radio:

That's why we're deeply disappointed, we don't believe these projects needed to be cut, particularly because of the economic value they bring to the state and the Commonwealth. I think we've been not fairly treated.

That's the WA Labor minister for infrastructure. Let's go back a few months, Senator Sterle. Six months ago, when this 90-day review that ended up taking six months—

How many days? How many?

It ended up taking over 200, so over six months. When it was announced the then Premier, Premier McGowan—he has disappeared now—said:

I expect very little impact on us. I think most of the projects here, in fact, virtually all, will have very little impact. Certainly, that's the advice I received from the Prime Minister.

So let's just have a look at the impact: future road and rail connections for Perth, $14.5 million cut; the Great Southern Secondary Freight Network, $6.4 million cut; the Marble Bar Road upgrade, $48 million cut; the Moorine Rock to Mount Holland road upgrades, $48 million cut; and the Pinjarra heavy haulage deviation stages 1 and 2, $200 million cut. They are not just cuts to infrastructure; they are cuts to the economic future of Western Australia.

Let's look at some of the projects that are going to be impacted by those cuts. For example, what do you think the Moorine Rock to Mount Holland Road upgrade was intended to support? A lithium mine. Isn't lithium one of the key minerals, Senator Reynolds, that the Labor government, supposedly, wants us to be a world leader in developing? We have the resources here in my great state of Western Australia, but that lithium mine and the road upgrade that was supporting it are going to be cut by this Labor government, even though they supposedly want to see more lithium. They want us to be a 'clean energy superpower', whatever that means.

They have cut the Great Southern Secondary Freight Network, which supports our wonderful grain industry. At a time when Labor is taking an axe to the sheep industry in the south-western area of Western Australia, they're also taking an axe to the roads that would support the grain industry, which farmers are going to have to go to if they no longer have a sheep industry. Another cut is to the Marble Bar Road upgrade, which was again intended to develop the mining industry—a mining industry that, quite frankly, has propped up this government's budget. It has delivered the surplus they crow about. The surplus comes from Western Australia, particularly the Western Australian iron ore mining industry, and everybody knows it. Then there is the Pinjarra heavy haulage deviation, which is a very important road construction project just south of Perth around a very important agricultural area and which is also a major freight route in my home state of WA. This is a Labor government that doesn't have a clue about infrastructure; it just knows how to cut.

The time for this discussion has expired.

by leave—I table a petition which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form, signed by 35,000 Australians seeking an end to military exports to Israel.

by leave—I table a petition which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form, signed by over 70,000 Australians calling for a ceasefire and return of hostages and more humanitarian aid in the Gaza-Israel conflict.

I present the annual report for 2022 of the committee and Delegated legislation monitor 15 of 2023, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I seek leave to have my tabling statement on the annual report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Annual Report 2022.

The report documents a significant year in the committee's scrutiny work. Across the nine Delegated Legislation Monitors tabled in 2022, the committee considered 1811 legislative instruments, of which 453 raised scrutiny concerns. This was a slight increase from the 1712 legislative instruments considered in 2021, of which 420 raised scrutiny concerns.

In 2022, most concerns raised by the committee at the ministerial level related to the inclusion in delegated legislation of matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment.10 This is consistent with 2021, where the most frequently raised concerns at ministerial level related to this principle, and the modification of primary legislation.1 In addition, in 2022, there was a significant increase in the number of non-disallowable instruments raising scrutiny concerns. That is an increase from 66 to 324 and was partly due to 2022 being the first full year in which the committee scrutinised the issue of exemptions from disallowance. Chapter 2 of the report provides further detailed information about the committee's scrutiny work over the year.

Chapter 3 of the report contains case studies of the some of the most significant scrutiny issues identified by the committee in 2022. These include the committee's continuing engagement since 2021 with the former Minister for Climate Change regarding two Australian Renewable Energy Agency ('ARENA') instruments. The committee raised concerns as these instruments appeared to expand the remit of the ARENA beyond what was envisaged by Parliament when their enabling Act was passed. Specifically, the instruments prescribe energy efficient and electrification technologies as functions of the ARENA, whereas the objects of the enabling Act related to renewable energy technologies. The committee was pleased to conclude its examination of these instruments following this engagement with the minister and an amendment to the Climate Change Consequential Amendments Act being made. This amendment directly addressed the legislative basis of regulations which prescribe energy efficiency technologies as a function of ARENA.

Additionally, the committee continued its extensive engagement regarding longstanding concerns about Treasury portfolio instruments that modify or create exemptions to primary legislation. This included to hold a private briefing with the Assistant Treasurer in relation to the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) (Hawking of Financial Products) Regulations 2021. After this briefing the Assistant Treasurer undertook to amend the regulations so that they cease after three years. However, he also indicated that in considering future legislative amendments, he would have regard to legal hierarchies, existing frameworks and stakeholder needs, and indicated he would appreciate meeting with the committee in future to discuss the approach to this issue going forward. The committee thanks the Assistant Treasurer and departmental officers for their constructive engagement on this matter. The committee is continuing to monitor this scrutiny issue in 2023.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank previous committee members, the committee's legal adviser, Associate Professor Andrew Edgar and the secretariat for their work in 2022 on these significant matters.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Annual Report 2022 to the Senate.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I present the annual report for 2022 of the committee and Scrutiny digest 15 of 2023, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the final report of the committee on the conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In addressing the final report of the Labor dominated Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I wish to draw to the attention of the chamber the most important part of the report, which is the dissenting report by the coalition members of the committee. It's a very, very important report.

Who wrote that?

It was written by a number of people. It was a joint effort, Senator Scarr—

Order! Senator McGrath, please resume your seat. This is an issue that is going to be disputed, but it's on electoral matters, which comes to the issue of democracy. In this house there are rules so that people can present their points of view, which may be different, without being interrupted by either side, whether by barracking or heckling. Senator McGrath, you have the call.

In addressing the dissenting report, which, in my view, is the most important part of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the 2022 election, I wish to highlight to the Senate—and I'd encourage senators to go to page 205 of the report where are the recommendations by the coalition members of the committee, including my good colleague behind me, Senator Reynolds—how we think Australia's democracy could be improved. But also, it has our responses to the government's recommendations.

It is important to understand that the coalition members of the committee used four principles to guide our thinking about the approach of how Australia's democracy and our elections should be run and how our response to any recommendations should be considered. The first is that we believe in fair, open and free elections. Second, we believe all political participants should be treated equally. We believe in the freedom of political communication without retribution. Finally, and in my view perhaps the most important principle, is recognising freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as being fundamental to elections.

Some of the proposals that we have put forward, that we think would help improve Australia's democracy include an offence of electoral violence. What is disappointing, and it was shown and highlighted, funnily enough, during the recent referendum, is the intimidation of volunteers, and particularly the intimidation that was exhibited by the 'yes' side towards 'no' volunteers was disappointing at best and of grave concern. People who participated in our democracy should not be threatened. There should not be acts of attempted violence. There should not be acts of threats towards those who may hold a different view to you. Because of the importance of our democracy, because of the importance of ensuring that Australia stays a strong liberal democracy, we believe that there should be a specific offence that targets those who try to stop the political participation of others through acts of violence.

Secondly, we do believe that pre-polls should be reduced from two weeks to one week. It is important that, when Australians make their decision as to who should be governing this country, they make that decision with as much information as possible. The previous Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry recommended that pre-polls be reduced from three weeks to two weeks. That was carried and supported by most parties in this chamber. It's our view that a further reduction would assist Australia's democracy and assist voters in making informed decisions.

We also believe that electoral redistributions—and this is not the fault of the AEC. The AEC is a body who we believe do a very good job at running Australia's elections, but the AEC is governed by a regime where, effectively, redistributions cannot commence until 12 months after the previous electoral event. That means that in some states in Australia, for example, electoral boundaries will not be finalised until late next year. We believe that the 12-month period should be cut down to three months to help facilitate a faster redistribution process. We also put on the record our opposition to so-called truth in political advertising. It is a fundamental belief of coalition policies that freedom of speech is intrinsic to the importance of how our elections are run, and we will not support any measures where unelected bureaucrat in Canberra make the decisions as to what can and cannot be said by political participants during an election campaign. It is the belief of the National and Liberal parties of Australia that the decision as to what political candidates and politicians say during an election campaign should be judged by the voters and not by unelected bureaucrats.

We also are opposed to increasing the size of this parliament. Australia is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis that appears to not have come across the desks of Labor MPs and Labor senators. If you go to page 13 of the report, which I commend people do, you'll note that the majority report has a table where it indicates the average size of electorates in Australia. Under the Labor Party's policy platform, they believe in one vote, one value. What that means in practice, because Tasmania is guaranteed five seats through the Constitution, is to bring in one vote, one value, to ensure that mainland Australia had electorates that match the size of the Tasmanian electorates, you would need at least additional 50 seats in the House of Representatives. So in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, the Labor Party would deliver an additional 50 seats—50 politicians—to the Australian people.

It gets better than that because under the nexus provisions of the Constitution—for those listening at home wondering what it is, it means that the Senate should be roughly half the size of the House of Representatives—if the House of Representatives then had 200 politicians in it, it would mean that the Senate should have 100 politicians in it, not taking into account the territory senators. So you would have at least an additional 28 senators taking us up to 100. Then you would have the four original territory senators but under Labor's proposals they would double that. You would have 108 senators sitting in this chamber and you would have 200 members of the House of Representatives sitting in the other place. This is in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.

The present that Australians are going to get this Christmas is not going to be a cut in their power bill or a cut in their insurance bill, or mortgage rates going down or rents going down. The present that Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of this country, is going to give to the Australian people is 80, 90 extra politicians. Merry Christmas, Australia, from the Labor Party—Merry Christmas! In your stocking on Christmas day, there are going to be politicians.

The coalition will not be supporting this. The coalition strongly believes that the number of politicians that currently sit in this chamber and in the other place is sufficient. We believe that the government should be focusing on other priorities, fighting the cost-of-living crisis, instead of delivering more politicians. Canberra needs more common sense. It needs better politicians, particularly on the left side of politics. It does not need more politicians. So I challenge the Labor Party, please, please go to the next election, spend every day saying you are going to deliver 80 to 90 extra politicians. Please do it because you believe in it. It is your policy. Do that. From Cairns to Coolangatta, everywhere in Queensland, we will deliver a big fat no to you, just like Australia did in the Voice. You have the wrong priorities. Wake up and focus on helping Australians get through this cost-of-living crisis.

I certainly thank the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Kate Thwaites MP from the other House, for this report. It is very much welcome here in the Senate. Labor has a proud history of electoral reform and a strong commitment to transparency and accountability across our system. I certainly thank Senator McGrath for tabling it in the Senate, but I go further to say: what a load of rubbish you had to say in tabling the report, but thank you for showing us the direction the coalition will be taking. They say 'no' again to the voice of Australians. They say 'no' to First Nations people and a voice to the parliament. They say 'no' to the Northern Territory and to the ACT, which have very little representation. This is what the opposition is really good at—saying 'no', scaremongering and fearmongering.

Let's have a look at recommendation 1 of this report:

The Committee recommends the Government consider asking the Committee—

that's the committee that Senator McGrath is the deputy chair of—

to inquire into increasing the size of the House of Representatives to reduce malapportionment and improve the ratio of electors to MPs.

It says 'to consider'—not to make a decision tonight, before Christmas or in the new year. What an absolute furphy coming from Senator McGrath. It is quite disingenuous. This has been a well thought through and well-considered report by those on the committee, and I will go to some of the points raised throughout it.

Our party—this government—is committed to electoral reform with the objective of improving transparency, accountability and fairness. It was the Hawke Labor government that was the first to introduce a donations disclosure regime, in the 1980s, ensuring Australians could see who was donating to their elected representatives. The coalition, under John Howard, removed this transparency, lifting the threshold for disclosure so that only larger donations were disclosed. Over the course of six years in opposition, our now Special Minister of State introduced several bills into the Senate to improve our electoral system, including for increased transparency of political donations. The Special Minister of State has been clear about his intention to pursue long-overdue reforms in this term of the Albanese government. That's not tonight, not tomorrow night and not before Christmas but over the period of government.

In August 2022, only two months after being sworn in as Special Minister of State, the minister wrote to the federal parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters requesting they commence an inquiry into our electoral system. JSCEM has put forward a set of broad recommendations for change, and the government is looking forward to receiving this final report. The committee's report recommends caps on campaigning, donations and spending, a much lower threshold for declaring donations and reporting of donations in real time. Importantly, those donations and spending caps are as applicable to political parties as they are to third parties. We have seen in recent times the influence of big donors and big money in elections here and overseas. Knowing who is bankrolling campaigns and political candidates is fundamental to our democracy and to transparency, which is the backbone of an open democracy. The Labor Party and the committee support lowering the donation threshold, returning it to $1,000. This obviously gives voters a much better idea about who's supporting a particular candidate. Combining a reduction of the threshold with real-time disclosures, as recommended by JSCEM, would allow voters to know who is backing candidates and will significantly improve the transparency of Australian elections. Following the last election, Australians have seen reports of one individual's company donating so much money and, reportedly, the greatest annual spend by a political party. The Australian electoral system should not be open only to people with lots of money. I just want to touch on some comments made in the referendum on safety at the ballot box. I mean, come on, senators, we all want that. Tom Rogers, AEC Commissioner, felt compelled to comment in October estimates on misinformation and truth in political advertising. He said:

It would also be remiss of me not to comment on increasing levels of misinformation and disinformation with the referendum. This has been incredibly disappointing for us to see in Australia, especially when we have one of the world's best electoral systems.

A critical issue for good governance is voter turnout. In the Northern Territory, participation by younger First Nations voters was a refreshing experience. From remote polling in the Northern Territory, younger voters were excited by the referendum, by the potential for change in their lives and y the opportunity to vote on this issue.

I would just ask senators to make sure they do have a good read of this. Our Constitution enables our states and territories to be represented. This final report by JSCEM is an opportunity to have some serious debate without bringing the politics into it. The Northern Territory and the ACT do deserve to have a conversation about this report and they do deserve an opportunity to speak to this parliament. Do not trash it for political gain. Do not take away their voice in this debate in a disrespectful way. In the surrender act of 1911, South Australia surrendered the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth and, ever since then, the people of the Northern Territory have been fighting for their rights and for their place in a democratic system of how this parliament works. Do not diminish this report with politics and do not confuse it with our concerns for the cost of living for Australians in this country by saying that people in the Northern Territory and people in the ACT don't have a right to have their voices heard in this debate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

I rise to take note on the JSCEM final report on the conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters. For many years the Greens have championed reforms to clean up democracy, including getting big money out of politics, exposing the hidden money that is never declared, preventing misleading campaigns, removing barriers to running for election, and addressing the incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system.

The 2022 election made it abundantly clear that the public wants those things too. We saw the lowest vote share for the two big parties in 75 years. We now have a parliament that is more diverse than ever. So any legislation to deliver electoral reforms must ensure that it strengthens democracy and doesn't just bolster the political fortunes of the two big parties. I note that the earlier JSCEM interim report outlined issues regarding campaign finance, the definition of gift, incumbency advantages and barriers to participation. I'm really disappointed that there hasn't been any more progress on some of those concepts in the last six months through the JSCEM process. I note that this final report really doesn't add anything to those statements of principle in the initial interim report, and that's a huge missed opportunity in my opinion.

The JSCEM inquiry into the last election, which happens after every election, gives us an opportunity to develop legislative reforms that could improve democracy for the betterment of all, and do so before the next election. We're in support of the recommendations in this final report. Many of them are of a technical nature. There are some really good ones that would improve access, for example, to the polling booths for people with a disability. But there is still a huge amount of detail that is missing from what the government actually plans to do on electoral reform.

I want to note the recommendation which the opposition seems to have really blown up into something bigger than Ben-Hur. The recommendation is actually for the government to consider asking JSCEM to do another inquiry, into the size of the House of Reps, to look at the ratio of electors to MPs. We're fine for that inquiry to occur. We'd like to see the concept of proportional representation considered in the course of that inquiry, given that one in three voters selected someone other than the Labor and Liberal parties in the last election. I note with some amusement that Senator McGrath has somehow conflated the suggestion for the government to ask JSCEM to do an inquiry with there actually being some massive expansion of the House of Representatives, which, in all honesty, I think is a little bit of a misrepresentation. Be that as it may, we're happy for such an inquiry to be suggested and to occur.

In relation to Senate representation, we do support the recommendation of the final report to increase Senate representation in the ACT and the NT. Increasing from two to four senators on three-year terms is one of several options that we hope to continue working with the government on, and to see that expanded representation for the people in the territories.

I want to especially note the Green's support for the recommendations in relation to First Nations enrolment, including on-the-day enrolment, and note that this was exactly an amendment that I moved to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 prior to the conduct of the recent Voice referendum. I certainly welcome the government's belated support to allow First Nations people to enrol on the day, but I note my deep disappointment that they weren't able to muster that support at the time that it really mattered, and weren't able to agree on the Greens proposed amendments to do that before the referendum, which might have seen even more increased participation of First Nations people in a referendum that was about them having a voice. We support those recommendations. It's just a shame that they weren't implemented sooner.

There is significant work to do to make our electoral system more transparent. There's definitely work to do to make sure that political advertising is not misleading. I might add that there was also legislation that the government could have considered to bring in truth in political advertising both in elections and in referenda. They could have passed those laws before the recent Voice referendum—and in my view we might have seen a different result had they done so. Be that as it may, we welcome the commitment to consider further legislation to address the issue of the lack of truth in political advertising rules. There's certainly a lot of work to do to find ways to prevent a single donor dominating the political landscape, as Mr Clive Palmer did in 2019 and in 2022.

The Greens want to see these genuine reforms. What we don't want to see is reform that is not really reform but is actually just a rort that locks in major-party advantages. The pressure is really on the government now. The question for the government is: do they want to do a deal with the Liberal Party on electoral reforms or do they intend to speak to the Greens and the crossbench to pursue electoral reforms that will actually improve democratic outcomes? The government response to the interim JSCEM report did not leave much room for optimism. It was the same response, copy pasted for every single recommendation. The nuts and bolts of it was that the government wants to consult in a bipartisan manner—not a multipartisan manner; a bipartisan manner.

People are desperate for a parliament that is more diverse and more representative. They don't want the Coles and Woolies of politics anymore, and they're sick of not being able to tell the difference between the two big parties on the issues that actually matter to them. That's why the support for the big parties is falling, and it's exactly why the government has now got a choice. Are they going to try and rig the system to lock out the challenges, or do they want to speak to the crossbench and the Greens to properly reform the electoral system, to try to get better transparency and to try to reduce and remove the influence of big money? That pathway is open to the government.

The Greens are ready for some genuine electoral reforms that the crossbench, the Greens and the Labor Party could agree on. But the signals that the government are sending at the minute is that they want to do a deal with Mr Dutton to try to lock out challenges. Well, I don't think the public is going to accept any attempt to rig the electoral system for the major parties at the expense of other parties and candidates.

Any reform which limits donations to anyone who challenges Liberal and Labor, whilst protecting their own source of income, will be seen for what it is: a complete stitch-up, undermining our democracy and undermining the public's expectation of fair play. The community understands that secret sources of dark money from big corporations and billionaires are dodgy. They rightly conclude that the reason that the politicians in charge can't solve the problems that they're facing is because they have been bought off and have sold out. They understand that any proposal that means that if you're already elected, you get a hefty envelope full of cash, but if you're trying to get elected, your donations are heavily restricted, is not a reform; it's a rort.

It's a rort, not a reform, to outlaw all kinds of grassroots funding while allowing the Labor and Liberal parties' corporate and billionaire funding to flow through backroom loopholes. Any 'reform' that means that a corporation can continue to buy five $10,000 tickets to a Labor or Liberal party dinner party, and that's not considered a donation, is a rort and not a reform. If there's one rule for the bipartisan establishment, with payments via slush funds or business forum memberships or 'cash for access' dinners, and another rule for everyone else, then that's a rort and not a reform.

The Greens are up for genuine, multipartisan electoral reform, but teaming up to do a bipartisan deal that shores up your own flailing political fortunes would be an attack on representative democracy. If you go through with that, you'll see your vote drop even further at the next election.

First of all I want to set a couple of things straight. I'll start by congratulating Senator McGrath from our side, who has obviously done a lot of work in this area over a number of years and whose opinion on these matters I greatly respect.

But for those opposite, for Labor and the Greens in their contributions, to somehow indicate that the referral to have an inquiry to increase the House of Representatives size is just a thought bubble ignores some of the significant detail that's in the report. In fact, they have numbers and they have models in the report—table 1.58, for those who want to check it—which indicate up to 73 new members of parliament. This isn't just, 'Maybe there should be an inquiry into this thing.' There are numbers in the report that are suggestions for the future.

I also want to address quickly this issue of truth in political advertising: misinformation and disinformation. It's come up a lot. I remind those listening at home that, when you're considering these issues, one of the key issues that was supposedly misinformation—described as 'misinformation' widely in the media, called 'misinformation' by the Greens, called 'misinformation' by Labor ministers—was the idea that there were legal risks associated with the Voice proposal. You can argue the point on that, but to describe it as 'misinformation' is, quite frankly, a serious attack on freedom of speech. When you have senior jurists, such as Malcolm McCusker QC, state that there are legal risks in a proposal such as this, then, at the very least, it becomes a debating point. At the very least it becomes an area that should be contestable. And yet those on the other side, Labor and the Greens, want to be able to say that that is misleading, and that it can no longer be debated because the Solicitor-General has said there is no legal risk. So, suddenly, it's off the table? That is an attack on freedom of speech of the most egregious sort that those on this side will continue fight against.

Thirdly, and lastly, there's the issue of increasing representation in the territories, and particularly in Canberra. Those who want to promote this idea constantly refer to their ratios in comparison with Tasmania's. But having two New South Wales senators in the chamber at the moment, my good friends Senator Hughes and Senator Cadell, I'd just say to them and all those listening: don't compare the ACT to Tasmania; let's compare it to the great state of New South Wales. If New South Wales had a representative team that was proportional to the current team from the ACT, from Canberra, do you know how many extra senators you would have? Twenty-four! You'd have 24 extra senators. Yet the government wants to add new senators to Canberra. Surprise, surprise! Well, I think that, in my home state of WA, that idea will go down like a lead balloon.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, Law enforcement capabilities in relation to child exploitation, together with accompanying documents, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise as chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, to speak about the committee's report on law enforcement capabilities in relation to child exploitation. Child exploitation is a terrible scourge that targets some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

Throughout its inquiry, the committee heard concerning evidence about the staggering volume of child abuse material online. In 2022, there were 32 million reports of suspected online child exploitation made to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. These reports have increased in recent years and there are suspicions that more material goes undetected. Online child exploitation is a global problem, and it takes various forms. A particular concern is live streaming of child sexual abuse, which allows an offender to view and potentially direct the sexual abuse of a child from afar. Live streaming leaves little visual evidence, which makes it harder for law enforcement to investigate. It is intolerable that Australian men have been identified as some of the most voracious consumers of this material.

Child sexual exploitation is not just a problem overseas. It also harms children in Australia. This often takes the form of sexual extortion, with the Australian Federal Police advising that, each month, over 100 children report they are victims of sexual extortion, and the likelihood is that there are many, many others that do not report.

These are just some of the concerns that arose in the committee's inquiry. Given the committee's role, it focused on law enforcement capabilities in relation to this crime. Much of the evidence also related to online offending, though, of course, this is not the only form of child exploitation.

The inquiry ran across two parliaments, and this gave committee members an opportunity to pursue a wide range of issues. The committee received 54 submissions, held six public hearings and also conducted site visits to the Australian Federal Police in Canberra and AUSTRAC in Melbourne. Of particular concern for the current committee is the way in which technology has amplified child exploitation.

Evidence indicated that offenders use technology and virtual currency to hide their activities from law enforcement. On the dark web there are forums where offenders share abuse material and encourage each other to commit further abuse, but offending also occurs on the clear web, which is the part of the internet that most Australians use every day.

Children using social media and online games are targeted by offenders and coerced into producing explicit material. The increasing use of end-to-end encryption is especially challenging for law enforcement. End-to-end encryption means that nobody can access the contents of a message except the sender and the recipient. End-to-end encryption is becoming more common on social media, despite its potential to seriously harm law enforcement's investigations. The US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children estimates that if Facebook Messenger and Instagram messenger transition to end-to-end encryption as is planned, then the number of reports it receives will halve.

The committee sought evidence from major technology companies to examine they are doing enough to detect and counter child exploitation on their platforms. While there is some good work under way, the committee was left with serious concerns. This is consistent with recent reports by the eSafety Commissioner about major platforms' compliance with basic online safety expectations. The committee is of the view that eSafety should place the highest priority on this issue. It recommends that eSafety apply pressure to technology companies to ensure that they have robust procedures and technologies to detect and report child abuse material, regardless of whether end-to-end encryption is being used. This is one of the 15 recommendations presented in this report.

The committee's recommendations cover a range of issues, including Australia's criminal justice framework; law enforcement procedures and collaboration; regulation of technology platforms; research into offending; and public awareness. The committee is optimistic that its recommendations will contribute to efforts to counter child exploitation, and it also intends that the body of evidence in this report will be a valuable resource for those interested in pursuing these issues.

It is clear that this is a fast-moving area and will require ongoing attention. Emerging technologies like the generated artificial intelligence are increasingly common and present, and they present new challenges for law enforcement. But there have been important developments in recent years, including the Online Safety Act 2021, and the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021. Just this month the Joint Council on Combatting Child Online Sexual Exploitation held its first meeting and will bring together US and Australian policymakers, regulators and law enforcement agencies.

In presenting this report, I want to thank the members of the committee from both the last parliament and, particularly, this parliament for their constructive approach to this inquiry. During both the previous and the current parliaments many members and senators were confronted with very disturbing material. I also want to thank all submitters and witnesses for their valuable contributions, despite the challenging nature of the subject matter.

This report is really important, and I encourage every member in this chamber and the other place to read it. It's devastating what is happening in this country every day. Just before I was to table this report I got an update from the Examiner newspaper in Tasmania, predominantly in northern Tasmania, where I live in Launceston. Yet again this week, another—I was going to say human being but perhaps not—person has been charged with not only child exploitation but bestiality material as well. To think that this is not happening in this country, think again. Stop and think again. These are our children. These are our grandchildren. These are our friends and family members. It is alarming. It's a scourge on our society.

I want to also thank Lyn Beverley, the secretary of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement; and, in particular, Antony Paul, the principal researcher; and the rest of the secretariat for the great work that they do not just in relation to this report but in terms of organising our field trips to the AFP.

We really need to shine a spotlight on this serious crime, and, in my view, we need to put a lot more pressure on the online platforms to take responsibility for their platforms. This end-to-end encryption is of major concern not just to the committee but to law enforcement in this country and around the world.

I commend the report. I urge you to read it. This is a scourge that needs to be dealt with. This is a bipartisan approach to a very serious issue in this country. Again, I want to thank my committee members. There's still a lot more work to be done. I commend this report.

I too rise to speak to this report on child exploitation by the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. First of all I want to commend and thank my colleagues from across the political spectrum and the chair for the collaborative work that was done in relation to this committee. It's a matter that disturbed all of us, the extent to which we saw the reality of online child exploitation. There was a genuine engagement across politics to see what's going wrong, what more the Australian government should do and how we can try and get ahead of some of the technological changes that are making children more vulnerable to child exploitation online.

Whilst the committee worked in a very collaborative way, in the last 24 hours we've seen a breakdown in that kind of collaborative approach to the issue, with the coalition yesterday in the other place seeking to take political advantage of the very hard issues confronting regulators and the government when it comes to age verification for online platforms. We had a lot of evidence in this inquiry about just how hard it is to do age verification. I want to be clear on behalf of my party, the Greens: we don't believe the platforms are doing enough in this space to ensure proper age verification to protect children from potential child exploitation and from the reality of child exploitation. Simply allowing self-verification of age is not good enough.

This is a problem that's confronting Australian authorities, and it's a problem that's confronting global authorities, whether it's in Europe or the US or the rest of the world. Whilst Europe is miles ahead of Australia in many parts of their online regulation of big tech, Europe itself doesn't yet have an answer to some of the hard questions about age verification. What we can't do is rush to erroneous pretend solutions to a really hard problem on age verification.

To that extent, the Greens support recommendation 10 of this inquiry, which is for the eSafety Commissioner and the Australian government to work together for credible options for age verification. That's going to require teasing through a number of really difficult issues, complex policy and privacy concerns. Critically we need to ensure that any age verification system does not exclude young people from accessing information about health, about consent and about sexuality. That is essential to them and to their safety not just online but in real life as well.

We saw some politicking yesterday from the coalition, criticising the government for not having a perfect answer to this. I'm quite ready to criticise the government when they've failed to take steps. But, in this regard, doing it right, talking to critical stakeholders, working with the eSafety Commissioner, working with privacy groups, working with law reform groups and working with some of the really engaged people in the tech community is what is required. The coalition wants some sort of urgent reform in relation to age verification, but it doesn't seem to have any answer to those difficult questions about online age verification and safety. Politicising this space in the way they did in the last 24 hours risks creating a system that is centrally controlled, which has significant dangers in the online world, and also limits access to essential information, including on matters such as consent and gender identity. In my office, as the digital rights spokesperson, we will continue to work with stakeholders and to proactively engage with the government to get these things right and to do it as quickly as we can. Nobody needs the Leader of the Opposition with a sheriff hat on acting as some kind of online cop in this space. We need sensible and evidence based policy settings to keep kids safe, and that should be a goal that unites politics—not some cheap shot in the other place, like we saw happen yesterday.

There are a number of other recommendations in this report from the committee, which I'll address briefly. One is the committee recommending that the Australian government look at options for requiring major technology companies operating in Australia to have an appropriate number of trust and safety staff based in Australia. Well, of course they should. It should be a minimum requirement. If you have any kind of significant market presence in Australia for any of these online services, whether it's Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or some emerging platform, there should be an expectation that there will be a sufficient and credible number of trust and safety staff based in Australia to ensure our kids are kept safe. That should be non-negotiable. We should be urgently delivering that reform. Instead of seeing the platforms commit to that, we've seen some platforms—most notoriously Twitter—literally strip all their trust and safety staff out of Australia. If you want to talk to somebody from Twitter—or X, as they like to call themselves—about those issues in Australia, you talk to someone in an understaffed office in Singapore.

There should be a clear red line here. If any significant platform wants to have any significant market in Australia, they need to invest in safety staff. They need to invest in those protections, and they need to be onshore and subject to Australian regulation and control. If they don't, they should be given a notice and then they shouldn't be allowed to operate until they do. I think that's a pretty simple, basic principle. But I think we see a timidity in the government's action in this space and a kind of high-level contempt from some of the big platforms. It's not just X and Twitter; it's other platforms, like Amazon's Twitch. As the chair said, when we get technological change, particularly with end-to-end encryption, it's going to be even more essential that there be investment in the platforms and some kind of clear feedback with our regulators, which in this space will probably most directly be the eSafety Commissioner. That's so we can be sure that they have the staff, resources and other digital protections in place to protect kids from what I think all of us are anxious about. We heard the evidence in the inquiry about the danger of further child exploitation, which law enforcement agencies don't see, protected by end-to-end encryption. That is a very, very troubling, near-future reality for Australia, and we need to get on top of that rapidly.

The final thing I'll note is in relation to some of those law enforcement officers who have been doing years and years of this work identifying online child exploitation. They've been doing detailed work identifying assailants in this space, running them to ground, holding them to account and prosecuting them. I have many issues with the way in which the Australian Federal Police operates, as the Greens justice spokesman, but that team in the Australian Federal Police who are doing that work actually deserve commendation. It's incredibly hard work and potentially incredibly damaging work. Two of the recommendations that the committee has put forward, recommendations 6 and 7, recognise just how hard that work is and the toll it takes upon members of the AFP who do that work and urge the government to look at the most appropriate protective measures we can put around those staff. Maybe that's in limiting any unnecessary exposure to this kind of child exploitation material. Maybe there are other protections to be put in place for their health, safety and welfare. I think all of us had not only great respect for the law enforcement officers who are doing that work but also concern for their welfare. We urge the government to rapidly respond to recommendations 6 and 7 to protect their welfare so they can continue doing the work they do to protect our kids.

I do commend the recommendations that I think have broad support across the committee. I know that there was a dissenting report with a small number of observations about online age verification, and I've indicated the Greens' position in relation to that. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I very much appreciate your coming to take the chair, Acting Deputy President Sterle, so that I can make this contribution. Before I do, I want to associate myself with the remarks of both Senator Polley and Senator Shoebridge with regard to that horrifying report about what's going on. I look forward to reading it and making a contribution in due course. I seek leave to present a delegation report.

Leave granted.

I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 147th assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which took place from 23 to 27 October 2023, and move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Today, in tabling this report on behalf of the Australian delegation, I want to commend my wonderful colleagues from both this chamber and the House of Representatives. For this event the delegation travelled across the world to beautiful Luanda in Angola, a remarkable country, along with 619 other delegates representing 128 parliaments, to participate in four days of meetings and debates on the international community's most pressing issues.

Although the IPU does not generate headlines in the way the UN or the World Health Organization does, its work is no less essential to promoting democracy and international cooperation. When it was founded, in 1889, co-founders William Cremer and Frederic Passy envisaged a forum for peace and diplomacy through dialogue rather than the force of arms. More than a hundred years on, their organisation has achieved so much more than they could ever have hoped. I know that you, Acting Deputy President Sterle, have been a participant and representative of this great nation at that forum.

The IPU has succeeded in bridging divides where some thought it would be impossible. And in what moment in recent times could we be more in need of something to bridge the divides breaking the hearts of people across this world than in this one? The original divide that was given consideration was between France and Germany after the First World War. Across the 38th parallel in Korea it's served its purpose, and now those Russian and Ukrainian MPs who desire peace use the IPU as a safe harbour for conversations.

The IPU advocates tirelessly for parliamentarians who are locked up and persecuted by their own governments, from Myanmar, to Syria, to Libya and across other jurisdictions around this world. It supports unconditionally, through an extensive education and capacity building program, those parliamentarians who wish to improve their domestic democratic institutions. As a parliamentarian who stands for peace, democracy and human rights, I'm proud to represent Australia at this prestigious forum and play my part, as a representative for the Asia-Pacific group, in the international humanitarian law subcommittee.

The theme of the 147th assembly's debate was parliamentary action for peace, justice and strong institutions, a theme that could not be more relevant as we navigate the turbulence of recent times. As parliamentarians, we are the key institution of governance in this country and responsible for creating laws and budgets while representing the interests of all Australians in the halls of power. So when more and more of the people who we represent are losing faith in institutions of government, it is clearly our responsibility to restore legitimacy and transparency to ensure that all Australians, regardless of their status or identity, feel that the institutions in this country are there to work for them, not the other way around. That is why our delegation endorsed the Luanda Declaration—the outcome of the 147th assembly's general debate.

Restoring faith in institutions requires a multifaceted approach. Success is not one-dimensional. It requires a combination of transparency, representation and outcomes. In endorsing the Luanda Declaration, we strive to curb the influence of corruption and private interests on governance. We seek to ensure the representation and equal treatment of all segments of society in the political process, and we seek to demonstrate a concrete commitment to the values of democracy, to human rights and to international law. In the general debate, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Milton Dick, made a significant contribution. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate him on his continuing chairmanship of the Asia-Pacific Group and also to indicate and celebrate his election to the Executive Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union—the first time Australia has participated in more than 30 years. I know he'll show remarkable leadership that will benefit the country in that way.

The Speaker highlighted the success of this parliament in achieving the objectives set out by the IPU assembly. He pointed out our record number of women in parliament, alongside the first majority female chamber in Australia's history. Both are vital steps towards ensuring fairer representation for all sectors of society. He also highlighted the success of the Parliamentary Education Office in fostering trust in government among Australia's three million children through its longstanding civics education programs as well as his own efforts to bring this civics education to 40 regional and rural schools.

Finally, I'd like to highlight the work of Senator Reynolds, whose excellent work as the Rapporteur of the IPU Standing Committee on Democracy and Human Rights was instrumental in the unanimous passing of a resolution on ending international orphanage trafficking. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning a report on human-induced regeneration and the Infrastructure Investment Program.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 6 May 2024:

The Commonwealth Government's response to the 8 November 2023 High Court ruling in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor, with particular reference to:

(a) the Commonwealth Government's planning and preparedness for a ruling against the Commonwealth Government in this case;

(b) the Commonwealth Government's preparation of legislation to address the implications of the High Court ruling;

(c) the risks to the community associated with the release of individuals from immigration detention following the High Court ruling;

(d) actions taken by the Commonwealth Government in the days following the High Court ruling, including:

(i) the decision to release individuals from immigration detention, and to subsequently grant visas including conditions,

(ii) the enforceability of visa conditions;

(iii) the steps the Government took to manage risks to the community associated with the release of the cohort of individuals impacted by the High Court decision,

(iv) other interventions or options the Government considered but did not pursue to manage risks to the community associated with the release of the cohort of individuals impacted by the High Court decision,

(v) communication with individuals in immigration detention impacted by the High Court ruling,

(vi) efforts made to inform victims and victims' families about the release of individuals convicted of serious crimes, and

(vii) communication with impacted communities where individuals released from detention will reside;

(e) any expenditure of taxpayer money associated with the High Court case and subsequent actions taken by the Commonwealth Government; and

(f) any other related matters.

Let's remember how we got here. It's exactly three weeks ago today that the High Court handed down its decision. On the next day, the government told us that the individual in the court decision, the applicant NZYQ, would be released. But, when asked about the potential release of any other individuals, Minister Watt said, 'We are not a government that acts on decisions that haven't had reasons released.' It only took until Friday that week to find out that, contrary to Minister Watt's evidence, the Albanese government was immediately releasing a large number of high-risk individuals from immigration detention into the community, following the High Court's decision. This cohort we now know includes rapists, murderers, paedophiles and even contract killers. The following Monday the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Giles, told us that 80 individuals had been released and were subject to a range of strict mandatory visa conditions. Only two days after that Senator Wong admitted that the consequences for breaching these supposedly strict mandatory visa conditions were ultimately unenforceable because breaching a visa requires an individual to be detained pending their deportation, which the High Court had just ruled was not applicable for this cohort.

After continued calls from the opposition to take action to keep Australians safe the government finally introduced a bill on Thursday of the last sitting week. Despite giving the coalition less than two hours notice to consider the bill before its introduction, we identified a number of weaknesses and deficiencies and proposed six amendments to significantly strengthen the amendments. Initially the government said that the bill went as far as it could, but subsequently conceded that we were right and those amended measures were necessary. Sadly, they even managed to botch that as well, because this week we are now considering a further urgent patch job to fix the drafting errors in that legislation.

Since then we've also learnt that the government has now released 141 high-risk individuals into the community, and presumably counting. Just when you thought this story could not get any worse we heard reports that one of the detainees was released into the community without an electronic ankle bracelet—that is, someone who is by definition a risk to the community—and was uncontactable by Border Force or the Federal Police for a number of days. In breaking news this evening I understand that person has now been identified because the Prime Minister's office is furiously briefing the media that they have been found and they are now compliant with their visa conditions. That's interesting because only four hours ago in this chamber Senator Wong said that we couldn't talk about operational matters. It seems that this government will talk about operational matters when it's convenient and suitable to their political purposes but not when it's inconvenient.

It is pleasing though that that person has been identified and is now compliant with their conditions, but many other questions arise from this person's release into the community without an electronic tracking bracelet. Why was it that this person was released without monitoring? Was it because they were asked to wear a bracelet and they refused or was it because, as the Guardian has reported today, they were never informed of the visa conditions that applied to them and were released into the community without even attempting to put an electronic tracking bracelet on them?

Yesterday the High Court handed down its reasons for its decision. Two things became immediately clear. The first is that it was a narrow ruling that relates specifically to the case of plaintiff NZYQ. The court is very clear throughout the judgement that its decision in this case turned on two key facts. Firstly, that NZYQ is a child sex offender and Australia has never before successfully resettled a child sex offender in a third country; therefore, his detention constituted indefinite detention and that was beyond the power of a minister to impose. Secondly, they made it clear that it was the admission of the statement that resettlement was not a realistic prospect for this person that they determined that his detention was indefinite.

Questions now do need to be asked whether or not any others among that cohort of 141 people meet this same standard of no reasonable prospect of being resettled in a third country. Because while this cohort does include many serious criminal offenders, as we've all discussed, it also includes people who have breached the character provisions of the Migration Act and have not been charged with or convicted of any offence in Australia. Is the government seriously arguing that the prospects of these people being resettled in a third country are equally as hopeless as those of a convicted child sex offender? Ultimately we will know when the government attempts to deport any of these people and to redetain them in the process, because the court has also made it clear that it is in fact possible if resettlement becomes an option for these people to be redetained pending their deportation.

The other significant finding of the court in its reasons is the court's endorsement of the coalition's approach to managing the risk that these detainees released into the community pose. Three weeks ago, when first interviewed about this topic, I urged the government to look at the high-risk terror offenders framework. I said that the control orders, the extended supervision orders, the preventive detention orders and the continuing detention orders were a possible solution to this problem. In response, the government said, 'We could not possibly legislate such a scheme until the High Court hands down its reasons because we don't know whether or not such a scheme would be lawful.' We now have the benefit of the High Court's ruling and it is clear. In fact, it is so clear that the High Court has almost put it up in lights. The court has given us a green light to legislate a new scheme, based on the risk to the community, to continually or preventively detain someone such as, in the court's words, a child sex offender.

It turns out this scheme could have been legislated three weeks ago and it would be constitutionally sound in the view of the High Court. But the government wasn't ready to act then and, sadly, they've learned nothing since because they're still not ready to act now, despite having warning that this ruling was coming, despite having the free advice from the coalition they should look at a preventive detention scheme. It appears that no preparatory work was done to draft such legislation because it hasn't been ready to be introduced into the House or the Senate today. The coalition has offered bipartisan support to facilitate the passage of such a scheme. We have said we will sit as long and as late as we need to. We have said we should not leave Canberra this week without having this issue dealt with, and we expect the government to bring this matter to the parliament as soon as possible.

This is the definition of a matter that should be referred to a committee of the parliament. This is exactly the scrutiny function that parliaments are supposed to apply to the executive government of this country. I particularly appeal to those on the crossbench to support this inquiry. Of course, I'm hopeful the government will consider the merits of inquiring into this matter. I'm sure if they are confident about their handling of this matter, they will think there is nothing for them to hide, that they will be able to vote for this motion in confidence, that it will exonerate their performance and handling of this issue, but I do have a sneaking suspicion the government is not enthusiastic about having its performance in this issue scrutinised. But that shouldn't apply to the crossbench. It shouldn't apply to any Independent in this chamber. It certainly should not apply to the Greens because they should have no interest in defending and protecting and covering up the government's shambolic performance in this issue.

While we might have different views about the policy solutions to this problem, we should all agree parliamentary scrutiny of this problem is a legitimate issue, and individual senators can pursue their own concerns and their own issues in this inquiry. For example, the Greens have been very critical for a long time about indefinite detention and what better way than to have a parliamentary committee examining this issue. I urge them to consider carefully whether or not they can support this reference.

Ultimately, the first and most important responsibility of any government is the protection of the community and the safety of the community. Sadly, it is very clear that the Albanese government has spectacularly bungled the handling of this issue. They were not ready when the High Court issued its ruling. They have not been ready when the High Court handed down the reasons for its decision. They were slow at introducing legislation. It was weak and had to be strengthened and they have made the same errors again in considering this issue. These are the sorts of things that Senate committees were established to examine. These are the sorts of questions that we should be able to ask and get answers to. We should be able to call witnesses, including from the community, from refugee advocates to the family members of victims of some of those people incarcerated.

I have had some contact with one such family. It's a family of a woman who was murdered by Tony Kellisar. Tony Kellisar is someone who came to our country from Iran on a falsified Canadian passport and was granted a protection visa. He went on to murder his wife. After he murdered her, he butchered her and dipped her body in a vat of acid in an attempt to cover up his crime. He left her two daughters to grow up without their mother. He is one of those people who has been released into the community. He is one of those people who, other than having an ankle bracelet and a curfew applied, has been free to roam about the community. His release after 22 years in prison for his crimes and then a period in immigration detention has utterly terrified the family of his victim, in particular those two daughters who had to grow up without their mother, who spoke very movingly in the media this week about their extreme distress at his release. We need to understand how he was released, why he was released, why controls on people like him were not initially adequate and why the government wasn't ready to take dangerous people like that off the streets to protect families like this. I would hope that all senators would agree and could support an examination of that.

The government will oppose the motion moved by Senator Paterson. Following this significant High Court decision, the government complied with the law just as any responsible government should. Within one week and one day of that decision being made, we had done what we were legally required to do, that being to release people into the community on bespoke visas. We set up a joint police operation between the Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force and we created an entirely new regime to manage community safety concerns while these people are in the community. The government has great faith in the Australian Border Force and the AFP to do their job to keep our community safe.

When the opposition had the opportunity to support this work in the House, they voted with the Greens to oppose it. The opposition voted against measures that would enhance community safety. In addition, we now know that an opposition senator chose to use his position as an Australian senator to advocate for a child sex offender to be released from detention. So we've seen the hypocrisy of the opposition on display, particularly this week. It is strong laws that keep the community safe, not tough talk. This referral is simply an excuse by the opposition for more words and no action. And on that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Minister, you're seeking—

Stop the bells. The division is cancelled.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Please, senators, order! Take your seats, or leave the chamber if you're not participating in debate. Minister?

Sorry—I'm cancelling.

Right. So we are back in debate. The question is not being put. Senator McKim.

I thank the government for not proceeding with that division, which, I'd point out, they were going to lose very comfortably. But the reason the Greens were not prepared to support that particular proposition—that the question now be put—was that I think it's reasonable for us to be given an opportunity to explain our position on this motion, because we have had a lot to say about this issue over the journey that the parliament has been on since the High Court decision in the matter of NZYQ. I've got a bit to say about this motion today as well. We will not be supporting this motion for an inquiry into the government's response to the NZYQ High Court decision. There are a range of reasons for that. Primarily, we don't want to give the opposition a platform, which would be available to them with the added cover of parliamentary privilege, to continue to demonise refugees and migrants in this country. How do we make the judgement that that is what the opposition would do? Simply because that is what they have been doing since the moment the High Court handed down its decision on NZYQ, and, in fact, continuing right up to Senator Paterson's contribution on this motion in the Senate this evening.

There are many dark threads that run through the politics in this country, but one of the darkest is the propensity for the major parties in this place, the ALP and the Liberal and National parties, to come together to demonise refugees, trample the human rights of refugees and persecute refugees. In recent Australian history we've seen that from the moment that the MV Tampa appeared not just over the horizon but in the political discussion in this country over 20 years ago. We have seen it right through until just moments ago here in the chamber.

What happened when the Tampa arrived was that the Liberal Party, who were in government at the time under former prime minister John Howard, saw a political opportunity, and that opportunity was theirs to seize if they were prepared to demonise refugees and people seeking asylum in this country. Of course, history shows that Mr Howard, Mr Ruddock and the others who were in Mr Howard's cabinet, government and party at the time seized that opportunity with both hands. What history also shows is that the Murdoch media, which then, as now, had an outsized role and influence on the right wing of politics in this country, provided a platform and a megaphone for Mr Howard and Mr Ruddock. We then saw the Labor Party cravenly capitulate to the Liberals and the Murdoch media and join in the campaign to demonise refugees and people seeking asylum in this country.

That was well over two decades ago. Unfortunately, here we are today and here we go again. The High Court decision was seized upon in the most opportunistic fashion by the opposition leader, Mr Dutton. He saw a political opportunity. He has built his political career on seizing this kind of political opportunity. The one thing about seizing this kind of political opportunity is that you have be prepared to demonise a group of people. You have to be prepared to persecute a group of people. You have to be prepared to trample and destroy the rights of a group of people. Of course, Mr Dutton is prepared to do that. We've again seen the Murdoch media provide a platform and megaphone for Mr Dutton to do that, and we've again seen the Australian Labor Party collapse and capitulate in the most craven way, effectively allowing Mr Dutton to write the government's policy on immigration detention and on migration more broadly. Because we've seen history repeat itself time after time, we in the Australian Greens have no faith that an inquiry such as that proposed by Senator Paterson would be any different at all. Let me make it very clear: refugees, people seeking asylum and migrants have been demonised and used as a political football for far too long in this country, and the Australian Greens will not have a bar of it.

There are some matters in relation to immigration detention that do deserve an inquiry. In fact, they have deserved an inquiry for a long, long time—for many years. And the Greens have been calling for a high-level inquiry—in fact, a royal commission—into immigration detention for many years.

My friend and colleague Senator Hanson-Young visited Nauru when she held the immigration portfolio for the Greens, and she was active in Senate inquiries into this matter. She called for the most serious of inquiries into immigration detention at the time. I visited Manus Island five times when I first assumed the portfolio for the Greens—again, participating in Senate inquiries and calling for a royal commission into immigration detention. We have moved in this place on more than one occasion for a royal commission into immigration detention, covering not only Manus Island and Nauru but also into Australia's onshore immigration detention system, which is used to warehouse people that have become inconvenient for the government.

There should be a royal commission into immigration detention, not only in Australia but in our offshore regime on Manus Island and on Nauru, where it continues to this very day. We need that royal commission because we need to tell the truth about what has happened in Australia's onshore and offshore immigration detention systems. We need to tell the truth about the demonisation and brutalisation of innocent people. We need to hold the people who created this system and drove it to account. We need to make reparations to people for the lives it destroyed and the lives it took. Critically, we need to make sure that this dark and bloody chapter in Australia's story is never written again. That's why we need a royal commission into Australia's immigration detention system. There would absolutely be support by the Greens for a properly constituted inquiry, a royal commission, into the Australian immigration detention regime. What we're not going to support is providing Senator Paterson and the opposition—and, specifically, Mr Dutton—with a platform that will allow them to continue to demonise refugees.

There are a few things that need to be said in this debate. The role that most of the media have played has been disgraceful over the last few weeks. There are, of course, some honourable exceptions and there has been some very good, very fair reporting of the politics and the community conversation post the High Court decision in the matter of NZYQ. But far too much of the media, including far too many of the journalists who spend a lot of their time in this building, swallowed the confected emergency that was created by Mr Dutton. They have amplified it. And they have allowed Australians to believe that everyone covered in the scope of the High Court decision was some kind of vicious criminal, when that is the furthest from the truth. In fact, many people in the scope of this decision have never committed a crime in their lives. They are innocent people; innocent people who fled persecution and who have been found to be owed protection by Australia. They have been found to be genuine refugees but the government has locked them up for a range of reasons, despite the fact that they haven't committed any crime.

There are also people who have committed crimes—absolutely, there are. They are people who have been sentenced under the law in Australia, who have done their time and who have served the penalty imposed on them by the courts. They have then been taken from that term of imprisonment, imprisoned again, indefinitely—and unlawfully, I might add, as found by the High Court—unlawfully detained, in some cases for many years, with no end in sight. And now that the High Court has actually said, 'You can't do that under our Constitution,' the major parties want to get together and punish them for a third time by depriving or curtailing their liberty.

What kind of country do we want to live in, colleagues? Do we really want to live in a country where you can be punished two or three times for the same crime when you are not a citizen, but, when you are a citizen, you can only get punished once? That's what it boils down to. It boils down to one rule for Australian citizens and another rule for people who are not citizens, because they happen to hold a particular class of visa. It's a disgraceful abrogation of our humanitarian rights obligations. It's a disgraceful abrogation of our human rights obligations. It is a disgraceful abrogation of international instruments like the Refugee Convention and a range of others that we have signed onto and committed, on the international stage, to comply with. We're going to chuck that all out the window because opposition leader Peter Dutton can smell a political opportunity to demonise refugees, people seeking asylum and migrants. As has been the case for well over two decades now, the Labor Party doesn't have the backbone to stand up to Mr Dutton. That is where we find ourselves.

We will not have any part of this witch-hunt. We will not have any part in providing Mr Dutton and his colleagues in this place with a platform to continue to demonise refugees, migrants and people seeking asylum in this country. We will not provide a platform for the News Corporation tabloid feeding frenzy on refugees and migrants. And we will not provide a platform for Mr Dutton to continue to write migration policy for the Australian Labor Party. That is what we in the Greens are not going to do. We will today vote against this motion, and we will do that because we are standing up for refugees. We are standing up for justice. We are standing up for the rule of law. We are standing up for the principle that double and triple punishment should not happen in a modern, liberal democracy. We are standing up for fairness, justice and human rights. We are standing up for principles that we believe are shared overwhelmingly by the majority of Australian people.

We are standing up for those things, and we are standing up against some things, too. We are standing up against the demonisation of refugees. We are standing up against the demonisation of migrants. We are standing up against double and triple jeopardy and double and triple punishment. We are standing up against the future crime regime, which is what we'll be facing either tomorrow or next week in this chamber, where people will be locked up because of something they might do in the future. This is Orwellian stuff, folks. This is a dark path that you are collectively taking our country down, and the Australian Greens won't have a bar of it.

I was going to start this by urging the Greens to reconsider their position, because this is a references inquiry. All it is asking is for an inquiry to be held. A royal commission is just insane, but we're just asking for an inquiry. If there were any demonstration that reiterated this government's blatant incompetence, it's the fact that Senator McKim just had to point out to them that they were about to lose a vote because they were trying to shut down the debate. They can't even get the process right and were going to be embarrassed there.

In the last couple of minutes of Senator McKim's speech, he said 'standing up for, standing up for, standing up for'. How about you stand up for good government? How about you stand up against the incompetence that we're seeing from those opposite? Maybe once in a while the Greens might want to stand up for Australians. They seem more concerned about the rights of everybody other than people who are actually Australians in the community, which is the one role the government has. The government has one role, and that is to keep Australians safe. But, for some reason or another, the Greens are more determined to stand up for everyone other than an Australian. Australians apparently have no rights to be safe and protected from people who've committed serious crimes and who, in many cases, find themselves almost stateless because their own countries won't take them back. These people are convicted child sex offenders or murderers, or they're convicted in their own countries and face the death penalty. It's absolutely pointless even trying to discuss something rational and sensible with those in the Greens.

It's interesting that those opposite are very upset because the Greens voted with the coalition in the House of Reps. Perhaps I can suggest some marriage counselling there. We know the Greens and Labor are in a very cosy relationship. We know that they rely on each other 90 per cent of the time and back each other at every opportunity. In fact, nine times out of 10 it's the Greens that help this government to hide any transparency from the Australian Senate, whether it's the transmission lines or now this complete debacle around detention. We know it's the Greens that will run the protection racket for the ALP when it comes to transparency, so perhaps some marriage counselling is on the cards for this little partnership.

It's like a little game of ping-pong at the moment on the government side. We hear from Minister O'Neil that Mr Dutton, the opposition leader, is soft on borders. He's weak on this issue. It is the most ridiculous deflection I've ever heard and there isn't one Australian who believes that. It's in stark contrast to the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, just last week, I think, saying that after Christmas he was expecting Mr Dutton to come back with a new, softer persona as he prepared to embark on a campaign as the alternate Prime Minister of this country. Mr Albanese was saying the hard-headed Mr Dutton—known for his tough stance on borders, his tough stance on home affairs and immigration and the fact he was part of the Operation Sovereign Borders team—would need to somehow soften that.

I think what's being demonstrated is that Australians are looking for strength, they are looking for leadership, and they know that it is absolutely wanting in those opposite. But it's also very apparent—you can almost read the playbook. It's like the Morrison election coming out all over again: it's all personal attacks and smears. They can't stand on their own record because it's an absolute disaster. Let's just go through the broken promises and failed ideas: the wasted $450 million on the Voice referendum; the $275 reduction in power bills that shall never rear its head. We've got Minister Bowen, the Casanova of the parliament—this is the old pink batts minister. He was 'Mr Pink Batts', and now, somehow or other, 'Casanova' Bowen is in charge of the greatest transformation of our energy grid. It is just inconceivable that this guy still holds a portfolio. Perhaps, in good news for some of those backbench senators on the Labor side at the moment, when this expected reshuffle comes and some of those barnacles that need to be shifted are knocked off, Mr Bowen may find himself one of those. Perhaps those in the Labor Right in New South Wales should start positioning themselves. We know the replacement won't be made on merit, it will be made on factional alliance and the state they're from. We know, Labor Right in New South Wales, there could be a vacancy when Casanova gets the 'see you later'.

It's these personal attacks that we keep seeing that are clearly what this government will use as a basis for their entire campaign. These attacks remind me: when I was growing up, people used to talk about when the boys were mean to you in the playground, it was actually because they had a bit of a crush on you, they were a bit keen on you. That's why they said nasty stuff, to deflect and detract from the fact they were a bit keen on you. Peter must be having a bit of a blush there in his office. Clearly those opposite and those up the end all have a bit of a click-on for 'Mr Dutts' because they are obsessed with him. They are absolutely obsessed. It could get to a stage where Mr Dutton might need an AVO over the great deals of affection that are clearly coming, in a misguided way, from those opposite. It is just absolutely insane.

If the government thinks the Australian people, when they are looking down the barrel of a breach like this—they have breached the Australian community's trust with their mishandling of this detention saga as well as the fact that they've broken all the promises they made before the election and the fact that, as they try to quietly dismantle Operation Sovereign Borders behind the scenes, a boat has arrived with people from Bangladesh. I think I heard this morning that Bangladeshis arrived by paying $12,000 per person to people smugglers to drop them in a remote area of Western Australia. We know that while, yes, this boat has been discovered, it's probably not the first, and I'm guessing that it's probably not the last, now that business for people smugglers is open again.

The other thing that concerns me—and this is very serious—about the government's shambolic handling of this High Court ruling is we know, as Senator Paterson said, when the court found in favour of the plaintiff, NZYQ, Minister Watt came in and told us that no-one was going to be released until the reasons came down. They were a government that didn't do anything until the reasons were out. That lasted about 24 hours before Minister Watt had to come in and say, 'Oops, we've released 48,' I think it was at that stage. We're now up to 141 individuals who've been released and are putting Australian communities at risk.

What I found really interesting, looking at the reasons from the High Court as they've came down, is that the High Court's reasons are very narrow. They're very, very narrow indeed. They relate to NZYQ. The challenges around this person were because he was a convicted child sex offender. The High Court recognised that Australia had never previously been able to resettle a child sex offender in a third country. It has just never happened. Due to the fact that there were no prospects of removal or resettlement, that detention therefore became unlawful.

There are two questions here. The first one is: Are the 140 people, that have been released in the community, all child sex offenders? Is that the issue—that those 140 are all child sex offenders with no prospect of being resettled in a third country? If they're not all child sex offenders, this ruling for, certainly, a number of people in my reading of it—I'm not a lawyer but I certainly know some very good lawyers—and in their reading of it, doesn't seem to apply to everybody else. It applies very narrowly to NZYQ and the fact that he was a convicted child sex offender and there had never been a successful case of resettlement.

There is a very high possibility, and this will continue to be worked through, that the absolutely hapless Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil have potentially released 140 dangerous criminals into the Australian community, four of whom aren't wearing electronic monitors—trackers. One was missing and, thankfully, was found today. They may not have needed to be released. But in almost a premature move, the government have released these people without waiting for the reasons, with 140 detainees out in the community, after being convicted of serious crimes, putting the Australian community at risk.

We heard in question time today, in the most pious of ways from Minister Wong: 'We don't discuss AFP actions and operations that are being undertaken. We don't talk about them. We don't acknowledge them. We don't breathe a word.' But the second that the detainee that was missing was located—and we heard late this afternoon that is what happened, which is a very good thing—we hear that the Prime Minister's office is busily briefing every single news agency that will take their call. At a quarter past two this afternoon it was, 'We didn't talk about AFP operations', but by about five o'clock, 'We can't wait to talk about them: "Hey, guys, AFP operation over here went really well. Look at us. Got him back."' It's funny how those things change.

It's this lack of consistency. We know they're complete hypocrites. We know that those who sit opposite—if you said it was white, they'd say it was black . Then they'd come in the next day and say: 'We know we said it was black, but it's black and it's black, but we've always said it was white.' The hypocrisy is consistent and blatant. They may have taken a lesson from their marriage partner up in the far left. This is an extraordinary government that is so unprepared to deal with anything, such as a basic risk management assessment.

We know no-one over there, except for Senator Chisholm, who we learnt actually did have a job in a corporate business, aside from Senator Chisholm, has worked in a company before, particularly a big company. Many companies, and even smaller businesses to be fair, usually have pretty thorough risk management plans. They have a look at their business: 'What's going to be a risk to us? What's going to happen?' We learnt with the Optus outage: 'What's going to be a risk to us? Do we need to have a second e-sim in our phone? Do we need to have some roaming capabilities? We need to have a backup plan.' You work through risk management strategies.

We have an Attorney-General's Department, a Department of Home Affairs and an immigration department. Didn't one of them—someone, anyone, anywhere Bueller?—in those departments say, 'We should have a bit of a risk management strategy here?' We now also know—it was exposed yesterday under freedom of information—that Minister O'Neil's office was making certain inquiries and certain concessions that they didn't think the case was going really well. Did anyone, the Attorney-General, say: 'Hey, guys: risk management. Let's have a look at this. If it isn't going so well, what do we have to do if it doesn't go our way? What happens if the High Court says, 'Guys, not really kosher. You're going to have to do something about it"?' What was their risk management plan?

An opposition senator interjecting

Yes, I can hear the crickets from here—no risk management plan. Anyone will tell you that if you are a competent government, someone, anyone, please have some legislation ready to go so that, the day the High Court finds against you, you are ready to go. But no, from those opposite, it was one week and one day. Guess what happened when there was legislation? It came to the opposition about a quarter past seven in the morning. I know we all got together at 8.40 in the morning. Parliament started at nine o'clock in the morning. The reason we were all here late that night was that, by the time the opposition had a look at it, they could see so many holes in it that they put forward six amendments. Minister O'Neil has come out that morning saying that never tougher legislation had been drafted. Minister O'Neil said, 'Oops,' but, 'Thank you, Mr Dutton, for the six amendments. We'll take every single one of them because ours isn't strong enough.' The toughest legislation ever written required the opposition to fix it up. We were here late because you couldn't get your drafting done.

Do you know why we don't have a bill now and why they won't commit to saying Friday, Saturday or Sunday? We don't have a bill. They have nothing drafted. We hear from Minister O'Neil that it's going to be so tough and we're doing preventive. No, you don't. There's no bill. It's not written. You guys are an absolute joke. Australians can see you're a joke. You're weak on national security. You're weak on border control. You can't understand how the law works and you certainly don't know how to contribute to it.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question before the chair is that the question be put. Senator Brockman?

I seek advice as to whether the minister can put the question after he has spoken. I thought it had to be another minister.

Under standing order 199(3), the minister is entitled to put the question.

On the point of order—

Senator Watt, you're not helping things.

The effect of the minister will be to stop Senator Roberts, Senator Van and at least myself, if not others, speaking.

That is a debating point.

I apologise.

The question before the chair is that the question be put. A division is required, but because it is after 6.30 it will be deferred till tomorrow.

(Quorum formed)

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Question agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

The question is that amendments (1) to (20) on sheet ZC243 revised be agreed to.

I've got a couple of quick questions for the minister. Minister, you'll be aware that in the bill there is now the provision for water to be leased to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Can you talk the Senate through some of the details of what that leasing will look like?

Thank you, Senator Van, for your question. Perhaps before answering it I might indicate that the government has been pleased to work with a range of members of the Senate. Senators bring perspectives from their life experience and their communities to the discussion about the Murray-Darling Basin. It's an important national asset that supports important activities and functions in basin communities and nationally, and we are pleased to receive advice and input from senators who've sought to engage with us in goodwill. In that regard, Senator Van, can I thank you, on behalf of the minister, for your willingness to engage with the government on the matters before us in this debate.

You asked about leasing. I can confirm that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder can lease water, and water can be leased as an alternative to purchase. Alternatively, the government might also enter into a leaseback arrangement where the government purchases a water right and then leases the water back for a period of time. Leased water may contribute to Basin Plan targets for the term of the lease period, and I'm advised that the leased water will count only if an entitlement is transferred to the Commonwealth and the water is contracted before the 31 December deadline. Such a leasing arrangement is only available under this bill. Were the bill not to pass, the Australian government would not have this option for the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water.

Leasing will form one part of the tools that will be available in our toolkit should this bill pass. It will sit alongside on-farm and off-farm efficiency projects, unsolicited water purchases, land and water purchases, rule changes and purchase by way of market tender. The decisions on which tools to utilise will be based on expert advice from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, MDBA and the department and of course will be informed by consultation, including with affected communities.

The minister has consistently indicated she wants all options on the table. She does not seek to express a preference for one method over another or to prioritise one over another. Nonetheless, we are grateful for your interest in ensuring we have the widest possible range of tools, and I can confirm that leasing is one of those tools in relation to the 450 gigalitres, as a consequence of the bill before the Senate.

Minister, thank you for that. Can I just clarify something? I believe I heard you say that water leased to the Commonwealth—before that date in 2027, I believe it was—will count towards the 450 gigalitres.

():  Under certain circumstances it can. There are a range of criteria that would need to be met in relation to the particular leasing arrangements. I earlier ran through some of the commercial requirements, including that leased water would count only if the entitlement were transferred to the Commonwealth and the water contracted before the 31 December 2027 deadline.

I'd be keen to hear from the minister at a later date what some of those commercial arrangements might be. You just talked about water that was committed to the Commonwealth before that, so were they leasebacks that you were talking about, as in leasing water back to the entitlement holder, not leasing to the Commonwealth? Could you just clarify that for me please.

My apologies, Senator Van. I was just seeking some advice, and I do regret that I'm going to need you to ask your question again.

No problem. I'm very happy to. I'm just seeking clarification that water leased to the Commonwealth, not just water that's purchased and leased back to a farmer, will be available as part of the 450 gigalitres.

Yes, that is a correct understanding.

I have a question for the minister: the $40 million for the Aboriginal Water Entitlements Program was announced in 2018 but there have been significant delays in its delivery. Having listened to the frustration of First Nations groups in the basin, the Greens have secured an increase in funding to $100 million to reflect delays and the loss of value in this fund. Would the minister please explain what work is being undertaken to end delays to deliver this program for First Nations water entitlements, including discussion of options about governance models?

Thank you for the question, Senator Cox. I can confirm—and I did earlier in the chamber—that the government intends to increase the allocation available for the Aboriginal Water Entitlements Program. The funding originally provided, in 2018, was $40 million, under the former coalition government. Quite incredibly, no meaningful steps were taken to implement its arrangements. Since coming to government, the minister has prioritised the implementation of the Aboriginal Water Entitlements Program. Consultation has occurred with basin First Nations peoples and arrangements for an interim governance structure to manage the water is being designed.

Delayed investment of the $40 million available through the program has prevented basin First Peoples from receiving tangible benefits in the five years since the program was announced. That has meant a reduction, practically, in the value of the $40 million due to inflation and the rise in the cost of water in that time. On that basis, the government and the minister have committed to raising the funding from $40 million to $100 million. This funding will be used exclusively to purchase water entitlements. The government also commits to providing funds to cover transaction costs associated with the purchase and holding of water entitlements.

Minister, just in discussions on some of the options around the governance model, can you confirm that there's the opportunity for an independent trust to be established for this $100 million? Could this money in fact be held by that independent trust versus the department, to ensure that self-determination is being exercised by First Nations people in the basin?

Thank you Senator Cox. I believe I have been asked about this previously in estimates, possibly by you! We are presently exploring the governance arrangements that could be put in place. We are conscious of the significance of having First Nations people directly involved in the governance of any water acquired through the program. This is a process of co-design and it has not been finalised, but we are open to arrangements that support engagement by First Nations people in the management of these assets which are being provided for through the program.

Minister, can you confirm that in fact the co-design process will involve 44 or 40 nations of the First Nations peoples in the basin versus a national water group that in fact the minister holds as a separate governance arrangement? It's important that the agency and the department acknowledge that the input of local groups is required into this co-design process. This is not a national framework for water and First Nations water rights; this is about the Murray-Darling Basin and the impact on those 44 First Nations groups in and around the basin.

Senator Cox, thank you for your patience while I sought advice. I'm advised that discussions are taking place both at a national level and in the basin itself. I think the government recognises the importance of the input and the advice that we can receive from basin First Nations peoples, but there are discussions going on at both levels.

As Senator Hanson-Young has alluded to over the course of this debate, the Greens have, in fact, secured a number of wins to improve this bill, and some of those specifically relate to First Nations water rights. As the portfolio holder for First Nations, I want to speak to those very briefly.

One of the amendments ensures that, when the Basin Plan is reviewed, the authority must consider matters relevant to First Nations people in relation to the management of the basin, including, but not limited to, improvement to the spiritual, environmental, cultural, social and economic conditions for First Peoples. The authority must also consider how the Basin Plan recognises and protects the interests of First Peoples and how it supports opportunities for First Nations people to participate in determining and developing priorities and strategies for the development, and/or use, of the basin water resources.

Finally, the authority must consider the management of climate risks. A further amendment relates to this and requires that the authority and the secretary provide information annually about First Nations peoples' rights. This will also ensure that we have up-to-date information about how the amendments are playing out on the ground, in terms of the consideration of those matters which are relevant to First Peoples in the review of the Basin Plan. I am amazed that this was not included in the original bill. This amendment fixes what is a gaping hole in this legislation and will ensure that both climate and First Nations knowledge and interests are considered—something that should have been included in the original legislation and the first Murray-Darling Basin Plan when they were introduced way back in 2012.

As I've spoken about many times in this place, First Peoples of this country have taken care of their lands and waters for tens of thousands of years. We hold generations of knowledge that have been passed down from our old people about how to care for country, sustain country and how to read country. We know what signs to look for that will tell us if the country is healthy or not and how we address this. We have that intimate knowledge. For First Nations people, over 40 nations that exist around the basin have this knowledge. They have a deep understanding, and their knowledge can only benefit the river. It is, frankly, ridiculous that for so long their knowledge has not been included in consideration of activities and allocation of resources about the river. If their knowledge had been respected from the start, the basin might be a lot healthier than it is right now, and we wouldn't be scrambling to keep it from dying. I'm glad that there is, finally, a legislative requirement to listen to First Peoples of the Murray-Darling Basin, but, as with many things, I'm disappointed that it took so long.

I want to take this time to acknowledge other traditional owners who are in the building with us today, speaking about another water system that is under threat, and that is the Roper River. These traditional owners put together a 13-metre-long map of the Roper song lines. I sat with these traditional owners today, and I want to thank them for their time and for sharing their stories with me because the importance of their story is connected to what we are talking about here tonight. Roland, Linda, Rosina, Naomi, Clive and Daphne, I acknowledge all of you and your delegation, which has come so far.

The Greens have circulated another amendment that I believe doesn't have government support but, in fact, includes the principles of UNDRIP in the review process, as I've just been informed. I think that's important to note. The amendment specifically seeks to ensure that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a relevant international instrument, is considered in the use and management of basin water resources in a way that recognises the traditional cultural knowledge and practices of First Peoples, as well as recognising and promoting their rights to use and manage the basin water resources. It is clear where the government drew the line with respect to that, and I'm glad to hear that it will be considered in the review process. We have a government saying that they are committed to things like the Statement from the Heart and that they listen to our voices, and there will be a lovely report into UNDRIP and recommendations to help implement its principles, and yet we have an opportunity to pass a very specific amendment that acknowledges UNDRIP. We are putting that in front of the government to put their money where their mouth is and actually begin some of that work. This is a very tangible outcome that can be achieved, yet we are told that amendment goes too far and, 'We will consider it.'

But consideration is the first step and I'm really glad to hear that that's what we're doing. We need to make sure that we're not kicking the can down the road but instead embarking on this journey to ensure First Nations water rights are at the centre of the work that we do in the Murray-Darling. I hope that, in the co-design process, this amendment, for the inclusion of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, becomes a permanent feature of the plan and the blueprint for everything that we do. We have to not just consider it but implement it and take on board those very important four key principles: respect and protect culture, exercise self-determination, ensure First Nations people are included in decision-making, and ensure that equality and nondiscrimination are applied in relation to our knowledge.

I have a question for the minister. Is there an agreement to consider the principles of UNDRIP in the review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?

Thank you, Senator Cox, for your contribution. In the interests of time, I will go specifically to your question rather than respond to the many important points that you made. Yes, we have been pleased to speak with you and with the Australian Greens about the ideas that you have about how to best respond to the principles contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have also engaged with other senators about that, and I understand that Senator Thorpe intends to move an amendment which will require the review of the Water Act to identify how the Water Act can promote the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We acknowledge this declaration as a standard to be pursued in the spirit of partnership and mutual respect, and we recognise that Senator Thorpe's amendment responds to a number of recommendations relating to First Nations peoples that were made through the Senate committee process.

The review of the Water Act will look at the entire framework of the act. This will be an opportunity to consider how the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples can be promoted in the Water Act in consultation with First Nations people. It also builds on the government's support for an amendment that, I understand, will be moved by the Australian Greens to ensure that the Basin Plan review will also consider how well the Basin Plan is providing opportunities for First Nations peoples to be heard and how well it is protecting their interests. Can I thank you, again, for your contribution and willingness to engage with the government on this bill.

While I'm on my feet, I do wish to make what I'd describe as a clarification. Senator Van asked me to step through the arrangements that would be in place for leasing. I want to make a clarification, not so much a correction, to be absolutely precise because Senator Davey has asked me about the same thing. I said I confirm the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder can lease water. By that, I meant water can be leased to the Commonwealth by irrigators as an alternative to purchase. There is obviously an alternative configuration for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder where, under different legislative or commercial arrangements, it could run in the other direction. That is not the intention of the bill. I wanted to ensure that the evidence that I provided earlier was understood correctly.

Thank you very much for clarifying that. As I understand it, this bill facilitates the ability for the Commonwealth to lease from farmers, whereas it can already work the other way—have I got it back to front?

Water can already be leased to the Commonwealth by irrigators, as an alternative to purchase, under the existing act. However, the changes that we propose in relation to the way that we are addressing the 450-gigalitre target in this bill mean that water could be leased to the Commonwealth for that purpose in addition to the purposes that are already described under the existing legislation. I'm looking at the officials to confirm that I have stated this correctly.

In your answer to Senator Van, you also mentioned the suite of options that will be available to the Commonwealth to recover the 450 gigalitres. In your list, which included on-farm, off-farm, unsolicited purchase and voluntary purchase, you also mentioned rule changes. Can you explain to me how rule changes can contribute towards the 450 target?

In the time remaining, which is very limited, perhaps I can indicate that, as to the water entitlement, the legislative requirement for the new 450 categories must meet a series of criteria, and—

Minister, it being 7.30 pm, I shall report to the Senate.

Progress reported.

I rise to speak today to remember a man who sadly and unexpectedly passed away last week, to put on the record the wonderful work he's done, for the communities he's worked in and for those who have reaped the benefits of his knowledge and passion for his profession—Professor Dennis Pashen, a man who dedicated his life to the health and wellbeing of rural and regional Australians, particularly in Queensland and in my home state of Tasmania. Dr Pashen sadly died last week in a swimming accident in the waters off Kingfisher Beach at South Bruny Island. His loss comes as an enormous shock to his many colleagues and to medical professionals across Australia who have been inspired by his commitment to and advocacy for the regional and rural communities he served.

Dr Pashen graduated from the University of Queensland before working as a rural generalist and medical educator across the state. He understood the challenges that medical professionals faced in regional and rural Australia, and he was determined to ensure that they weren't forgotten. He was a former president of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia. He was at the forefront of the campaign for the formal recognition of rural generalist medicine as a specialist field within general practice.

In 2006, Dr Pashen moved to Tasmania and continued his powerful advocacy in the place that he then chose to call home. He worked across the state, providing much-needed health care as a rural generalist in St Helens on the east coast and Queenstown on the west coast, where I first met him. I had many occasions to meet with him to discuss health care across the regional and remote areas of Tasmania. I worked closely with Dr Pashen on the issue that mattered most to him: improving healthcare for people living in regional and rural communities. I saw firsthand his determination and commitment to making sure these communities and their people were not forgotten. Whether it was fighting for greater access to quality health care, ensuring the availability of telehealth for those who needed it, or finding ways to reduce pressure on emergency departments, Dr Pashen was a powerful voice on behalf of regional and rural communities. He understood that the foundation stone for thriving communities is decent, affordable healthcare. Dr Pashen simply wouldn't accept that those living in regional and rural communities had to settle for second best. As someone who has lived my entire life in Tasmania's north-west, I know the challenges and frustrations people in regional and rural communities face in getting access to the health care they need and deserve. Dr Pashen retired last year, and, fittingly, he was named the 2022 Tasmanian Rural Doctor of the Year.

Rural and regional Australia has lost a true champion—someone who saw himself in the communities that he served; a man who loved the work he did and the difference it made to the people that he looked after. He will be dearly missed, but his legacy does not end with his passing. His example remains a shining light to those of us charged with the responsibility of making decisions about what our healthcare system should look like and how it serves those who live in remote and regional communities, something that I'm determined to keep working on.

I send my sincere condolences to his family, his friends and the greater medical community and say, 'Thank you for sharing him with us for so many years.' Vale, Dennis Pashen.

Colleagues, service to our nation and our communities comes in many, many different coloured uniforms, but, no matter the colour of the uniform, the mental health pressures and the welfare issues are the same. Sadly, however, the support they receive is still largely dependent on the colour of the uniform that they wear.

In the face of increasing national disasters, 370,000 first responders selflessly stand on the front lines, safeguarding the lives and the properties of so many Australians. They face exhaustion. They face trauma, given the highly dangerous nature of their work. Their unwavering dedication to serve our communities takes a significant personal toll on so many of them, leading to alarming rates of psychological distress, mental health diagnoses, thoughts of suicide and, tragically, all too often, suicides. But it's not just those who serve our communities; it's their families as well who bear the weight of what's called 'spillover stress'. Those who protect our communities and their families should not suffer for their service to us all.

The mental health and wellbeing of our nation's first responders and also law enforcement officers is an issue that I've been incredibly passionate about since I was emergency management minister. It was then that I came to realise that, as a nation—at the federal level and as states and territories—we need to do much more. It is a complete disgrace that today only one in five responders receive adequate care. This can result in prolonged and unnecessary psychological distress, mental health concerns and, as I've said, far more drastic actions. It's also, as I've said, the families of first responders who, much like defence families, make tremendous sacrifices for the community support of their loved ones.

I was heartened to learn that the RSL has opened its membership to first responders, offering access to hundreds of clubs around Australia where they can seek mateship, get updates on community events and also just have someone there that they can talk to who will understand.

I want to now turn to an organisation called Fortem Australia, which is an all-too-rare organisation that supports our emergency services personnel. Fortem has been instrumental in providing effective care to over 15,000 so far, delivering over 6,100 clinical psychology sessions and 37,000 wellbeing activities. They're projected to assist an additional 11,000 first responder families in the next 12 months. The need is great, but unfortunately there are still far too few services available.

In relation to Fortem, the $10 million commitment to Fortem by the former coalition government, which was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister in November last year, was intended to provide bridging support so that Fortem could keep their doors open until a competitive tender process, which was due to be opened earlier this year by the Albanese government. But like so many other things they have not done or not done well, the tender process is, as yet, nowhere to be seen.

Two days ago I wrote to Minister Watt with the support of two of our wonderful senators, Senator Davey and Senator Lambie, who both share my passion for providing much better service to our first responders. I was very happy and in fact, the three of us were very happy to learn that the government responded within hours of receiving our letter and provided an extra $1.3 million to extend the funding, which will allow them to keep their doors open over the main natural disaster periods: December, January, February and, in fact, through to June 2024.

While this is welcome, it is still a very short-term solution leaving them and all of their wonderful support staff in a very precarious and uncertain position. By not going ahead with that tender process and expanding it, our nation is left with inadequate supports for all of our first responders nationally. I call on the Albanese government to initiate the competitive tender process as soon as possible so that there can be certainty into next year and well beyond in the service provision for those who need it the most. We owe them a lot, and this is the least this government should be able to do.

Today is the UN International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. It's particularly poignant to note this day today when, since 7 October, 20,000 Palestinians have been killed—70 per cent of them women, children and the elderly. It was in 1977 that the UN General Assembly called for the annual observance of 29 November as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, in commemoration of 29 November 1947, when the assembly adopted the resolution on the partition of Palestine. In 2005 the UN General Assembly encouraged member states to continue to give the widest support and publicity for the observance of the day of solidarity. Today the Greens tried to note the day by moving a motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, but the government and the opposition combined to defeat even considering such a motion.

I checked what the government has done today to note the day and I could find nothing. I'm open to being corrected, but I could find nothing. I acknowledge that Senator Payman called for a ceasefire in Gaza in her two-minute statement today. From the Prime Minister there was zip. From Senator Wong, our Minister for Foreign Affairs, there was mention of Palestine today on her social media. On the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People she had a post about her and the Prime Minister meeting with families who have had loved ones killed or taken hostage by Hamas.

I condemn the atrocities committed by Hamas. I too grieve for the 1,200 Israelis killed on 7 October. But today, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, our foreign minister did not even mention the war in Gaza. There was no recognition, no reaching out and no sympathising with the families of the 20,000 people who have been killed in Israel's war on Gaza. There was no sympathy expressed about the humanitarian catastrophe that has been unleashed in Gaza that is putting the Palestinian people at grave risk of genocide, as described by the UN special raconteurs. There was no holding of Israel, the occupying power, accountable for its crimes, or even just giving, in the words of the UN, the widest support and publicity for the observance of the day of solidarity. On this International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People I send my love, my solidarity and my and the Greens' commitment to doing all we can to advocate for an immediate permanent ceasefire, for a just and lasting peace, for self-determination and freedom for the Palestinian people and for an end of the occupation.

I now want to share with you the news from the frontline, what the latest is on the ground in Gaza, and why calling loudly for a ceasefire now, particularly today, is so important. These are messages from Mr Sami Khader, the executive director of Ma'an, which is a key independent secular national Palestinian organisation. Mr Khader says:

The foremost priority is to establish a lasting ceasefire. Secondly, securing a sufficient fuel supply is critical, given its paramount importance for individuals, hospitals and the functioning of sanitation plants and bakeries.

The current limit on the number of lorries permitted falls significantly short, addressing only five per cent of the essential requirements of the population.

Gaza city and the northern region teeter on the brink of famine, making it imperative to enable 700,000 to 800,000 people to access basic necessities, such as clean drinking water, food and medication.

Compounding the crisis, all hospitals have been bombarded and are non-operational, compounding the urgency of addressing these pressing needs.

We need fuel to operate sewerage pumps and water. More than 120,000 litres are required just to cover these basic needs.

The need for food as over 800,000 citizens in northern Gaza, constituting about a third of the population, are suffering from a real famine. The need for drinking water where diseases are spreading and there's fear of the spread of epidemics. The need for winter clothing. The need to enable people to extract bodies from under the rubble, with estimates indicating that there are more than 6,600 individuals, half of them children, under the debris. The need for specialised equipment to lift the rubble. The need for electricity, medicines and medicinal supplies, all of which have been destroyed.

Sewage overflows into the streets. Blood, corpses, waste are scattered in the streets.

This is a brief picture of the disastrous reality caused by the brutal bombardment of the Gaza Strip. We need an immediate ceasefire now.

I rise this evening to speak about the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters report that was discussed earlier. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the chamber at the time, so I thought I would take this opportunity now. The report is a very detailed and considered response to the 2022 election. In the inquiry there were 1,500 submissions and 12 public hearings. The committee provided 36 recommendations across the interim and final reports.

The interim report held 15 recommendations, covering things such as increased transparency in the financial aspects of our Australian electoral system including lowering donation disclosure thresholds, real-time disclosure and donation caps. The intent here is to ensure that our elections are a contest of ideas, rather than a contest of the size of your bank account. Over the last decade, we've seen a significant increase in millionaires and billionaires pouring unfathomable amounts of money into seats—not on the basis of policy ideas, not on the basis of leadership or direction, but on the basis of the size of their bank accounts. We need to tidy this up. We need to make sure that when the Australian people go to vote in an election, they are voting for a contest of ideas.

The Palmer United Party made a range of claims in the last election that held absolutely no water. Things like our health assets and hospitals were going to be Chinese controlled, that we were going to implement a death tax and also, in relation to the pandemic, they made a whole range of ridiculous claims about the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This kind of misleading information and these kinds of ridiculous amounts of money do no service to our electoral system. None whatsoever. Misinformation and disinformation are covered in this report, and I have spoken about that in this chamber previously.

The report also covers the electoral franchisement and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I know that has been canvassed in this chamber today, but this is a critical part of making sure that our democracy is strong and robust and fair.

The final report that was delivered also covers the size of the Australian federal parliament. I did manage to hear some of Senator McGrath's contribution to this. I think he should probably go and have a read of that report, even though I know he was on the committee. The report recommends that there is a further inquiry into the size of the parliament, and that is because the size of our population has grown. Where we find ourselves now is a situation where some electorates have maybe 40,000 or 45,000 more people in them than others. That means those people on the ground are really challenged to be able to engage with their local politician, to get their issues and their views on the agenda. It makes it very difficult, be it the size of the population or the spread of the population. So the report doesn't actually recommend increasing the number of those politicians; it merely recommends a further review of that. The report does recommend additional senators. Two additional ones for the ACT, based on population, and two additional ones for the Northern Territory—and, again, the size of that land mass is significant.

The other things canvassed in the report include barriers to electoral participation for people with a disability, those people living overseas and older Australians—all Australians who deserve to have the same opportunity as anyone else to engage in our elections—and so the recommendations cover off those things. And, finally, there are recommendations for revisions to postal voting, media blackouts and electoral spending. This is ensuring that our electoral system enables all Australians to fully and fairly and freely exercise their right to participation. (Time expired)

Shocking health department data published today by Bernard Lane's Gender Clinic News has revealed that last year more than 1,400 girls and young women were prescribed taxpayer subsidised testosterone for a male health condition. The practice of dispensing testosterone for off-label use as a gender-affirmation drug has become so widespread that there are more than four times as many girls aged 14 to 18 commencing PBS funded testosterone for androgen deficiency than boys of the same age. In the 19- to 23-year age group, more than eight times as many young women commenced PBS funded testosterone for androgen deficiency than young men the same age. Appallingly, gender-affirming doctors are telling the PBS that the drugs have been given to girls to treat an 'established testicular disorder'. Authorities should be investigating urgently why thousands more young women are being prescribed taxpayer subsidised drugs with irreversible side effects every year—used off-label by young women and girls on the false grounds that they have a male health issue.

One of the questions that should be investigated is whether taxpayers are being defrauded. I use that word very deliberately, because doctors and young patients are being advised by lobby groups to use the PBS authority indication, 'androgen deficiency due to an established testicular disorder'. This is to get around the fact that prescribing testosterone to masculinise appearance and characteristics is not an acceptable use under the PBS. This is occurring at a time when more and more detransitioners are speaking out about the devastating lifelong impacts of these drugs and the dangerous mastectomies and general surgeries which often follow. How can the medical profession claim to be fully informing distressed young patients about the drugs they are told will help their gender dysphoria when those same doctors are simultaneously telling medical authorities they're prescribing the drugs to treat testicular disorders?

The testicular disorder PBS loophole is being recommended to young people and doctors by the lobby group ACON on its TransHub website, alongside a list of gender-affirming doctors and a template letter for a patient to hand to their doctor to ask for hormones. As I've told the Senate previously, more than 30 federal government departments have been paying membership fees to ACON, which help fund content like this, including some like the Department of Defence, which have been major sponsors. Lobbyists encouraging GPs to use this loophole to prescribe taxpayer subsidised testosterone to young women and girls point to the Australian position statement on the hormonal management of adult transgender and gender-diverse individuals, which was published in 2019. For example, ACON's TransHub website tells patient patients and doctors that the position statement recommends targeting trough total testosterone levels in the lower end of the male reference interval. But if you read the position statement they're quoting to doctors and patients, that recommendation is accompanied by a note that the recommendation is weak and based on very low evidence quality.

Is it any wonder that medical insurers in Australia and around the world are starting to worry about the inevitable lawsuits and medical malpractice scandals? Thousands of young Australian women and girls under 18 are being prescribed a drug which has permanent and irreversible impacts on their bodies while our medical authorities turn a blind eye to the manipulating of the PBS to have taxpayers pay for it. As reporting from Michael Bachelard in the Age this week showed, young Australians are now increasingly being pushed towards GPs to access gender-affirming treatment. ACON's TransHub website is very explicit about this. It says:

You are able to access hormones from your regular GP or Sexual Health Doctor. Hormonal affirmation and advice is not a specialist field, and does not require an expensive or difficult process, or access to a specialist to prescribe.

ACON then goes on to describe the tactic of doctors claiming a female patient has an established testicular disorder to enable a taxpayer subsidy for these drugs.

Because of these tactics that we have in Australia, we have an explosion in the number of girls and young women from the age of 14 using off-label drugs to enact permanent and irreversible changes, even as other countries have woken up to the dangers because of the extremely low evidence base and the devastating side effects detransitioners are now living with. As the Australian Greens and their friends in the plastic surgeon lobby seek— (Time expired)

Last week my office was called by a Melbourne mother in absolute distress. This mother lives in Caulfield and she had just been told that her children's school had been advised not to wear their school uniforms until further notice. This mother is a Jewish Australia, and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. She remembers her mum and dad telling her about the Hitler Youth marches in German streets in the 1930s—how terrified they were and how glad they were to be in Australia, where they thought it was safe for Jewish people. Then she said that for the first time in her life she felt unsafe in Australia. That made me feel not only ashamed but angry.

Australia has one of the highest number of Holocaust survivors in the world, and many of those families are in Melbourne. At a pro-Palestinian rally in Melbourne last weekend there were chants, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' In other words, the eradication of Israel. To Jewish Australians these marches are deeply hurtful. People marching and chanting for the eradication of Jews once again is absolutely terrifying.

I support Australians' right to protest, but that protest has to be peaceful and not with the violence of language. Political and community leaders who attend these protests have a responsibility to lower the temperature where they can, not to dial it up. Palestinians are suffering terribly, but hate speech doesn't help Palestinians. Hate speech divides us and causes more pain on all sides. Hate speech and division in our society are just what the terrorists want, and you're playing right into their hands. Good for you!

What example does it set for our Aussie kids, that when we protest we have to call for the eradication or killing of others? My goodness! Is that what we want to teach them? It is important at times like these that leaders don't take the easy path. It's important at times like these that great leaders take the harder path and are able to see and hear the pain of all the people. But leaders in parts of our community are not choosing the hard path; on, no, they're only choosing sides. They're not only choosing sides but they're ramping up the feelings of despair and failing to call out war crimes.

There are, perhaps, no more influential leaders in our communities than our teachers. Whether they are teaching our kids or our young people, they have a responsibility to set an example. On 13 October, just six days after the mass slaughter of 1,400 people, and before Israel had even launched any attack on Gaza, the National Tertiary Education Union, the union whose members are uni lecturers and academics, as they call themselves, passed a motion expressing unwavering support for Palestine and calling on members to join the pro-Palestinian rally the following Sunday. Remember that this was just six days after the Hamas terror attacks, and not a word of condemnation out of these academics about the evil and criminal acts committed by Hamas—oh, no! And then on 8 November, Lee Kofman, a Melbourne writer, organised an open letter signed by hundreds of Australian Jewish scholars, journalists and workers in the creative industries, who said that they felt unsafe in their workplaces and abandoned by their work colleagues. She said:

It really shook us to the core of our identity. We belong to this progressive tribe, but the progressive tribe doesn't seem to have very progressive values when it comes to us Jews.

Another group of progressives who also don't seem to be living up to their progressive values is the Victorian branch of the Australian Education Union. This week they sent flyers to Victorian schools asking teachers and kids to join what they called a 'week of action in solidarity with Palestine'. The flyers have a raised fist in the Palestinian colours and an invitation for teachers and school staff to take part. Attached to the flyer was a list of reasons in calling for this action, including, 'As teachers, we teach history so that mistakes are not repeated'. Really? I'll ask you bloody teachers this: is one of the subjects you teach the history of antisemitism and the Holocaust? Do you teach 3,000 years of antisemitism?

According to the Age newspaper, these union teachers took pro-Palestinian badges and flags to give to their kids and they also encouraged the kids to march to attend an organised protest. The Deputy Premier of Victoria and Minister for Education, Ben Carroll, condemned the Australian Education Union for this, and he was right to do so. What these union teachers did is completely wrong; their leadership is absolutely disgusting and they should be bloody ashamed of themselves. I thank God every day that they aren't teaching my kids. Apparently, you're the lecturers and the academics that are leading this fight. You're leading this! You're causing more harm than good, and if you can't see that then you should not be teaching. I'll tell you right now: you are shameful. You are leaders and you have no right to abuse your power, but that is exactly what you have done—you have abused your power. It is possible to have sympathy and show kindness to all people affected by war and conflict. That is the leadership that our Aussie kids need to see.

Senate adjourned at 19:59