If there are no objections, the meetings are so authorised.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protestors, which is deeply insulting for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and remembrance.

Since the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7, war memorials across the nation have been graffitied and defaced by pro-Palestinian protesters. On Sunday, they hit the war memorials in Canberra for the third time, defacing memorials on Anzac Parade. Just two weeks ago, the walls of the Australian War Memorial were defaced with slogans, and the Vietnam veterans war memorial was graffitied in March.

Do these people understand that these memorials are there to honour the service of veterans and to honour the veterans who we have lost who were fighting for their country? They were fighting for our freedoms—the freedoms they won for all of us, the freedoms that meant that Australians can protest peacefully. To say it's a slap in the face to all veterans isn't strong enough; it is an absolute kick in the guts. It's a rejection of their sacrifices, and it hurts every Australian veteran and their families.

Do these people really think that this helps their cause? Do they really think that these disgusting acts of vandalism will bring about a ceasefire? Do they really think it will ease the suffering of the Palestinian people? I don't think these people have any idea what it's like to have to go to war and have to fight, to see your mates killed in front of you or to come home with injuries that mean you will never be the same again. As a veteran said to me this morning, 'How dare these people, who probably haven't served, are defacing these memorials because of their misguided ideologies?' Another said, 'It feels like they are spitting on the graves of our fallen veterans.'

War memorials and cenotaphs for our fallen soldiers are in most towns and cities across this nation. They are visual reminders of the horrors of war and the appalling, unimaginable conditions any soldier faces on the front line. Every Anzac Day, hundreds of thousands of Australians go to these memorials to honour those who have served and to make sure that we never forget the sacrifices that they have made for this great nation. Without the selflessness and commitment of all who have served, the freedoms that we all enjoy, the democracy and the rule of law might never have been possible.

By the way, if they think this is helping their cause, if they think this will bring more Australians out to protests about the war in Gaza, they are terribly, sadly mistaken. I think most Australians are appalled at what we have seen in Canberra this morning. Most Australians honour the sacrifices of our armed forces. Many Australians have veterans in their families—fathers, mothers, sons and daughters—who have put their lives on the line for this country and for our freedoms. I am sure they join me in condemning anyone who defaces or graffities our war memorials. There are laws that protect our war memorials, and I encourage the police to find these people and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

War memorials have been defaced before, which is awful, and I will never understand it. Since the Gaza war we have seen this happen across the country, and, once again, I think the Greens should be reflecting on their behaviour in this chamber and on how their divisive behaviour in this chamber is fuelling division in the pure fabric of Australian society. Please think about what you are doing and what it is doing to the nation, because you are ripping it apart because of your actions in this chamber. When the Greens keep calling for protests, rallies and blockading of electoral offices and when they shamelessly allow themselves to be photographed next to antisemitic signs, they are whipping up the worst elements of hatred in our society and encouraging them to throw red paint on political offices, to write antisemitic slogans on MPs' offices and to do the things like defacing war memorials of fallen soldiers. The Greens are whipping up an atmosphere of hate and division—and all for votes! And they know it. What's even worse, they don't seem to care. Their actions don't help anyone and they certainly won't hasten the end of the war in Gaza and the end of suffering of the Palestinian people.

I would ask that every senator supports this motion today that the Senate condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protesters, which is deeply insulting to current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and of remembrance.

I rise on behalf of the coalition to speak to the motion that is currently before the Senate. Today the Senate, I would hope, will send a strong message to all Australians in support of the motion. We need to say, 'Enough is enough.'

It is incredibly disturbing to hear that some individuals have defaced several war memorials in Canberra—including a memorial to soldiers who fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars—with slogans trying to promote a particular cause in the Middle East. The defacing of Australia's national monuments to those who fought for our great country and our fallen soldiers in an attempt to promote a particular cause is, quite frankly, disgusting.

I would hope that as we stand here today celebrating, as we do every single day, the freedoms that each and every one of us has as an Australian in 2024 because people before us gave their lives, we are all able to support this motion. These are, without a doubt, abhorrent acts. Whatever cause people are trying to promote, the desecration of our war memorials in an attempt to make a political point is disgraceful and it is abhorrent. In fact, there are few words to express the extreme anger we all feel on behalf of Australians for those who would try and trash the legacy of our great soldiers.

On behalf of the coalition, I would like to say to those serving in the Australian Defence Force, to our veterans and to the legacy of those who made the ultimate sacrifice: we honour everything you have done for our nation. Australia is the wonderful nation it is today because of you and the sacrifice that you made.

Australians value the right for people to protest. We value the right of free speech. We value the right for Australians to believe in whatever cause they wish. In fact, that is what our soldiers fought for over so many years. But vandalism and desecrating monuments to our fallen soldiers is not free speech. It is nothing more and nothing less than, in the most disgusting of terms, attacking those who served and attacking those who gave their lives for our great nation. In fact, I say to those who thought it was smart to undertake these actions: Australians are better than that, and they are better than you. Australians are more likely to oppose your cause if you try to promote it by trying to smear the legacy of our fallen soldiers. Australians value the legacy of our service men and women, current and former, and we especially value those who gave their lives and made the ultimate sacrifice.

The vandalism of these monuments is a slap in the face to the men and women in the Australian Defence Force, our honoured veterans and their families. And we in the coalition will not stand by silently. The wilful defacing of national monuments to our fallen soldiers needs to be emphatically condemned by all senators in this chamber, and we need to condemn it urgently. For those fallen soldiers who fought for our nation, fought for our freedom, fought for our peace, let's stand together today and show them that we recognise the sacrifices and, more than recognising them, we value and appreciate the sacrifices they made. Let us stand together today and honour them—not just on Anzac Day but each and every day that we wake up in the morning and we are free, as Australians, because of those who gave their lives and fought for our great country. Their sacrifice is a part of what makes Australia so great.

Our public memorials to our fallen soldiers are a vital link between the past sacrifices of numerous Australian soldiers and future generations. It is heartening to see each and every year growing crowds on Anzac Day honouring the sacrifices of many soldiers in numerous conflicts over the centuries. Australians from all walks of life are increasingly coming together to appreciate just what those soldiers have done for our great nation. All Australians should be proud of our fallen soldiers, our veterans from all conflicts and the men and women currently serving in the Australian Defence Force.

To the protesters who desecrated these memorials: you do not honour our fallen soldiers and you do not honour our great country. In fact, those who vandalised these memorials are expressing nothing but a deep contempt and a hatred for our country, which should be condemned in the fullest. No matter what your view on the conflict in the Middle East—and I acknowledge that there are a wide range of views in the community—defacing our war memorials to promote a particular ideology or a particular cause is showing nothing but contempt for our fallen soldiers. It shows nothing but contempt for members of the Australian Defence Force and nothing but contempt for the great country of Australia. This behaviour needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Our Senate chamber needs to send a strong and united message to the vandals that we will not bow down to your abhorrent tactics. To the vandals who committed this disgusting act, let me make it very clear, on behalf of the coalition: no-one is going to adopt your cause because you defaced a memorial to our fallen soldiers. It completely undermines the message you are trying to portray and, quite frankly, only shows the types of individuals that you indeed are. I hope that the vandals who committed these acts will face the full force of the law.

The Senate has a good opportunity to send a very clear message today. We can show support for the men and women—our great men and women—in the Australian Defence Force, and we can support and honour our military veterans. We can stand united against those who seek to attack their legacy.

One Nation supports this motion, and I'll read it again:

That the Senate condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protestors, which is deeply insulting for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and remembrance.

It undermines the very core and heart of our beautiful country, and the Australian people. It undermines the respect we have, as a nation and as individuals, for the service of so many caring Australians in our defence forces, past and present, and it reveals the pro-Palestinian protesters' true, anti-Australian agenda. I join with Senator Lambie and Senator Hanson in condemning the Greens for this divisive campaign that they are pushing based on ideology and harvesting votes. It is essentially treason—defacing and desecrating our country and what we stand for. Australians, whatever their views of the wars we've engaged in, take pride in and honour our service men and women.

I recall a friend of mine; when we were in our 20s, he made the off-the-cuff comment that he despised the War Memorial because it was a memorial to the glory of war. I said: 'No, no. It's not. It's a memorial to the service that men and women have given in supporting and defending this country and what we stand for.' He has gone on to be a proud grandfather, with two boys now serving in the Army and a daughter serving in the police force of Queensland. He has children and grandchildren who have served and are serving our country.

Free speech, as Senator Cash pointed out, is not vandalism and desecration, which is the violation of property rights and must be punished. To all service men and women and their families and relatives: thank you. We will vote in favour of this motion to condemn the acts of defacing war memorials in your name.

I rise in support of this motion, as well. We are right to condemn this vandalism, for two key reasons. One, of course, is that vandalism of the War Memorial and the war memorials down Anzac Drive is rightly deserving of condemnation. The Australian War Memorial is, in my view and in the view of many others, the most sacred place in Australia. How dare anyone deface the most sacred place in Australia? How dare anyone deface something that is so sacred and pays so much tribute to people who have fallen? I drove past the War Memorial on the way into Canberra yesterday. All the hoarding is down and you can now see that wonderful edifice. To think that that has been defaced by vandals—it's just a crime. Even on the news last night, they were doing a piece about 'G for George'. My great-uncle's name is on the roll of remembrance. He was a Lancaster pilot shot down over northern Germany in the Second World War. The place is sacred to me, as it is to all Australians.

But that's not the only crime that's been committed here. In pushing the expression 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free', they are trying to divide Australia. They are listening to Marxists from overseas who are seeding misinformation and disinformation to divide Australia and Australians. That must be punished. That is not just a grassroots movement. That is being pushed by foreign actors here in Australia. It must be seen for what it is—foreign misinformation and disinformation. I stand with Senator Lambie and I support this motion, and every decent-minded senator in this place should do the same thing.

I deeply understand why this action would evoke and provoke strong emotion in the community. My family have lost members to war. My grandfather's brother, my Uncle Gordon, was lost during the Second World War. He flew Wellington bombers and, on a night in June 1944, his bomber disappeared over the English Channel. His body and the bodies of his crew were never found. His mum, my great-grandma, never got over that loss—never—and neither did my grandad. Throughout his life and the life of his mum and the life of every single remaining member of that family, echoing down to my family right now, there has been a hole and an absence and a sorrow that cannot be described. There's the lack of closure and a sense of frustration and the inability to grieve because so many have lost so many and you are made to feel that you should be grateful that you've lost only one son.

When my family emigrated to Australia, one of the first places we visited was the Australian War Memorial, because one of the co-pilots alongside Gordon was a man who was an Australian. We went and found his name up in the memorial and placed a poppy next to it. I can't remember that; I was a baby at the time. But, when I was elected to this place, one of the first things I did was go back to that memorial and place a new poppy and reflect upon not only the hole that this person who I had never known, who I don't even have a picture of, must have left in their family but also the way in which Gordon's absence and loss had continued to affect me. So I do understand why the actions that have been taken by the people who made these decisions to express themselves in this way have evoked this response.

I also very much hear the calls from MPs. We have MPs in this place who have served in the armed forces, Senator Lambie among them. I very much hear the call for respect of the War Memorial and a desire that it be a place of honour and reflection upon sacrifice and the impact of war. I very much understand that. When I went back to the War Memorial—this would have been five years ago—to place that poppy for the second time, as I left I was filled with a sadness that I expected and a melancholy that I expected, but I was also filled with emotions that I did not expect to experience. I was filled with anger and, quite frankly, disgust, and I will tell the chamber why. It was because, when you enter the War Memorial to go through the museum part of the memorial, one of the things that hits you immediately as you approach the desk is a flat-screen TV. On that flat-screen TV intermittently revolves the branded logo of some of the largest defence manufacturers in the world. We're talking about BAE and Raytheon and Boeing, the very organisations and corporate entities that make money while our troops are at war—while the children of Australia are in harm's way.

That prompted me to look further into this and to discover that those organisations are legally able to donate to the Australian War Memorial. Until very recently, as part of the expansion of the memorial, there was a theatre within the memorial, branded the BAE theatre. If you went on the website and you clicked the link, it took you to BAE's website. I found disgusting the idea that, if we were to go to war, corporations would make money from that reality; they have made money from previous times in which our people have gone to war. That made me feel really, really angry. Now, that's a view that I share; that's a view that is not shared by others in this place. It's a perspective I disagree with, but in that disagreement we see, and there is, a truth revealed. It is that memorials of any type, but particularly war memorials, are not politically neutral spaces. What is in them, who they reflect, what they say and what they don't say is the product of active political decision-making.

There was a time when an Australian war memorial did not feature the names of First Nations soldiers. There was a time when war memorials did not feature the names of those who had served in particular kinds of roles. There was a time when our nation sent First Nations people to war—in fact, in the Great War, Australia sent men to die in Flanders Fields whom they did not recognise as equal humans under the Constitution, and when they returned, they were still not recognised or counted as equal human beings under the Constitution.

Honourable senators interjecting—

You are wrong.

That is the reality of our history. Every single time we build a space of reflection or we build a space of commemoration, there are decisions made by people in positions of power, and those decisions are inherently political. The decision to expand the War Memorial was a political decision. The decision to enable weapons manufacturers to display their goods was a political decision. The decision to feature those such as Ben Roberts-Smith within the memorial for as long as was done was a political decision. You can agree with it or you can disagree with it, but it was inherently a political decision.

Protest is a political decision. One of the reasons why we cannot support the motion brought by Senator Lambie today is that it frames the act of protest by way of interacting with a memorial or commemorative space as something that is exclusive to those who support justice and freedom for Palestine, and that is not true.

They vandalised it. They scrawled paint all over it.

The reality is that we can't be in a position where we create a rule or express a view in such an inconsistent and unnuanced way, particularly not if one of the reasons that people are going to give for putting forward that view is that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force died for certain freedoms. The reality is that the Australian Constitution contains no explicit commitment to or guarantee of freedom of speech. I wish it did, but it doesn't. However, if we are to believe that the men and women of the ADF gave their lives in wars and conflicts to defend such freedoms, then you have to engage with the reality that protesting and painting is a form of speech. It literally, practically is.

Wow. That is so disrespectful. That is disgusting. You've hit a whole new low today, Jordon. You have no respect for those veterans.

I deeply do, Senator Lambie. I deeply do. Across our time working together—

Senator Hanson-Young, do you have a point of order?

Other speakers were heard in silence, and I'd like the same respect shown to Senator Steele-John.

Across that time together, Senator Lambie, we've spoken many times about the respect that I have for our veterans and our soldiers, and we have collaborated many times on the ways in which those systems and processes need to be improved. You know as well as I do that it is the sad and indisputable reality that those who give their lives in battle in wars far away from home are often asked to do so in the name of causes which are so much less and so much less clear than they deserve when put in that situation. You know this.

Senator Lambie, on a point of order?

A point of order: I'd like you to withdraw that 'you know' because that is absolute rubbish. I would never, ever just agree to what you've just said.

Senator Lambie, you'll have other opportunities to make debate.

I withdraw those, Senator Lambie. What I was attempting to observe is that I think—and I may have misunderstood you—that if you and I had a chat about, particularly, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we would come to an agreement that the lives lost in those wars should not have been lost and that the sacrifice given by the men and women killed in those wars did not actually turn out to be for the cause of Australian freedom. That was not what they died for. To say that every single individual named in those spaces died to protect our freedom—God, I wish it were true! I wish that we could say that every single person that gave their life for Australia had done so because they had been asked to take an action that would keep us safe or uphold our values. But that is not the case, and it is a crime that that is the reality of this country and that, for hundreds of years, we have sent men and women overseas to die, and so many have come back injured and psychologically harmed in the deepest of ways, and there was no need for it. They were sent overseas by politicians to die, because to do so suited the political purposes of the government of the day. I wish that were not the case, but it is the reality of our history.

So the Greens will not be supporting this motion today. These questions and topics are deeply important. It is our responsibility to engage with these subjects with the nuance, balance and perspective expected of us by the Australian community. That is the reason we will oppose this motion today.

Honourable senators interjecting—

You may well disagree with it and you may well be unhappy with it, but it is important that when we discuss these issues we do not engage with the reflexive and reactionary approaches that are so often the hallmarks of our political discourse and decision-making around the topics of war, because, when we do this and when we engage in these conversations in such a way, we create the very context that makes it so much easier to end up sending Australians overseas to die for causes so much less valuable than their lives.

I think it's fair to say that all of us in this place are a bit shocked but not surprised by the reaction of the Australian Greens political party. You would have thought that the one thing that would bind all of us in this place would be coming together in memory of the sacrifices that each and every man and woman of our very proud ADF have made to protect our country and its values and freedoms so that people like Senator Steele-John and others in this place can actually say the very things that he and everyone else in this place have been able to say today.

Yet we have senators in this place who come in and don't do the right thing of backing our veterans, who are hurting because they have had to go through a very painful process through the royal commission. This is one opportunity that's been put before senators, and you would have thought that every single senator in this place would say: 'Yes, we're on your side. We condemn the actions—the violent actions, the abhorrent actions—by those who have taken a decision to vandalise one of the most sacred places in this country.' But, no, the Australian Greens political party chose to do the opposite thing and back those people who have vandalised and made a mockery of the fine men and women who have stood up for this country and paid the ultimate sacrifice. They are trying to conflate the debate by talking about some private contractors or some sponsorship.

Exactly, Senator Lambie; it is. I won't repeat it. Australians have a right to peaceful protest, but they do not have a right to vandalise, spray paint, desecrate or otherwise deface our memorials, particularly those to the men and women of our veterans community and the ADF. What Senator Steele-John and those in the Australian Greens are saying—and I hope they're wrong—is that it's okay. Is it okay now to go to cemeteries? Where do you draw the line? As someone who is the very proud husband of a member of the ADF, I can assure you that your comments are totally out of order and offensive. I bet you that every single one of her comrades in her unit watching today will be absolutely disgusted by your comments and those of the Australian Greens today.

We'll make sure they know.

We will, Senator Scarr. We will. Anzac Parade is there for all of us to honour those who have died. We don't get to cherry-pick and say: 'We'll back that person. We won't back them.' It is for all of us to honour the service and the sacrifice that the men and women of the Australian defence forces have made. Whatever your position is, their service and their sacrifice deserve respect from everyone in our community. All the other stuff that's going on at the moment—all the other debates around other issues—can be done in an appropriate, mature and adult manner in this place but not when we have things like Senator Lambie's motion before the chamber today, which deserves respect and mature discussion. But, again, are we surprised by the Australian Greens?

It's an absolute kick in the guts to wake up some mornings to find out that memorials have been defaced. Whether they be the Australian War Memorial here in Canberra or other memorials in my home state of Victoria, it is a real kick in the guts to wake up to that news. What is the message that those protesters are trying to send? Is it that somehow they're winning? Quite frankly I think it's the opposite. The people in the community are saying: 'Enough is enough. Stop your childish behaviour. Grow up, be adults and actually have a proper debate about the issue, rather than relying on vandalism and breaking the law, because we've had enough of that.' We've seen that some of our colleagues' offices have been vandalised, subjected to violence and firebombed.

As community leaders in this place, we have an obligation to say, 'It's okay to have a peaceful protest, but it is not okay to resort to violence.' Every senator in this place, including Senator Steele-John and every member of the Australian Greens, has that same responsibility. The responsibility that we have here as senators, as community leaders, is very powerful, and people are watching. We need to be able to set good examples, as role models in this place, for the rest of the community and say, 'It is not okay to resort to violence.'

Senator Hanson-Young, on a point of order?

Senator Ciccone made a claim in relation to violence at electorate offices. He knows very clearly that we have condemned that violence. I would like Senator Ciccone to reflect upon that for the rest of his contribution.

The call is returned.

We need to remind the community that while peaceful protest is part of a healthy democracy, criminal acts are not to be tolerated at all. I'm disgusted to hear about the latest acts. These are sacred sites and must be treated as such. We're a very proud nation of many people, and we're very proud of the men and women of our ADF, people who've fought for our freedoms. These acts of vandalism have no place in society, and we need to condemn them in the strongest possible terms. That is why everyone in this place, bar the Australian Greens, will be supporting Senator Lambie's motion about those people who have defaced our war memorials. I want to congratulate you, Senator Lambie, for moving the motion. On that note, I look forward to the Senate supporting Senator Lambie's motion.

I thank Senator Lambie for bringing forward this very important motion today. I suspect it has turned out to be more revealing than you intended it to be when you moved it, and what should have been a moment of unity in this chamber has not turned out to be, but I'll reflect on that in a moment.

Our war memorials, whether they're the grand ones here in Canberra or the much more humble ones dotted around our suburbs, towns and cities, are the most revered monuments in Australia. In a country that is not as united as it once was, they are a point that Australians can rally around, can agree upon and can commemorate. You see that on ANZAC Day and on Remembrance Day when, in their millions, Australians get up early, go to their local war memorial and together—regardless of their background, race, ethnicity, religion or policies—solemnly pay tribute and commemorate the service and sacrifice of those who've fought and died in war to defend our country and the wonderful liberal democracy that we enjoy today as a result.

Whatever our views on foreign conflicts or other matters, we are able to unite as Australians on those solemn occasions at our war memorials to pay respect to them. What we've seen over the weekend in Canberra and in other incidents prior to now is a fundamental desecration of those sacred venues—a fundamental disrespect for the service and sacrifice of the more than 100,000 Australians who served and died in war and the many more than that who served, sacrificed and came back home. It is not too much to expect the elected representatives of the people in this place to reflect the sentiments of our community in standing up for that.

What is particularly egregious about this vandalism is the content of it. Let's be very clear and let's call this out directly: it was antisemitic. It's bad enough to vandalise a war memorial. It's even worse to put an antisemitic slogan on it. It's a slogan which the Prime Minister said is 'a very violent statement which has no place' in this country. It's a slogan which this Senate has voted overwhelmingly to condemn and say that it has no place in this country. On behalf of the opposition, I offer the government all bipartisan support for any measures necessary to protect our war memorials, whether that is additional resources to make sure they're not vandalised or additional legislation to make sure very severe criminal penalties flow for these acts of criminal vandalism, because the Parliament of Australia and the government of Australia need to send a clear signal that this conduct is unacceptable.

Senator Lambie, in her remarks, alluded to the way in which some people in this place have sought to profit politically from these foreign conflicts and sought to weaponise them for their partisan political advantage here in Australia. Recently, the Greens leader, Mr Bandt, was caught and recorded on a hot mic while addressing his national conference. It was reported in the Daily Mail. What he said at the conference was extremely revealing about the Greens. He said, 'I want you to think about what the narrative will be if we don't win these seats. Labor will say, "Ah, we can get away with bombing Gaza",' and then he goes on to talk about other matters. That's a disgraceful thing that Adam Bandt said, but it was very revealing in two respects. For the Greens, this is all about politics. For the Greens, this is about winning seats from the Labor Party in inner cities. Also, for the Greens, there's nothing they're unwilling to say in the pursuit of that objective. They're even willing to accuse the Australian Labor Party of being involved in bombing Gaza. On what planet is the Australian Labor Party bombing Gaza, and yet Adam Bandt is happy to weaponise this for political gain?

We just saw in this chamber from Senator Steele-John a 15-minute apology for the vandalism of our most sacred places. Senator Steele-John, the War Memorial is not a blank canvas for your extreme politics. The War Memorial is something that deserves respect and reverence and—

Senator Shoebridge, on a point of order?

The senator knows he's out of order. He has to address the chair. He's been disrespectful to the chair and—

Senator Shoebridge, through me.

disrespectful to the standing orders.

Senator Paterson, through me.

Thank you, Deputy President. Through you, Senator Steele-John should know that the Australian War Memorial is not a blank canvas for the Greens' extreme politics. It is a place we should all respect; it is a place we should all uphold. It is extraordinary that any elected member of this place would come in here and defend the defacing and the desecration of these monuments, and he should be ashamed of that. All of the Greens should be ashamed for defending that. All of the Greens should go and see our veterans and our men and women in uniform and justify why this one place that should be beyond politics, that should be sacred, that shouldn't be desecrated is an appropriate place for them to broadcast their moral superiority, their self-satisfaction and their pride in weaponising these issues for political gain. They should be ashamed. They have an opportunity to rectify this. They have an opportunity to make up for the appalling remarks that Senator Steele-John made before. They have an opportunity to vote with the rest of the Senate in favour of Senator Lambie's motion and stand up for the good values of this country.

I have to say to Senator Lambie congratulations for bringing this to the attention of the chamber. The desecration and the vandalism of these war memorials tears at my heart, as it would for a lot of Australians. Every year, for Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, people come out in their thousands and millions to respect those that who fought and died and sacrificed. The people that have done this are nothing but scum—absolute scum.

Vandalism has been happening, more so in recent years, to our statues, buildings, parks and other places, and now the War Memorial. This is something that I don't feel that our leaders of this nation are standing against. We're not hearing enough from our leaders to oppose this. We're hearing it today in this chamber, and I'm pleased we are. I heard Senator Steele-John make reference to these people not sacrificing their lives for freedom. I totally disagree with what Senator Steele-John said. If he looks at the history of the Second World War, Neville Chamberlain travelled to Germany three times to visit Hitler. He didn't want war. He was forced into it. Hitler then invaded Czechoslovakia, then Hungary and then France and other nations. The way he treated the Jews was that they were put into concentration camps, their lives were lost and so were businesses. Neville Chamberlain didn't want to go to war, and I don't believe that any politician in this place will want Australian citizens to go to war.

Senator Steele-John's message is that we shouldn't have wars. Then I'd ask the people of this nation who have faith in the Greens: if we were then to be attacked at a time by another country wanting to take us over, what would their stance be? Would they actually want to defend this nation? That's a question that people of this country really need to ask themselves come the next election on whether they should vote for the Greens.

Also I will say to the Labor Party: you have made quite a stance here today in condemning the Greens' comments. Will you still preference them? Would you still want them to have more seats in this parliament? Are you going to stand up for your values and what you truly believe in? Or is it all about what you think is best for you and the Labor Party rather than the people of this nation?

The people that are in this chamber today: thank you very much for being here and for listening to this debate. I'm sure most of you have either been born here or migrated here. But you migrated to this country for what it has to offer you: freedom, democracy and a way of life.

Those memorials have been erected to show our respect to those people that have fought and made sacrifices for this country and for what we have. That's why so many people want to come here and live here. That's why we really need to look more seriously at the people that we're bringing to this country. Where do their loyalties lie? You can have your protests, but this is Australia. This is not Palestine. This is not Israel. This is not Russia. This is not Ukraine. This is not any other nation. It is Australian soil. That's why we must respect it. You can have your protests, but this whole protest, really, in my eyes, started in this chamber when the Greens held up their Palestinian flags, made their disgusting speech and walked out of here. And that has continued on. There shouldn't be this division that's happening in this nation. For those people out there who are protesting through the vandalism that is happening, don't do it here on the streets. You don't belong here. Go back to a country that you belong to. Don't stay here with that hatred and the division that is happening on our streets.

Bugger off, then.

I want that withdrawn.

I withdraw.

Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young.

This vandalism—

I want that withdrawn as well.

I didn't hear it, but for the benefit of the chamber—

Senator McKim interjecting—

I didn't hear it. You've been asked to withdraw. I just asked you. I don't even suspect it's on the Hansard.

I withdraw.

Thank you.

I have my say about things and I say it openly so people know exactly where I stand. I'm a very proud Australian. People come here for a new way of life. Truly in this chamber I believe that every one of us, except the Greens, have the utmost respect for our serving defence personnel past and present. We have absolute respect for those people that have lost their lives in sacrifices they have made for this country, for our democracy, for our freedom and for our speech.

You've never done anything.

Senator Shoebridge, you're not assisting me.

He's not assisting anyone. Senator Shoebridge never does. All the garbage that comes out of their mouths is just that.

Senator McKim?

That was a personal reflection on Senator Shoebridge and I ask Senator Hanson to withdraw it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Senator Hanson-Young, please measure your comments and just withdraw that one.

Oh, please. I'm not Senator Hanson-Young. For Christ's sake, I don't even look like her, for starters. Please don't insult me. I'm not Senator Hanson-Young.

No, I said 'Hanson-Young'—

I mean it too.

The debate is descending. Senator Hanson, please continue.

As I said, the whole debate here today is about the vandalism and desecration of our war memorials. I'm calling on the leaders of this nation, whether they be the premiers or the police commissioners or whoever they are, even our Prime Minister: please do something about it. Do something, maybe, about looking at the people that we've brought into this country. Extend the time before they can get citizenship to eight years, to show that they are going to be good people for this nation and that they trust and believe in this nation that they want to be citizens of. If people on visas have committed this offence, deport them immediately. Get them out of the country. Don't allow them in the country. There are things that we can do. It's not just talk. If anyone does this desecration of our statues and other important features like this, get rid of them. Don't allow them in the country. We have that power. But everyone seems to be failing to do anything about it. You're all talk. Everyone's talk, with no action. We see this country going down the drain more and more all the time, yet we are not doing anything about it.

So what we've got to do is make the decisions, but I just want to finish by saying to Senator Lambie: thank you very much for bringing this to the attention of the chamber. We've seen where the Greens stand today. The people of Australia can really have a look at where they stand with this. Do you trust this mob to represent you in the chamber? Do you really respect them? Do you think they're going to be good for this country? Make the decision at the next election. I call on the Labor Party: don't give them your preferences.

As was outlined so well by Senator Ciccone, the government will be supporting Senator Lambie's motion today, and we thank her for bringing it to the chamber. The War Memorial is a treasured national institution, and it's deeply distressing for me, including as a local Canberran, to see what has happened to it, with the vandalism of the War Memorial. I think the Senate this morning has shown through the contributions just why the community is so divided on some of these issues. There was an opportunity, I think, with this motion to stand together and to seek to unify the country and set our expectations of what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable—what's unlawful and deeply disrespectful—and we haven't been able to do that this morning. Some of the contributions have ensured, I guess, that the message out of the Senate this morning is that we are deeply divided on this as well.

So the government supports Senator Lambie's motion. We condemn the act of defacing war memorials as outlined by Senator Lambie's motion. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! We just had a difficult debate. Senator Scarr, is this a point of order?

It is. I ask that it be noted in Hansard that the Greens actually voiced no to this motion.

It's not the practice of the Senate and it's not a point of order, and Senator Steele-John clearly articulated the position of the Greens.

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for today.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, and at the request of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent a minister moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion concerning the hours of meeting and routine of business for today to be moved and determined immediately.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

PRESIDENT (): The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Gallagher, the suspension motion, be agreed to.

I move:

That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

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

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator McKenzie, you need to have your blazer done up otherwise we can read the slogan. That has consistently been the way that I've applied that ruling.

PRESIDENT (): The question is that the procedural motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

I move:

That today—

(a) the hours of meeting be 11.30 am till adjournment;

(b) the routine of business from 8 pm be government business only;

(c) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 10 pm:

(i) Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, and

(ii) Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

(d) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;

(e) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded; and

(f) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the bills has concluded, or on the motion of a minister, whichever is earlier.

The question is that the motion as circulated and moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than five minutes.

Leave is granted for five minutes.

Thank you very much. Guess what we've got here? We have got the government using a guillotine again. You would have thought that this government might have understood the history of this country: the history that says Australia rides on the sheep's back.

Sheep are an absolutely integral part of our economy. You would think, by listening to those on the other side, that they no longer care about the underpinning of our economy in this country. Mind you, by the actions that we've seen them take in terms of their economic policy since they were elected to government, I think most Australians would realise they really don't care. What we've seen today happens time and time again. We saw it happen last week and we've seen it happen in just about every sitting week of this parliament. This government, because it can't manage its legislative agenda, uses things that have always, in the past, been used sparingly. There are conventions that are usually adhered to, and, occasionally, when you get to the end of a sitting period, you may well use one of these tools if you need to get something through. But, no, this government actually thinks that the use of the guillotine is just standard parliamentary process. It is absolutely unbelievable.

You should at least have some fig leaf and try to manage your agenda, before you come in here and start to guillotine debate. What is most significant are the consequences of the actions that we are seeing here today in one of the most important pieces of legislation which will have wide-ranging impacts across the whole of rural, regional and remote Australia. Those effects will then knock on into our supermarkets and our household budgets. This government is going to guillotine this piece of legislation and push it through.

What is probably more insulting for the many farmers that are in the building today, who've come to say to the government, 'Please, listen to us,' is the way this was announced in the first place. It was announced during Beef Week. The minister was swanning around in Rockhampton with his brand new Akubra, accepting the hospitality of Australia's farming sector. He then, under the cloak of darkness, got on a plane and flew to Western Australia to make this announcement—not in a farming region in Western Australia but in the city. He didn't want to eyeball the very farmers whose careers and livelihoods, after generations, were going to be completely and utterly damned by the actions of this government.

We are here today, as the coalition, to condemn the actions of this government in relation to this because we believe that Australia's farmers deserve better than this. They are what underpin the economic benefits and conditions right now. If it hadn't been for our resources and farming sectors, there would be no way in the world you'd have been booking a surplus. Your windfall surplus came off the back of rural, regional and remote Australia, yet you walk in here and you condemn this place because of your actions.

So what I would say is that the government need to have a very serious think about what they're doing here because, by their very actions, they continue to undermine the practices of this chamber. We are more than happy to have a respectful and robust debate about any legislation that you want to bring in here. We often won't agree, but at least do this chamber the courtesy of allowing us to have that debate. What we are seeing here means that tonight, with the time for debate probably limited to less than two hours, we are going to be prevented from having everybody give their contribution, and I can tell you that there are a lot of Western Australian senators and a lot of coalition senators—National Party and Liberal Party senators—who would like to come here and put on the record their support for Australian farmers. They would like to do that, but tonight, because we've got to truncate this debate into the space of two hours, that will be all the time that is available for those of the 76 people in this chamber who want to make a contribution to this really important debate.

So I say to the Labor Party: if you are really serious about being a government, you also have to be really serious about the parliamentary processes that sit behind what you do. You are coming in here and completely undermining one of the most important protocols of this place, and that is the accepted running of this chamber and the right of every member of this parliament to have their say on something that they believe is important. We should stand in condemning the government; the Greens, who have supported them; and the members of the crossbench who sat on that side to put this guillotine through. You should all be condemned for your actions, because Australia's farmers and Australia's rural, regional and remote communities deserve a lot better than what you're giving them.

The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in reforming the NDIS to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. I also acknowledge the recent commitment by the Leader of the Opposition to working together with the government to this end.

On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released in December 2023. In producing this report, the independent NDIS review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. It heard directly from more than 10,000 Australians, worked with disability organisations to reach out and listen to more than 1,000 people with disability and their families, recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received almost 4,000 submissions.

The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said that its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. Discussions have continued with senators across this chamber, as well as members in the other place, to address questions about the government's NDIS reform agenda that it is pursuing together with the disability community. We look forward to working with senators in this place to get the NDIS back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians.

In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents, as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate in addition to the aforementioned review.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

We've heard that response from the minister representing the government on this so many times that I think I could repeat it verbatim, and the same issues and absences of engagement persist this time, as they have done with every single statement. The government claims public interest immunity. However, it does not detail the way in which the relationship with the state and territory governments will be prejudiced by the release of this information. The government claims to have released key documents in relation to the request of the Senate. The documents they've released are irrelevant to the questions that we are seeking to get answers to, and I believe the government knows that. The government's response references the NDIS review, a review to which they have not formally responded. The government references their commitment to the NDIS and to collaboration and consultation despite progressing the largest legislative changes to the scheme through the parliament with the barest minimum of consultation through closed-door processes and with the aid of non-disclosure agreements. At this point, the statement from the government is little more than a joke.

The reality is that the National Disability Insurance Scheme matters to the lives of the 660,000 participants who rely upon it for vital support. It exists as a national embodiment of our collective community's commitment to doing right by disabled people and their families. There are many people in this chamber with whom I have deep political disagreements and who have deep political disagreements with me. Yet we are able to find common cause in the idea that, when changes are made to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, they should be thoroughly and properly scrutinised by the parliament on behalf of the Australian people, particularly those who are disabled and their families, allies and organisations.

The way in which the government has engaged with the NDIS since coming to office has been so much less than the collaboration and co-design that they promised at the election. Because of the vast gap between what was promised and what has been delivered, you see a rising fury in the disability community. The government should know the power that exists in the community and in the alliance between disabled people, their parents, their allies, their organisations and the allied health professionals who provide them with services, equipment and supports, because it is that alliance that successfully prevented the previous government from advancing its own set of so-called reform proposals that would have done great harm to the disability community.

Basic pieces of information about the government's intention in relation to this scheme, the government's intention in relation to the current bill before the Senate and the positions of the states and territories are not known to this Senate. The basic financial assumptions committed to by state and territory ministers when they came together and agreed to the framework are not known to the Senate or to the community. The impact of the amendments offered by the government to the legislation is not known to the community or to the Senate, because the government continually dropped them at the last minute, providing no ability or time to thoroughly scrutinise them. And the position of the states and territories, in detail and individually, in relation to the bill is not known to the community or to the Senate, because they were not called as witnesses during the 2½ days of hearings into the bill that we were able to extract from the government.

So there is an extension to the inquiry to enable us to get to the bottom of that information and to scrutinise, because that is our job as a senate. If that inconveniences individual members of the government, then, tough. Our job is not to represent the views of the government, nor to rubber stamp their legislation; it is to scrutinise on behalf of community affected by legislation. (Time expired)

Well, here we are again. I have to commend Senator Steele-John, because this is an area where he does want to see some scrutiny. Unfortunately, we've just seen another guillotine hours motion from the government because they can't manage the chamber, once again supported by the Greens to cut scrutiny, but at least in one area the Greens are keen on a bit of scrutiny: the NDIS. They are not so keen on scrutiny relating to sheep or farmers in WA: 'See you later. We can get rid of your work conditions, your jobs and your industry.' But, when it comes to the NDIS, at least the Greens will stand up for a bit of scrutiny when we're ignored by this government.

And why are we ignored by this government? Why are we here? For the benefit of those in the gallery, the reason we're here is that the government has said it's going to cap growth of the NDIS but we don't know how. We don't know how they're going to cap the growth. Apparently, the states are going to come to the party and roll out these foundational supports—all the supports that they stopped delivering when the NDIS came into play, because the NDIS was basically like a plane built once it had taken off. The Labor government under Bill Shorten, now Minister for the NDIS, and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard were so keen to get this NDIS up and running. They had bipartisan support and could have taken the opportunity to actually map it out, but no. They had to get it up in the air—a plane that was not built yet. One of the factors with that was that the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said to the states: 'Don't worry. It doesn't matter how much the scheme grows. The Commonwealth is going to pick up the tab outside of what you contribute.' So the states went: 'You beauty! Let's get rid of all the community health services that we delivered—no more community OTs or community speech therapists.' Any of those supports are gone. As for local psychologists, we don't have them anymore under the community health system, because the states vacated the field.

But then it got worse, because all of a sudden in education, on supports that are the responsibility of the state government to make sure that kids can go to school and are supported appropriately, the NDIS comes in and the education departments go: 'Ripper! We don't have to fund those anymore, because we're just going to tell parents, "Get more NDIS funding, and you can do it all after school."' So we're seeing continually rising rates of school refusal. We know that in the classrooms there are kids who need supports and are actually disrupting classrooms, not being supported and not being able to access the appropriate education. Don't worry about that, though, because the Gillard NDIS was going to pick up the tab for everything!

So we've now got to this point. When we were in government, we said: 'There are sustainability issues here. This thing is getting too big, too quickly, with too many people and services, and we cannot keep paying for this at the rate that it's going.' 'No, no, no,' said then shadow minister Bill Shorten. He said that we were pearl-clutching kabuki theatre players: 'There's no problem with the sustainability. It's all good. ' So then Minister Shorten comes in, finally has a look at the books of the NDIS, and says, 'Oops, this is getting bigger than Ben Hur, and there are sustainability issues.' So Minister Shorten's now decided that he's going to cap the growth of the NDIS. How do you cap a demand-driven scheme? You cap it with the number of participants or you cap it with what the costs of their plans are. We don't know, because this government will not provide the financial modelling that allowed it to make the claim of an eight per cent growth cap.

But what's even worse is that we're currently looking at a bill. The only reason we're still looking at the bill is that we managed to get through the Senate an extension of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, which had previously had 2½ days of hearings. We have very kindly been granted another two days of hearings, so there will be 4½ days of hearings in total for some of the biggest reforms to the NDIS, which is life-changing for 660,000 Australians and their families. But we are being denied the financial modelling, because it will somehow upset the relationship with the states. Well, let me tell you: we're going to hear from the states during those two days, because we're going to find out what foundational supports they think they've been signed up to—because they don't know. You've only got to listen to every education minister, premier and health minister at a state level—even the justice ministers at a state level. They don't know. A lot of these states have just had budgets, and guess how much money went into NDIS foundational supports: zero. So to every single NDIS participant and their family I say: we will keep coming back until we get some answers. (Time expired)

The question is that the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.

A division having been called and the b e lls being rung—

There has been a request to cancel the vote. We will cease ringing the bells, and we will cancel the vote.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

On 1 May 2028, Australia will end live sheep exports by sea. The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 will amend the Export Control Act 2020 to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea from Australia from that date.

The Australian Government and the Australian people recognise that there are inherent risks in the export of live sheep by sea. Despite numerous reviews and subsequent reforms, the Australian public continues to hold concerns about sheep welfare.

The Bill will strengthen sheep welfare to better align Australian export law with community expectations. In 2023, 43,758 Australians signed a petition (Petition EN5323) calling for the Parliament to legislate an end date to phase out the export of live sheep by sea from Australia.

The Bill aligns with the recommendations of an independent panel, appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to consult with stakeholders. The independent panel undertook extensive public consultations on how and when the phase out could occur, including engagement with more than 2,000 people in person and considering over 4,100 submissions and survey responses.

Legislating a firm end date is considered by the government as the best means for producers, businesses and markets to make business decisions with a level of certainty, and work within a clearly defined time frame for the closure of the trade.

A legislated future date provides clarity and certainly for all stakeholders and allows the market to determine when trade occurs during the transition period as producers move away from supplying the live sheep by sea trade.

Other measures, such as reducing trade through quotas or expanding the Northern Hemisphere summer prohibition, would add regulatory burden in comparison with a firm, legislated, future end date. This is the least trade restrictive approach for the phase out period.

The Bill will instate an absolute prohibition on the export of sheep by sea on 1 May 2028. There will be no capacity for an exemption from this ban.

The Bill only applies to the export of live sheep by sea and will not restrict the export of live sheep by air nor the live export of cattle.

This Bill will also ensure that offences and civil penalties will apply to a failure to comply with the ban, consistent with existing offences and civil penalties for the export of permanently and temporarily prohibited goods under the Act.

These penalties are necessary to ensure that they will act as a sufficient deterrent for the conduct of exporting live sheep by sea on and after 1 May 2028, particularly for corporations.

The approach to provide for a transition period is based on extensive consultation and strikes the right balance. Some in the community want to see the trade stopped tomorrow. Others continue to push for the trade to continue.

This is the right thing to do for sheep welfare outcomes, but the government recognises that it must be done in a way that allows for an orderly transition and cannot come at the expense of industry.

We say this because live sheep exports by sea have already declined to just 10% of what it was at the turn of the century, currently a market returning $77 million a year. It is expected that phasing out live sheep exports will see the sector adapt through more sheep meat processing in Australia. Value-adding can increase farm gate returns. It keeps jobs in Australia. It boosts regional development.

We all know Australians love their lamb, and now the rest of the world is catching on with demand for lamb and mutton products continuing to grow. Australia's lamb and mutton exports were worth $4.5 billion in 2022-23, and around $3.5 billion to domestic retail markets. There is every reason to feel optimistic about the future of Australia's sheep industry and those associated with the sector.

With certainty about an end date there is now time to consider and make decisions appropriate to circumstances. The government is providing assistance for these decisions with a $107 million transition support package announced in the Budget. The Bill will provide appropriate legislative authority for Commonwealth spending to implement complementary measures to assist sheep producers and the supply chain, increase processing capacity, enhance demand for sheep products in Australia and overseas and diversify agrifood markets in the Middle East. Additional programs may be implemented by the Minister under legislative instruments.

While those affected are making decisions on how to move away from the trade, there is regulatory stability during the phase out. Regulatory requirements for live sheep exports remain in place, and trade may continue without caps or quotas until 1 May 2028.

This Bill delivers on the Australian Government's election commitment to phase out live sheep exports by sea. Phasing out this trade marks a considerable step forward for sheep welfare, reflecting our nation's values of compassion and ethical treatment of animals. It has been done on the recommendations of an independent panel following extensive consultation. We have provisioned and the Bill supports the government to deliver the $107 million transition support package. Collectively these measures enable those affected by the phase out to be well-positioned, resilient and ready when the trade ends in 2028.

I'm very proud to stand in strong opposition to the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, along with every single Liberal and National Party senator. This is a bill that seeks to shut down a world-class industry, an industry that is leading the world in animal welfare standards and the closure of which will lead to animal welfare standards dropping across the world. The delivery of culturally appropriate protein from here in Australia to the Middle East will cease as a result of Labor's shameful, blatantly ideological and reckless legislation. It is legislation that should be rejected by the Senate and by the parliament.

The coalition stands firmly and steadfastly with our primary producers, including the livestock industry, with our truckies, with our shearers, with the fodder suppliers, with the families, with the children, with the doctors, with the supermarkets and with entire regional communities where the social and economic impact of this callous political decision will be felt, throughout regional Western Australia. And it will have flow-on effects over on the east coast.

Let me make it very clear from the outset that we are opposing this bill. We have always opposed this bill. A future coalition government will overturn this piece of legislation. That's why, today, you have men and women from Western Australia meeting with crossbenchers and meeting with MPs, trying to let them know the devastating impact this will have on their communities so that they can actually be fully cognisant as they walk in later tonight to vote on Labor's guillotine of this legislation. I want to make sure every single Western Australian person knows that it is the coalition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—who will overturn this legislation. If we're elected, we'll totally back the industry and reinstate it.

Labor's policy to shut down the live sheep export industry fails to acknowledge the importance of the sector, the supply chain of people and families and our trading partners in the Middle East that rely on this industry to ensure that families in faraway places have culturally appropriate protein to eat. They don't want chilled meat. They've made that very clear. Yet Labor think they know better. Labor think they can tell Middle East trading partners what's good for them. It sounds like policy of old, of many centuries ago. Here they go again, thinking they know better than people in their own countries.

The live sheep industry employs thousands of Western Australians and has delivered important and comprehensive animal welfare reforms in recent years. Australia has the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and this should actually be a source of national pride. Our sheep get off those boats fatter than when they got on. I'll tell you what: unhappy sheep don't put on weight. On unhappy sheep the wool doesn't grow. These are the types of measures that we now use in this world-class industry to measure the health of these beasts as they leave live sheep transports.

But Labor doesn't care. Again, it's because this is ideologically driven to win votes in east coast capital cities. It is west coast farmers and regional communities that are paying the price for their political ineptitude. Labor should be backing and supporting our farmers instead of attacking and destroying live sheep exports. We have faith in the industry and confidence that, through the reforms that we brought in when we were in government, we now lead the world. We're not going to cut and run. We won't leave the rest of the world to take up the market that doesn't live up to our animal welfare system. Don't kid yourself. Do you think suddenly whole nations are going to change the way they like to purchase and eat just because Australia decides not to export live sheep? No. Ethiopia will fill that trade. There will be other exporters with a lot fewer ethical standards. They just load the sheep on and get paid for how many are alive at the end. That is the system that will be put in place as a result of Labor and the Greens teaming up to shut down this industry, to destroy the lives and livelihood of Australian intergenerational farmers.

It's not just the farmers. It is the truckies. So many on Labor's side talk a big game about supporting the truck industry. Well, now's your chance. Now's your chance to say, 'I support the trucking industry.' If you sit in support of this legislation, you will not be supporting the trucking industry in Western Australia, and they know it. That's why over 64,000 Australians have signed the petition to keep the sheep industry here, on shore. They've raised over $400,000 to overturn this ban. They are coming after Labor marginal seats to change the government at the next election. It is not in the national interest to shut this industry just to get votes against Greens in inner-city east coast capitals.

The coalition have a strong history of improving animal welfare standards, and we made sure we reformed the industry in such a way that it now leads the world. We didn't put our heads in the sand. We did what good governments do: when you see a problem you actually work with industry to solve it. You guys—weak and distracted government. That's what you're delivering on so many levels and in the agriculture portfolio. It's no less than that. You're just cutting and running. We worked with veterinarians and with industry, and we reformed the methodology of how we assess the success. We've got the heat stress test. We actually measure the panting of individual sheep on voyages to make sure they're not stressed. They get more stressed sitting in a paddock in many climates here in Australia than they do on live export ships. But you don't want to hear the facts, and that's what's so offensive.

The minister promised, in Senate estimates, we would have a Senate inquiry. Instead we got a quick and dirty two-day inquiry from the other place, and thousands of submissions to that inquiry haven't even been uploaded into the public domain. It was, as we like to say in this place, very quick and dirty. It was a sham of an inquiry, and you did not hear the gamut of the impact. It was so that you could say, 'Oh, yes, we consulted.' Did you actually hear them? Did you actually take the time? No, you didn't.

Last week we voted twice in this place to put this legislation, which is suddenly so urgent, to a Senate inquiry. The legislation doesn't phase out this industry till 2028, but suddenly it's so urgent that you're guillotining debate on it today. You're shutting down senators from Western Australia and other National Party senators, who have their heart and soul in the region, and coalition senators, who, one and all, care about this industry, from even having a say on it. What are you afraid of? Why are you afraid of the sunlight, transparency and accountability it would bring? Why do you want to shut out the people who are going to be impacted by this? We say that a lot in this place, but you're actually shutting their business down, and you're not even giving them the respect of letting them come and have their say. It wouldn't cost you anything. Your legislation will still pass; you've got the deal with the Greens. The legislation will still pass, and the exports are going to be phased out, but you can't even spend a couple of months giving the men, women and children of regional Western Australia the courtesy and the respect of having their issues brought to the floor of the Senate and considered in a public forum.

It suits you to deride this industry. It suits you to say that farmers don't have a social licence to produce food. You won an election, but it doesn't make you God. This chamber is set up to bring to bear the gamut of political persuasion in our great country. We have the far left, the far right and everyone in between represented in this place, and we all bring to this chamber the gamut of political thought in the country. That is why democracy should be respected and people should be respected. The Senate inquiry that we will be voting on later today will actually ask the people impacted about what will happen to their local supermarket, their local footy clubs, their trucking industry and their farming enterprise. And it'll ask our trading partners. Why don't we ask the Kuwaitis? Why don't we ask the Middle East? Why don't we ask Palestinians, who receive live sheep exports as a result of the hard work of Western Australian farmers? Why don't we ask them what the impact will be of the government's policy?

The shadow agriculture minister has put out a call—and I completely agree with him—to Labor Senator Payman to cross the floor and stand up and vote not just for WA but for the food security into Palestine, which the live sheep industry actually facilitates. You can't like half of the debate. Senator Payman, sheep are now a humanitarian issue. Farmers want to keep providing quality sheep to the Middle East, and, in turn, the Middle East wants our sheep because they know Australian sheep are the best quality. Senator Payman has the chance to meet with groups such as Keep the Sheep, the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, Sheep Producers Australia, WA Shearing, Wool Producers, WAFarmers and the Livestock Collective. They're all in the House today. I urge Senator Payman, and other senators, to meet with this delegation to hear firsthand.

There are a lot of negative stories that get around that are not based in fact or truth. It's very easy, when you are out of sight, out of mind, for Australians to not really understand what goes on in the paddock, on a ship or in a market that doesn't fit the narrative of animal activists, the Greens and others, whose actual end goal is to shut down livestock production in this country. That's the end goal. This is just another step in the march. So I would urge not only Senator Payman but also other senators to consider seriously giving voice. We know that your substantive views mean you'll probably end up voting for this legislation when it's slammed through at 10 o'clock tonight without being properly debated and discussed, but at least give these communities a say. It's right for us to ask: what's next?

The Greens have made it clear that they want to shut down the live cattle trade. The last time we did that, we saw suicides across northern Australia. We saw our Indonesian trading partners very concerned that they'd lost food security, given the amount of cattle that head over there. It's a billion-dollar industry. That crazy decision cost the Australian taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars—when the government finally owns up to paying them out as instructed through the courts.

We know that Labor doesn't like agriculture. We know that the Greens want to shut down agricultural livestock exports in the main. So stop talking a big game on trade and stop talking a big game on climate change because the seven million of us who don't live in capital cities and don't vote for you are still Australians. We do the heavy lifting economically. We don't agree with you politically, but we love our country, too. We're very proud of what we do, and we deserve to be able to continue to do it. We won't be supporting the bill. (Time expired)

Finally, the day is here. The day we set the date to end this vile and cruel sheep export industry is here. It has taken too long, but today will be a win. And this win belongs to the brave whistleblowers, to the determined animal welfare organisations, to animal advocates and activists, and to the Greens, who have fought tooth and nail for this inherently cruel and morally bankrupt live sheep export trade to be shut down for good—once and for all.

Today marks a pivotal moment in the fight for animal welfare. I want to congratulate everyone in the community who has joined the tireless campaigns and the tireless fights to shut down live sheep exports. Too many animals have died and too many have suffered on these ships of misery for decade upon decade. Sheep, which have been treated as cargo, not as the living, breathing sentient beings that they are, have suffered for far too long. Governments have facilitated this trade for decades.

Senator Faruqi, I have to interrupt the debate now. You will be in continuation. I will now move to two-minute statements.

It is with great pride that I rise in the Senate today to celebrate the township of Richmond's outstanding achievement as the winner of the Small Tourism Town category in the search for Tassie's Top Tourism Towns 2024. First and foremost, I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Richmond for securing this title. From the iconic Richmond Bridge, Australia's oldest stone arch bridge and a testament to our convict past, to the vibrant local shops and charming cafes that line its historic streets, Richmond offers a unique blend of heritage and modernity that makes it a must-visit destination for Tasmanians and travellers of all kinds, not to mention its being also the town where I'm proud to have my electorate office. This accolade is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the community, businesses and local authorities that have worked tirelessly to showcase Richmond's beauty and charm to the world. Well done, Richmond.

I would also like to extend my warmest congratulations to Stanley, the winner in the Tiny Tourism Town category, and to Devonport, recognised as Tassie's top tourism town for 2024. Stanley's unique charm and Devonport's vibrant offerings have undoubtedly left a significant mark on our tourism landscape. As we celebrate these incredible victories, let us not forget that the journey doesn't end here. Stanley, Richmond and Devonport are now set to compete against their mainland counterparts to determine Australia's top tourism towns in September. This is a momentous opportunity for our Tasmanian towns to showcase their beauty and charm on the national stage. It's also an important opportunity for us to celebrate our local tourism industry and to recognise the dedication and hard work of those who have made these towns the gems that they are, particularly over the last few years when that same industry has been impacted so severely by the pandemic. Congratulations once again to Richmond, Stanley and Devonport. May they continue to shine brightly as we eagerly await the announcement of Australia's top tourism towns.

Today, 1 July, is a big day. It's a big day because, from today, all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut, with an average cut being $1,888 a year, or $36 a week. The Albanese Labor government are delivering this tax cut because we want Australians to earn more, and, of course, we want them keep more of what they earn. In addition to these tax cuts, our $300 energy bill relief will begin to flow, and there will be $325 for one million small businesses. And, for the third consecutive time, we will see a pay rise for low-paid workers. These 2.6 million workers will get a pay rise, backed by our government. Also, 22 weeks of paid parental leave kicks in from today. This is an additional two weeks for Australian families. This is enormous for families making those critical decisions about how to manage care and time away from the workforce.

Of course, these are just some of the measures that commenced today, and they're in addition to the other work we're doing to provide cost-of-living relief for Australians, including strengthening Medicare, making medicines cheaper across the system and increasing bulk-billing in every community.

We're waiving $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians. We're supporting fee-free TAFE and prac placements for students. We're building more homes more quickly in every part of the country. We're working to deliver cheaper groceries by strengthening the food and grocery code. There's cheaper child care and increased Commonwealth rent assistance. We're planning a Future Made in Australia. We provisioning for higher wages for aged-care and childcare workers. There's more funding for emergency and food relief and financial support services. And, of course, we're paying superannuation on paid parental leave. We know these measures won't solve everything, but they're real, tangible measures which will make a difference in people's lives. I'm proud of the Albanese Labor government's work.

I rise today to talk of the devastation of the health of the Coorong in my home state of South Australia. Over the last two months there have been two massive fish kills in the southern lagoon of the Coorong. Two hundred tonnes of fish have washed up along the Coorong shore. This is because the water quality in the southern lagoon is deteriorating at a rapid rate. It is hypersaline and losing oxygen, and, as a result, we are seeing fish killed. Local fishermen are describing these latest fish kills as 'the largest in 40 years'. Losing 200 tonnes of fish is the equivalent of one year's entire commercial offering of mullet in the area. This is devastating—it's devastating for the local businesses and to the local environment.

I've written to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, and urged her to act quickly. I've urged her to immediately release the $27 million of funding for phase 2 of the Healthy Coorong, Healthy Basin Action Plan. I've urged her to urgently implement monitoring of the salinity levels and water quality levels in the Coorong. We need to be ensuring that we're listening to expert advice and local knowledge, and I urge the minister to get on with this. We know that rivers die from the mouth up, and the southern lagoon in the Coorong is very, very sick. We need the minister to put her money where the river's mouth is.

The next set of nationwide crime statistics, due in the next few days, won't tell Australians what they want to hear. Vulnerable Australians are fleeing their homes that have become less safe because of escalating aggression and violence. Crisis helplines are overwhelmed. Australians in all their diversity are in real crisis. Helpline DVConnect is called every four minutes in Queensland. The Albanese Labor government said there would be 352 full-time equivalent frontline workers on the ground today. They've delivered just 94. This was a 500-worker election commitment in 2022. Based on performance, it's not likely to be delivered by the next election. The Albanese Labor government continues to blame the states, but it's their election promise. They've led negotiations for national partnership agreements. It is the Labor government's failure. Yet they still intend to distribute more money to the states and territories, despite that appalling progress.

Frontline workers confirm that the lack of capacity for family violence response for regional, rural and remote areas adds to everyone's distress—more families couch-surfing or living in cars or tents: anywhere other than home because home is not safe. Strangulation is up. Sexual violence is up. In all its forms, it's underreported. In this epidemic, announcements are not good enough. Rewarding poor performance is not good enough. Community legal services turned away nearly 1,000 people a day last year, yet the Albanese government had no new money for them, just enough to cover indexation. Frontline shelters can't take any more in. Minister Rishworth has said every new worker employed will be able to make a difference for women experiencing violence. The minister, the Prime Minister and the Albanese government failed to deliver.

It's a great day around the country today because from today every one of the 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut, and 84 per cent of those taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut than they would have received under the Liberals and Nationals. Every household will get energy bill relief, and so will one million small businesses. Millions of Australians on the award wage will get a pay rise. We know that it was the policy of those opposite to keep workers' wages low. We know there will be cheaper medicines and an extra two weeks of paid parental leave. Further to that, there's an increase to the superannuation guarantee, from 11 per cent to 11.5 per cent. This means employers are required to contribute additional money into their employees' super accounts in line with the higher percentage rate. This is good for Australian workers. These cost-of-living measures are about ensuring Australians earn more and that they also keep more of their earnings. In my home state of Tasmania, every Tasmanian taxpayer will now receive more in their take-home pay than they would have done under the former government.

We know that Mr Dutton and the Liberals don't support wage increases. With every opportunity they had when they were in government, they failed to step up to the plate and support Australian workers. We know that those opposite only ever delivered deficits. We have turned those deficits into two surpluses, showing that we are capable at running the economy, that we are fighting inflation without smashing the economy and that we are delivering this much needed cost-of-living relief. We are there doing the job that needs to be done, unlike those opposite, who have their head in the mushroom cloud.

Proverbs 18:15 teaches that the heart of the prudent attains knowledge and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. The worst virus response in Australian history—the most destructive and deadly government response in history—deserves the pursuit of knowledge necessary to do better next time. As Winston Churchill said after World War II, those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Currently, the government is busy failing to learn from history, knowingly and deliberately avoiding learning.

So I was pleased to see last night's episode of the Channel 7 show Spotlight deal with the COVID response in a balanced and responsible manner, advancing knowledge that was news to many viewers. Spotlight was a welcome mainstream media step to address their COVID propaganda and fearmongering. I hope this is the start of the media rediscovering journalistic integrity, and I hope the government was watching the audience's mood, quite clearly in favour of a judicial inquiry and justice for victims of malpractice and malfeasance in office that pervaded the government's COVID response.

The government's and globalist Liberals' refusal to fully understand every aspect of our response shows they value their own careers above the welfare of everyday Australians. The uniparty's continued refusal to call a judicial inquiry betrays our community, goes against our humanity and suggests an immovable object acting on this place that's all powerful, corrupt and morally bankrupt. The audience's emotion was borne of grief, frustration and anger—emotions the audience had every right to display, such has been the loss of life and the damage to life, to businesses and to communities.

The truth is the government got our COVID response horribly and inhumanely wrong. It's now our sworn duty to put that right, to call a judicial inquiry or a royal commission, to seek the knowledge to make amends for harm caused and to do better next time. It's an action needed without fear or favour, no matter the consequence.

Here we go. We are two years into my first term in this place, and we are two-and-a-bit years into this government. We know there will be an election before my third anniversary is up. In fact, the Prime Minister could call an election at any time in the next 10 months.

What have we learnt from being here? We've learnt that this is a government who likes talking about what it's going to do without actually doing it. So far we've heard about the Voice that they would deliver for Australians, which fell flat because they wouldn't talk. We've heard about a Housing Australia Future Fund that has spent tens of millions of dollars to build a sum total of zero homes. Even things that we might not support—we were told that this government would pass a new EPBC Act, which we'll not see legislated in this chamber before this term is over. We've seen a water policy that will destroy people out there. And we heard from a previous speaker about how this government has delivered two surpluses. That hasn't been delivered by this government. This has been delivered by the working people of Australia—the people that do things, the people that make things, the people that grow things and the people that care for things. That is who is forgotten in this government.

They go out there and talk about this cost-of-living relief. It doesn't exist. Things cost more. Things are harder. Things are worse for people than they were when this government came in, because this government is the influencer of governments. It doesn't do things; it just wants to be seen to associate itself with doing things. A government that does things would have delivered real energy relief. It would be building more housing. It would be supporting the people in their jobs and the industries that make the surplus, because money handed out to the good things we want to do happens only if we do the things we have to do. Under the policies of this government, we'll only be exporting our pollution and our problems. We are importing energy now that we should never have to. We're importing items we've no doubt had to because this government is not up to the standard required.

It was a great weekend of basketball on Larrakia country, with the Darwin Salties taking out the women's game against Mackay 75 to 61, with leading goal scorer Cat MacGregor contributing to an outstanding win for the women's Salties. The men's Salties did their best. It was a really tight game, but Mackay took it out. On an even more significant note, I give a huge thankyou to Wheelchair Basketball Australia for getting the National Wheelchair Basketball League back up and wheeling across the courts of Australia. It was wonderful to see the Perth Wheelcats come into Darwin city and play three games against the Darwin Salties. It was an outstanding performance by the Darwin wheelchair Salties, with great crowds at all events—the women's, the men's and the wheelchair events.

We saw the Salties wheelchair team take out the Perth Wheelcats in three out of three games. I have to put the scores on the record: 63 to 46, 72 to 56 and 70 to 66. I thank Perth Wheelcats coach Ben Ettridge and captain Shaun Norris for bringing their team across. I'm looking forward to the next time we have an interstate team come to the Darwin 'croc pot', otherwise known as the Darwin basketball courts. I give a huge shout-out to coach Jason Ivinson, coach of the Darwin Salties, and co-captains CJ McCarthy-Grogan and Tom O'Neill-Thorne, who've led a terrific team there. It's great to see the Adelaide Thunder, the Red Dust Healers, the Southern Districts Spartans, the Wollongong Roller Hawks and the Manly Wheel Eagles all back playing wheelchair basketball across the country. It was an outstanding performance and wonderful to see the game.

This morning the Tarkine/Takayna rainforest in Tasmania was silent except for the sound of birdsong, the wind in the trees and the buzzing of insects. The forest-killing machines have left a precious, biodiverse, ancient pocket of rainforest. Why have they left? Because courageous forest defenders have stopped them. They spent 29 days protecting this forest from destruction, and 29 people have been arrested doing the job our environment laws have failed to do: taking care of our carbon-rich forest, our first line of defence in our climate emergency, and the wildlife that calls it home. This wildlife includes masked owls, azure kingfishers, white-bellied sea eagles and wedge-tailed eagles.

The community were called to help protect the Tarkine and they answered. Thank you to the hundreds of people who were part of this in recent months. In all your roles behind the scenes cooking, donating, loving, helping, driving and carrying heavy things, you were all contributing. If governments are failing in their duty to protect our critical forests then it's a citizen's right, indeed it is their duty, to step in for them and peacefully disrupt, agitate, defend and protest. The real criminals are sitting in places like our parliaments, subsidising the destruction of our environment. The real criminals are the industries that cower behind the weak laws that protect them. It is a dark day when our governments can silence, punish or suppress those who stand up to defend the environment.

Last week we saw the first meeting of all state water ministers in over a decade. You would think that they would need more than an hour over Skype just to introduce themselves to each other. But an hour was all they got to discuss the released-without-fanfare 320-page Productivity Commission report on its inquiry into national water reform renewal. It's incredible. We know Labor don't like debate. Just look at what they've done today, bringing on a guillotine on the issues they don't want to shine a spotlight on. But I would have thought that they would give adequate time to the renewal of the National Water Initiative, which was one of Labor's five points to national water reform that they took to the last election. You'd think they'd want more than an hour to discuss this vital interjurisdictional issue with their own counterparts. This isn't locking Liberals out of the room; this is locking Labor state water ministers out of the room.

Maybe they wanted to keep it short because the report identified that some jurisdictions don't want to retain some of the core principles of the National Water Initiative in a new agreement or maybe it's just that the current Minister for the Environment and Water has completely lost interest since she rammed through the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. She also couldn't be bothered turning up to her own agency's premier conference in Albury the other week—the MDBA's River Reflections conference. She was on the program, but she didn't bother to show up. She sent a three-minute video. Now we see she can't be bothered having genuine discussions with her state equals. Shame.

Let me paint you a picture. You live on a beautiful, rugged and remote island. It's the dead of night, pitch black and dark, and you're having a medical episode that is serious enough that you can't get the help you need on the island. You need to be flown out to get the care you need. But, because there are issues with the lights and the technology at the airport, the Royal Flying Doctor Service can't land the medevac unit there. You've just got to hope you'll survive the night until daylight comes and you can get off the island. It sounds like an island somewhere on the other side of the world, but this is the reality for the 900 people living on Flinders Island right now. They need help and they need it right now.

Flinders Island Airport is in desperate need of upgrades. Some of the infrastructure is from World War II. If these upgrades aren't done soon, the airstrip could be shut down. This would cut off essential medical services and freight to Flinders Island. It would also slam the door shut on any tourists who want to go to that beautiful place. We should be encouraging more people to visit beautiful Flinders Island, not making it impossible for anyone to get there. Losing the airport runway would be devastating for the island and the people who live there.

The Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in the other place, has told the council to apply for a round of grants and hope for the best. Flinders Island doesn't have months or another election to wait around for and hope the money will come through. The airport could be shut down at any time because it could be dangerous at any time—not to mention that the grant would probably barely touch the sides of the urgent work that needs to be done. Flinders Island might only have a population of 900, but they shouldn't be left behind because they don't have the care factor of the parliament.

Over the weekend we heard that the Greens will introduce a bill to put some pressure on the government to recommit to a makarrata commission, which Labor promised ahead of the last election and was a key part of the Statement from the Heart. The establishment of a national truth and justice commission is something that I have long argued for. It is a crucial step toward justice and self-determination for First Peoples. Without truth we cannot move forward. I hope the Greens remember that this is the policy that I developed alongside the Blak Greens. I know the Greens are big on recycling, but a bit of acknowledgement on this would have been nice.

I want to give a shout-out to the Blak Greens, who I worked with on this when I was at the Greens, and who always knew the importance of truth and treaty coming first. The wider Greens Party would do well to be led by the Blak Greens more often.

When it comes to Labor, they keep saying they're taking their time and doing more consultation, but no-one knows who they are actually talking to. It's obvious there is no commitment to truth and treaty from Labor. To me it looks like Albanese's promise of truth and treaty will join those made by Bob Hawke and Paul Keating before him, and Labor will again fail First Peoples in this country. Labor need to stop stringing us along and admit that they've failed. Your dishonesty is shameful and it's hurting people. You need to be honest, clearly commit to telling the truth and move towards a treaty, because that's what First Peoples want.

I would point out to Senator Thorpe that the Australian Greens aren't big at acknowledging things generally, especially when they get it wrong, including when former Senator Bob Brown, the grandfather of the Green movement, proposed to the Tasmanian community in 1981 that a coal-fired power station would be better than a hydro-dam—a little piece of history that I never want to be lost.

I want to spend today talking about how time in this parliament is a finite thing. No-one is a member or a senator for eternity, so making it count is incredibly important, which is why I'm so disappointed in my Tasmanian Labor colleagues, who refuse to do their jobs properly. I only have to think of a couple of examples.

I concur with the calls from Senator Chandler that it is a great shame for our state when it comes to things like funding for that disastrous, destructive Environmental Defenders Office, a group of people purporting to provide free legal advice on matters of the environment but who are simply activists who are seeking to destroy job-creating, economy-sustaining industries like our salmon industry in Tasmania—something the Greens are not big fans of. But I would have thought that my Labor counterparts from Tasmania would stand up for this industry and demand that the funding be taken away—$2½ million every year in perpetuity, whether they break the law or not.

Similarly, where are the Tasmanian Labor team when it comes to our GST fair share? Two hundred and forty million dollars which funds schools and hospitals is being taken away from our state because the government refused to exempt that stadium on Hobart's waterfront from GST calculations, while the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers—Dr Chalmers—is able to exempt the stadium at Logan in his electorate from the same calculations—one set of rules for them and another for us. It's a shame, and Tasmanian Labor senators should do their jobs.

It's very good to be here on 1 July, because we know what that means to Australians. We know that today the Albanese Labor government is delivering a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer. This comes at a time when we know that Australians are doing it tough. It's incredibly important to be helping every Australian with cost-of-living relief, and that's why we are delivering a tax cut to every taxpayer. That means that 2.8 million Queenslanders will be getting a tax cut today because of the Labor government. We also know that 87 per cent of those taxpayers will be receiving a larger tax cut from the Albanese Labor government than what was proposed by those opposite. The Albanese Labor government is delivering a tax cut for every taxpayer, not just some.

I'm also really pleased to see in this delivery of cost-of-living relief that more women will be receiving a tax cut under this proposal. It's incredibly important that this comes at the same time that our government is delivering cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE and urgent care clinics around the country. All of this work is designed to help Australians with the cost of living, because we're focused on that on this side of the chamber.

Of course, it's incredibly important that, at the same time we're delivering a tax cut for every single taxpayer, 2.6 million low-paid workers around the country will be receiving an increase in their pay thanks to the minimum wage rise backed in by this government. That's what happens when you have a government committed to making sure that workers are earning what they deserve and getting a pay rise. Unlike those opposite, we support low-paid workers.

I have to say I don't know what planet those on the other side are living on, but back in the real world, on 1 July, under 'Jim-flation', let's talk about the last two years of Albanese Labor government. Do you know what Australians experience every time they walk into a shop? They experience 'Jim-flation' in relation to food. They know that, when they walk out, they will have paid 11.4 per cent more. That is the actual reality for every single Australian. Under the Albanese Labor government, what they are lauding today, their so called cost-of-living relief, does not even touch the sides of the pain Australians are feeling. Why? Because of the decisions of the Albanese Labor government. Every time someone walks into a shop, they can thank Mr Albanese and Senator Penny Wong for the fact that they are paying more for their food. If you're trying to get into the housing market or the rental market, guess what: under the policies of the Albanese government, again, there is inflation, now known as 'Jim-flation'. Why? Because it's Mr Chalmers's policies that are ensuring that every day out there Australians are feeling the pain, with the cost of housing up by 14 per cent and rents up by 14.2 per cent. Don't even start us on how much Australians are now paying under Mr Albanese in relation to their energy bills. It is 'Jim-flation', not inflation, because of—

Thank you, Senator Cash. The time for two-minute statements has expired.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The bipartisan motion passed in this place in October of last year following the Hamas terrorist attack of 7 October, which killed more Jews on a single day than at any time since the Holocaust, said unequivocally that this parliament 'stands with Israel and recognises its inherent right to defend itself'. Does the Prime Minister still stand by the entirety of that bipartisan resolution?

I thank Senator Cash for the question. She would know that that motion was put by the Prime Minister and I in both chambers on a bipartisan basis. And it does recognise the continued right of the State of Israel to exist. From memory, we also spoke in that statement about civilians. You will recall, Senator, that from the very first moment I called for restraint, and, as I recall, a number of those opposite were very angry about that and said it was outrageous.

Do you still stand by—

Order!

As we saw before as well as now, Senator Cash is obviously auditioning for Senator Birmingham's job. We all understand that. We moved the motion. I would also say that we stand for international humanitarian law and international law.

Order, Senator Cash!

We also stand for the application of international law and for international courts and tribunals, unlike those opposite. So of course we continue to support the right of the State of Israel to exist. We also say, as I have said—

Do you stand by—

Senator Cash! I've called you about three times. Come to order.

As I also said—I think on an Insiders interview last year—we are democracies. We hold ourselves to higher standards. We do not expect, and neither do we believe, that Hamas will ever be anything other than a terrorist group, dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel. But, as democracies, we also stand for the observance of international humanitarian law, which is contained— (Time expired)

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

From Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to escalate cross-border attacks against Israel and continues to refuse to withdraw north of the Litani River as required under UN Security Council resolution 1701. Does the Albanese Labor government stand with Israel's right to defend itself against Hezbollah, a listed terrorist organisation under Australian law, whose motto is 'Death to Israel'?

Unlike Senator Cash, who seeks to come in here and try to run a domestic political argument, we have been working for months with—

The answer should be very simple—

Senator Cash, you've asked the question. Please listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong, please continue.

I'll start again. Unlike Senator Cash, who wishes to play domestic politics in the Senate chamber with foreign policy—

Senator Cash, I did call you to order. Please come to order.

Order! Senator Cash! You are being incredibly disorderly.

We have been working with others to add our voice to trying to ensure that this conflict does not escalate. So it's not about beating your chest in the chamber. It's about trying to make sure that we do all we can, with others, to prevent this conflict from escalating. Senator Cash, I don't know if you are aware of what a conflict on the northern border would mean, both for Israel and for—

I lived there, so, yes, I am.

Senator Cash!

the citizens and civilians of the region, and all parties— (Time expired)

Senator Cash, second supplementary?

Given the Prime Minister's weakness on the Middle East is fracturing the Labor Party, will the Prime Minister guarantee his Labor government will not recognise a Palestinian state while Hamas and Hezbollah continue to pose a security threat to Israel?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Before I call Senator Wong, I am going to ask for silence across the chamber. Minister Wong.

I think the Prime Minister has demonstrated his leadership these last weeks, unlike Mr Dutton, who I see has failed to do so. The second point I would make is that we have, against your opposition, shifted Australia's position when it comes to the recognition of Palestine. We have said—unlike those opposite, who say you have to wait for the end of a process when we know that that has meant no progress on peace—alongside the United Kingdom and others, that we are willing to look to recognition as part of a peace process that leads to a just and enduring peace in a two-state solution. That is a principled position that the Australian Labor Party has taken. I regret that it is met by an unprincipled position by those opposite.

My question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Over the last two years, people in my home state of South Australia have benefited from cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk billing, all delivered by the Albanese Labor government. Can the minister please tell the Senate what further cost-of-living relief Australians can expect from today, including a tax cut for every taxpayer?

Thank you, Senator Smith. At least there are some senators in this place who care about the cost of living. What does it say about the opposition that, on the first day of all of these tax cuts and this cost-of-living relief, what they want to focus on is an international issue that they want to make domestic politics over? Over here, we understand the No. 1 issue facing Australians is cost of living. We on this side understand that. That is why, from today, 13.6 million Australians will see more money going into their bank accounts as a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer is delivered—not just some Australians, as the Liberals and Nationals would have liked. Three million people earning less than $45,000 a year will get a tax cut. You didn't want that. Under you, they wouldn't have got a cent. A person earning $40,000 will get a tax cut of $654, compared to zero under you. The average family will save more than $3,200. And nine out of ten women taxpayers, 5.8 million women—

Senator Cash! Senator Hume!

I know it's hard, isn't it? We're actually delivering more to the women of Australia. I know that's hard for you. Five point eight million women will now receive a bigger tax cut than they would have received under you. And, of course, we on this side want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, so 2.6 million low-paid workers will get their third consecutive pay rise backed by this government, and no amount of opposition from Senator Cash will remove that fact. You on that side tried to shut down cost-of-living relief. (Time expired)

Senator Smith, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that response. Can the minister please explain to the Senate why the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts are bigger and fairer and will benefit all Australian taxpayers, not just some, as the Liberals and Nationals had intended?

Thank you very much, Senator Smith. We on this side understand aspiration doesn't just start in the top tax bracket. Those opposite seem to think no people except those in the top tax bracket have any aspirations. Eleven and a half million people get a bigger tax cut compared with what those opposite proposed. What has their response been? Mr Dutton called for an election over the tax cuts. The Liberals said they'd absolutely wind them back. Deputy leader, Sussan Ley, said, 'We will fight this legislation in the parliament.' We know that those opposite just can't bear the fact that we have delivered bigger and fairer tax cuts to Australians, Australians who are under pressure. You talk about it, but we are the ones who are delivering cost-of-living relief.

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

Thank you again for that response, Minister. Can you please provide more details about the Albanese government's $300 energy bill relief for every Australian household and $325 energy bill relief for small businesses? How is the government providing energy bill relief now and setting up Australia's cleaner, greener, more reliable energy future?

From today, the Albanese Labor government is taking $300 off power bills for every Australian household. In two decades, Mr Dutton wants to serve up the most expensive form of energy there is, and he's going to ask Australians to pay for it. Mr Dutton says: 'I won't tell you how much it will cost. I won't tell you how much more expensive your bills will be. I won't tell you how many reactors there will be. You know what I'm going to tell you? It's going to be a big bill. I'm not going to say how big the bill is. I'm just going to say it's going to be a big bill.' This is an anti-renewables obsession that Mr Dutton is engaged in. The idea would provide the most expensive power there is in 20 years time, and all he is able to say is, 'Oh, yeah, it's going to be a big bill.' We're delivering cost-of-living relief now. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Reports in the Australian last week revealed extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir had issued a press release, which has since been deleted, which praised Hamas's 7 October attacks and urged neighbouring Muslim countries to attack and eliminate Israel. This comes after the UK government proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation in January. What steps has the Australian government taken to investigate the listing of Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation here?

I think—I hope—all of us would stand as one in condemning the hateful comments by the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. There is no place in Australia for such disgraceful statements or the glorification of terrorism. In relation to the listing, the senator, having been a member—perhaps he still is a member; I'm sorry, I can't recall—of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, would understand the process by which advice is provided to government and to parliament through the statutory committee about whether to list organisations. I certainly wouldn't propose to speculate publicly about that process, nor would he expect it.

But it does take me to a broader point about social cohesion. We all know that the conflict in Gaza, whether from October 7—as Senator Cash said, the largest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust—or from the tens of thousands, including tens of thousands of civilians, who have died since, has been horrific. It is deeply distressing for so many in the Australian community, and it is incumbent upon us all to try to ensure that conflict is not imported here, in word and deed and in how we speak about one another. So, all of us should join in condemning the words that Senator Paterson outlined, just as we should also ensure that we continue to advocate and press for peace in a region which has known so much loss of life and so much conflict.

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

Reports by 60 Minutes last month showed how Hizb ut-Tahrir had sought to recruit and radicalise students on our campuses, infiltrating pro-Palestinian protests to push antisemitic narratives and fan division. Will the government commit to taking other urgent action to address the crisis of antisemitism in Australia, which is undermining our social cohesion, and support our Jewish communities at their time of greatest need?

Firstly, in relation to the primary question, I remind Senator Paterson that the coalition repeatedly rejected listing Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation when they were in government. In 2017, the then Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, rejected listing it based on the strong view of ASIO that it did not fit the definition of a terrorist organisation in the Criminal Code. The Leader of the Opposition has also affirmed that the government relies on the advice of our intelligence and security agencies, which is precisely what is being done in this matter.

I will take the interjection from Senator Ruston. If Senator Ruston thinks that she knows better than our security and intelligence agencies when it comes to these matters, perhaps she should stand up and say that. I, for one, think that we should look to the advice of those who are engaged in working to keep Australians safe about how best to do that rather than making cheap political shots like that one.

I remind you, Minister, to make comments to the chair. Senator Paterson, a second supplementary?

The Herald Sun reported yesterday that Hizb ut-Tahrir had moved its UK operations to Australia in the wake of their ban in that country. Will the Albanese government stop Australia becoming a safe haven for this extremist organisation by joining our allies, by listing Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation?

I again refer to my earlier answer, which is—

Again, I'll take Senator Ruston's comment. She seems to think she knows more than our intelligence agencies. I, and others, might have a view about perhaps approaching this with a little more respect for the experts who advise us. But what I would say is that this is not a political issue. This is security issue. This is an intelligence issue. This is not an issue that is about politics, and Senator Paterson knows that. He's been part of these processes.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I have addressed the substance, which is that we condemn the hateful comments. There's no place in Australia for this. We continue to take advice, as those opposite did, from our security and intelligence agencies. (Time expired)

FARUQI () (): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, for almost nine long months now we have witnessed Israel's full-blown genocide in Gaza, during which Israel has ruthlessly massacred close to 40,000 Palestinians, including around 15,000 Palestinian children. Israel has relentlessly bombed schools, hospitals, ambulances, universities, places of worship and even the tents where forcibly displaced Palestinians are taking refuge. Many thousands of Palestinians are missing or buried under the rubble. This year alone your government has imposed autonomous sanctions on Russia, Iran and Myanmar, and yesterday the Labor leadership shamefully sanctioned Senator Payman. When will you sanction Israel and the extreme Netanyahu government?

First, I want to make some comments about collective decision-making, which goes to the last part of your question. We believe collective decision-making is about a group being more powerful than any one individual. That truth is demonstrated in the history of this nation. Our party in government is the only party that has delivered real progress in Australia on Medicare, the minimum wage and fairness at work, social welfare for older Australians and people with disabilities, paid parental leave, superannuation, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act, the abolition of the White Australia policy, Mabo land rights and the removal of discrimination against LGBTI Australians, and there is so much more. My point is that collective action and decision-making is central to that.

We believe that Labor governments are the ones able to deliver change. This is why no Australian government has ever expressed such strong support for Palestinian statehood as this one. No Australian government has ever done so. It's a position that has faced criticism from those opposite and those who want to support the status quo, but it's a position which reflects the approach that so many in the international community are taking. We also believe that we are not served well as a country by those who seek to bring the conflict here. Nothing you do in this chamber will resolve the conflict, but it does bring the division here. That is the reality, Senator. In relation to the actions taken, I'm happy, in my supplementary, to go through the actions we have taken since October 2023.

Senator Faruqi, first supplementary?

Minister, your government has not taken any concrete action to stop Israel's genocide in Gaza, and turning against the people who are standing up for Palestine is not going to do anything either. You failed to join South Africa's ICJ case. You failed to sanction Israel or expel the Israeli ambassador. The only concrete action you have taken is against those supporting Palestine. How many more Palestinians will be killed before you take concrete action?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I'm waiting for order.

I understand why you want to run a political line here in this chamber. I do.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I have called for order. That includes every single senator in this place—Senator Shoebridge and others.

As I said, on this side of the chamber, we have adopted the strongest support for Palestinian statehood in Australia's history.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Yes, we have. The difference between our party, the Greens and those opposite is that, unlike those opposite, we don't try to wake up every morning figuring out how to stand in the way of change, and, unlike the Greens, we don't think that asserting moral superiority and condemning others delivers anything other than self-satisfaction. That's our view. The reality is that this is a catastrophic conflict. You have seen us diplomatically make a range of decisions, including voting for— (Time expired)

Senator Faruqi, second supplementary?

Minister, the difference between your party and mine is that we have the moral courage, and you are cowards. You moved a motion at the Labor Party platform conference in 2021 calling for the Labor government to recognise Palestine, but disgracefully your government has voted against it twice already. Now you're punishing the only Labor member who has had the courage to vote for recognising Palestine. How long must we wait before you join the 147 other countries and recognise Palestine? (Time expired)

At the end of my last answer, I should have said that we voted for a ceasefire, and we voted to admit Palestine as a member of the United Nations. I note what the senator has said. What demonstrates, frankly, the Greens' political agenda is that last week they couldn't bring themselves to support this motion: 'the need for the Senate to recognise the state of Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace'. What does it say about how much you are focused on political differentiation that you could not support that? You could not support that because all you, Senator Faruqi, and your colleagues want to do is to politically differentiate on this conflict, which is horrific. It is clear you don't actually want to make progress on the two-state solution. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Today is the day Australians will receive cost-of-living relief in the form of a tax cut. This will be crucial relief to households that are continuing to face cost-of-living pressures. The Albanese Labor government is supporting all Australians, not just some, as those opposite would have done. In addition to the tax cuts, can the minister please outline what other cost-of-living relief is being rolled out by the government from today and how these initiatives will make life easier for Australians?

I thank Senator Walsh for the question and for focusing on the issues that matter to every Australian on cost of living. We know that Australians are under pressure. In addition to the tax cuts that will go to every taxpayer in the country, the budget also delivered a further $7.8 billion in cost-of-living relief. There will be tax cuts from 1 July for 13.6 million Australians—not just some of them but all of them; 84 per cent of taxpayers will be better off under Labor's plan—and on their pay slips Australians will see more money, thanks to those tax cuts, and more in the future, thanks to some of the wage increases that the Labor government has argued for. I know that, on this side of the chamber, many of us have worked in the union movement arguing for wage increases for working people, and, of course, we see that with the minimum wage increases but also some of the wage outcomes we're seeing across the care economy.

There's $300 in energy bill relief for every single household. There's $325 each for one million small businesses to support them with their energy costs. We know that Australians are under pressure up and down the income scale, and the most efficient and effective way to provide that energy bill relief is to provide it broadly. That's why it is being paid by applying a credit to everyone's bill by their energy retailers. We know that will help, particularly on the east coast in the winter months when the energy costs often peak.

We also have other cost-of-living measures. There's a freeze on PBS medicine costs; an increase in rent assistance by a further 10 per cent; debt relief for students; paid super on government paid parental leave; and the extension of PPL. We're building homes for more Australians under our Housing Australia plan— (Time expired)

Senator Walsh, first supplementary?

The government designed a budget that put downward pressure on inflation whilst providing cost-of-living relief to all Australians. Can the minister please update the Senate on the government's approach to managing the budget and how this has enabled us to provide cost-of-living relief that Australians need?

I thank Senator Walsh for the question. The numbers don't lie. We are managing the economy better than the coalition ever could. I know it hurts them! How many surpluses did the coalition deliver?

How many, Senator Cash? I think it was a big fat zero, even though the mugs came out a bit early. Those mugs were taken back straightaway, weren't they? 'Hide them in the bottom cupboard because—oops!—we got it wrong.' We've delivered a surplus. We're on track to deliver another one. Gross debt—remember that? It peaked under the former government. It's much lower under us. It will peak 9.7 percentage points lower than what the opposition forecast. So there is lower debt and there are surpluses. What about the interest on that debt? It's much lower under us—$80 billion less in interest costs because we're managing the debt much better. Inflation remains a challenge, but we've almost halved annual inflation since we were elected, and, of course, wages growth has almost doubled. (Time expired)

Senator Walsh, second supplementary?

Of course, it's hard to know whether the coalition support cost-of-living relief for all Australians because they are all negative and uncosted ideas. Can the minister please outline any risks that may impact household budget across Australia—any risks, Minister?

I can think of one big risky proposal that springs to mind that might be uncosted, Senator Walsh: a big, risky nuclear reactor plan, with reactors all across the country—many reactors on one site. They came out with a big launch, and guess what? They're not costed. Don't you know how much it's costing? Have you not done the work? Or have you done the work, and you don't want to tell everybody what it costs? Maybe that's it. These nuclear reactors are going to all the states. It's uncosted, with no idea how to deliver it, no understanding of the technology and no timeframe—other than it's off in the never-never. There's no 2030 target. If Senator Canavan has anything to do with it, there'll be no 2050 target either. There's no idea for what to do with the waste and no plan for right now, and they're not being clear about what it's going to cost to people's bills.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Minister, exactly how many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and kilometres of transmission lines were built last month?

Thank you, Senator. I don't have a monthly breakdown of what has occurred in terms of renewables since we came to government. But what I can say to you is that we have invested $22.5 billion to, over the next decade, help make Australia a renewable energy superpower. We have a budgeted plan that is backed by the experts at AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator. They have an Integrated System Plan that looks at the total cost, out to 2050, of generation, storage and transmission of renewable energy, which the government is working to and is contributing to.

I would also make the point, Senator—and you do understand markets—that the uncertainty under the coalition meant that 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure. We did not have new investment to replace them at the scale needed, and that is because the market knew that, with 20-plus energy policies, there was no certainty to enable investment in additional generation and supply. If we want to bring prices down and ensure reliability, we have to have more supply.

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Minister, the government's own figures to meet your net zero target showed that over the next eight years you need to install and connect more than 40 wind turbines a month, 22,000 solar panels a day, 48 gigawatt hours of batteries and 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines—install and connect. You're building nothing near those levels. Will you admit your wind and solar plan is an unachievable pipedream?

Senator Roberts, I would absolutely concede that this is a big transition. You would have heard me in response—

It is a big transition.

Order!

You guys were bagging out the bill before.

Senator Rennick! I've just called Senator Canavan to order. Minister, please continue.

You would have heard me, Senator, when the Greens—

Senator Watt, order!

I'd destroy you guys in a heartbeat!

Order! I would ask senators to not call out across the chamber. Minister Wong, please continue.

Senator, you would have heard me say to the Greens, when they sought higher targets, that this is a big transition. We accept that. The advice I have—and I'll see if I can get anything further—is that we have had a 25 per cent increase in renewable generation in the national electricity market since 2022. We have 4.6 gigawatts of new generation and storage, which is part of the operator's outlook since their last report. We've had 6.8 gigawatts of new generation approved, up from 4.2 gigawatts. As at the end of 2023, 27 utility-scale batteries are under construction, and 5.9 gigawatts— (Time expired)

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Unlike with coalmines, there's no obligation for industrial wind and solar sites to rehabilitate the land. The cost of pulling down wind and solar sites is left completely with landowners and farmers who have no idea what they're signing up for. Minister, does your wind and solar plan rely on saddling farmers with the entire cost of disposal, or will your government legislate rehabilitation bonds for wind and solar projects?

Senator, what I would say to you is that there has been a lot of investment and a lot of interest from Australians, in terms of investors but also landowners and landholders, to be part of this transition. It is true that there are a lot of challenges associated with it, including investment in transmission, which is one of the reasons the government is working on both increasing the flexibility of the system and ensuring that more capacity is delivered across the country. For example, our Capacity Investment Scheme has delivered over 32 gigawatts of capacity. We've had the largest ever single tender for renewable energy, which is currently open for bids.

In relation to your issues, I don't have advice on— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Can the minister confirm what scientific evidence the government has based its decision to ban the live sheep export trade by sea, which will severely impact over 3,000 Western Australian jobs along with the livelihoods of Western Australian farmers and regional communities?

The issues around animal welfare when it comes to the live sheep export by sea industry have been debated at length over a number of years. I noticed that in the most recent report on the state of the live export sector commissioned by LiveCorp—the research and development corporation that works with the live export industry—even its survey acknowledged that mortalities amongst sheep taken by sea to the Persian Gulf are significantly higher than they are, for example, for live cattle exports. So even the industry's own methodology and own surveys demonstrate that there do remain serious animal welfare issues involving the live sheep export industry, when they come by sea.

Beyond that, what we're doing in legislating an end to the exports of live sheep by sea is delivering on an election commitment that was voted for not only by those on the east coast of Australia but by those on the west coast of Australia.

A point of order on relevance: I asked about scientific evidence.

You also went to jobs and farmers, so the minister is being relevant to the question.

I would submit that I've actually addressed that issue in the earlier part of my answer. As I was saying, this was an election commitment that we took to not just one but two elections. We are now delivering on that election commitment, as Australians would expect. As I say, not only is this a commitment that was supported by those on the east coast of Australia but the most recent surveys published demonstrate that 70 per cent of Western Australians support this commitment as well.

We are acknowledging that this will be a significant change for many in the industry, and that's why the government is putting forward a $107 million transition package to assist the industry to make this transition—a transition package that has been contributed to by every single Australian taxpayer, whether they live on the east or west coast of Australia.

We know that this is an industry that's been in long-term decline, even under the coalition government, and the numbers of sheep being exported by sea have fallen by 90 per cent over the last 20 years. (Time expired)

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

Given Senate estimates highlighted that there is no economic modelling to support the ban's timeframe, will the minister concede that there is no way of knowing what the impact of this ban will have on Western Australian farmers and workers, regional communities and the Australian economy?

Of course I reject what Senator McKenzie is putting forward, and we have to note the hypocrisy of the National Party in making this last-ditch effort to defend an industry that declined significantly when the coalition was in office. In 2014-15, Australia exported 2.1 million sheep by sea at a value of $224 million. In 2021-22, 475,000 sheep were exported.

On relevance: my question was very specific about economic modelling on the closure of a legal industry.

Senator McKenzie, you've called your point of order. Your question also went to farmers, workers, regional communities and all Australians, so the minister is being relevant.

So, as I say, the Nationals are being incredibly hypocritical on this point. While they were in office, the number of live sheep exported by sea fell by 80 per cent. And now that they're in opposition they're the biggest supporters of live sheep exports that you've ever seen. They had the opportunity to do something about this when they were in office—and they did do something about it: they sent this trade down by 80 per cent.

Some of their senators, in particular, stood up to that policy. We know that Senator Henderson, the former member for Corangamite, said in answer to this question: 'The time has come, backed by the science, the facts and the economics. This is an industry that must come to an end. The live export of sheep to the Middle East is inhumane and must come to an end— (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I have a senator on her feet, ready to start her question. Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary?

McKENZIE (—) (): Will the minister concede that Labor is callously throwing away the livelihoods of Western Australian farmers, workers and regional communities to cynically capture the preferences of extreme animal activist groups, like the Animal Justice Party, who boast about being proud that they demanded the end of the live sheep export trade as a requirement for their preferences?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is that, far from treating this industry and its members callously, this government is providing $107 million in support for the transition for an industry that has been in decline for 20 years.

They're bragging about it, Murray!

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, ask your question and then listen in silence. Minister Watt, please continue.

Under Labor, an industry that's in decline receives $107 million in taxpayer support. Under the coalition, for an industry that was in decline the entire time they were in office, guess how much you contributed? Zero. Absolutely zero—not one cent to support an industry that was in decline in the time that they were in power.

Senator McKenzie, you've made a contribution this morning. I invite you, Senator McKenzie, to make a contribution at any other point during the sitting of the Senate but not question time. You've asked your question and the minister is entitled to answer. Minister, please continue.

The reason the coalition provided no support whatsoever to an industry in decline is that they had members like the now deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley and Senator Henderson saying:

… the sensible path is for both sides of the debate to construct a carefully considered transition to ending the trade permanently …

'across all months of the year'.

And:

Tastes are changing in Middle Eastern nations. There is no fixed, firm demand for live sheep— (Time expired)

My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, representing the Prime Minister. Today Australia's newest Governor-General spoke about Australia's history being made up of three chapters: the Indigenous foundations of 65,000 years, the arrival of British institutions, and our multicultural present and future. This week, the Greens will introduce a bill for Australia's first truth and justice commission, to formally record the first chapter and ongoing injustices. The government took the path last year for constitutional reform, on the Voice to Parliament, and since then there have been crickets on implementing the other two pillars of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Will the government support the Greens' bill on Australia's first truth and justice commission?

Thank you, Senator Cox. I will try and deal with a few issues. The first is the reference by Her Excellency the Governor-General of Australia today to Noel Pearson's framework, which talks about our First Nations heritage, our British institutions and, of course, our multicultural society, particularly post World War II and the large-scale migration to Australia.

I am, and we are as a government, very committed to telling the full story of Australia. Certainly in my own portfolio, as you would be aware, that's something we seek to bring to how we engage with the world. Obviously, much of the thinking behind the referendum, as you know, at the request and urging of many Indigenous and First Nations leaders, was part of that.

What I would say to you in relation to Greens bills is that you are entitled to move private senators' bills, as you know. Those bills are not the way in which progress is made in this or in any other area of policy. But I would say to you that I think support for reconciliation is a core Labor value. It is a value that I think is shared by Australians. Australians do believe in a fair go and they do want to close the gap. The government remain determined to move reconciliation forward and to seek better results for Indigenous Australians as we take the time that is needed to get makarrata and truth-telling right. I think the result of the referendum demonstrates that that is the case. The work of treaty does go on at a state and territory level, and there will be a diversity of processes— (Time expired)

Senator Cox, a first supplementary?

There's bipartisan support for a republic across the political spectrum, and polling shows 50 per cent of Australians support a republic, a measure that would help us move beyond the colonial chapter of history. Will the government commit to a republic in their second term of government?

Senator Cox, that is a bit of a stretch as a first supplementary, but I will invite Senator Wong to address the question.

Senator Cox, with respect, there isn't bipartisan support on a republic. With respect, there isn't. I've been on record many years as being a supporter of a republic, but there is not bipartisan support. What we know from history, as opposed to talking about it in this place, is that constitutional reform is hard. It is particularly hard when we're in a hyperpartisan world where we know that there is no way that Mr Dutton, whose reflex and focus is always to say no, always to be negative and always to run a scare campaign, would be supportive of it.

I'll take the interjection. This is correct. They're not going to be supportive of it. (Time expired)

Senator Cox, a second supplementary?

The new Governor-General talked about the Australian character and its fundamental democratic spirit in her speech today. Will this government commit to moving beyond the colonial era to a truly democratic one that includes the voices of First Nations people and ending the reign of unelected heads of state and having a treaty with its First Peoples?

I have a great deal of sympathy for the sorts of principles you're describing. But I also know that change is hard, change requires us to bring people with us and change requires, ultimately, the support of not just the majority of the parliament but the majority of the Australian community. We have a way to go on some of the issues you've raised. I hope there will come a day when we look back and say, 'We did well to keep walking down the path of reconciliation together after the referendum.' Certainly we do need and want to move forward on many of the issues, such as makarrata and treaty, in the way you describe. There's a lot of work that's being done on treaty processes— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Watt. Cost-of-living pressures are top of mind for all Australians, especially low-paid workers. I note that, since taking office, the Albanese Labor government has advocated on behalf of low-paid workers in three consecutive Fair Work Commission annual wage reviews. How does the Albanese Labor government's agenda ease cost-of-living pressures and make sure Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn?

Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Isn't it good that at least one senator on this side of the chamber has an interest in cost of living issues? Over this entire question time, what have the coalition asked about?

Minister Watt!

The Middle East? Terrorists and things?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order! Order!

Senator Cash, I've called order three times. Senator Scarr?

President, I ask Senator Watt to withdraw that personal reflection on all the other senators except for one.

Senator Scarr, when I'm bringing the chamber to order—

Senator McKenzie! It's not helpful for you to stand and make a joke. Seriously, it is not. Minister Watt, please continue.

I know the opposition doesn't want to talk about cost-of-living issues, but I'm glad that Senator Sheldon joins with Senator Smith and Senator Walsh in asking questions about the issues that are of most concern to Australians today, which are cost-of-living issues. It seems that the opposition has to ask a question about anything else other than the thing Australians are most concerned about, their cost-of-living issues. We know why that is, and it is because the coalition's record in office is one of delivering lower wages and a worse standard of living, a record they have maintained in opposition.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Thank you, Minister Watt. Please continue.

It's interesting that Senator Cash is a lot more noisy when she's sitting in that chair rather than when she's sitting in the one about a metre behind. Why would that be, Senator Cash?

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. I'll come to you, Senator McKenzie.

Senator Cash! Minister Watt, may I remind you to direct your comments to the chair. Senator McKenzie?

On a point of order, I was also going to request that, instead of pointing across the chamber and screaming, he make his comments through the chair.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! As you noted, Senator McKenzie, I had already brought that to the minister's attention. I'm waiting for order.

Thank you, President. I'm sure you can observe the opposition is a bit touchy today. Why would they be touchy? Because today is the day that Australians are getting much-needed cost-of-living relief. We know the opposition are touchy about this because they voted against almost every one of those cost-of-living measures that come into place today. So no wonder they're touchy. No wonder they don't want to talk about cost of living. But do you know what? Labor does, because we're concerned about the cost-of-living issues facing Australians. That's why from today every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut, not just some; that's why from today our $300 energy bill relief begins to flow to every Australian household; and that's why from today 2.6 million low-paid workers will get their third consecutive pay rise, backed by this government, unlike what we saw from the coalition. This government has gone into bat for low-paid workers not once, not twice but three times—every single year we've been in office since we came into government. Because of this government's advocacy, from today minimum wage earners will be earning $24.10 per hour, compared to $20 when we first came to office. (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?

Given that Mr Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals voted against all our legislation to get wages moving, how is the Albanese Labor government secure jobs, better pay legislation getting wages moving after 10 years of deliberate wage suppression by the coalition?

Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Well, the Albanese Labor government's secure jobs, better pay legislation is delivering, with nearly half a million more workers covered by enterprise agreements and award workers benefiting from $10,000 pay rises. We said that our secure jobs, better pay laws would fix the bargaining system, and now we're seeing the proof. We know the opposition went running for cover when we simply tabled that legislation: 'Secure jobs, better pay? Oh, no. We can't have that in Australia. We're going to vote against it, just as we're going to vote against energy bill relief, just as we're going to vote against cheaper medicines and just as we're going to vote against every other measure that the Labor government put up to assist Australians with their cost of living.'

More importantly than listening to anyone in this chamber, let's listen to the difference that these changes are making to real workers in Australia. For Laura, an aged-care worker from Western Australia who will now be about $3,400 better off, it means she can pay for home internet and what she describes as 'luxuries' like social outings. Labor is supporting people like Laura while you're voting against them. (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, second supplementary?

In the face of cost-of-living pressures, I note that the Liberals and Nationals have endorsed a risky industrial relations policy and an expensive energy policy that won't deliver a thing for two decades. How are the Albanese government's reforms helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn while relieving cost-of-living pressures, and why are these reforms so important?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I'm not calling the minister until there is silence.

Thank you, Senator Sheldon. The Albanese Labor government does care about the cost of living, and that's why it's our No. 1 focus—not in one year, not in two years, not in three years, not in four years or even in 20 years, when your nuclear fantasy will deliver more expensive power to Australians. We're delivering cost-of-living support right now, from today.

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, on a point of order.

The Acting Leader of the Opposition could perhaps at least draw breath and not yell for the entirety of the answer.

I don't think Murray needs your protection.

He doesn't; that's true. But you need some—

Order! Senators Wong and Cash! Senator Cash, I would like you and those noisy senators—I think they know who they are; the ones I've called today—to listen in respectful silence.

We make no apologies, as a Labor government, for wanting to deliver higher wages and real tax relief. Meanwhile, what we know about the coalition is that the shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, has said that he's committed to a targeted package of repeals to our workplace relations changes. We know that Senator Cash, as the shadow IR spokesperson, has endorsed the risky New South Wales Liberals' industrial relations platform. We know Senator Cash used to say that our policies would be taking Australia back to the Dark Ages. Senator Cash prefers simpler times when children were chimney sweeps and we had dark, satanic mills. That's the kind of time Senator Cash wants to take us to, and we're going to stop you from doing it.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I'm waiting for order. Senators on my left, you've got one of your own senators on her feet.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Watt. Two weeks ago the Canadian government listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity, joining our security and intelligence partner, the United States, in confirming that the IRGC is a terrorist organisation actively involved in planning and carrying out terror attacks. Minister, if the Trudeau government can act to list the IRGC, why can't the Albanese government?

Thank you, Senator Chandler. The short answer, as you've been informed previously when you've asked similar questions, is that the Australian government relies on the advice of Australian security agencies when making decisions about terrorist listings.

As Senator Chandler and many of her colleagues have been advised in many previous question times, from the government's point of view, the IRGC is a malignant actor that has long been a threat to international security. The Gillard government understood this and put broad based sanctions on the IRGC as a whole in 2010. The Albanese government has also recognised the threat that they present. That's why we are using the tools available to us to take meaningful action, including sanctioning 63 IRGC linked individuals and 56 IRGC linked entities.

Again, as Senator Chandler, Senator Paterson and various others on that side of the chamber know, listings under the Criminal Code apply to non-state actors and not to state actors. That was exactly the same regime that applied when they were in government. But now they don't want to follow the same process as they followed when they were in government; they want to apply a different standard and different tests to what they were prepared to do when they were the government. These are exactly the same listing provisions that applied when those opposite were in government, and they have not changed.

The reality is that the IRGC is a part of the Iranian state, and state actors under Australian law cannot be listed as terrorist organisations.

Change the law.

So what I've heard coming from some of those opposite is a bit rich. We just heard Senator Scarr say, 'Change the law.' He was here for a few years. Did he change the law? No, he didn't. But he and his colleagues just want to sit back now and take cheap shots at a government that is following exactly the same process that they did when they were in office, and they do everything possible to avoid talking about cost-of-living changes, including those that come into force today, 1 July. They will do anything to avoid talking about tax cuts and cost-of-living relief, even asking questions about things they did nothing about in office. (Time expired)

Senator Chandler, first supplementary?

Minister, at Senate estimates it was confirmed that in January 2023 the Department of Home Affairs was developing a nomination form and statement of reasons in preparation for a listing of the IRGC. What are the reasons the Department of Home Affairs was seeking to have the IRGC listed as a terrorist organisation in January 2023?

Thank you, Senator Chandler. All I can do is repeat my previous answer, which is that, in making its decision about terrorist listings, the Albanese government relies on the advice of our security agencies. But it is very well understood under this government, as it was under the previous government, that terrorist listings are not applied to state actors such as the IRGC. The Albanese government has no time whatsoever for the IRGC. That is why we have imposed sanctions on 63 IRGC linked individuals and 56 linked entities. We are following the same process as applied under the former government, and they never seemed to have a problem when they were in government.

Senator Chandler, second supplementary?

The IRGC not only are perpetrators of terrorism but are known to use extremist antisemitic ideology to recruit and spread hatred—hatred which is spreading in the Australian community. Minister, will the government today finally commit to developing options to enable the IRGC to be listed as a terrorist organisation?

My understanding is that the opposition have actually been briefed on these very issues that they are now asking questions about in question time. I agree with Senator Chandler in one respect, and that is when she says that the IRGC is a malignant actor. It is a dreadful organisation that we do not support in any way whatsoever. But the opposition had no issues about this process when they were in government, when they had 10 years to do something about the process. But all of a sudden—they're now in opposition—they want to apply a different standard to the government.

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

I move:

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

I want to deal first with the last question, which was asked by Senator Chandler in relation to the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp of Iran, and its proposed listing as a terrorist organisation. I listened very carefully to Senator Watt's answer. The main obstacle to listing the IRGC, which funds and engages in terrorist acts all around the world, as a terrorist organisation is the current law. As I interjected to Senator Watt, there's an issue with the current law. Let's come together and change the law. Rather than simply making a debating point, which he's entitled to make, as to why the coalition didn't previously change the law when we were in government, it should be recognised that there is a need to change the law now.

Our international partners—our closest allies—are declaring the IRGC a terrorist organisation, because it is a terrorist organisation, and that is exactly what we should be doing. If there's an obstacle in the laws as they apply to entities which could be said to be part of a sovereign state, we should change the law, and we should do that collaboratively, in a bipartisan process, rather than simply making debating points. So I recommend that Senator Watt and others on the other side engage in the process in good faith. It is terribly important.

I'd like to also make a few comments in relation to the questions asked by my colleagues Senator Cash and Senator Paterson. Senator Cash and Senator Paterson are entitled to ask the questions they asked, which go to key issues in the evolving crisis in the Middle East. The first is in relation to the role of Hezbollah, which is sitting on a stockpile, in a demilitarised zone in Lebanon, of 120,000 to 200,000 short-range guided ballistic missiles, short- and intermediate-range unguided ballistic missiles and short- and long-range unguided rockets, and they're firing those rockets and missiles into Israel on a daily basis. We on this side of the chamber want to make sure that this parliament expresses a clear message to Hezbollah and its supporters and actors all over the world that we on this side of the house—and on the other side of the house; I'm sure it is shared—stand with Israel and recognise its inherent right to defend itself against these sorts of attacks. And it is incredibly important that we do so in relation to the ongoing threat from Hezbollah.

That was the purpose of the questions asked in good faith by Senator Cash—and she's right to ask those questions, because it's absolutely horrifying that Iran is sitting on the sidelines encouraging Hezbollah to elevate the dispute and to promote its own political interests and ideological extremism in the region. I also note that that bipartisan resolution that members of the government and members of the opposition all voted for says, 'We support Australia's engagement with countries in the Middle East and beyond at all levels in support of the protection of civilians and the containment of the conflict.' It is so incredibly important that this awful, awful conflict be contained to the maximum extent possible. That is why my friend and colleague Senator Cash asked the questions in relation to Hezbollah.

I want to also comment on the question asked by Senator Paterson in relation to the terrorist listing of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and it was the subject of an article in the Australian in relation to Hizb ut-Tahrir's activities in Australia. Those activities are deeply disturbing. Senator Wong referred to a quote from my good friend Senator George Brandis from 2017. Well, time has moved on from 2017. We're now sitting here in 2024 and, again, we have a responsibility to make the policy decisions that are right for Australia in 2024. In that regard, I note that in mid-January 2024 the United Kingdom declared Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. That was on 19 January 2024, just a few months ago. So, again, Senator Paterson's question is quite legitimate.

Before I make my contribution, I think it's imperative that I let a few people know that 19 years ago today I was elected to the Senate.

A great day!

It was a great day. And in August of that year I took up my seat, right over there where Senator Canavan sits, and I was surrounded by Labor royalty: Senators Steve Hutchins, Robert Ray and John Faulkner. What a crew, the four of us. They were great times. Coming back to the questions that were asked by opposition senators, when I came here, back then, we saw the galleries full of schoolchildren, and you'd be thinking, 'Here's the next generation; what a wonderful feeling to be sitting in this Senate contributing to law and debate that will affect, more so than us now, the generations to come.' I was so thankful to be a part of that.

But I do want to say this. For the last few years, in particular, in this building I've noticed—and I don't know if it's me losing my shine—that some of the commentary and some of the contributions in this chamber are not worthy of people who have been elected to be senators, in my humble opinion. We talk about bringing Australians together. And I believe I can say this without any fear or favour: there is not one senator in this building—well, I hope not—who sat and watched TV back in October of the year before last without feeling sick, when we saw what was happening in Israel. I'd also say that I would hope that not one senator in this building could ever sit back and not feel sick watching what's going on in Gaza and in Israel now. We must also remember this. Some of the commentary that I've heard come from the odd Greens senator in this building is nothing short of vile.

There are families here in Australia who are affected by this conflict on both sides of the argument—the Israelis and the Gazans. I think to myself, about these senators spilling out this spew and bile: how do some of them even sleep at night? Not only that, but I think children and other Australians look to their parliamentary leaders and think, 'These are the people making the laws, whether we agree with them or not, but how are they performing?' It's no different from teachers and how the students look up to them—actually, probably it is a lot different—and in sporting groups with the coaches and the staff.

I want to apologise to the Australian people. I'm sorry for the behaviour of some of our senators in here. They can answer for themselves, Deputy President, and if I step out of line you will pull me in. It hurts me when I hear senators in here yelling into their microphones to protesters, 'Bring your anger when you go to Labor senators' offices or Labor members' offices.'

I come from a background, quite proudly, where I was a very balanced young truck driver. I had a chip on both shoulders—that's a joke, and I know it's not going down too well here. I have been infinitely photographed and quoted and I've been charged off to courts and all sorts of stuff because I believed in the right to protest. But I also believe in the right to protest safely and the right to protest but never, ever to damage anyone else's property. Now we're seeing protesters—and I am not taking sides; I am absolutely in the middle here; the war is horrifying me—in masks in the dark of night, at two or three o'clock in the morning, spray-painting obscenities across members of parliament's offices and painting dummies of dead babies in red paint to insinuate that we're killing babies.

For crying out loud, there are some people in this building that need to really seriously sit down and have a good look at themselves. They think they're so clever that they're starting some form of revolution. In the household I was brought up in, let me tell you this, if my dad—God bless him; I wish he was still around—had caught me sneaking around at two or three o'clock in the morning with a mask on and spraying paint, I reckon he would have booted my backside from Langford where I lived all the way to Cannington Police Station. That's a long way to get a kick in the pants, I can tell you.

I urge all members of parliament—we will have our views, but in my opinion if you're pushing hatred and pushing violence—and I'm not looking at my colleagues over that side of the chamber—you have no right to represent anyone in this fine institution.

I'm going to talk about the question of the ban on live sheep exports, but before I do I would like to associate myself with Senator Sterle's remarks. I woke up this morning and went to the Korean War Memorial on Anzac Parade, where it had been graffitied with 'River to the sea' and other slogans like 'Free Gaza'. That has no part in Australia, and I think that's what we're talking about here. It is the wrong thing to do. Well said, Senator Sterle.

Senator Sterle, being a Western Australian, would also know that we have many people here from the Keep the Sheep campaign. A question Senator McKenzie asked Minister Watt in question time regarding live sheep exports was very specific: what scientific evidence did we have to ban the live sheep market? We got, I will say—rarely in this place because it is question time, not answer time—an answer to this. We got the answer that it was an election commitment. 'It was an election commitment' is not the most overly scientific program you can use to stop live sheep, but we have to respect that.

Last time we heard that was about the Voice. What was the reason for the Voice referendum? It was an election commitment. So it seems that everything that's unpopular, everything that fails, will not be scientifically backed up, but it will be justified because it was an election commitment. That is the reason they give. So, to all the people who are here and the thousands of farmers we saw blockading in Western Australia—and for the tens of thousands of livelihoods in Western Australia that will be impacted—you need to know that the basis of the evidence for turning your livelihoods upside down, for putting your future in peril, is an election commitment. I would say the clear answer is that, if it is an election commitment, maybe these people should think about their actions at the next election—if that's the scientific measure for why the government changes policy. All those in Western Australia who are blockading, who are donating and who are travelling here to tell us about what will happen to them can certainly make a change through the way they vote. If they do that, we'll make a change in policy.

The answer went further and mentioned that the market has declined over a period of time. The market declined simply because one significant market pulled away; Saudi pulled away from the purchase of these live animals, but they're coming back because of the world-leading standards we put in around sheep health on the boats. They are measured on the way for their panting and breathing rates, their respiratory rates. Sheep will die—I'm not going to pretend they don't—but Australia has put these standards in place. That made things cost a little bit more, but these markets were coming back in. We had Saudi buying. Kuwait came to us and made representations that they wanted to keep buying these sheep and were committed to this because Australia has the best standards, full stop. It's not that we have 'some' of the best standards, and we're not 'around' the best standards; we are the gold standard for live animal exports. This is the culture that these customers and these areas want. They want live sheep; they want freshly slaughtered sheep. They want these things over there.

And it puts at risk a whole lot of other things. At an election before, their commitment was that they wouldn't ban live sheep, and here they are going ahead and doing it. Then, as we go forward, we've heard, 'We won't ban live cattle exports,' but the cattle share the ships and the space. The cattle that go to the Middle East are always on the boats, so that is another industry, another market, that's in danger. At estimates we saw letters from Kuwaiti government backed institutions, the livestock abattoirs, saying that they want to keep this going, that they want to keep the families and the areas going that Senator Brockman mentioned. This is an industry that is world leading and that supplies protein to a very important part of the world. We hear, 'Yes, but that's just a business.' No it's not; it's a government backed business. The real process of these areas is in their dedication to keeping their food security alive, just as we do with our energy security.

There is no scientific reason for this. We've heard that an RSPCA poll gave some numbers—if you want to believe that. I come from a polling background; somehow I got there. I can write a poll that says anything. I can write a poll that gets any result I want. I can write a poll that says that Collingwood's going to win another championship. I can do anything I want with a poll. An RSPCA poll is a push poll. It is not to be trusted, because it is biased data. It goes through there. I could ask a whole lot of questions about sheep welfare, sheep dying at sea, burials at sea, sheep panting, heat and everything like that, and then, after you support it, I could get the answer I want. So let's not pretend. The people here are being run over for an election commitment. I urge them to change their vote, and we will change the policy.

I also rise to take note of answers given by ministers to questions asked by coalition senators in question time. In doing so, I want to associate myself very closely with the remarks of Senator Sterle, who was several speakers before me. As I've said many times in this chamber, those who seek to politicise our national security are engaging in a deeply risky business because how we talk about our national security has the potential to affect our national security. Indeed, how we talk about our national security can determine our national security. When we seek to politicise these issues and when senators in this chamber seek to engage in a style of rhetoric which has no place, I believe, in our national debate or in the Senate, that can negatively impact our national security, and that happens through the impact it has on social cohesion.

Every single member of this chamber knows that, in making decisions like the ones referred to in question time today, governments rely on the advice of our intelligence agencies. I don't think it should be the case that anyone in this chamber or outside should suggest that we don't. When it comes to issues like this, it is fully appropriate that our intelligence agencies are engaged and providing the advice and that we are listening to it, because this is important, considered work. It's not work for the debate of this chamber and not work for the political engagement and discussion of the day. This is work for our agencies—really, really important work. That was the process the opposition followed when they were in government; it's the same process we are following now. If you want to start changing such processes on the fly because they suit your political narrative of the day, then I would say that is very, very dangerous business. That is a style of politics which could affect our national security.

I would urge caution in that, in the same way that I would urge caution in the other rhetoric being used in this chamber day after day. It does not just have the potential to impact our social cohesion; it is deliberately trying to upset social cohesion in Australia, which is, in my view, a very dangerous business and a very dangerous game which is causing a huge amount of hurt to people in our community. There are a lot of people in Australia suffering right now. There are many, many Australians with families in the Middle East, and there are many, many Australians who feel deeply hurt and saddened by the conflict in the Middle East. I believe the best thing we can do as a government is to support those communities by supporting a community and a society here in Australia which provides support and refuge to them and which doesn't seek to bring a conflict in the Middle East to the shores of Australia to serve someone's political advantage. That is a dangerous and toxic business. It is hurting our country and it is hurting people within it. It's hurting students on university campuses, children and many, many good people in our country who feel deeply on these issues.

None of those people, indeed no-one affected by the conflict in the Middle East, is served by games and politicking on the floor of this chamber. That will achieve nothing of meaning or substance in the Middle East, and it will only do what it is designed to do, and that is to undermine social cohesion in Australia. It is dangerous, risky business—dangerous actions undermining social cohesion, which I don't believe have any place in this chamber or any place in Australia.

We all have a responsibility in the way we talk about national security because the way we talk about our nation's security affects our nation's security. The way we talk about national security can actually have an impact on our nation's security. Experts will tell you this. People from the intelligence community will tell you this as well. How we talk about these things matters. We should not dive back into playbooks of governments past which sought to politicise and seek an advantage from our national security, and we should not engage in this toxic rhetoric which seeks to undermine social cohesion in our country and is making people in our country less safe. Many, many people are hurting, and too many people in this chamber are playing a very dangerous game. The way we speak about national security matters; it impacts our national security. We should all be cautious in the way we engage with that in this chamber.

It's been obvious to me for many months, if not many years, that the decision of this Labor government to ban live exports was a political decision. It had nothing to do with any science and nothing to do with any evidence. Now that fact is also very plain to every Western Australian. This political decision to wipe out an entire industry segment from Western Australia, to wipe out farming communities and the economic base of towns, was made by the Labor government, aided and abetted by the Greens and the other crossbenchers who support this ban, on the basis of nothing more than preferences in the eastern states. That's all Western Australia is worth to this Labor government: a handful of preferences in the eastern states. Every bit of science, every bit of evidence, we have shows that this industry not only deserves to survive but also deserves to be congratulated. It has done and exceeded everything that governments have asked it to do.

Never forget for one moment that the problems the industry faces today—this ideological imperative from the government, this ideologically driven crusade against the live export industry—go back to the events on the Awassi Express, which were cash for cruelty. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars, were paid to a stockman from a developing country whose salary was US$350 a month. He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to get footage of sheep suffering. And guess what? He did. One of his shipmates, a person who called him a close friend, described how that footage was taken in questionable circumstances where ventilation may have been shut off. It was cash for cruelty.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to renewable energy.

In question time I asked the government how their insane net-zero wind and solar pipedreams were progressing. Here is what Labor's energy minister Chris Bowen's plan requires for the next eight years: 40 large wind turbines every single month, each with 100-metre concrete foundations, a massive turbine and huge blades atop a 300-metre tall steel tube; three days to erect the crane on each site; days to install each turbine; two days to dismantle the crane and move it to the next place; 22,000 solar panels every single day for eight years; 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines carving up national parks, prime farmland and the environment; plus 48 gigawatt hours of batteries. Predictably, the construction of wind and solar is nowhere near these targets. The government's targets are physically and financially impossible.

While the targets will never be achieved, this government will do huge damage trying. Farmers and landholders are being conned into having these environment-killing wind-and-solar installations on their land. With the promise of some short-term money, farmers let these predators onto their land. Little do these landowners know, they are now responsible for disposing of the toxic wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their short life when the company that instals them inevitably goes broke or abandons them.

Every coalmine, however, is legislated to pay a rehabilitation bond for each hectare of land disturbed. The mining company pays upfront. The money is held until the mine ends and restores the environment to its original state. The bond is then returned. Wind and solar companies don't pay any rehabilitation bond. Thousands of landholders will be stuck with useless wind turbines and solar panels on their property that they will have to pay to remove. Prevention is better than cure. Anyone can see this scandal coming, yet the government won't take action to prevent it. It just sits there causing this catastrophe. The government protects its billionaire wind-and-solar mates living like parasites off subsidies Australian electricity users and taxpayers will continue to pay. Government screws it up; taxpayers pay.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cox today relating to constitutional reform.

I rise to take note of the government's response to the Greens' question on truth telling, treaty and a republic. Earlier today, Her Excellency Sam Mostyn was sworn in as the country's 28th Governor-General. I sincerely hope she will be our last. It is beyond time that we cut ties with the British monarchy and become a republic. Every second we retain ties to the British monarchy is a second too long. Every second we as a nation show collective symbolic deference to the British monarchy is a second too long. The British Empire was a cruel, racist and extractive institution which stole the lives and wealth of millions of brown and black people across the world. It bears so much responsibility for tragedy and injustice in the world today, including in Palestine. The British monarchy of today cannot be separated from that bloody legacy. It is a wholly irredeemable institution.

More and more people are seeing the British monarchy for what it is. But, while nations like Barbados are becoming republics and speaking truth about empire, the Prime Minister of Australia is taking us backwards. An allegedly staunch republican in opposition, Prime Minister Albanese has seemingly abandoned those principles. Becoming a republic is clearly not a priority for this government. Last year, Prime Minister Albanese flew to the UK for the coronation of the current King to bask in the excesses, pomp and pageantry of an institution so out of touch with everyday people. At that event, Queen Camilla wore a coronation neckless featuring the 22-carat Lahore diamond, stolen wealth from the city that I grew up in, just as the Koh-i-Noor diamond adorning the Crown Jewels was stolen from the subcontinent. The wealth looted and the lives stolen by the empire from colonised countries are truly staggering, yet wilful delusion about the monarchy remains. This delusion exists to maintain white supremacy and to make beneficiaries of colonialism feel comfortable at the expense of its victims.

Well, I won't participate in that delusion. Truth about empire is crucial. Two centuries of rule over most of the Indian subcontinent, where I come from—first through the violent and rapacious East India Company and then through the Crown itself, the British Raj—decimated the economy and caused the deaths of so many. They destroyed thriving local industries like textiles and shipbuilding through violence, taxes and import tariffs. They taxed locals at exorbitant, unprecedented rates and, through torture and cruelty, stole vast wealth which they shipped off to England. Reparations have never been paid for the British Raj's barbarism, and much of the loot is still shamelessly held, including in the form of diamonds in the Queen's crowns or treasures in British museums.

Of course, this nation has experienced and continues to experience colonialism in its bloodiest form. Since the violent invasion of 1788—which, astoundingly, this country continues to celebrate—First Nations people have been murdered, have been separated from their families, have had their children stolen and have had their land and water, which they carefully cared for for thousands of years, slowly but surely being destroyed. We need to recognise that this violence, oppression and discrimination against First Nations people has never ceased. It continues to this day in the settler colonial systems and structures of this country. The depth and breadth of prejudice against First Nations people is still rooted in law enforcement, societal attitudes and institutional systems. We need to move towards reparations, justice and self-determination for First Nations people. We also desperately need to progress on truth-telling and move towards treaties. It is our moral duty. Shamefully, though, Australia is one of the only Commonwealth countries without a treaty with First Nations peoples. We must forge a new path—one that reckons with its colonial past, one that moves us forward on justice for First Nations and one that turns our back on the British empire. May the new Governor-General be our last. It's time for truth-telling and treaties, it's time to become a republic, and it is way past time to cut our ties with the British monarchy.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That general business order of the day no. 72 (Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024) be considered on Wednesday, 3 July 2024 at the time for private senators' bills.

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the postponements and extensions are agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Birmingham for today, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Bilyk from 1 to 4 July 2024, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senators McKenzie, Nampijinpa Price, Canavan, McDonald, Davey and Cadell, I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 relating to a proposed committee reference.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2024:

The social, economic and environmental impacts of banning live sheep exports in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the nature and outcomes of consultation;

(b) the effects arising from the ending of live sheep exports on the Australian agricultural sector, including:

(i) the cost and impacts of transition for farmers, exporters, transporters and other participants in the supply chain,

(ii) the process for any government assistance,

(iii) impacts on local communities including regional and remote employment and mental health, particularly in Western Australia,

(iv) the impact on livestock production, prices and competition,

(v) impacts on the processing of livestock within Australia,

(vi) the impact on international animal welfare standards, and

(vii) impacts on other industries within agriculture or the wider economy;

(c) the effect of Australia's live sheep export ban on our trade partners and the barriers to trade in chilled meat; and

(d) any related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted.

The comments I make speak to the amendment and the motion. The government won't be supporting the referral of the legislation to the Rural and Regional Affairs Transport References Committee for an inquiry. Views on both sides of the debate have been widely expressed for many years, including at the last federal election when Australians voted to phase out live sheep exports.

For over six months the independent panel consulted extensively, meeting with over 2,000 individuals, holding 80 stakeholder meetings and receiving more than 800 submissions. Then the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture held an inquiry into the legislation, including two in-person hearings, and received 13,000 submissions, the vast majority of which were in favour of the policy. Any further inquiries would only result in duplication. It's time to get on and pass this legislation to give certainty to farmers, get the transition support package out the door and create more jobs in WA.

The question before the Senate is that the amended motion, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and others and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed works be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Department of Defence—Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Storage Program Tranche 2.

Department of Defence—Explosive Ordnance Facilities Northern NSW redevelopment project.

Reserve Bank of Australia—Head Office storage and logistics change.

I table statements in relation to the proposed works.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the President of the Senate, by no later than 9.30 am on Wednesday, 3 July 2024, any correspondence or advice between the Department of Parliamentary Services and HWL Ebsworth Lawyers in relation to the application of the Privacy Act 1988 to the Department of Parliamentary Services on 4 May 2023.

The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Pocock for the order for production of documents be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by midday on 2 July 2024, the final report of the Inspector‐General of the Australian Defence Force twenty-year review.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than midday on 2 July 2024, the latest evaluation report from the University of Adelaide in relation to the Cashless Debit Card, commissioned by the Department of Social Services.

Question agreed to.

I remind senators that, after 4.30 pm on Thursday 27 June 2024, a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge relating to general business notice of motion No. 540, concerning whistleblower laws. I understand that it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now.

The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to:

That the Senate—

(a) affirms that it is essential to protect whistleblowers, to expand their protections and to include a clear public interest test;

(b) commits to urgently reforming whistleblower laws and creating a Whistleblower Protection Authority;

(c) celebrates the return to Australia of journalist and whistleblower Julian Assange;

(d) notes with concern that Afghanistan war crimes whistleblower David McBride is in prison right now because broken whistleblower laws failed him; and

(e) recognises that Australian Taxation Office whistleblower Richard Boyle faces a potential prison sentence after broken laws were found to not protect his actions.

A letter has been received from Senator Hughes:

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

Australia is in an entrenched home grown cost of living crisis, and the Albanese Labor Government has no economic plan to lower inflation, grow the economy, or restore Australia's standard of living.

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.

This country is in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. This cost-of-living crisis is consistently being made worse by the government's actions and their complete failure when it comes to getting inflation under control, in fact every decision they make makes this homegrown inflation problem worse. They are out there spruiking today, as much as they can, the tax cuts they are giving to all Australians. They are tax cuts that have already gone. The cost of everything has gone up so much that these tax cuts are not even going to hit the sides. It really is more smoke and mirrors from those opposite.

But you don't have to take my word for it. We can take the word of the Sydney Morning Herald's Shane Wright. That bastion of conservative values—not—the Sydney Morning Herald, the cheer squad for the Albanese government, have said:

Research compiled for this masthead by the Australian National University's Centre for Social Research and Methods shows average tax rates for 80 per cent of taxpayers will be back to their current levels or even higher by 2027.

But what does that mean in dollar terms, and what's it going to mean by next year? A middle-income earning household will be paying more income tax in 2025 than in the 2023-24 financial year, despite the tax cuts that start from 1 July. How is that possible? If you listen to those opposite, you've all never had it so good! They're doing a fantastic job in the economy! But those of us with mortgages, those of us who have to put food on the table for kids, those of us who have school fees and schoolbooks and driving around to sports of a weekend know how tough it is and how tough it is for the average family to make ends meet. How do we know that? Because we know that the price of food has gone up by almost 12 per cent.

Now, having a household with three teenagers in it, I can assure you that the food bill was never small. But the fact that it is exponentially going up at a rate of knots means families cannot keep up. We know that food banks are seeing more and more working families coming to them for help. The cost of housing is up by 14 per cent. Rents are up by about the same. And remember the $275 that was coming off your power bill, the number that shall not speak its name? Well, we know that electricity prices, and everyone who gets that energy bill knows, have gone up by more than 21 per cent. Remember renewables? They're cheap! They're free! It's all going to be fantastic! What the government can't tell you and what they won't acknowledge is the $1.5 trillion cost of transmission and distribution when you start looking at this renewable wraith that they've got happening.

When you get your energy bill and you open it up, it's not just the cost of the generation. Fifty per cent of the bill is the distribution and the transmission. But the report that the government rely so heavily on, GenCost, to tell you how great their race to renewables is—has the transmission lines as a sunk cost. That means—for those who didn't study economics, which is clearly those in the government—that we don't need to factor in transmission lines; we don't have to factor in distribution costs, because we're going to assume that by 2030 they're already built. So, in no way is this report that they rely on honest, telling the truth to the Australian people. If you've got an average mortgage of $750,000, guess how much money you've had to find since this government came in. Guess how much more you've had to pay in order to pay off that mortgage. It is $35,000—after tax—not quite the amount of money you've got down the back of the couch. But that's what this government has done to the Australian economy.

I am so pleased that the opposition brought this MPI into the chamber today, because today is a very exciting day for working Australians. Every Australian—the 13.6 million Australian taxpayers—will get a tax cut as of today. Compared with what those opposite, when they were in government for 10 disastrous years, were going to do, the majority of our taxpayers will get a better tax cut. In fact, those earning less than $45,000 a year would not have got anything from those opposite, but they are from the Albanese Labor government.

We acknowledge that there is a cost-of-living crisis. We know things are tough out there for families. That's why we put together a comprehensive plan for assisting Australians to deal with it. There's a $300 energy rebate as of today for every household and small business in this country. There's $325 for small businesses. We know that it was this government that, in our budget, froze the cost of PBS medicines for all Australians for a year, bringing down the cost of medication. We put more medications on the PBS, making them much cheaper. We know what we've done when it comes to health to help with the cost of living. We have actually opened urgent care clinics across the country. In my hometown of Launceston in Tasmania, we've seen the real benefits. The real benefit is that Australian families that need to see a GP can now go to an urgent care clinic. All they need is their Medicare card—no credit card. We've re-incentivised GPs to bulk-bill people. That is something that those on the other side never once did. There is a wage rise for low-income earners in this country—the third in the two years that we've been in government. Those opposite never once stood up for Australian workers and supported them to get a pay rise. In fact, at every opportunity, whether it was to increase wages, to change taxation benefits, which have been cut as of today, or to introduce our energy rebate, they've voted against it.

When they were in government, they had 22 energy policies and landed not one of them. In a decade, they could not land one policy. So we do not back away from investing in renewable energy. What do we have now from the opposition leader, Mr Peter Dutton? We have an energy policy on the never-never. He wants to build nuclear reactors around the country. He can't tell us how many. He certainly can't tell us how much it will cost. But there's one thing we can be very sure of: there's not one expert who believes that's the way of the future for energy. Even if they come online, they will not deliver cheaper energy for the Australian community. We also know that there's no costing for this thought bubble that he's had—this mushroom cloud that the Liberals and Nationals are living under at the moment. All we know is that Mr Dutton said, 'The cost is going to be big, but we don't know how big it's going to be.'

We have also supported an increase, as of today, to superannuation for Australian taxpayers. It will go from 11 per cent to 11.5 per cent. We have done more in terms of making child care affordable. We have increased paid parental leave, and those working within government will actually get superannuation paid on that parental leave. Those are good things for Australian families. They're supporting families to be able to make the best choice for how to look after and raise their children. They're now able to split leave between the parents, letting them choose who has what amount of time off. These are tangible things that are going to help Australian families.

The unfortunate thing is that we know that, after those opposite were in government for 10 very long, disastrous years where they did nothing, we've had to clean up their mess. We know that they left us with a trillion-dollar debt, and what have we done in two years and three budgets? We've brought down two surpluses. That surely gives the Australian people some confidence that we can manage the economy and look after the Australian people's interests for their betterment.

I can't believe what I'm hearing here. You say you're great economic managers. I'll go back to the time when the Keating government handed over to the Howard government. You actually had a $96 billion debt. Then what happened after that? The coalition handed $20 billion to the Labor Party, who took it over. That was the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Apart from that, you actually handed on a $250 billion debt to the coalition when they took over. So don't tell me you're good economic managers at all. The facts are: yes, we are in one hell of a mess; yes, people are doing it tough out there; the cost of living is ridiculous; and people are finding it hard.

I see the government have poured the new Governor-General another $200,000. She's now on $700,000 a year. Then this government has given $600 million for football for PNG. You have no idea how the Australian people feel about that one. They are absolutely furious. Then you spent $450 million on attempting to have the Voice. You have disregarded what the people think about the Voice, because you're still putting it in your own legislation and you're pushing ahead with dividing this nation.

You have failed the Australian people. You talk about a surplus of $9 billion. That is just absolutely nothing. Look at your debt. How much have you paid off your debt? That's what we want to know. That's what the Australian people want to know. How much have you paid off your debt? Basically, a household has $600 coming in. That's to run the whole household. You paid $9 off that—that's your $9 billion surplus. I'm putting it in simple terms. So you reckon you have a surplus of $9 out of $600 a year income. 'But don't look over here; we borrowed another $200 billion, which we put on our loan.' Don't tell me you're running an economy, because you're not.

Your cost of living is going up because you're fixated on wind and solar. You're absolutely fixated on it. Then you hand Twiggy Forrest $2 billion for hydrogen, which will not work. And then you keep going ahead with the Snowy 2.0, and that is an absolute disaster, which will cost now $12 billion. By the time you put in transmission lines, it will be up to $20 billion. You're not good economic managers. You are actually causing the cost-of-living crisis because you don't have dispatchable energy at a cheap cost. You have lied to the Australian people. You said you would lower the cost of energy by $275 a year, which you haven't done. You have actually spent money like it's 'just go and pick another batch of money off the tree'. The Australian taxpayers are paying for it, not you. You're absolutely hopeless.

Australians know this Labor government has tried to hoodwink them. Sell it how you like; Australians won't buy it. Every single day they are reminded their cost of living has been getting worse since Labor came to government. Their experience has been their disposable income falling as they grapple with the impact of Labor's homegrown inflation. You underestimated the common sense of Australians when they said no to your divisive, risky, failed Voice referendum, and they know your 'cost-of-living tax cuts' is fallacious—yes; untrue too. They know the phrase 'it won't be easy under Albanese' was not simply an election slogan. Your government's incompetence makes it their real, daily lived experience.

We all know low-income families are doing it really tough. Everyone is affected, and charities tell us people who are now reaching out for help are different to those they usually see. Foodbank reported 255,000 South Australian households went hungry in the year to October. That represents more than one-third of South Australian households. Fifty per cent of those seeking food relief were employed. They are the new working poor, made so by this Labor government. Australians are paying more for health, food, education, housing, transport, electricity, gas and insurance, and now they've exhausted their savings. While the Labor government was distracted by the Voice, they lost focus on the priorities of ordinary Australians. Now they are further distracted from the real issue when they should be focused on the symptoms of inflation.

Even with the tax cuts and rebates, South Australians remain about $20,000 worse off under the Albanese Labor government. Your $300 power rebate goes nowhere for them. South Australia has the nation's second-lowest average yearly earnings of about $70,000 a year. Today that means families paying an average new loan of $530,000 in South Australia, with an average interest rate of around six per cent, are losing half of that to mortgage repayments, desperate to keep their homes. Renters endured a 15 per cent jump in costs over the past year if they're renting a unit, and they're dreading renegotiating their leases. Families are making the choice between heating and eating every day and going to dangerous life-threatening extremes to keep warm. That's not a luxury.

One in five South Australians are seeking to use hardship provisions for their energy bills because they can't afford $60 a week for gas and electricity. So your one-off rebate goes nowhere. And they have some of the highest renewables mixes in the nation. Australians will take your rebate, but they know it really does nothing, and you know it too. You promised $275 cheaper power to attract votes at the 2022 election, and Australian families have seen none of that. What they've seen is their bills going higher and higher.

If you are one of the 400,000 South Australians who live in regional, rural or remote areas you're likely to have been doing it even tougher on just about everything. Under Labor, the bulk-billing rate is nearly 10 per cent lower than it was under the coalition government. And the South Australian Labor Party have just added to that pain by slapping a payroll tax on general practitioners. Under Labor, the health system in South Australia is about to get even sicker and cost more for patients.

South Australians battle the highest inflation rate in the nation, with the CPI rising 4.3 per cent in the 12 months to March 2024. It's now equal to the national rate of four per cent, which is not really a gain. If you're one of the 150,000 small businesses employing 300,000 South Australians, it's getting hard to even afford to keep the doors open. The cost of doing business is getting higher by the day. Hundreds of SA companies were liquidated in the past financial year, and that doesn't count those who just shut up shop, their dreams and aspirations shattered. From Melrose Park to hotels in the Adelaide CBD, business is down by up to 40 per cent. Business owners have shared that terrible picture of uncertainty with me. When South Australian businesses are going out of business, there are fewer jobs. There is less money in the economy and the situation is destined to just get worse.

While this government focuses on rebates and spending taxpayers' money, it's not addressing the real reason for inflation; nor is it addressing the cost of living. It might be a new financial year and you might be selling your message, but they ain't listening. This Labor government is offering nothing new in this new financial year, and Australians and South Australians know they can just expect worse.

Isn't it amusing to have those on the opposite side talking about the cost of living, lowering inflation and growing the economy. The characters across the way want to bring a nuclear fantasy into this country to reduce prices; it's actually going to increase prices for energy. When it comes to initiatives that we've done—households will receive the $300 rebate and small businesses will receive advantages—where are they? Crickets! They mean nothing. To everybody in the community that's receiving that $300, I congratulate you. Through our policies, we're fighting inflation not only by giving out the $300 rebate and supporting small business but also by having two surpluses.

When you talk about the challenges we have with the cost of living—we know there are challenges out there; people feel them every day—that's where the difference is between them and us. We know people feel the rising cost of living and we're taking action about it. Those opposite consistently vote against it on every occasion when there's an opportunity to fight the cost-of-living pressures, to give people an opportunity to put more money in their pockets to support themselves and their families. There are so many examples.

Even today, there is another way of dealing with the cost-of-living pressures, where 2.6 million people will get their third consecutive pay increase. This will mean $110 extra a week since Labor's been in office. The people opposite have never stood up for those people on the minimum wage. Look at the figures. I recall when Senator McKenzie said that the National Party represent those on the lowest incomes. But they vote against measures to help them. They don't support minimum wage increases. They vote against helping their own constituency to deal with the cost of living. They speak against the $300 household rebate. When it comes to things like fee-free TAFE, which builds a more sustainable and capable community—to get more training and education to boost productivity, to deal with inflation on multiple fronts and to give people an opportunity for the future—they vote against it. They speak against it. They say that training and educating more Australians and giving them opportunity is something we shouldn't be doing.

Those opposite have no plan for how to make this economy a better economy for everybody. We see the sorts of things that they're against. They're against a future made in Australia, a whole combination of opportunities that this country can grab a hold of in manufacturing, minerals and renewables in the new age. Where are they? Again, they're against it. They say no to minimum wage increases. They say no to turning around and having a future made in Australia. They say no to the tax rebates. But then they turn around and say nuclear energy is something they should implement—in 20 years time. Every reasonable economist, every reasonable thinking person who has dealt with this proposition and every independent mind has said that their proposition won't work. But, even if it were to work, it's in 20 years time. That's their cost-of-living response. It's something that we all know is going to cost $600 billion, five to six times more than renewables, and not give us the opportunities in this country that we can have right now.

It's clear that the opposition have no plan and are opposed to every solution that gives cost-of-living relief. There are 2.6 million workers who have got a third consecutive pay rise, which this government has supported and which the opposition always opposed in the past and continue to oppose. They're not about cost-of-living relief, they're not about building a better economy and they're not about a future made in Australia. They're about a very narrow-cast view about how this country could work, and their failures over the last 10 years prove it.

I support Senator Hughes's motion and agree that the Albanese Labor government has failed to grow the economy and, with that lack of growth, failed to restore Australia's standard of living. A stable economic environment is necessary for a new business to open and to flourish and for existing businesses to weather the many storms this government has engineered. Labor's interest rate rises are due directly to Labor's wasteful spending and energy price inflation resulting from pointless net zero policies. The Prime Minister and the energy minister, Minister Bowen, have failed to provide electricity at prices people and businesses can afford, directly driving inflation. Every new piece of legislation in this place seems designed to strangle the last breath out of businesses. Live sheep exports are today's casualty.

It should come as no surprise that data from ASIC shows there were 1,245 business insolvencies in May 2024. This is a 44 per cent increase on last year and a 122 per cent increase across the life of the Albanese Labor government. To put it simply, this government is sending business broke. One thousand two hundred and forty-five insolvent businesses in just one month is not a statistic; it's a human tragedy. These are everyday Australians who had a go at lifting themselves up, who were employing others in their community and who were paying tax to support the government agenda. Now their businesses are gone, along with their ability to provide for their families, free from reliance on the government. Business confidence is down because this government has talked it down with an unending recipe of doom and gloom about global boiling and sustainability requiring reductions in living standards. There's no hope in this message, just unending misery. It's a lie. No wonder businesses give up.

One Nation believes 'abundance' is not a dirty word. It's natural for people to seek abundance and to share abundance. With One Nation, Australians can and will restore prosperity to this beautiful country of ours.

I'll just remind everybody who is in the blessed state of listening to this debate of what we are currently arguing about in the Senate. It is:

Australia is in an entrenched home grown cost of living crisis, and the Albanese Labor Government has no economic plan to lower inflation, grow the economy, or restore Australia's standard of living.

I question what planet the Labor senators are on sometimes. It's clearly not planet Earth. Clearly there's something in the water supply in the Labor Party offices, because, for the last year, 18 months—funnily enough, ever since the Labor Party came to power—Australians have been suffering a cost-of-living crisis. It's only now that the Labor Party have woken up from whatever dreamlike state they exist in and worked out, 'Oh, hang on, Australians are doing it tough.' This is the Labor Party who wasted $450 million last year on a referendum that divided Australians. This is the Labor Party who failed to mention cost of living at all in the calendar year 2023.

It is only in this year, in the run-up to an early election—and for those who are listening, this building is full of rumours concerning Prime Minister Albanese not just doing a reshuffle but also heading off to see the new Governor-General for an early election—that, because the Labor Party are looking towards the electoral mathematics of winning the election, they are talking about the cost of living. This is the Labor Party who made all sorts of wild and wonderful promises before the last election about how they were going to help Australians. Then, the Labor Party got into power and promptly forgot about all those promises and instead focused on trying to divide Australians and wasting $450 million. The secretary of the Labor Party has clearly briefed the Prime Minister and the cabinet and said: 'Look, there's a cost-of-living crisis. You've got to do something about it.' Of course, we don't have a plan from the Labor Party; we have TikTok videos, memes, bumper stickers and emojis. We have a plethora of things that go ping, but we certainly don't have anything that will help Australians dealing with a cost-of-living crisis.

The inflation figures came out last week, and this is the type of stuff that should be keeping the policymakers and the decision-makers of Australia awake at night. Food has gone up 11.4 per cent, housing has gone up 14 per cent, rents have gone up 14.2 per cent, electricity is up 21.5 per cent, gas is up 22.2 per cent, health has gone up 11.1 per cent and education has gone up 10.9 per cent. This is what is happening to Australians. This is what is happening to everybody in Australia because of the decisions of the Labor Party.

This is where it comes into its own: the Labor Party aren't very good at running anything. They're pretty good at winning elections. They are the masters of the running the scare campaign. The Labor Party are the masters of spin, lies and deceit. They are good at that; they've written the book on that, and you can find it in your local library. What they're not good at, because they don't come from the business world, is understanding what drives inflation. The No. 1 thing that's driving inflation at the moment in Australia is government spending. This Labor Party is spending billions upon billions of dollars on really nothing at the moment, because they're not dealing with the underlying reasons around why everything costs so much. It is because of the decisions made by the Labor Party in their two years in office.

I hope that, in my home state of Queensland and across the country, if the Prime Minister does call an early election in August or September—or 7 December, which is what some cabinet ministers have been telling other people in this building—the Australian people can deliver their verdict on this poorly run government. They are a government led by a weak Prime Minister and a government who are not addressing the underlying issues impacting the Australian economy, but also, more worryingly, they have forgotten people. They've forgotten how tough it is—how tough Queenslanders are doing it at the moment. In Queensland we've got the double whammy of a state Labor government and a federal Labor government. On 26 October we're definitely going to get rid of Steven Miles and his mob.

Thank you, Senator McGrath. The time for that discussion has expired.

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Hanson:

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

"The need for a comprehensive investigation into the political and financial relationships between the Albanese Labor Government, industry superannuation funds, and unions, and their impact on government policy, specifically regarding net-zero targets, wind and solar energy, and nuclear energy."

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.

I move:

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

The need for a comprehensive investigation into the political and financial relationships between the Albanese Labor Government, industry superannuation funds, and unions, and their impact on government policy, specifically regarding net-zero targets, wind and solar energy, and nuclear energy.

Follow the money. If you want to know why the Australian Labor Party is indulging in a childish scare campaign against nuclear energy, follow the money. This pathetic Labor scare campaign is an insult to the intelligence of every Australian. If Labor was truly against nuclear energy on principle, it would cancel any arrangements to purchase nuclear powered submarines and it would dismantle the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney.

However, we know Labor has no principles other than doing the bidding of the union thugs who fund them. This appears to be the ultimate reason behind Labor's antinuclear scare campaign. Labor provides billions of dollars of grants, subsidies and incentives to support renewable energy investments. Between Labor and the coalition, this has cost taxpayers $29 billion over the past 10 years.

Labor enforces regulations and mandates which enforce a guaranteed market for renewable energy. Industry superannuation funds controlled by Labor's union bosses invest heavily in these renewable projects, and why not? They are underwritten by taxpayers, thanks to Labor, guaranteeing a lucrative return for these union-controlled super funds. These lucrative returns are then used to support the Labor Party with large donations. It was no coincidence that in December 2023 union-controlled industry super funds demanded even more favourable investment conditions, underwritten by taxpayers, for the transition to net zero. These funds include Cbus, chaired by former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan, and AustralianSuper, which has close ties to former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. I'll highlight a few more union affiliations amongst the current Labor cabinet: Bill Shorten and the AWU, Tony Burke and the SDA in New South Wales, Don Farrell and the SDA in South Australia, Katy Gallagher and the CPSU, Pat Conroy and the CFMEU and the AMWU, and Richard Marles and the ACTU.

It's insidious how much unions have infiltrated this parliament and how this compromises good government. This is a scam paid for by the Australian taxpayer through subsidies and by Australian consumers through their record higher energy bills. Labor and its union masters don't want this corrupt gravy train derailed by nuclear energy. That's why they've come out swinging against it while once again showing their absolute contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people. Fortunately, Australians are smart enough not to fall for Labor's pathetic scare campaign of three-eyed fish memes.

Australians understand that nuclear power is safely used at 450 sites around the world in 32 countries. Australia is the only advanced economy of the world which doesn't make use of this proven technology, despite having at least a quarter of the planet's proven uranium reserves. This important natural advantage to Australia is being squandered. It makes absolutely no sense that Australia, one of the world's most energy-rich countries, is facing energy shortages this winter and has some of the highest energy prices in the world—that is, unless you follow the money trail.

Labor and the unions are orchestrating a massive scam on the Australian people, and the price of it will be our economy and our standard of living. This scam and the destruction it is causing must be exposed and stopped. Nuclear energy is the beginning, but uranium is just one of Australia's natural advantages. We also have abundant reserves of coal and natural gas. All of these natural advantages should be utilised in an independent energy policy that prioritises affordability and reliability over climate change ideology. The Prime Minister's inability to stand up to unions has been exposed by thugs like John Setka. The Prime Minister's weakness has been further exposed by Senator Payman, who has escaped any serious sanction for crossing the floor against Labor's policy last week.

Why are we allowing this union-Labor renewable scam to happen? Is it to arrest climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions? If it is, that's not working. Global emissions continue to rise, another indicator of the union-Labor renewable scam.

What a ridiculous motion it is that has been put forward by Senator Hanson today. Of course we, as a government, listen to super funds, our nation's biggest investors. They are custodians of our biggest investment portfolios and custodians of Australians' retirement savings. Of course we listen to industry superannuation companies. Of course we listen to unions. The truth is that it is those opposite, the coalition and One Nation, who are not listening—not listening to communities, not listening to scientists about climate change, not listening to industry and not listening to workers.

Let's take, for example, this nuclear fantasy of the opposition leader, Mr Dutton: seven nuclear reactors at the sites of existing or former coal-fired power stations around the nation, including in my own home state of WA, near Collie, at the site of Muja Power Station. What we have in the coalition's nuclear power plan is a plan that will throw our emissions targets in the bin. It is a plan that will divert investment from cheaper, shovel-ready renewable electricity generation projects. They will simply be put in the bin under this kind of proposal, because it will divert investment and waste precious time—precious time that industry super funds, the Business Council of Australia and workers in these communities right around Australia know that we don't have, and precious time that we must spend getting on with the job of committing to and implementing a transition to renewable energy.

Even if you were a climate change denier, the truth is that the coalition's nuclear power plan is still slower and more expensive than the energy plans already in place. The coalition admit that coal-fired power is coming to an end by the end of the decade, yet at the same time they want to wait decades for nuclear reactors which will cost more than renewable energy can be built for today.

Take the community of Collie in Western Australia, for example. They already have a plan to manage the transition from coal through the Collie Just Transition working group. It is a place where government bodies, unions, business and local community organisations have all come together to produce the plan to manage the end of coal power in the community of Collie. It's critical for our whole state, the state of WA, that they be given a chance to get this right and to do this job, because without it the electricity reliability of our whole state is in jeopardy. That is what those opposite seek to do: jeopardise the power future of the whole state of Western Australia. Collie Just Transition have a plan in place that calls for investment in renewable energy, retraining programs and embedded consultation with the local community. They have new industries that they are working with. They are working today to replace the jobs that will go when coal-fired power closes by the end of the decade, in 2029. The community of Collie cannot wait until 2040.

So the motion before us today names something, frankly, that is patently obvious. Of course as a good Labor government we're working with industry super funds, with unions and with communities to protect our nation's future.

Every political party has problems, but the problem that the Labor Party has is the same problem it had a century ago, which was identified by Alfred Deakin when he said that the problem Labor has is that it's beholden to vested interests. The mother of all vested interests today is the union between the Labor Party, the trade unions themselves and the super funds. This enormous conflict of interest can be seen in personal terms, in flesh and blood, here in this building, where you see the National President of the Labor Party, Mr Wayne Swan, who is also the chair of the Cbus super fund. The most remarkable part of this is that, when Labor announced a dodgy housing policy which was designed to allow the super funds to take over the housing market, the only organisation that said that they would put their members' hard-earned savings into it was Cbus. Cbus is the only one that said it would do it, with Mr Swan at the apex of the Labor Party and the Cbus fund itself.

This is all about underwriting Labor's campaigning capacity and capability. In the last year $40 million was sent from the super fund off to the union and the campaigners. What was the first act of the financial services minister, Stephen Jones, in this parliament? His first act was to roll back the disclosures and the transparency that were passed in the last parliament so that people could see when their super fund was giving money to a union. What did Mr Jones say? He said: 'No, we don't want that. We don't want people to see it. We want it to be a secret.' Helpfully, the coalition worked with the crossbench to roll back that disgusting attempt to cover up $40 million in payments from super funds to unions and Labor affiliated organisations.

This is a huge problem for our country—to have one of the governing bodies over a barrel to these interests. So many of the bills of this parliament are designed to funnel more money off to these super funds. When you look at that $40 million, it's a lot of money in campaign terms. AustralianSuper, Cbus, Hesta, Hostplus, TWUSUPER and First Super have all given more than a million dollars in the last year.

The idea of any organisation arguing that any particular form of zero emissions energy is bad is fundamentally unscientific. You can have an argument about how you want to do it in different ways, but the idea that any of these funds will get further involved in politics should be very scary given they're already very involved here in this building. I think the Australian people expect that the laws that we enact here will be enforced. I don't think that's unreasonable. There was a law on the books that said these funds must operate only for their members—not for the big unions, not for any other political organisation and not for the big banks or the financiers. They're supposed to be holding this money in trust. These are trusts, and they have very clear laws. It's about the best financial interests of members, not the best financial interests of unions. This is a major problem that we are all sitting on here in this building—that the prudential regulator, APRA, is not enforcing the law.

I was very pleased to see at Senate estimates only a few weeks ago that APRA had announced that they were investigating one fund, or maybe a number of funds, for breaches of the best financial interest duty. I asked whether it was appropriate for the fund called First Super to have made four $700,000 payments to the CFMEU. APRA said that, because they have secrecy provisions, they couldn't answer on the floor of the Senate estimates meeting. But I expect that those laws will be enforced and that APRA will set a standard and say to these funds, 'You cannot give your money that belongs to the workers to the unions or to the banks, because that is not in the best interests of the workers.'

This parliament created this scheme of superannuation. It is not a very successful scheme. Most people will be on the pension beyond the middle of this century. It has been very successful at enriching bloodsuckers, leeches and rent seekers, who have made a huge amount of money in the financial institutions but mostly in the unions. This is keeping the unions afloat and it is a disgrace.

The Greens reject this motion. It is deeply misguided. I'd love to see a government wholeheartedly commit to solar and wind. I'd love to see a government that rejects in full the nuclear industry, including nuclear reactors on Australian and US submarines. I'd love to see a government that would actually get us to meet the Paris climate targets. But that government is not the Albanese government. In fact, if you want to look at the Albanese Labor government's influence and the connection with some of the superannuation funds, look at how they have continued the coalition's goal to make Australia a top 10 global weapons exporter—an obscene plan. Look at how many funds in the superannuation industry are supporting that unethical goal. The militarisation of Australia and becoming an arm of the US's military industry have a corrosive effect on this place and on our society. That's also true when it comes to superannuation. No better example can be found than in the recent reporting by the ABC about nominally ethical superannuation programs that are, in fact, investing in foreign arms companies and some of the least ethical weapons on the planet, such as nuclear weapons and white phosphorus.

Australians who wanted to invest in a peaceful and ethical future have, without their knowledge, seen their superannuation funds invest millions and millions of dollars in some of the worst weapons companies on the planet and in some of the most unethical human-rights-abusing weapons that are created.

All those voters who told the Albanese government at the last election they wanted a different, more compassionate government haven't got what they've asked for. They haven't got what they've invested in. Instead they've got a bunch of warmongers who are happy to carry on Morrison's legacy. This is most clearly seen at a political level in the AUKUS mess—a complete embrace by the Labor Party of the nuclear weapons industry and the nuclear cycle in our political space. The government sets the standard, and the standard that this government sets and their very low standard on weapons and unethical investment have been embraced by the superannuation industry.

The ABC are now reporting that so-called ethical super funds have holdings of more than $26 million in shares for companies involved in nuclear weapons, including BAE Systems, Textron, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon Technologies. I doubt anyone who ticked the 'ethical' box wanted to see their superannuation funds invested in making doomsday nuclear weapons. Some of the so-called ethical super programs invested in companies like Rheinmetall, Hanwha and Austal. Do you know what those companies have in common? They in turn invest in the Labor Party. These are weapons companies that have added some $2 million to the ALP in public donations over the last decade. So, in a roundabout way, those people who are trying to invest in socially conscious superannuation were not only seeing their investments end up in the hands of some of the global bottom feeders of the weapons industry but those weapons companies in turn have handed the money over to the ALP in a deeply unethical moral spiral that both the weapons manufacturers and the ALP are involved in.

We've heard of 'pinkwashing' and 'greenwashing'. Now we have something new brought to you by the ALP and some parts of the superannuation industry—'war-washing'. That's where they seek to take money from well-minded people and take votes from well-minded people who want to end global war, who don't want to see investments in the nuclear arms industry and don't want to see investments in the global arms trade, and instead they get superannuation funds that throw their money at those industries, and a government that supports them and then takes money from those very same industries in turn.

This motion suggests a conspiracy between superannuation providers and the government that does not exist, but what does exist is a government that's setting the lowest moral standards so that others fall—moral standards based on bedrock. Why would superannuation providers not invest in arms dealers when this government's own investment scheme, the Future Fund, is also investing in arms dealers? Some of those arms dealers include Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer that is currently profiting from a genocide. This government has set the standard at a new low.

I'm pleased to speak on this urgency motion today about the need for a comprehensive investigation into the political and financial relationships between the Albanese Labor government, industry funds, super funds and unions, and their impact on government policy, specifically regarding net zero targets and wind and solar energy. There is nothing that encapsulates the long march of the left more than the takeover of private industry by superannuation funds, because let me tell you that superannuation is communism.

I've got to be honest here. It's not often I'd say this, but I think the other side of the chamber sometimes has a better understanding of capital than this side of the chamber does. I'm in this party because I believe in capitalism. I believe in people who'll risk their own capital. I don't believe in free markets. I believe in the risk-reward paradigm. I'm in very good company when I say that, because no lesser person than Sir Robert Menzies himself said in the last paragraph of the 'forgotten people' speech, 'We should not go back to the old and selfish notions of laissez faire … there will be … more control, not less.' I want you to think about and ponder that. There will be more control, not less of it. The reason Robert Menzies was so on the mark was that he foresaw the future. He knew that we are always at the threat of the communists and the Marxists who are always trying to override our personal responsibilities. There is nothing that overrides our personal responsibility more than taking 12 per cent of a worker's wage and giving it to someone they've never met—and they may or may not get it back when they're 67. That's not capitalism; that is communism.

The big mistake that we made in the eighties was to sign up with Hawke and Keating. This is where I come back to understanding capital. You see, they understood, back in the eighties, what they were doing when they introduced compulsory superannuation, because they knew that if you control capital, you control industry. Today superannuation controls over $3 trillion in capital. Do you want to know why they supported the 'yes' vote in the Voice referendum? Because they control the capital. Do you want to know why they're mandating renewable energy targets? Because they control the capital.

What we've got are industry super funds that work together to combine their votes, with one proxy voter at an AGM. They control over 20 per cent of the vote at major blue-chip companies. Add to that another 10 per cent of retail funds, which are often controlled through BlackRock and Vanguard. BlackRock is run by a bloke by the name of Larry Fink, a well-known leftie. You've now got capital controlled by the Left.

That is not what a true protectionist believes in. A true protectionist believes in empowering families and individuals. That is what true protectionism is. There is no better way to protect the family and the individual than to let the worker keep their wages, because they know better than anyone how to spend their own money. If they're not looking after their money—and that's what true capitalism is, when the person who earns the money looks after it—you're giving it to these unaccountable authorities, whether it's the government and their taxation, the bureaucrats and the way they spend money or the superannuation funds who pull out a lazy $30 billion a year in fees just to shuffle paper and gamble with your earnings; it's also corporate executives, I might add.

One of the things we have to realise is that large corporations are not capitalists. If I had a dollar for every time some CEO drove a company into the ground and then got paid a golden handshake on his way out! That is not capitalism; that is crony capitalism or socialism. Small to medium business, when it's being run by the people who actually own the capital and control the capital, is true capitalism.

What we've got now is the result of 40 years of a neoliberal takeover, whereby the individuals and the families have had their rights destroyed. We have these lunatic policies like renewables based off shoddy models that at the estimates hearing this morning even the head of the CSIRO couldn't explain. He couldn't explain or didn't even know what assumption were used in that GenCost report. This is the problem. We are being controlled by people who take no risk. They basically put the risk onto the individual and families. That is why I've always believed a true politician should be fighting for the rights of the individual and families, not smarmy superannuation funds and their crazy ideologies.

Superannuation has become an institution in Australia, one that has not been reviewed for almost 15 years. The superannuation pot of gold is now valued at $3.5 trillion in an economy that is valued at only $2.6 trillion. While I say 'pot of gold', 'slush fund' may be a better description—in the hands of some funds, anyway. Industry super funds are distorting the economy and using their huge wealth to invest politically rather than in the best interests of their members. The renewable energy monster currently devouring our economy and our beautiful countryside is substantially funded by industry super funds. These political investment decisions are made by boards that contain up to five members drawn from the union bosses that fund the service. Investment is made in a way that supports the Australian Labor Party's political agendas. That is clear.

Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, the man who had a fair bit to do with starting superannuation, has warned that super funds will start asking for board seats from companies in which they take a substantial position so they're union controlled. Two investment funds tried to take over Origin Energy last year and led the company toward sounder investment strategies. Australian Super drastically increased a stake in the company to vote down the proposal. According to an article in the Financial Review:

… super funds' decarbonisation commitments could push them to put directors on boards, if their other attempts at engaging with companies to drive down their emissions failed.

Really? Is this the job of superannuation funds now? Social engineering?

Industry super funds may force targeted companies to employ union members or agree to union sweetheart deals. They may force target companies to follow the woke globalist Labor Party agenda, such as DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion, although industry super fund CBUS has gone one further and added a B, for 'belonging', designed apparently to welcome employees who are Arthur one day and Martha the next. Despite LBGTQIA+ turning into an alphabet soup of debasement, REST are proud to be an ally of Pride Month and all that goes with it. Super funds can afford this non-commercial activity because they have a river of gold and cash flowing into their coffers every year from members who falsely think their super fees are being spent in their own interests. Silly them. In fact, super funds sent $13 million to the ALP in the lead-up to the last election; CBUS alone accounted for $1.5 million of that, or more than a tenth.

Direct payment is not the only way super funds are fed back to the unions, then on to the ALP. Industry funds pay unions to run training programs with very generous payments. It's not quite a protection racket, but it's along the same lines. Board members on super funds also receive very generous salaries, which are then sent back to the union and form part of the $17 million paid by unions to the ALP. CBUS, for instance, pays its board members $457,000 per annum each year, which makes REST look positively reasonable at only $165,000. This explains why, during COVID, when the Morrison government made a very sensible suggestion to allow everyday Australians a chance to use just a little of their super to get through COVID, the ALP lost its mind. Their super fund donors were unimpressed with having to give up what turned out to be $80 billion of their $3.5 trillion back to the people who gave it to them. Apparently, pride parades and social engineering don't fund themselves.

The misuse of funds by superannuation companies raises a serious question: is superannuation reducing wages? That would mean there is no direct financial benefit to the worker making the contribution. This is theft. The Grattan Institute has produced data to show that it is, in fact, the worker who pays for this so-called employer contribution, in reduced wages and reduced employment opportunities. It's time for a detailed inquiry into this boondoggle to ensure that workers are not losing from this system.

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

I seek leave to table documents related to Murujuga rock art protection.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving that the documents be tabled.

What you have just witnessed is political interference from the coalition in the tabling of documents which are in the public interest. It is our role as politicians to call out malgovernance, corruption and intransparency wherever it occurs. You need to wonder what the coalition's motives are in not supporting transparency on these matters. It is to protect their corporate donors.

I am taking very seriously my duty to stand up for community, and for accountability, transparency and good governance. That is why today I am trying to table documents that raise substantive concerns around the preservation of Murujuga rock art. In my role as a senator, it is my responsibility to bring such allegations to the public's attention so that they can be investigated. The allegations contained in the documents build on recent WAtoday reporting. The reporting exposed potential conflicts of interests of the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation board chair relating to emission impacts on Murujuga rock art due to his connections with mining and resource companies.

These documents throw up concerns around the absence of attention on environmental protection requirements, as well as the scientific methodology in the Murujuga rock art management program, potentially posing real risk to the rock art. Despite repeated attempts to raise these concerns through the appropriate channels, the papers for tabling allege that concerns have been dismissed or ignored, that promises for change have not been followed through and that, in some instances, presentation of these concerns has actively been prevented or omitted from documents.

Our heritage is being threatened and destroyed all over the country. After the destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters, we had at least a hope that a substantive heritage protection framework would be put in place to prevent such destruction from happening again. Yet, years after the report was handed down, we are yet to see any action on actually protecting our heritage. In the meantime, every day we lose more of it, with mining companies and developers getting away with destroying our very culture and our very being.

Murujuga rock art is one of the most extensive rock art collections in the world, and its preservation is incredibly important. Anything that puts that at risk needs to be called out, investigated and stopped. This is why I table these documents today, and I will now leave it to the responsible entities to do their due diligence and investigate these contents.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the documents relating to rock art protection be tabled.

I'm about to read out a stat dec outlining concerns about the protection of Murujuga rock art:

I, Nigel Carney, self employed make the following declaration under section 9 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959:

1. My name is Nigel Carney. I am currently self-employed.

2. I was employed by Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) on 21 March 2023 on a two year contract on a full time basis. My role was Coordinator of the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy and Monitoring Program (MRAMP). Pursuant to the requirements as set out in the job description form, I worked with stakeholders to coordinate the MRAMP and the Murujuga Rock Art Strategy (MRAS). I resigned from the position on 15 September 2023.

3. I was required to report to the CEO and the MAC Board. Former CEO Peter Jeffries stood down from his role shortly after I commenced. The role of permanent CEO was vacant until around November 2023. Travis McNaught acted as CEO during that period. I represented the MAC CEO on the MRAS Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG).

4. I recently read a news article published in WA Today reporting allegations of conflicts of interest made against MAC board chair Peter Hicks who also runs resources contractor Hicks Civil & Mining Pty Ltd, which has been appointed by Woodside or Bechtel the contract for haulage work on the Pluto II Scarborough LNG gas plant development. The article reports lawyers for Mr Hicks saying that he would not stand down from MAC, stating:

"Mr Hicks (in his role as chairman of MAC) cannot and has not influenced the review being undertaken by MAC (in regard to any effect of emissions on the heritage rock art) at all."

5. Based on my knowledge and experience in my employment with MAC, I believe this statement is not true and correct.

6. I consulted with industry and government stakeholders and highlighted to MAC and the SRG the absence of attention to the environmental protection requirements including the precautionary principle as required in the MRAS. I believe there were real and significant risks to the environmental protection of the rock art that were not being appropriately managed.

7. In mid-June 2023 and earlier, I had made Michelle Andrews, Director General of WA Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) aware of multiple risks inherent in the management of the MRAS and the MRAMP. DWER Deputy Director General Emily Briggs and DWER Strategic Policy Advisor Daniel McNevin then acknowledged the shortfalls and agreed to address and fund this aspect of the strategy.

8. A budget meeting was scheduled by DWER for around mid-July to enable the- issues to be addressed. The Woodside Heritage Advisor Daniel Thomas and Rio Tinto Corporate Advisor Indigenous Affairs, John Angel Hands were also supportive of reform. The meeting was then cancelled without my knowledge by MAC Acting CEO Mr McNaught. The MAC Chief Financial Officer Sanoj Xavier informed me of this the meeting was cancelled on 5 July.

9. The MRAMP was promoted as a partnership between DWER and the MAC, the $30M program funded by the major polluters. Under the proposed terms, MAC would take increased responsibility for managing the MRAMP and MRAS, including environmental protection of the rock art.

10. It was revealed to me that a third-party private contractor was in effect managing the MRAMP and MRAS. A project management document was provided to me (via a DWER JAWUN secondee) which revealed that control of the key parameters of the project were managed by Calibre Ventures Pty Ltd (Calibre), who also managed projects for Rio Tinto.

11. I was given the task of developing the legal partnership and financial agreement. I reported to MAC and DWER that the proposed MAC agreement would not be feasible without significant changes to the existing management structure, due largely to conflict of interest and related issues. I also became aware that these issues had also been highlighted by my predecessor in the role of MRAMP Coordinator, and were views shared by others.

12. I had also been advised by my predecessor Joseph Sollis that he had also been excluded from meetings to effect proper consultation, including a meeting on 28 August 2022 between then MAC CEO Peter Jefferies and Deputy Premier Roger Cook regarding the Woodside Pluto II Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

13. In the course of my role and field work, I recorded multiple scientific flaws in the management of the MRAMP and reported these to the project manager (Calibre) in order to address the issues. I believe that a Curtin University scientist Mawutorli Nyarku was dismissed, but the quality issues of sample collection and other issues were not addressed. The issue raised was that there was no evidence of world's best practice science shown in the delivery of the project, impacting on the UNESCO World Heritage nomination to achieve positive outcomes in aid of reducing industry emissions to mitigate loss of heritage value to the rock art.

14. I was encouraged by the MAC Company Secretary and Governance Officer Sarah Scott to report as a matter of urgency the issues impacting the integrity of the MRAMP and on 21 July 2023 a meeting with Mr Hicks as the MAC board chair was arranged at 1pm at the SOAK Cafe Dampier, so that I could first present the concerns to him. The meeting occurred and Mr Hicks agreed the issues needed to be presented and that I must provide him a copy of the report and presentation.

15. The Company Secretary since March also expressed concerns that I was excluded from all meetings with Perdeman Chemicals and Fertilisers, an SRG stakeholder, who Mr Hicks was meeting with during the course of my tenure. I approached Perdeman directly cordially in the MAC Office and via email and they did not respond to my meeting request. When I then approached Amy Stevens, the MAC Heritage Advisor who was prior to her engagement with MAC associated with Calibre (Tocumwal—Scott Franks—cancelled 2019 MAC-DWER agreement), she replied bluntly, 'Stay out of it".

16. I also approached MAC Circle of Elders member Vince Adams (of Woodside Energy) on two occasions seeking to discuss issues of concern, but no time was available to meet with or share with him.

17. I prepared a report outlining numerous deficiencies with the MRAMP science, noting that Woodside had done no significant emissions upgrade work on the Karratha Gas Plant since 2008 and the precautionary principle was being ignored. Calibre management of the SRG Conflict of Interest register was one of many other issues I documented in the MAC Board report. I made recommendations to address the risk issues outlined in the report and was optimistic in a positive response from the MAC Board.

18. At the SOAK Cafe meeting, Mr Hicks initially agreed that the issues should be presented to the MAC board meeting on 25 July 2023.

19. On 23 July 2023, I sent a copy of my report and slide presentation to Mr Hicks and acting CEO Mr McNaught.

20. On 23 July 2023 I had a positive meeting with Woodside Corporate (Karratha) and a planned meeting the same week with Rio Tinto regarding embracing the precautionary principle and industry cooperation. Since my role began, I sought industry expertise to facilitate positive outcomes and to address the strategy shortfalls identified and I received in writing commitments from DWER and Woodside to assist the changes required. (June 15)

21. On 24 July 2023, I received multiple messages via text and phone from Mr McNaught discouraging me from presenting to the board. He assured me he could deal with the matters in the report, he wanted to know the budget I was requesting. I assured him that DWER and Woodside and Rio Tinto were in agreement that funding could be made available to address the issues.

22. On the eve of 24 July 2023, Mr McNaught told me that I must attend a meeting prior to the MAC board meeting at the insistence of Mr Hicks, I enquired as to the purpose of the meeting and this was denied. I attended the meeting (July 25) which was half an hour prior to the board meeting (8.30 am) and was aggressively admonished by Mr Hicks who stated that two industry stakeholders had made complaints about me. Given that I had met with Woodside on 23 July, I assumed it was likely to have been this stakeholder.

23. I was startled by his claim as I had always cordial and positive relations with all stakeholders in my role, and received no complaint or negative feedback until this meeting. I enquired as to who the stakeholders were and what the complaint was and Mr Hicks declined to provide this information.

24. Mr Hicks then told me that until further notice I was to have no contact with any industry stakeholders, but I could continue communications with DWER. Mr Hicks stated that I could still present my report to the board. After the meeting with Mr Hicks and Mr McNaught I left the acting CEO's office and stated that I would present to the board. When I approached the board room door, however, I was physically obstructed by Mr McNaught, who stood between me and the board room door, and moved to block me as I tried to walk around him. Mr McNaught appealed to Mr Hicks who was also in the foyer and then Mr Hicks firmly instructed me not to enter the board room.

25. The Company Secretary witnessed the altercation. She told me she was concerned for my welfare. I had printed and bound copies of my report for the board and asked her if the reports had been received. She stated that she had already been instructed not to include the report in the kit (which was a standard procedure). I understood that this advice was given to her prior to my meeting with Mr Hicks and Mr McNaught.

26. On July 31, I presented my concerns in an email to the WA Government, the Chair of the SRG and the MAC Executive and Chair describing the dilemma I faced, being effectively removed from the SRG. There was no response from any of the recipients.

27. Coinciding with this I discovered that critical minutes of recent government meetings (June MRAMP Quarterly meeting Perth) were incomplete and not inclusive of concerns that I had raised in relation to the lack of scientific data integrity.

28. I also stated that on account of the myriad issues unfolding that the management of the SRG needed to be addressed. Mr McNevin agreed and stated that MAC would need to advise the SRG Chair and the Minister of the Environment WA. This was also missing from the minutes as well as concerns regarding the integrity of the draft Scientific Review of the MRAMP, given data and protocol error issues highlighted to Calibre and Curtin University.

29. A member of the SRG stated and shared documents confirming this was a regular occurrence. I had made email enquiries concerning to Calibre seeking to correct the minutes. I received a voice message from the Calibre Assistant Project Manager Taylor Tufte stating that emails to my MAC email address murujuga.org.au were bouncing back, suggesting she said there was a problem with the MAC server. I was not aware that any other MAC staff were experiencing a similar problem.

30. Without notice to myself Mr McNaught arranged with DWER a solutions meeting to address issues on 4 August 2023, but I was not permitted to contribute to the agenda of the meeting. I emailed my concerns to MAC and the DWER, hoping to contribute my report and concerns. I received no response. I appealed via text and phone calls to Daniel McNevin and Emily Briggs to postpone the meeting and or enable me to play a role in the agenda, they did not respond.

31. On 31 July 2023, I emailed Joy Hillman of the WA Public Service Commission seeking a meeting. There was no response. In March 2023 she had warned the SRG of the risks of conflicts of interest in the SRG and the dire ramifications should this occur.

32. On 2 August 2023, I received an email stating that I was suspended from my role and that I must return all MAC property immediately, and that I was under investigation for my conduct. I was prohibited from returning to the MAC office and instructed to leave the MAC property in Karratha.

33. I believe the claims herein can be substantiated by email, telephone and text message records.

34. Based on the foregoing, Mr Hicks has clearly been in a position to influence the MAC Board in relation to environmental issues affecting the Murujuga rock art, and has done so, by suppressing my report and the issues raised therein,

I believe that the statements in this declaration are true in every particular, and I understand that a person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of 4 years.

Nigel James Carney

Question agreed to.

I table the documents.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill would amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to allow the Manufacturing Division of the CFMEU to apply to the Fair Work Commission for a ballot of members about withdrawing from that union.

The Bill sets out eligibility rules of the new organisation that would apply if the ballot is successful, modifies certain provisions of the Registered Organisations Act to allow an orderly ballot to occur, and includes safeguards to address instances of overlap in the eligibility rules between the two resulting organisations.

The Bill also provides for a legislative instrument to be made if the Manufacturing Division and the CFMEU reach agreement on eligibility rules and the CFMEU's new name by 30 August 2024, and written notice with prescribed information is given to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. If this occurs, the Minister is given the power to modify the application of the Registered Organisations Act and Registered Organisations Regulations. This would be to give effect to the withdrawal of the Manufacturing Division or anything connected with that withdrawal. Safeguards on this power mean it is time limited and can only be exercised in relation to these particular circumstances.

I hope all members will support this legislation, which will give affected members of the Manufacturing Division the opportunity to vote on whether to de-merge from the CFMEU.

Debate adjourned.

Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Green, I present the report of the committee on the Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023, together with the accompanying documents.

I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2024:

The matter of a popular vote, in the form of a referendum, on the matter of enshrining the right to free speech in the Australian Constitution, with particular reference to:

(a) an assessment of the content and implications of a question to be put to electors;

(b) an examination of the resources required to enact such an activity, including the question of the contribution of Commonwealth funding to the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns;

(c) an assessment of the impact of the timing of such an activity, including the opportunity for it to coincide with a general election; and

(d) any other related matters.

Democracies like Australia are underpinned by certain inalienable human rights. These include the freedom to associate with who we want, the freedom to travel where we will, the right to believe what we want and follow the religion that we choose, and the freedom to assemble peacefully. I strongly believe that the most important right we have is freedom of speech. This is the right to express our views, our beliefs and our opinions free from sanction or penalty by the state.

I've been involved in Australian politics for almost 30 years, since my time on the Ipswich City Council. If there's one lesson I have learned in all that time it's that freedom of speech is something we can never, ever take for granted. As Thomas Jefferson said, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. He was right. There will always be those in power who will seek to silence opposition, dissent or criticism. There will always be those in power who seek greater control over us by limiting or attacking our freedoms. So there must always be people like us watching for these attacks, working to protect our freedoms and preserve Australian democracy.

My own career as a public political figure is an example of the need for eternal vigilance to protect freedom of speech. My public comments in 1996 about enormous and unequal taxpayer assistance provided to Indigenous Australians stated a truth that those in power did not want told. For speaking that truth, I was disendorsed by John Howard but decided to continue my campaign for Oxley as an independent. I was strongly encouraged by the many Australians who agreed with me and wanted equality.

My maiden speech to parliament in 1996 also contained truth that was uncomfortable for those in power. I spoke about increasing immigration from Asia—and I was right. Today, more than 17 per cent of Australians identify as Asian. The top two source countries for Australian immigration are India and China, and seven of the top 10 source countries are in Asia. I spoke about corruption in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—and I was right. ATSIC was abolished for this very reason eight years later. I spoke about the industry that has grown around Indigenous funding—and I was right. We're now being asked to enshrine this $30 billion industry in the Constitution. I spoke against the economic rationalism and globalism that was destroying Australian industry and manufacturing—and I was right. So much of it has moved offshore since then, including our entire car-manufacturing industry. I spoke against the foreign ownership of land and property in Australia and demanded reduced immigration—and I was right. These are the major factors driving our current housing crisis.

Back then and to this day, I've had the guts to say what Australians were thinking, and many Australians have responded. More than a million people gave One Nation their first-preference vote in 1998. But, because of the threat this posed to the new Howard Liberal government, it was decided by those in power that I had to be silenced. They decided to take away the power that freedom of speech gave me to speak the truth on behalf of the Australian people. You all know the story. With John Howard's support, Tony Abbott created a trust fund to attack and silence me by using the courts. It ended up with me spending 11 weeks in a maximum-security prison for electoral fraud before all convictions were quashed on appeal. The president of that court of appeal made it clear that Howard and other senior politicians had attempted to interfere with the independence of the courts for cynical political motives. I was called, 'Australia's first political prisoner'. In a nutshell, it was a naked attempt to control me, to put me away in some dark place where I did not have the freedom to speak. It was also an attempt to silence and marginalise the many Australians for whom I speak—or spoke. The whole episode was a preview of what has become much more common today, suppressing free speech and repeating approved speech to control the narrative.

We've seen people denied access to hired venues and town halls because they've exercised freedom of speech to say things the establishment and self-appointed thought police disagree with. We have seen people even denied entry into Australia and other countries for exactly the same reason. The tragedy is that this suppression of free speech has actually been effective. Many people these days are frightened to say what they're thinking. Australians of faith feel compelled to silence about their beliefs in public or the workplace for fear of persecution. Australians feel stifled and disenfranchised, unable to express a political opinion that departs from the orthodox narrative.

Much of the Australian media, especially the ABC, have been complicit in the suppression of freedom of speech. They help those in power control the narrative with selective reporting and biased editorial comment. We saw it all during the COVID-19 pandemic, a subservient media and governments working with them to censor dissent over lockdowns and vaccine mandates. And now we have a government about to introduce legislation under the guise of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' and formalise the suppression of free speech into Australian law. The Australian Constitution is not a bill of rights like that of the United States. It is effectively a rule book for government. However, it directly implies certain rights, like the right to vote and freedom of religion. This referral is to examine enshrining for all time the right to freedom of speech in our Constitution.

As I said, I feel that the Australia that I grew up in, able to have a voice and an opinion, has been stripped away from us. And there is the fear-mongering, especially when we talk now of the misinformation and disinformation bill that was first introduced by the coalition government and is now taken on by the Labor Party. If we do go forward with this, this is a great disservice to our democracy. We spoke earlier today about our shrines being vandalised and the damage that has been done to them. If we reflect back on that, it's really about the people that have fought and sacrificed their lives for our freedom—most importantly, as I said, our freedom of speech. Are we going to just ignore their sacrifices? Because what we are doing is suppressing people to have an opinion and to stand up and have that opinion.

People are in fear. It's quite amazing when I see what happens when people lack confidence in themselves. They feel they're not educated enough or feel they shouldn't be saying anything because those around will actually call them names, as I've been called on many occasions: 'You're a racist. How dare you raise about immigration coming into Australia? That's racism.' I remember straight after my election on 3 March, the next day, a reporter from the Australian rang me up to do an interview. I spoke to him. The headline the next day—on the Monday, 5 March—was 'Hanson will not represent Aboriginal people'. That was an absolute lie. The fact is that it did go to court. It was before Sir Ronald Wilson. Upon hearing the full tape and the conversation I'd had with that journo, he actually ruled in my favour. It was misreporting by the Australian which just happened constantly.

Even in this chamber today, there are the jibes and comments that I get, which are based on misinformation, or personal attacks because it suits you to do that. But you deny me my right to stand in this chamber when you call out those comments. You deny me my right to freedom of speech on behalf of the Australian people, and especially those people of Queensland who voted for me to represent them in this chamber. You're denying debate, and that's what this place is all about.

You think that you can bring in these laws and suppress people because you don't want them commenting on Facebook. That's what's happening now. If any political comments are posted on Facebook pages then Facebook shuts them down. So you're really slapping in the face those men and women who have fought for our freedom—and, most importantly, our freedom of speech. You're not doing anyone a service. Many countries around the world would clearly love—and their people would dearly love—to have the democracy that we have, but we are letting it slip through our fingers because of people in this place who feel it's their right to suppress: if you don't agree with someone, then you've got to shout them down, you've got to call them names, you've got to have a go at them. How dare you say that?

It's even happening in our universities and education centres. Many students have written to me over the years, or I've run into them with their parents. Do you know what they tell me? They say, 'We actually wanted to do an assignment about you, Pauline Hanson, in the classroom, but because we did it on you, against what the teacher thought and their own political persuasion, we were marked down.' They were marked down purely because it was done about me. In a recent one the assignment was: do an assignment on your hero. Guess who the kid picked? Me. I'm very honoured that he chose me, but the poor kid—14 years of age, from a school on the Sunshine Coast—was marked down. He was actually criticised by the teacher. She said to him that I'm controversial. I couldn't possibly be his hero. I'm too controversial. But he still stood up for himself and, because he stood up for himself and he made his comments, he was then pulled before the principal, and the principal gave him detention.

That wasn't the first one, and I'm sure it won't be the last, because I've heard from these kids before. You're even suppressing the kids in our educational centres, in our schools and in our universities. I hear it from university students all the time. They say, 'We have to think a certain way and we have to answer the questions a certain way; otherwise we're marked down.' You're stifling growth. You're stifling debate. The reason we have to stop this is that it's only through debate—because of people's different ideas and opinions—that we will ever get good government.

In the workforce, people also have a diversity of opinions, and they must be heard. The public will make up their own minds on whether or not they agree with you. The public will judge you, not people from the media or people on whatever side of politics you're from. It's not about that. If you've got a fair argument then produce your argument and produce your debate, but allow everyone the right to have their say freely, instead of calling people names and pointing fingers at people and belittling them. It sickens me. It's why our country is in a hell of a mess, and it's why, when I talk to the older generation, which I do all the time, they keep asking me: 'What the hell has happened to our country? Why are we in the mess that we are in?'

Do you know what I keep thinking? I think it starts here, in this place. I find that, for most of the people here, the way you vote is not the way that you think, because a lot of people here are too gutless to stand up for what they truly believe in. They are in fear of being suppressed by their own peers or by their own parties, or the fact is that they are just yes people and they follow the sheep. They don't realise how much of a privilege it is to be in this place and hold the positions that we hold. That's why I sleep well at night, and when I'm finished in this place I will reflect on my time in here and know that I stood for what I believed was morally right.

But there is one thing that you will never take from me. You will never take away my right to freedom of speech. I will continue to fight for that for the Australian people, with honour and with pride, to the best of my ability. People don't always agree with me on all the things that I say, but they respect the fact that I stand up on principle and I say what I believe in. A lot of times, I wear my heart on my sleeve, because I love my country. I care about the Australian people. That's why I'm here. I will continue to fight for freedom of speech for them.

I speak in support of this motion from One Nation to enshrine into the Constitution one of the most basic of human rights: the right to free speech. When it comes to free speech, One Nation has your back. Many people believe that free speech is an existing feature of the Australian legal and social framework. It's not. The High Court has held that there is limited freedom of speech implied by the interaction of several sections of the Constitution, limited to political communication. The extent of this limited right is yet to be fully determined by the High Court. That being the case, this concept of the right to free speech, already enshrined in the American Constitution, would be a worthy improvement to our own Australian Constitution. I want to read from the motion that Senator Hanson has moved in her own name and mine:

That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2024:

The matter of a popular vote, in the form of a referendum, on the matter of enshrining the right to free speech in the Australian Constitution, with particular reference to:

(a) an assessment of the content and implications of a question to be put to electors;

(b) an examination of the resources required to enact such an activity, including the question of the contribution of Commonwealth funding to the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns;

(c) an assessment of the impact of the timing of such an activity, including the opportunity for it to coincide with a general election; and

(d) any other related matters.

This is fairly simple. It's just an investigation and inquiry.

Of course, any alteration to our Constitution must be done with the agreement of the Australian voters by way of a referendum. I know that the Australian people are sick of referendums, particularly since the doomed and expensive Voice debacle that we had to endure and that the Labor government poured more than $450 million down the gurgler on, when it could have been spent on something far more important. Yet ensuring that freedom of speech is a feature of our social and legal landscape would be worth it.

Why do we need it? In Australia we're significantly overgoverned and overregulated. One area that needs attention is the way that the government use the media to shut down anyone who wishes to discuss any concept that does not follow the government line. In these woke times, governments maintain a strong hand guiding the media into accepting and promoting often truly dumb and in some instances factually wrong propositions. We know that freedom of speech is suppressed because local newspapers and state newspapers rely on funding from advertising from local councils and state governments. It's the same with the national government, the federal government. If someone comes up with an article that is too much out of the government line, then the governments won't advertise.

In addition to some factually wrong propositions from federal and state governments, we see propositions that undermine good governance and cede sovereignty, pushing a globalist agenda—ridiculous. Social media platforms have taken on the roles of pseudo fact checkers and censors of material, deleting material that's deemed inappropriate, even if it's accurate and is disclosing inconvenient truths. Truth doesn't matter to government in Australia anymore.

As an example, YouTube recently took down material from my YouTube channel, including material on COVID vaccine or COVID injection injuries that it had deemed medical misinformation. This was unnecessary and possibly unlawful, as some of the information was material placed before the Senate, covered by parliamentary privilege and supported by proof of its truth, fully referenced. It had been up there for six months. Once I started mentioning a COVID royal commission, it's suddenly come down, and they've taken it back retrospectively. It was six months worth of work that this Senate has seen and witnessed. Somehow, political speech from the Senate is censored by YouTube, which is owned by a foreign corporation, meddling in Australian federal politics.

It's not the first time. This interference with the communication of parliamentary material is potentially an offence, but it's not covered by any laws simply guaranteeing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should still be moderated, on rare occasions, to exclude poisonous vilification or speech that promotes hate or other crimes, not something that might offend someone. That's a dumbing down of the Australian population. If anyone's feelings are hurt—you cannot give offence; you can only take offence. If someone says something in the chamber and I feel offended, that's my responsibility; it's not theirs. So we should be stopping this nonsense about someone, feeling offended, being able to shut down the other person.

It's the speech that considers alternative narratives or theories that deserves protection. This Labor government has done nothing to improve transparency and accountability in terms of government actions. Indeed, in terms of guillotines—the shutting down of debate—we've had major bills go through this parliament with not one word of debate. We've had major amendments voted on with not one word of debate or question. That's not democracy. This Labor government has done nothing, as I said, to improve transparency and accountability in terms of government actions.

During the COVID period of government failure, the government of the time moved into a period of hyperactivity, silencing critics and preventing any discussion of problems, COVID injection injuries—of which there were many—and alternative treatments, resulting in tens of thousands of needless, preventable deaths and injuries in the hundreds of thousands to innocent Australians. That was what the Liberal-National coalition did—two cheeks of the same backside.

Of particular concern is the Labor government's intention to introduce a bill to eliminate alleged disinformation or misinformation, with no identified deciders as to whether the information is based on truth or not. Who cares about the truth? Just shut it down if it goes against the government's narrative. Who introduced the misinformation and disinformation bill? That's right: the other cheek, the Liberal-National coalition. Labor introduced it. They didn't put it to the vote. The Labor Party came along into government and they introduced it again—the same bill, pretty much.

This misinformation and disinformation bill must be opposed. It represents government censorship at its worst. It's a control agenda that's occurring in so many Western countries, and I compliment Tucker Carlson for his courage in speaking the truth. It's happening largely to the Anglophone nations: Britain, Canada, New Zealand, America and Australia—and, to some extent, in Europe, but it's largely the descendants of the British Empire or Commonwealth.

Usually, we'd rely upon state or Commonwealth legislation to resolve this issue of ensuring freedom of speech. Yet, since Federation, this has not been done properly by either of these jurisdictions, state or federal. It's now high time to ensure once and for all that this protection can be established. It can be done. We need this inquiry. By our call for a committee to inquire and report to the Senate, assessments on content, process, resources required, timing and any other matters related may be brought back to the Senate for consideration.

Freedom of speech, if enshrined within the Constitution, will provide greater real freedoms to all Australians. Let's go through some of the freedoms. We've got freedom of life, freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of travel, freedom of exchange and freedom of initiative. Of all of those freedoms, freedom of life is arguably No. 1. But they don't get off the ground without freedom of speech. Speech is first. These freedoms are birth rights, universal rights. Yet we now have to come to the government and ask permission to speak freely or we get censored. That means it's not a right anymore. It's something that we have to get permission from the government for, whether it be Labor or the Liberal-Nationals.

Think about this: the most remarkable transformation of human civilisation on this planet occurred in the last 170 years. Prior to that, our ancestors were shuffling around and scratching in the dirt. Now look where we are. Human progress has come because of human creativity and human care. They're inherent in people. People want to do things better, more quickly, smarter and more easily, so someone comes up with an idea. Through freedom of speech, they share the idea—and this happened so much in America and Britain in the 19th century, and even in the 18th century. Ideas were shared: one person came up with an idea; another person, by sharing it, built upon the idea and made it more magnificent; and then someone else came along, took their idea, made an initiative out of it and transformed human civilisation.

Freedom of speech is a matter of life and death. It's a matter of human progress. I support this motion.

I'm reading a book at the moment called The Gravediggers: The Last Winter of the Weimar Republic. It's quite a depressing read, when you look at those democrats in that nation's democracy who were trying to defend freedoms—in particular, the freedom of political expression—and what they were up against.

By no means am I saying that Australia or any other liberal democracies are heading down the path of the Weimar Republic. What is of concern is how the Left create prisons for words, but they only create those prisons for words they don't like. They prefer to have a half freedom of speech. If you agree with the Left, or the Left agree with the policy position you take, the Left are fine with you. You're allowed to have that freedom of speech. But if they don't like you politically and they don't like your argument, then they try to stop you expressing your view.

I don't like the Greens political party. I don't like most, if not all, of their policies, but I think they have a right to express those views in a liberal democracy. I don't like the Labor Party, but members of the Labor Party have a right to express their views. The danger in Australia at the moment is that the left side of politics, particularly the Labor Party and the Greens political party, don't reciprocate that view. What will be interesting, Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, will not be those who vote for this motion; what will be interesting today will be those who don't vote for this motion. I think that will tell Australians of the political positions of the Labor Party and the Greens when it comes to freedom of speech.

That should send a worrying signal to those who take a very libertarian approach to freedom of speech. It should send a worrying signal to those who sit around the cabinet table and those who sit in the darkened rooms in this building and do their deals. We all know that the Labor Party like to get up here and talk a big talk about how much they don't like the Greens, but they'll do a preference deal for the next federal election. Mark my words, the Labor Party and the Greens will sit down and they will swap preferences. This coming federal election will be a real test of where the Labor Party sees itself going as a political organisation but also of how they're going to get into bed with the Greens political party.

The Greens political party are an extremist political party. We've seen that in Queensland. When I talk about freedom of speech, I want to talk about the hatred that some Australians are expressing towards other Australians and, in particular, the antisemitism of some of those in our political discourse who are spreading vile, hateful messages about their fellow Australians. The Greens party are up to their necks in it. We just have to look at the conduct of some Greens politicians at the University of Queensland.

We just have to look at the fact that university students in modern Australia today are afraid to express their views within institutions that should be the very beacon of freedom of speech. If you are a Jewish university student, not only are you afraid to express your views in terms of freedom of speech, but—sadly, under the left-wing discourse that is taking over Australia—also you're frightened to express your religion. It should bring shame to all Australians that one group—regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender or whatever it is—are afraid not only to express who they are and the god they pray to but also to express their political views more generally.

This is happening not in some book that I'm reading, based on the dying days on the Weimar Republic. It is happening in a suburb called St Lucia in Brisbane, where the University of Queensland is based. It is also happening on every other university campus across this country. A special place in hell should be reserved for those vice-chancellors on million-dollar packages who are refusing to stand up for freedom of speech and, instead, are bowing down to the sickening mob rule of the far left. This is what we're seeing. At universities, if you are far left or if you are supporting a terrorist organisation—as we've seen in recent news articles—you're allowed, you're almost encouraged, to express those views—

I'll come to the war memorial shortly—and to push out that despicable, disgusting nonsense. The rest of us, who don't share those views, are instead cowed into silence like those in other countries.

My colleague Senator Cadell has mentioned the attack on part of our war memorial. This is where Australia is at the moment. It's at a crossroads. We have a group of far-left extremists who think it is perfectly acceptable to desecrate a memorial to those men—and it was men in this instance—who gave their all in order to defend the freedoms that these left-wing Nazis are taking for granted. I want everyone to think about that for a moment. Young men went over to Korea to fight against the scourge of communism, to fight so that the people of Korea could have the freedoms that the people of Australia have. Those men gave their lives. Yet, the memorial to their sacrifice is vandalised.

There is a cancer eating away at the heart of Australian society. When you forget where you come from and when you forget what brought you to a particular point in time, you forget where you are going. Australia is one of the world's oldest democracies and one of the world's most boisterous democracies. You only have to look at the full fruit salad of views that are on display in this chamber on a daily basis to see that. For Australia to stand by and see war memorials desecrated and for Australia to stand by and see universities—which, in their own way, are sacred as places of learning—become bastardised, with university students afraid to express their views, you have to question what is going on in our society. You have to question why this is so.

The coalition will be supporting this motion because we believe in freedom of speech. It's as simple as that. If you believe in freedom of speech, you should not have any concerns or worries about freedom of speech. This motion that has been moved by the One Nation senators is about asking one of the Senate committees to inquire into whether a referendum is needed in Australia to insert the right to free speech into the Constitution. This is about freedom of speech being referred to a Senate committee. It should not be controversial. This should not have the Labor Party and the Greens and the other left-wing senators in this place against it.

Running scared.

They're running scared, as Senator Brockman said. If you believe in freedom of speech, there should be nothing to worry about here. I look at Senator Scarr. Senator Scarr is the chair of the committee that this is being referred to. I think Senator Scarr would welcome this inquiry with open arms, and his fellow LNP members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee would welcome this inquiry because you should not be worried about freedom of speech.

The good senator from Tasmania Senator Urquhart has interjected. It is always dangerous, Senator Urquhart, to interject.

She's exercising her freedom of speech.

I'd like to point out, as Senator Scarr said, that Senator Urquhart is expressing her freedom of speech. I say that is a brilliant thing, Senator Urquhart, notwithstanding the fact that interjections are always disorderly. But it is brilliant that you have interjected. What I would like is for all Australians to have the same right that you have in relation to interjections. I would like for all Australians to have the same rights that we have in this chamber—to have that freedom of speech. I say to Senator Urquhart and to those who might be listening that, at the moment, that right is being dissipated. It is being washed away by these left-wing elitists, the new establishment who want everything to change because they're so angry and so unhappy with Australia. They think Australia is a failed experiment, whereas I think and those on the right side of politics, those of us who are conservatives, believe that Australia is the very embodiment of what a liberal democracy could be like and should be like if we continue to look at the pillars that built Australia, particularly those Judeo-Christian pillars of where freedoms came from.

This goes back to my opening point that, when countries fail, they fail because they stop listening to their citizens. If you look at the history of the world—and I am someone who probably spends a little bit too much time reading history books—and you look at how countries have failed, you'll see that they've failed because they've imprisoned their own people and eventually those people rise up and eventually that particular system of government changes.

In Australia, we are a liberal democracy, and we should always ensure that the politicians live in fear of the people and that the people have the tools with which to keep politicians accountable. That main weapon that the people should have is freedom of speech—the right to ensure that those decision-makers here in Canberra are kept accountable. The coalition will be supporting this reference.

I wish to make a few short remarks with respect to this motion from Senator Hanson, which I support strongly. As Senator McGrath said, I am the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I would welcome with open arms the referral of this important matter to the committee on which I sit, because this is such an important issue. There is no more important freedom than freedom of speech. All the other freedoms flow, essentially, from that basic, core freedom, freedom of speech.

If you come into my office you will see at the entry place a photograph of John Stuart Mill and also a wax carving of Voltaire—my two great heroes, John Stuart Mill and Voltaire. Senator Roberts, in his remarks, made me think about John Stuart Mill and his famous essay 'On liberty'. I recommend that everyone go and read 'On liberty', because it makes the arguments in such an emphatic way. There are a number of reasons freedom of speech is so important. First, it's part of the inherent dignity of each human being, of each individual—our own agency as a human being on the face of this earth. It should be a natural right for everyone to be able to express their own opinion, their own view, in accordance with their own conscience.

Second, as Senator Roberts said, how else but through the free and fair exchange of ideas and thoughts through free speech can we come to any accommodation in places like this place of democracy? How can we engage in that battle of ideas in terms of the future of our country and the future of our communities, unless we can engage in that free exchange of thoughts and ideas? And through that process—and this is the third point that John Stuart Mill made—even if you don't change your own view, you come to better understand why you believe in what you believe, through engaging with the debate. I have engaged in debates where my view has been changed, and that's fantastic as well. That's the power of freedom of speech. Either (a) you get to better understand why you believe in what you believe or (b) you might actually change your view when you hear other perspectives, other points of view and other contributions to a debate.

I want to also make the point—and, again, John Stuart Mill makes this point in his essay 'On liberty'—that it's not just about my freedom to speak; it's also about your freedom to hear. That's the corollary. When we speak, there's another person on the other side of the equation. So if you take away my freedom of speech you're taking away the freedom of others to hear my perspective, to hear my views, to hear my thoughts, to hear my lived experience, my ideas. So it's not just a question of the freedom of the individual who's speaking; it's also about the rights and freedoms of everyone else if they choose to listen to other perspectives, to listen to other ideas, to listen to other thoughts. This is absolutely fundamental to our democracy.

I referred to having a wax sculpture of Voltaire. Well, Voltaire is one of my great heroes. He is a man who actually served prison time in the Bastille in France for expressing his view with respect to society at that point in time. He went to prison on the basis of an expression of a point of view. He also was someone who stood up for minority groups. He stood up for religious minorities. He used satire and humour as an absolute eviscerating tool of debate, and no-one could do it better than Voltaire. He famously said, 'God, if you answer one prayer of mine: make my enemies look ridiculous.' That was his one plea in terms of debate, and he lived that creed. In doing so, he shed light on so many issues in such a humorous, intensely moral way that he is one of those great philosophers of the 18th century who literally changed the course of the world. This is the power of freedom of speech.

As Senator McGrath said, I can't understand why anyone would oppose this referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I chair the committee. I want the referral. Give it to me and we will look at the status of freedom of speech under our Constitution. We'll look at how it is under attack in various parts of our society. Senator McGrath referred to issues at our universities. There are also issues in the employment sphere, where the division between a person's private life and the discharge of their duties as an employee is increasingly being broken down as people's social media is examined. The sovereignty of the individual is under attack and is being eroded by those who have a total lack of tolerance for the expression of alternative thoughts and alternative ideas.

I say to those who are thinking of voting against this referral: what do you have to fear? I say it for the same reason I believe in freedom of speech. We've got to permit the expression of ideas, of thoughts and of perspectives. We shouldn't fear that; we should welcome it. We should also welcome the referral of this matter to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee.

I rise to make a few remarks. I wasn't planning to speak on this particular item, but while sitting here waiting for the debate on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 I couldn't help but reflect on the comments of my good friends and colleagues Senator McGrath and Senator Scarr.

Give me a referral or give me death!

We see a pattern, Senator Shoebridge, from those opposite, the Labor Party and their alliance partners, the Greens, of refusing to listen, as Senator Scarr said, and of closing their ears to extremely important issues.

Senator Cadell, who's also in the chamber, has repeatedly tried to get up in this place a very simple inquiry into the impacts of the massive build of poles and wires on agricultural land, and Labor and the Greens have blocked it on 10 occasions. They will not listen. We have tried to get the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 referred to a committee because farmers, shearers, truckies and communities in my home state of Western Australia deserve to have their stories heard and deserve to have the facts and evidence presented to this place, yet Labor and their alliance partner, the Greens, won't have a bar of it. They say: 'No. We will close our ears to the people who actually understand that industry.'

And now we have a fundamental issue of freedom of speech. Once again, we have Labor, working with their alliance partners, the Greens, closing their ears to dissent—and not even to dissent but just to hearing the truth of the matter: the arguments, the evidence. This is where the Left have got to in this parliament. They will not hear the voices of the Australian people. The only way of making them hear is going to be at the ballot box.

The question is that business of the Senate No. 2, standing in the names of Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

Too many animals have died and too many have suffered on the ships of misery for decades. Sheep that have been treated as cargo, not as the living, breathing sentient beings that they are, have suffered for far too long. Governments have facilitated this trade for decades, condemning thousands upon thousands of animals to horrific deaths and unimaginable suffering. In 1966, 67,000 sheep died aboard the Uniceb; in 1980, 40,000 sheep died on the Farid Fares; in 2003, 5½ thousand sheep perished on the MV Cormo Express; in 2014, 4,000 sheep died on the Bader III; in 2017, 3,000 died aboard the Al Messilah; in 2017, 2,400 sheep died on the Awassi Express; and, between 2018 and 2023, more than 6½ thousand sheep deaths have been recorded. These are just some of the horrors of this barbaric trade that we know about. There are many thousands more animals that suffer in extreme heat in cramped, overcrowded and filthy containers and that go hungry and thirsty.

The industry has long tried to hide and downplay the true extent of suffering involved in live sheep export, and the government has aided and abetted the industry for years. To this day, there is little transparency about the suffering on board these ships of misery. It is only thanks to the tireless and courageous efforts of animal welfare advocates, whistleblowers and activists who, time after time, have exposed the cruelty of the industry and the failures of the government that we know the extent of suffering that live exports inflicts on animals. These exposes have brought the need for urgent reform to the fore.

In August 2017 Faisal Ullah, a young 25-year-old Pakistani trainee navigation officer, bravely exposed the calamity that occurred on the Awassi Express. By April 2018, Animals Australia and 60 Minutes helped reveal the sickening image of thousands of live sheep and lambs being cooked alive from heat stress, being crushed to death from overcrowding and having their throats slit by crew members and thrown overboard. Shortly after, in 2018, my Greens led bill to end the long-haul export of live sheep and lambs during the Northern Hemisphere summer passed the Senate. But the then coalition government gagged debate in the House of Representatives.

Over 70 per cent of voyages since 2018 have reported heat stress in sheep while in the equatorial Persian Gulf and Red Sea regions. Yet it took another four years for the government to impose a ban on sheep exports through the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer, only for them to then weaken this ban. Even small improvements to the live exports trade have taken far too long, and sheep have continued to suffer horrendously. There have been dozens of reforms, reviews and inquiries since the industry started, but the cruelty goes on. It is crystal clear that we cannot stop animal cruelty in live exports by getting rid of a few bad apples or tinkering around the edges. Animal torture is absolutely baked into the industry's business model. Time and time again, we have seen that nothing can be done to make live export ships safe for animals. This cruel trade is irredeemable. The only option is to shut it down, and I am so glad that we are here today.

In 2018 I stood in this place and introduced a bill to end the export of live animals for slaughter. I held up a truly gruesome photo of sheep suffering on the Awassi Express, telling the government that the system was broken and the cruel trade must end. Late last year, we were reminded just how broken the system is when the WA government inexplicably dropped its charges of animal cruelty against the Awassi Express operator, Emanuel Exports, a decision that absolutely stinks of political interference and holds no-one accountable for the horrific deaths of 2,400 sheep.

The disasters have continued this year. After more than 9,200 sheep and 3,700 cattle were subjected to torturous heat on the MV Bahijah for eight straight days back in 2018, in January this year a further 16,000 animals were left sweltering through a heatwave off the Western Australian coast on the very same ship. This was after they had already been on the ship for weeks because of the terrible decision to send the ship through a conflict zone. In the end the sheep were stuck on this journey for 72 long days, and hundreds died. The government should never have approved the Bahijah to leave the shores of WA. It is clear that the government is completely held to ransom by exporters that will pursue profit above all else, and that will continue to happen if this trade is allowed to go on.

It is high time to end live export. It was high time back in 2018, when my bill passed the Senate. Now it is beyond time to shut down this industry once and for all. This cruel trade has completely lost its social licence—if it ever actually had one. Independent polling commissioned by my office in June 2023 showed that 85 per cent of Australians supported a phase-out of live sheep exports. In Western Australia, where the majority of the live export industry operates, 71 per cent of people supported the phase-out according to independent polling commissioned by RSPCA Australia in May 2023. This is on top of the petition to end live exports that I tabled in the Senate back in 2018, signed by almost 238,000 people.

The Greens and I have worked alongside incredible animal welfare advocates, activists and the community on this issue for years. I say thank you to them and thank you for the tireless work and support of Australian Alliance for Animals, RSPCA Australia, Stop Live Exports, Animals Australia and Vets Against Live Export, among many others. I particularly want to name some people who are such huge animal advocates and who I have worked with for years: Jed Goodfellow, Bidda Jones, Jo Webb and Lynn Simpson. The pressure from these people, these organisations, the community and the Greens has finally pushed Labor to this day, where we have a bill legislating the end date and a ban to live sheep exports.

Today we will make sure that cruelty to sheep can no longer be fodder for industry profits. Today we will make sure that these ships of misery never sail again. Enough is enough. Across the country, people are also demanding a fast phase-out, and, while I'm so pleased that live sheep exports will end, 1 May 2028 is still too far away. I will be moving a Greens amendment to bring forward the proposed date to 1 May 2026. Otherwise, the risk of too many animals suffering and dying over four years still remains. We also want to make sure that exports start to ramp down and reduce every year till the live export industry ends, so that fewer and fewer sheep are subjected to stress and death.

The government bill also has no measures to ensure that the focus on animal welfare becomes stronger over the next four years and that animal welfare standards don't drop, so I will be moving amendments so that independent observers and a vet are present on all ships and a full Northern Hemisphere summer ban is implemented. The sweltering conditions and extreme heat that animals are subjected to are only going to get much worse as the climate crisis exacerbates and temperatures soar. I hope the government and crossbench will support these amendments. The Greens wholeheartedly support this bill.

I support the legislation before us, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This debate has been with me for two decades now. I was in the state parliament of Western Australia with the agriculture minister the Hon. Kim Chance, who was involved in these debates some two decades ago. I have the Hansard from August 2003. Frankly, it's interesting how little the key issues in this debate have changed. He called out the fact that someone in the reporting was not telling the truth. He raised the allegations that had been made about the evidence and the way it was put together for the 60 Minutes report at the time. He said he wouldn't build on those rumours, but he said, 'I hope someone is seeking the facts of the matter.' What was revealed were the extraordinarily high levels of sheep deaths at sea at that time.

I sat on the petitions committee of the WA Legislative Council that looked at the issues way back in 2002. We looked at the Commonwealth and state jurisdictions. We looked at the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. We looked at actions that the state government could take. We also looked at concerns that the live sheep trade was undermining the more lucrative job-creating processed meat trade. The simple fact is that, in the two decades since that time, the live sheep trade from Western Australia has declined, and processed meat exports from Western Australia and the rest of the country have climbed dramatically.

I'll concede that there will be, frankly, new policy issues that come to the fore that will revisit some other policy debates that we might have had in this place from some time ago, like the fact that our processed meat gets overseas on flights from right around the country, which, for example, would bring to the fore what role Qatar Airways might have in the future in the export of processed meat from Western Australia. These are the kinds of policy issues that I contend will be part of these considerations in the future.

Today I received a text message from a friend of mine who is a wheat and sheep farmer. He said, 'Not every farmer thinks banning live sheep is the wrong way to go.' He's not the only farmer in Western Australia I have spoken to personally from different farming regions around the state who is of that opinion. When you look at the trajectory of the industry, it's little wonder that they think that. They want to see a modernised sheep industry, wool industry and meat-processing industry in Western Australia. These debates have, in their view, gone on for far too long. And in that time too many people have found themselves more and more on the margins of the debate, when actually, as the report from the taskforce reveals, we just want to get on with working with these communities, growing their employment opportunities and improving the viability of the sheep industries in Western Australia.

The simple truth is that, unlike other states, which don't export live sheep, Western Australia has to some extent had its head in the sand on where we're at on this issue, because no other state has this level of dependence on live sheep. But actually it's wrong of me to say 'this level of dependence', because, frankly, Western Australia's sheep and farming industry is not dependent on the live sheep trade—far from it. We know that in 2021-22 the WA flock was 12.4 million head, which was 50 per cent lower than in the early 2000s and dramatically lower than at its peak of 38 million head in 1990.

These are the very time periods I have been talking about. This reduction in sheep numbers occurred long before many of the current live export animal welfare requirements were introduced. Merino sheep make up some 80 per cent of the state's flock, with the remainder being meat-specific breeds, such as the dorper. Our sheep flock has evolved over the past two decades, with more lambs and few wethers, largely in response to the growing demand for lamb to process as sheepmeat. If you look at the industry figures—it's got very little to do with the kind of debate and the legislation that's before us tonight—these numbers really reflect the rise of sheepmeat exports and the drop in live exports across Western Australia.

I support the new jobs that will be in these industries, including meat processing. The Australian meatworkers union has said that, regardless of whether sheep are exported live or processed locally onshore, all the jobs in the supply chain up until that point remain the same. The only difference is that if the truck turns right to the port the live export sheep are loaded with a handful of stockmen, and an Australian vet accompanies them on their journey, but if the truck turns left and takes those animals to a processing facility it will employ some 500 to 800 people directly and many more in the industry.

Other evidence the taskforce heard was that major processors across Western Australia feel confident that they can expand operations and pick up any available animals because of the end of live exports. Roger Fletcher from Fletcher International Exports, which has a processing facility in Albany, has said that the number of live sheep sent overseas every year could be processed in Australia in four days. Fletcher International Exports and local processor WAMMCO have said that their processing facilities over the next couple of years could be used to deal with increased demand.

So let's take a look at the facts in the context of this debate tonight. The live sheep export industry has been in decline for many years. It's shrunk from $415 million in 2002-03, the time that I was just speaking of at the beginning of my remarks, to just $77 million this financial year. Those figures are but a tiny fraction of our overall sheep industry, let alone animal industries in Australia. Over that same period, demand for processed sheepmeat both here and overseas has been rapidly expanding, and we have an enormous opportunity, with the package before us in the parliament tonight, to take our government's commitment, a commitment of $107 million that can now be used to realise growing export market opportunities and growing job opportunities for regional communities around Western Australia. Four point five billion dollars worth of sheepmeat was exported from Australia last year, with our domestic sheepmeat market being worth $3.5 billion. Overall, that's $8 billion, with only $77 million of that in live sheep exports.

Now, with $107 million on the table in our package for Western Australia to build new processing facilities and to work with local industries, we can grow the viability of our farming and sheep industries even more. There's a strong future for the WA sheep industry with more sheepmeat processing creating hundreds of local jobs, a greater benefit to our local economy. We've done the work, and now it's time to get this funding moving and start growing Western Australian jobs.

I too rise to speak, but against the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. I have to say that the irony about the last speaker, Senator Pratt, is that, while she is Western Australian, she is—let's make it very clear—a Labor Western Australian senator standing here in this chamber proudly supporting a bill brought forward by Mr Albanese, the Labor Prime Minister of this country, that will go through this chamber tonight under a guillotine. What an insult to the people in this industry! But, talking about the creation of jobs, I'm a little confused, because when I look at this bill I see that this bill is not about creating jobs. This bill we are debating tonight is about closing down an industry in Western Australia. Quite frankly, Mr Albanese, what an insult this bill is to all Western Australians!

The good news is, though, that we are now less than 12 months from a federal election. In fact, this time next year, Australians will have a new government. So any Western Australian who wants to stand up for Western Australia, is a proud Western Australian and is going to support the sheep industry in Western Australia has a black-and-white decision at the next election. It's going to be there when you get your ballot paper. If you vote for Labor, you vote for the death of the sheep industry in Western Australia. If you vote for the Australian Greens, you also vote for the death of the sheep industry in Western Australia. But, if you vote for the coalition, you vote for a vibrant sheep industry and a vibrant export industry in Western Australia.

What the Albanese government fails to recognise is that the sheep industry has been the backbone of rural towns for over 100 years. It is something that we in Western Australia are so proud of, and it is something that under the Albanese Labor government will soon disappear. But, to add insult to injury, they don't even have the courage to take this bill through the Senate chamber in the normal course of events. That would be to list the bill for debate, to have many people speak on this bill, whether for or against, in this chamber—there are plenty who will be speaking against it—and to then allow a fulsome committee stage so that we are properly able to interrogate the scientific basis for the bringing forward of this legislation, because, as we know, there is no scientific basis for the bringing forward of this legislation, and to work through why such a paltry package has been provided to the industry. Quite frankly, Senator Pratt spoke in glowing terms of the package that has been provided to the industry. What an absolute insult. It clearly shows she has no idea what is going on in Western Australia. Worse than that, as a Western Australian Labor senator, she has shown ignorance tonight in terms of the impact of the closure and the impact of the paltry package that has been provided by the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Albanese.

There are some very basic questions that need to be answered by the Prime Minister in relation to turning his back on Western Australia. Firstly, with this legislation, why do you hate WA farmers so much? Secondly, with this legislation, why are you turning your back on the people of Western Australia? Thirdly, why are you ignoring the tens of thousands of people—in fact, it is now up to 60,000 who have signed the Keep the Sheep petition, and the numbers continue to grow—begging you, Prime Minister, to listen to them?

I acknowledge tonight the presence in the Senate chamber of, all the way from Western Australia, representatives from Keep the Sheep. I apologise on behalf of, in particular, federal Liberal and coalition WA senators for the way that this government is treating you, but, more than that, the insult they are giving you and your industry tonight by not even having the courage to properly debate this in the chamber. We will tonight guillotine this bill, along with a whole lot of others, at 10 pm. The Labor Party don't even have the guts to have a proper committee debate because they know they have no answer to the questions that Western Australians want answered on this bill.

Here's the real kicker in relation to Prime Minister Albanese. This is the question he needs to answer: when Mr Albanese was recently on Western Australian radio, why did he mock the name of this grassroots organisation in Western Australia, Keep the Sheep? As a Western Australian Liberal senator who backs our farmers, our truckies, the industry, the shearers and those who quite frankly keep our state going on a daily basis, let me tell you why it's called Keep the Sheep. It's about keeping the live sheep industry in Western Australia. It is about standing up for the industry which, tonight, along with the Australian Greens you will destroy—and remember, at the next election you also get to say no to the Australian Greens in Western Australia. Despite Mr Albanese mocking its name on Western Australian radio, what Mr Albanese fails to understand is that this is a grassroots campaign. These are mums and dads across Western Australia, and they are the most powerful campaigns. When mums and dads unite, with 60,000 people already signing the petition, it is going to get bigger and bigger in the lead-up to the election. You know this is a campaign that is bigger than politics. Why? Because this campaign is about real people's lives, it is about real people's livelihoods and it is about the fact that a Labor government under Mr Albanese is tonight prepared to vote without a fulsome debate and without a fulsome committee stage to literally end it.

So, Mr Albanese, despite the contempt that you have shown for the Keep the Sheep campaign, the grassroots campaign in WA that currently has over 60,000 signatures, I want to remind you again what this is all about. It is about real people's lives, people who just get up every day and do what we ask them to do. They go to work, undertake their business and then go home at night. They're just good people. It's about keeping the WA truckies on the road. It's about keeping the WA shearers on the tools. It's about keeping the vets in the communities. But more than that, it is about keeping WA communities alive.

In that respect, I want to quote from what the president of the Western Australian Shearing Industry Association said in his opening statement to the House of Representatives inquiry, because it really summed up what this is all about and, more than that, what the local impact is on the ground in Western Australia. He said:

I fear for our local communities. I'm a shearing contractor in a small town of 500 people. I employ 30 staff. I provide housing and meals, so I also employ a cook. I have a payroll of over $2 million … I spend over $100,000 a year in my local IGA. I spend $50,000 on fuel to run my buses and cars … 30 staff spend their money in Lake Grace. They live in the town, with some buying houses … They volunteer and contribute to the community. I'm the largest employer in Lake Grace …

With this legislation, with a vote tonight that will take place under a guillotine, Mr Albanese, federal Labor members from Western Australia—Labor members of the House of Representatives from Western Australia and Labor members of the Senate from Western Australia—and members of the Greens in the Senate from Western Australia are tonight prepared to destroy all of this. That is the face of federal Labor in Western Australia. And the best that this Prime Minister can do is to make a joke about the name of the grassroots campaign.

What is worse is that the so-called transition package is $107 million. As I said, it is a paltry sum on any basis, but it would have been nice tonight to interrogate the basis of the $107 million and find out what they honestly think they're going to get for the $107 million. Let me tell you what it totally underestimates. It totally underestimates the mental health fallout that this decision to end an industry, an entire WA agricultural industry sector, will have on the members of WA rural and regional communities. It happens to be a fact. This has been raised time and time again, but the arguments have fallen on deaf ears. No amount of counselling can soften the damage being done to each and every member of the supply chain, who have seen—this is what the government doesn't actually understand—not only their livelihoods ruined but their reputations sullied, leaving them pigeonholed as animal abusers by an animal welfare lobby hell-bent on ending all livestock production and transportation.

What is worse—and, again, something that Mr Albanese, as the Prime Minister of this country, is prepared to turn his back on in Western Australia, something that he is clearly not prepared to understand—is that the timing of this ban on the industry is appalling. The industry have raised that. They get the talking points back from the Prime Minister when they raise an issue, because there are no legitimate answers to justify what the Australian Labor Party will do tonight. But the Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge that the timing of this ban on the industry is appalling, because WA farmers are currently battling the effects of a very dry autumn. But, again, that means nothing to Mr Albanese.

The coalition, as I understand it, has an ironclad commitment that if we are elected to government we will reinstate the live sheep export industry if Labor succeeds in shutting it down. We will stand up for Western Australians and not turn our back on them. Unlike Labor, our clear commitment under Peter Dutton—he stood there with us at the Wagin Woolorama and stated this—is that under a future coalition government this trade has a bright and promising future. He made it clear that a Peter Dutton led government will always stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers, our producers and our exporters. As I said, there is a very clear decision at the next election, in Western Australia in particular, on this issue: a vote for Liberal is a vote for the industry; a vote for Labor is a vote against. It's black and white.

Before my time ends, I move my second reading amendment:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate notes that this legislation, in banning the export of live sheep, is a clear demonstration that Prime Minister Albanese and Western Australian Federal Labor members and senators are turning their backs on the shearers, the truck drivers, the fodder suppliers, the livestock agents, the farmers, the producers and their families—whose livelihoods depend on a vibrant sheep export industry".

Given the controversy of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, it's disappointing that there has not been a Senate inquiry into this bill. This is something I have consistently supported as a good mark of process and as a way to hear from people who will be affected by this ban. I acknowledge consultation that occurred as part of an independent panel and that there was a short inquiry in the House committee. But the Senate is the house of review, and the committee process is absolutely fundamental to our ability as senators to consider important legislation.

In the absence of an inquiry I would like to thank the industry for their constructive engagement. In particular, I'm grateful for the attendance of representatives of impacted industries at a roundtable I held. While a Senate inquiry would have been more appropriate, your input has been valuable and the way you approached the conversation constructive.

Listening to the industries impacted, there is real concern. Farmers in Western Australia have told me they do not feel heard. They have told me they are concerned about their jobs, their livelihoods, their families and their communities. If this bill passes, the transition must be managed carefully. It must be managed in a way that minimises negative impacts on farmers and communities by providing adequate support and resources for farmers to adapt. Significant investment will be needed in infrastructure and processing facilities and to expand the boxed and sheepmeat export trade and, critically, to address some of the very valid concerns about the lack of competition.

We've seen this play out around the country with the supermarkets, and I implore the government to address the concerns raised by farmers in Western Australia about the lack of competition. I fear that the $107 million transitional package will not be sufficient to properly make the transition and that further commitments will be needed from the Labor government. Despite these concerns, I stand in support of this bill.

Ending live sheep exports resonates deeply with many people of the ACT—not all Canberrans but, from my engagement, the vast majority. I thank the many on both sides of this argument who have engaged with me on this issue. I want to thank them for reaching out, having conversations and putting forward their thoughts, concerns and passionate arguments for ending live sheep exports. It is this democratic engagement and advocacy that has been instrumental in shaping my stance on this issue. In particular, I would like to give a shout-out to Aidan, Madeleine and Ben, students from the ANU who I met with on this issue and who, using their own initiative, have galvanised thousands of Canberrans who support the passing of this bill.

The welfare of animals is a real and serious concern. Historically, there have been significant risks to live sheep exports. One particularly distressing event in 2017 saw 2,400 Australian sheep die from extreme heat stress while being live exported by sea. Such conditions are clearly unacceptable, and I do acknowledge the improvements in the industry to address these concerns. I understand there's been a huge amount of work put into that and the relative change in deaths on journeys. But the issues have not disappeared completely. Earlier this year the MV Bahijah, which had 15,000 sheep on board at the time, was ordered to return to Western Australia. This is a reminder that the trade continues to pose a risk to animal welfare.

I want to reiterate my gratitude to the people of the ACT for their advocacy on this issue. I acknowledge that not everyone agrees with this, but on the whole I believe that Canberrans' voices have been heard, and I'll be voting on their behalf in support of this bill.

I too rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. First, I wish to quickly address Senator Pocock, who just spoke on this issue. There will be another chance to send this to inquiry, Senator Pocock. I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment to once again try to have a proper inquiry into this bill. The communities of Western Australia—including the farmers, the shearers and the truckies—deserve no less. I would encourage not just you, Senator Pocock, but all the crossbenchers to vote to refer this bill to inquiry to give those communities a chance to have their concerns heard.

I was sworn into this place in August 2017, in the same month the Awassi Express incident, as it has come to be called, occurred. But my association with the sheep industry in my home state of Western Australia predates that by a long time. Tonight in this chamber I'm wearing my father's watch. It was my father who transitioned our farming business from cattle to sheep in the late 1970s. From that time—from my early teenage years—we were producers of Merino ewes—a self-replacing flock of Merino ewes of the kind that is such a keystone of the Western Australian agricultural system. The self-replacing Merino flock is in-built diversification in a farming system. It provides wool from the ewe. From the ewe you also get prime lamb, which is more often than not slaughtered for the domestic market. But then, for some producers and in some seasonal conditions, it also provides the chance to hold older, less heavy sheep through for the export market.

The Western Australian seasonal conditions relied on that safety valve of the export market. We were a small producer of prime lambs and, whenever we could, we sold prime lambs, because the dollar value was higher. But occasionally, every three or four years, we would have carryover stock. I can remember one thing very clearly from my teenage years and in my 20s when we went to the markets, then at Boyup Brook: if the trade was there, Dad was happy, because if the trade was there, you knew you were going to get a fair price for your sheep. If the export trade was not there, you knew prices were going to be low. If it was only the abattoirs competing for lighter stock and perhaps some of the farmers, you knew prices were going to be low.

The domestic abattoir system in Western Australia will not replace live exports. Anyone who says it will is lying to you. It cannot replace live exports because of seasonal conditions. It cannot replace them because when Western Australia turns off its stock as a result of this policy the flock will shrink in WA. All those effects that we've heard about from earlier speakers—the shrinking of country towns and the elimination of whole industry segments—will take place.

The wool industry, reliant as it is on shearers, is based on this idea of the self-replacing merino flock. That is why we have a wool industry in Western Australia. That's why in the 1960s we were able to ride on the sheep's back. What you are ripping out of communities is that in-built economic diversification, that in-built economic support of communities through the presence of shearing teams, of truck drivers and of support services to the sheep industry that so many towns across the wheat belt of Western Australia rely on. It's like a complex web of interactions: if you cut one strand, everything else will move and shift, and many, many people will suffer. These towns are built on the presence of their truckie buying fuel from the local station, on the shearing team buying food from the IGA, buying fuel from the local petrol station and employing people in the town, and on those people then spending their wages in the town.

Let's go back to 2017 to the month I became a senator—the month that the Awassi Express incident happened. The industry was shocked. The farming community was shocked. There is no doubt about that. The Australian people were shocked. But they should have been even more appalled and shocked by the information that has come to light subsequently that very clearly shows a pattern from the animal activists who set out to destroy this industry. In a statutory declaration from Lyn White, the head of Animals Australia, which has been cited in numerous media articles, there is a clear long pattern of communication with the deckhand involved with the Awassi Express incident. Even though Animals Australia denied that they paid for that footage, there is very clear evidence contained in this statutory declaration that not only did they pay for that footage but they set an expectation of the sort of footage they wanted to see.

I will quote from this statutory declaration. These are Lyn White's own words: 'I asked Mr Ullah whether he had filmed or photographed any of the issues that were of concern to him. He advised me that he had copied some of the photographs and videos from the ship's computer but hadn't thought to take photos himself of the issues that concerned him.' Lyn White went on to say: 'My assessment was that Mr Ullah had not secured the visual evidence needed to support his stated concerns. I had no reason to doubt his firsthand, detailed descriptions of events and issues that concerned him.'

The statutory declaration goes on to set out a long chain of communication by which payments were agreed in return for footage. It is couched in terms of 'payment for the risks he was taking'. But it is very clear that this was cash for cruelty. Mr Ullah, the shiphand concerned, was earning something like US$350 per week. And what are the sums that Lyn White, the head of Animals Australia, describes as being transferred to him, a poor deckhand earning a few hundred US dollars a week? I quote: 'Over the nine months between June 2017 and February 2018, documenting evidence across six Australian shipments, Mr Ullah received US$26,000.' Cash for cruelty! A few pages down and there's another payment totalling $38,000—cash for cruelty! The most shocking thing is that these documents are in the possession of the department of agriculture and nothing has been done about it.

I have another statutory declaration from Mahmood Raza Mazher, another shiphand onboard the Awassi Express. He was a shiphand of the whistleblower. I will quote from his statutory declaration as well. It reads: 'I met Fazal Ullah at the Maritime Academy in 2012. The normal wage for a deck cadet is US$350 per month'—so I misspoke; it was $US350 not a week but per month—'with an additional $50 payable at the end of each voyage.' Mr Mazher goes on to talk about the fact that he was very close friends with this whistleblower, Mr Ullah. He also goes on to talk about how Fazal Ullah was considered to be a poor seaman and how he was in trouble. In fact, he was caught hitting cattle with a stick, so the management company refused him a new contract aboard that ship. He then tried to get his shipmate to procure footage in the same way. I think the key paragraph from this statutory declaration from a fellow deckhand of the whistleblower is this: 'I cannot prove that Fazal Ullah shut off the ventilation system on the ship, but it is my suspicion that is what he did. This is because in similarly hot conditions I did not observe the type of panting and distress that Fazal was able to capture.' It was on Mr Ullah's deck that those sheep died after receiving tens of thousands of dollars from Animals Australia—cash for cruelty.

On the back of this, Labor and the Greens, in an alliance, are shutting down this vital trade for Western Australia, shutting down this important part of the Western Australian agricultural system. It's a system that delivers protein in a highly efficient, highly humane manner, with the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Exiting the market will actually make animal welfare standards fall internationally. It will make animals worse off. It will make communities in my home state of Western Australia worse off. It ignores every skerrick of science, every skerrick of evidence and everything the industry has done to improve over the last 30 years, all on the back of cash for cruelty.

The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 is intending to end an industry which is based on cash for cruelty—the live sheep export industry. It seeks to amend the Export Control Act to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea on or after 1 May 2028, and that will not be before time. I want to commend the government and those who have worked to bring about this bill, including the countless people from the agricultural industries and the sheep industry, animal activists and millions of ordinary Australians who joined together to not only end the live sheep trade but come up with a comprehensive transition plan for the tiny portion of the industry that is still involved in live sheep exports. It is an example of how you end an industry whose time has come because the values we reflect upon now are not reflected in the industry. It is an example of how you end an industry seen as exploitative and inappropriate. You do so in a way that provides a transition package, a transition scheme, so that the workers in the industry—and that is a very, very small part of the sheep industry—have a future and can transition out of that industry. I think the bill gets that right.

Why are we doing this? We're doing this now because, since the start of the live sheep trade, it's involved extraordinary cruelty to the animals that have been conveyed on these ships which are intrinsically dangerous and cruel to the animals that are conveyed on them. We could look back to pretty much the start of the industry in 1966, when I think more than 60,000 sheep died aboard the Unceb in conditions that are too horrifying to imagine. It continued in the 1980s. We can look at just the last decade. In 2014, 4,000 sheep died on the BADER III in appalling conditions—prolonged heat stress and dehydration. They died after days and days of suffering. Three thousand sheep died in 2017 aboard the Al Messilah and 2,400 died on the Awassi Express. We have seen some images of that and the incredible cruelty and conditions in which those sheep perished. Again, that was over days and days of appalling cruelty, dehydration and extreme heat. No sentient animal should be consciously exposed to that kind of suffering, particularly not on an industrial scale.

More recently, just in January of this year, there were some 16,500 sheep that were left sweltering through an appalling heatwave off the Western Australian coast on the MV Bahijah. That's the same ship that, just in 2018, subjected some 9,000 sheep and more than 3,500 cattle to torturous heat over eight days. In January of this year, again we saw sheep being put on that ship for weeks and weeks and being sent to a conflict zone. It was known that their welfare would likely be seriously prejudiced, and it happened as you could have predicted it: torturous conditions on the ship again in January this year. We know that that kind of torture is intrinsic in the industry, and that's why I'm glad to see the live sheep trade ended.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Senator Faruqi, who in her time in this chamber has been absolutely consistent in her work standing up for animals. It's in part a testament to her work and that of her office that we're here. I want to acknowledge the work of a former Greens senator, Lee Rhiannon, a friend and colleague of mine, who also worked throughout her political career, including in this place, to end live sheep exports. I want to commend the work of organisations like Animals Australia and the millions and millions of Australians who support animal welfare to end this kind of grossly unnecessary industrial cruelty towards animals. Of course, I commend the work of academics such as Jed Goodfellow and his team, who have been making the case—the clear legal and ethical case—for well over a decade to end this cruel industry.

I would note some of the work of former senator Lee Rhiannon, who worked with the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union around the country. Their members not only lose work when sheep are exported live; they understand as well that, with live sheep export, they see the same sheep that they seek to deal with in as prompt and humane a process as possible in their industry being exposed to weeks and weeks of cruelty and torture, and they don't want that to happen. They acknowledge as well there are far more jobs locally if you end the live sheep trade and then we deal with the animals here, with the work and the industry that would be involved for members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. They acknowledge that this is really exporting jobs as well as cruelty.

So we come to this point in history. Surely we could look at the arc of history and see industries like the whaling industry, which, thank goodness, we've ended in Australia because of the inherent cruelty of it. We can see other industries that have been inherently cruel, and time has moved on and we've finally ended them. It's now clear that we will end the live sheep export trade.

It's hard to quite comprehend why the coalition is so committed to this one small, cruel aspect of an industry, which, with its continuation, reduces the reputation of the entire sheep industry. While ever it's associated with this kind of industrial-level cruelty and torture, that's bad for the broader sheep industry in Australia. It's hard to understand how the coalition haven't joined one and one together and made two and realised this tiny fraction of the industry, through exposing sentient animals to this industrial-scale, unnecessary cruelty, is also damaging to the reputation of the broader sheep industry in Australia. But it seems that the coalition can't lift their eyes above a narrow, short political moment. They seem to want to continue this kind of reputational damage to the sheep industry. Well, more shame on them for doing that.

It's time the industry ended. Yes, we should export protein to rest of the world, but there are plenty of options for exporting protein and our amazing agricultural produce other than relying upon an industry that, at its core, practises industrial cruelty. I commend the bill to the chamber.

As I rise, I want to foreshadow, on behalf of Senator McKenzie, her amendment on sheet 2695 to the motion for the second reading of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. I want to address this ridiculous move by the Albanese government. Since the government came to power, we have seen endless examples, small and large, of how those on the other side have no understanding of Australia's pastoral history, no understanding of regional Australia and no understanding of its contribution to the standard of living we have in Australia today. If you recall, on his election the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, said that his desire was to unite Australia, that no-one would be left behind and that no-one would be held back. But, for many living outside our capital cities, that's exactly how we feel. That is an election promise that the Prime Minister has absolutely failed to keep, just like so many other promises.

In regional Australia we have seen infrastructure funds absolutely ripped away and we've seen the decimation of the ag visa scheme and the refusal—week on, week off; month on, month off; and almost year to year—to allow the parliament to scrutinise the impact and economic consequences of 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines, and that's not to mention the wind turbines, including the offshore wind turbines, and the race to renewables and its impact not only on regional Australia but also on your power bills. They have completely decided not to listen to regional Australia.

I remind everyone that, in 2011, it was the Labor government that decided to kill off the live cattle export industry virtually overnight without warning, causing untold havoc across much of northern Australia's cattle industry. Rightly, the Federal Court found that ban invalid. Yet today this Labor government is still refusing to settle the claim and pay out the industry, an industry that is still struggling with the trauma caused by that ban. Today it's the live sheep industry that's in the crosshairs, because this government has decided that that industry will be banned from May 2028.

The government suggested that because it's an industry in decline it can be easily replaced by onshore processing and frozen meat exports. They claim it's an industry that's historically cruel, with unacceptable deaths, but they're completely ignoring the significant animal welfare standards that we put in place after the dreadful events of 2017 and 2018. They also say, 'But we promised it at the last election.' Well, this is clearly one of the only election commitments that this government is going to keep. Shall we talk about the election commitment that they would not tax anyone's superannuation? That was a commitment that Labor could not wait to break. How about their promise to lower inflation and ease the cost-of-living burden, or that wonderful election promise that Labor made on 97 separate occasions to reduce your power bills by $275 per year? We know that was a promise they couldn't keep.

They are promises worth breaking, according to this government. But somehow listening to the concerns of an industry, of regional communities and of their own Labor government in Western Australia, and admitting that on this election commitment you actually got it wrong is clearly not in Labor's DNA. Would it have been had it not been for the unexpected Dunkley by-election, which tied their hands? We've seen all over socials that the real reason for this industry being shut down is not just that it was a federal election commitment but that it was a promise in return for preferences from the Animal Justice Party to buy their votes. Maybe I'm being a little facetious. Maybe it is, as Senator Shoebridge has claimed tonight, because of the hard work of the Greens that we are seeing the death of a whole industry in Western Australia.

It is suggested that the cessation of the live sheep export trade will mean onshore processing jobs for Australians. I think the opposite is the more likely scenario, because, while the live export market only represents a very small portion of the total market, what it also represents is flexibility and choice for our sheep producers. The market for live export of culled sheep provides an economic floor for producers who would otherwise lose that source of on-farm income. There is very little demand in Australia for mutton, although may I recommend it to anyone watching on at home because it is a very tasty meat. When seasonal conditions demand reduced numbers, the alternative offshore market is highly valued.

We've got to remember that Labor is saying that we'll just sell more boxed meat overseas—by some miracle—but that is not the case. We know—and we've seen it in the past—when our industry is closed, in the countries where, for cultural or religious reasons as well as for reasons of lacking proper infrastructure such as chilling facilities, fresh killed meat is in high demand and preferable, frozen and chilled meat will never entirely replace that live market. We know, when our industry is closed, these countries won't come knocking on our door for chilled or frozen boxed meat. No. They will seek live sheep and go knocking on the door of Brazil or Argentina or South Africa—countries that don't have the same stringent animal welfare requirements that we have from farm gate all the way to the abattoirs overseas. We have very strong animal welfare requirements. What we will see is the reverse of what the Greens are claiming this bill will result in. We will see lower animal welfare standards across the world. At the same time, we will see a negative impact on our industry.

Despite the minister promising through Senate estimates a Senate inquiry, we had the somewhat farcical, truncated House of Representatives inquiry which went for just over two weeks with only two public hearings. There was not enough time to go through the more than 1,300 submissions that were received—many coming from farmers and people directly impacted by what this cut will mean. RSM, a noted accountancy firm with over 2,000 farming clients in regional Western Australia, submitted to that inquiry:

Government has a responsibility to ensure that no Australian is worse off or left behind. However, should this policy be implemented, we believe this is what will occur for thousands of Australians in Western Australia.

We've also seen Xavier Martin, the president of NSW Farmers, join an industry walkout on the minister over this issue at a National Press Club function. Mr Martin said:

Live sheep exports by sea from Western Australia have a positive effect on the sheep industry, including markets in New South Wales and … phasing out exports of live sheep by sea will have negative flow-on impacts to producers across Australia …

As I live on a merino and commercial sheep property, I share from the east coast the concerns of what the impact of shutting down live sheep export from Western Australia will have. Marleys Transport, located in the Hope Valley in Western Australia, transports animal feed for live export ships and said that the end of the industry will mean a loss of approximately $700,000 per year. Another truckie, Ben Sutherland, said just today on Sky News that he will lose about 30 per cent of his bottom line. He made the point that it doesn't just hit him. It hits his family. It hits his footy club. It hits the IGA. It hits the whole community.

But we know Labor don't care about regional communities, because we've seen it. The very same arguments have been made time and time again, with the cuts to water through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and through this government's rush to buybacks, because this government takes a simplistic approach to many issues that face regional Australia. Rather than actually doing the hard work of finding out what regional Australia needs and what it can do to support industry to build economic viability in the regions, this government says, 'Just cut it. Just cut the water. Just cut live sheep export.'

They hide behind outdated data and anecdotes, yet they don't apply the same concern to the data and anecdotes about windmills and the damage they have on native birds or ocean wind factories and what damage they may have on migrating whale species. They remain silent on the data that shows hundreds of hectares of native land being cleared for windmills, irrespective of whether it's koala habitat or whether there will be other loss of biodiversity. They don't have the same reliance on that data. It is no secret that, after this, their next target will be live beef export and the many other animal husbandry industries across regional Australia, because that's the dirty deal that they've done in siding more with the Animal Justice Party and the Greens than with the people in regional Australia.

The dissenting report to the House of Representatives inquiry set out very clearly the importance of this industry and called the legislation 'an unwarranted intervention by a poorly informed government'. It highlighted the comprehensive animal welfare standards. Despite this, this government continues to insult sheep producers and the whole industry by claiming they are cruel. I've not met a sheep farmer who lives up to that terminology. This government cannot help kicking regional and rural Australia. We, as do most thinking Australians, maintain that good agricultural policy must be driven by science, facts and solid evidence, not by extreme activist agendas. We must see this legislation defeated.

Keep the sheep! Keep humans! We need to stop this live export ban. There are no grounds for it. We've seen a truncated, sham inquiry. The Labor Party has not gone out and listened. They're just pushing the Greens ideology to get the Greens voters' preferences in inner-city electorates. What about the effect on the human environment: the devastation to local communities and to people overseas who need food and good animal protein?

The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 amends the Export Control Act 2020 to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea from Australia on 1 May 2028. The bill also includes money to paper over the cracks—the devastation that this measure will cause to rural and regional communities—for a limited period. That money is going to be made available only under severe limits. One would have thought that providing that money anyway, to assist in an orderly transition in a suitable timeframe, would have made more sense. Then, again, sense has no place in the feelings driven policy development from the Albanese Labor government—political, not economic—regardless of the impact on humans.

As it stands, the $107 million fund is little compensation for an industry that generates $120 million a year directly and hundreds of millions more in flow-on effects to rural communities. Of the money, $60 million will be used to lay the groundwork for the next round of the government's plan, which is to eliminate live cattle exports. Specifically, the mechanism is the specious animal welfare argument, including welfare of animals in transport. Sheep and cattle welfare during transport will be used as an excuse to limit the movement of animals.

Who benefits substantially from that trade? It's not the Aboriginal communities in remote areas of Australia who currently support themselves raising cattle and then need to transport their cattle a long distance to get them to market. This transport welfare measure will remove the opportunity for Aboriginal communities to support themselves, in turn making those communities reliant—dependent—on government handouts. Aboriginal communities are heavily represented in red meat production. In areas of Western Australia, they will be devastated by the loss of this trade. The industry is attracting homeless from the cities, coming bush in search of work and accommodation.

What a high price everyday Australians in rural areas are paying for the dirty deal from the Labor government for preferences from animal welfare groups and the Greens. Labor can't, and doesn't, deny this dirty deal. The announcement of Labor's policy on live animal exports came not from Labor but from one of the animal welfare groups. This bill lets city activists pat themselves on the back while ignoring the animal and human suffering caused by this ill-informed and poorly consulted bill resulting from a sham, partial inquiry that didn't consult everyone.

While the government talks about the bill being a product of consultation, the process was one of working backward from the desired outcome: how can we be seen to get this outcome? The correct process, according to the Office of Impact Analysis, is to conduct 'meaningful consultation that considers the views of affected stakeholders'. That's not what happened. As I said, it was a sham inquiry in the lower house. The National Farmers Federation submitted to the committee that they had to fight each step of the way for producers to have a fair hearing with the independent panel. The National Farmers Federation saw the industry's advice to the panel go unheeded in the final report. What was the point?

Then we saw the minister go even further, rejecting key elements of the panel's advice and adopting even more radical ideas than the panel itself had recommended. Welcome to government under the Labor Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese MP! Ideology and dodgy preference deals with ill-informed fanatics is how the Labor Party rolls. To hell with the human devastation! Look good; don't do good.

The entire consultation and parliamentary process is a mockery of due process. It's an indictment of those in this chamber who go along with this sham for reasons that escape me. The Greens, of course, want to cause more hardship among the red meat industry with their amendment from Senator Faruqi, which, if successful, would bring implementation of this bill forward to 2026. I'll bet that's the deal done between the Greens and the Labor Party: to bring it forward to 2026 and set immediate limits to export.

Sheep have a five-month gestation and need to grow for seven months before export. This means that sheep that are under gestation now will not be able to be exported under the Greens amendment unless markets can be found at the last minute. The parent animals were bred specifically for the export trade, and these will be bound for the abattoir. Meat contracts are let out years ahead because of the breeding cycle, so the sale of these animals is not likely. In fact, the cull has already started, with prices as low as 50c a kilogram through the saleyards in Western Australia, and many lots are unsold, causing farmers to leave unsold animals at the saleyards for euthanasia. Perhaps city senators like Senator Faruqi and Senator Tyrrell, who is in support, can come over to Western Australia, help with the cull, look these farmers in the eye and look these sheep in the eye.

The idea that this bill and the Greens amendment is predicated on humane treatment of animals is Orwellian doublespeak. It will have the reverse effect. Rural communities are being hollowed out as a result of the policies of the Labor-Greens government. The endgame is to move protein consumption to lab-grown meat owned by Prime Minister Albanese's friends Bill Gates and BlackRock's Larry Fink, whom the Prime Minister has met with during this parliamentary term. Farmers have no place in the Labor-Greens vision of a dystopian world of fake meats and fake food. This bill denies the truth that live sheep exports suffer a loss of life at exactly the same levels as animals in the field, if not better. The object of this bill is not the welfare of animals; it's an ideological objection to a diet that includes red meat—ideology over humanity. And what of the land currently under grazing? Well, I'm sure the climate carpetbaggers are already out in the bush measuring up for solar panels. Beautiful countryside will be covered in silicon cancer, and somehow this is environmentally friendly? The Labor-Greens government is not fit to govern.

I want to pass on some personal thoughts from Senator Pauline Hanson, who was in Western Australia recently to listen. The farmers spontaneously invited her to speak off the back of a truck. As Pauline does and as I do, she did so. The farmers mentioned the independent study that was done—no deaths on ships. Of course, other senators have mentioned the MV Awassi Express, on which was perpetrated the cash-for-cruelty scam: hundreds of thousands of dollars apparently paid to a foreign stockman from a developing nation to treat animals cruelly, to kill an industry—and that's what Labor did. They fell for it, killing an industry. The damage to farmers, communities and the nation is already done. There are 100,000 sheep especially bred for the live export overseas market and not suitable for the local market, as I've said. The market for live sheep is already down because overseas buyers are looking elsewhere. They know what's coming from this government. They've seen the socialists operating, and they're seeking other suppliers. It hurts farmers across the whole of Australia, because, for example, Tasmanian sheep farmers are sending sheep to WA to make up shipments.

Remember the Gillard Labor government's cattle export ban? It belted the whole of Australia's beef grazing industry—the whole country. It had effects everywhere, because of the flow-on. Farmers told Senator Hanson in Western Australia recently, 'We'll have to shoot the animals we especially bred.' She told me about the look in their eyes—shattered by the waste of the animals they cared for. Communities over there are worried about farmers' mental health. If the government has any humanity, it won't force the farmers to shoot their own animals; the government can kill the sheep.

Here's a question for government. The European Union is the world's biggest exporter of sheep, not Australia. What free trade agreements has Australia signed with the European Union? Has this Albanese Labor government done an agreement with the European Union? We've all seen so-called free trade. It's not fair trade at all. It hurts our country. We've seen that from both sides of the uniparty, Labor and the Liberal-Nationals. As I've said, the real reason for shutting down this export industry is to get Greens' votes and preferences in inner-city eastern electorates.

I want to talk briefly about why I'm very pro human, and I've spoken about it many times. I need to counter 80 years of anti-human propaganda, especially that of the last 60 years since the Club of Rome got into bed together with the United Nations and then the World Economic Forum, all to control people, to control property and to transfer wealth. There are three or four main assumptions that this anti-human campaign propagates. Firstly, they say humans don't care. We'll talk about that in a minute. They say we're greedy, rapacious, uncaring and irresponsible—we just don't care.

Secondly, they say humans are destroying our planet when, in fact, the reverse is true. They say civilisation is the environment's enemy. They say civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive. I'll address that in a minute. They say civilisation and the environment are incompatible, so we need to cease development—because that's what they want: they want to stop human development. Senior leaders of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, including the late Maurice Strong, have said that. They want to deindustrialise Western civilisation. They say our duty is to protect our planet. They say nothing about humans. They imply that humans need to be sacrificed for that.

Here's the reality to counter 80 years of bull. These are observations. Everyone in this chamber right now and everyone watching on TV is here because someone cared. When a foal is born to a mare, it pops out of the mare, struggles for about 20 minutes and then starts cantering and put its head down and starts grazing with the herd. When every one of us, as humans, was born, we were completely helpless. The fact that anyone is in this room or watching means they are alive and that they were cared for. We are completely helpless for a number of years. Whether our parents were good or bad or whatever, the fact that you exist means that humans care. Humans care, and they're based on care. The most caring humans got to propagate.

Here's the second thing. Visit any country in the world and you'll see that developed continents have a lower impact on the environment than the undeveloped continents. For example, a person in a remote, undeveloped area of Africa will defecate in the creek because he or she is too busy scrounging for their child's next meal. Yet what we do is mine black rock called coal and red rock called iron ire, and we make steel, build dams, build water pipelines and get sanitation and water to our communities. Developed nations have less impact on the natural environment. That means human civilisation and the natural environment are mutually dependent. We all know that our civilisation won't have a future if we don't protect the environment. It's also clear that the environment has no future if we don't develop and civilise. That is clear, yet we're told the opposite.

Our duty is to enable humans to flourish. Right throughout history, every generation has taken care of the younger generation and tried to make a better world for its younger generation. When we develop our country and civilise, we actually protect the environment. Our goal is not to protect the environment. Our goal is to protect humans and to civilise—for humans to flourish and civilise. That's why I'm very proud about speaking about our species.

I also want to say that we need to have an aim to restore our country and our planet for humans to abound, thrive and flourish. The goal is for humans to thrive. Farming is essential for civilisation. Farming needs to be protected. Thomas Jefferson said, 'For cities to exist, we need farms; for farms to exist, we don't need cities.' As I mentioned briefly, the objective here is cultured lab meat. That's one of the globalist aims of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Humans need real meat, animal fat. Who knew that the Greens were helping to sell cancerous cultured meat grown in slop in a bioreactor? People just want to be left alone to get on with their lives and to get the government the hell out of our lives. Humans deserve food here and overseas— (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. I approach this debate tonight with real regret and dismay. There have been a number of issues throughout this term of government that have caused great concern, but there have only been a couple of times where we've stood in here and debated an issue that has particularly affected the people in Western Australia. This is one of those moments.

The other moment that I can think of was the first bill, if my recollection serves me right, that the Albanese government brought into this place: the bill for the abolition of the cashless debit card. That was brought in due to an ideology and to appeal to votes in parts of the country other than those parts where the cashless debit card was in operation. Of course, I'm talking about the electorates of Durack and O'Connor, Grey in South Australia and Hinkler in Queensland. These are all seats that the coalition won, of course, but, due to votes in the inner-city parts of New South Wales and Victoria, in particular, the then opposition were committed to see the repeal of the cashless debit card. I've been to the Goldfields and the Kimberley, and I've seen firsthand the result of the abolition of the CDC. We've seen that these communities are now torn apart.

I raise that to suggest that, right here, where we're debating the removal of the ability for farmers to export their product—the sheep that they have raised—Labor are being led by that same ideology and, indeed, by that same inner-city short-sighted mindset that is all about votes in inner-city seats here on the east coast. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent, and sometimes close to 100 per cent, of live sheep exports come out of Western Australia, and here we have a situation where this government has, because of interests in other parts of the country, given in and made decisions without any science or knowledge.

We hear the minister say, 'This was an election commitment.' Explain to me why Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor, won his seat. Why did the member for Durack, Melissa Price, win her seat? Those are two key electorates in Western Australia where the vast majority of these sheep farms are in operation. Why did they win their seats? We know that due to the interests of animal activist parties—like we saw in the Dunkley by-election, where just a couple of per cent was traded off, and sometimes even less than that, to get some preference deals—the Labor Party and Mr Albanese chose to go with those preference deals and those interests rather than engaging with the farmers in Western Australia, where this is going to have the biggest impact. It is a great shame that that is occurring.

Like I said, when we saw the abolition of the cashless debit card, we had the debate here—I've got that same feeling right now: a really empty feeling. It's a real feeling of despair. I feel that as a Western Australian. Imagine how farmers are feeling right now. A few of them have come over here today as a last-ditch effort to try to implore this government to pump the brakes, to stop and to listen, but the government are not doing so. We've seen a guillotine in this debate. For those following along at home, it means that the government has decided that there is not going to be a proper debate in this place. They're going to cut it off in just two hours and say, 'This debate will end, and we'll have a vote.'

I say to the crossbench: this is an opportunity for you to pause and not allow this government to abuse the conventions of this place. Normally, a guillotine is reserved for non-controversial legislation or bills that are absolutely essential to get through in a timely way. Well, this is not one of those. Clearly, it's not. They just want to get this off the books, dealt with and done. They know that in Western Australia this stinks. They know that in Western Australia this issue matters to people, whether they're in the country areas or, indeed, in the city. Western Australians know this trade is vital to the livelihood and the future of farming in Western Australia.

Those who were listening earlier would have heard Senator Brockman deliver his speech. I commend his speech, and I'm pleased to be joined by Senator Brockman, who is right next to me now. Senator Brockman very clearly and articulately laid out the reason why this trade must continue and why it is unique to Western Australia. We hear contributions by those opposite and by those down there among the unicorn farmers, the Greens, who talk about how the rest of the country has moved on from this trade, so let's just bring it on. We heard a contribution earlier from Senator Shoebridge. He said, 'We could see the abolition of this, and one day we'll look back on this as we did the whaling industry and thank God that that's gone.' Senator Brockman outlined how the climate in Western Australia is unique and different to that of the east coast and how that trade enables a quick shrinking of the flock to deal with the pressures that might be on a particular farm or, indeed, across a whole region due to the vagaries of the climate. It enables those producers to sustain their farms and their industry. But they won't be able to do that under this government.

When I first came into this place, my family was a farming family. When I heard about the live sheep exports, there was the Awassi Express incident and there was great concern in the community. So I took it upon myself to see for myself exactly what happens in this industry. I arranged to go to the feedlot in Mundijong, just south of where I live. I met the vet and the people working there. I saw the sheep there. They would go there for a period of time. I think it was about a week. They would get accustomed to the food they were going to have on board the ship. Every animal was checked by a vet. Any animal that had too much wool on it was sheared. It was to make sure that they were suitable and ready to go on that voyage. Then I went to the port at Fremantle, and I went on board one of the ships and saw the ventilation that had been installed. They had gone to great lengths because the government had asked them to. They did everything the government asked to ensure those welfare standards were in place.

We have a situation where these companies, these exporters, have done everything that the government has asked them to do, yet it's not good enough for Mr Albanese. He wants to appeal to inner-city interests, particularly over here on the east coast. Western Australians see straight through this, because they remember the campaign before the last election. They remember the billboards. They remember the corflutes that were up at every polling booth. The Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, Mr Albanese, said, 'Put WA first: vote Labor.' It was on every polling booth. We saw ads on television, saying, 'Put WA first: vote Labor.' They even had the campaign office for the country there in Western Australia. They even held their national campaign launch in Western Australia. Of course, Western Australians did. They voted for them overwhelmingly, particularly in the city. There was no mention of a live sheep export ban. That certainly wasn't mentioned in any of their campaign launches. It wasn't on any of the billboards or on any corflutes plastered around polling booths. But they did say, 'Put WA first: vote Labor.' They are making an absolute mockery of that campaign with this legislation and by guillotining this debate here tonight.

What does it mean to guillotine? It means we're not able to have a committee stage. What is that? That's an important time for this Senate as the house of review to be able to question the minister about the elements and clauses of a bill, and, indeed, we would be able to ask about this support package that is coming. There are lots of questions to be asked. We are hearing from farmers and producers that it's a pittance, that it's not going to meet the need, that it's insufficient to support them in the way they need. They're going to guillotine the debate and at 10 o'clock tonight we're voting. We are not going to have any committee stage on this bill.

Like I said, there have been many moments when I have been disappointed in this government, but there have been a few moments when I have actually had this sick feeling and this sense of exasperation, and that includes right now. That's because this government has turned its back on Western Australia. They are not listening to the people of Western Australia. They're not listening to the farmers, the producers or the families. We are talking about generational farmers. We are talking about producers that have been producing sheep for generations. I was at the Wagin Woolorama, and we saw people come up and sign the petition. There were generations of people that came through. We saw elderly, parents and young people coming and signing this petition not just for themselves but for future generations as well. They know that their livelihood is going to be stolen and taken away by this bill and this government.

There is no-one more responsible for that than the Prime Minister himself. Mr Albanese is responsible for this. He says he's a great friend of Western Australia. All he does, frankly, is land his jet, his Airbus, on the deck in WA, refuel his plane and then jet off again overseas. He counts that as a visit to Western Australia. He counts that as a visit and getting to understand Western Australia. The truth is that he doesn't understand it. Labor are going to pay at the next election. In the new seat of Bullwinkel, guess what's going to happen there? They are going to get slaughtered there and in Tangney. Mr Lim, I hope you're listening. Why don't you stand up for Western Australia and stand up for the people? There are a lot of retirees and a lot of people who own farms that live in that part of the electorate. There is residual support for farmers. It doesn't matter if they're young or old, people love farmers. Guess what? Labor are going to pay for it in all those seats—Pearce, Swan and Hasluck. They have turned their backs on Western Australia.

Kate Chaney, the member for Curtin, was for this bill, but because of the feedback she got out on the ground and no doubt in the polls that she's seen, like I have seen, she knows that this stinks and is going to impact her. So, all of a sudden, she changed her mind and voted against this bill in the House. Why don't Labor senators here in this place do the right thing or, at the very least, support the second reading amendment that's been foreshadowed by Senator Brockman to refer this to a committee? Government, get feedback from farmers, at the very least, about the legitimacy and the efficiency of your support package, because it's not enough. You are going to pay because of your approach.

Finally, after years of campaigning, years of whistleblowing and years of community activism—in fact, after decades of all of those things—we're going to set a date to ban live sheep export, and of course we're going fund a package to help farmers and communities in the transition. Change is constant; that is a condition of humanity, but sensible governments and parliaments acknowledge that we need to change, and we'll help people through those changes and support them through transitions. Whether it's the change we inevitably need to have as we respond to the breakdown of the planet's climate or the change we inevitably need to have to reduce the suffering of animals—which this legislation, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, will do—we need to help people through the transition.

The Greens have for decades campaigned against live animal exports. We've introduced legislation into this place on more than one occasion to ban live exports, and, finally, after voting against it for far too long, the Labor Party is now finally accepting that a ban is necessary, and we acknowledge that. But 2028 is far too far in the future for a ban to happen, and unfortunately tens of thousands of animals will continue to suffer until then. As folks have already heard from other Greens senators in this place, we intend to introduce amendments to ensure that the industry doesn't ramp up exports before the ban and to try our best to protect sheep until that ban comes into place.

The Greens have fought live export for decades, and we've done it for one very simple reason: animals are sentient beings. They deserve to lead a dignified life and they deserve to lead a life free of suffering. What we need to understand is that, whether it be horses, greyhounds or sheep, animals should not be subjected to suffering, torture or a loss of dignity just to underpin somebody's business model. Animals suffer. They feel pain. Animals are aware of their existence. It's on us not just to make decisions that we won't inflict pain and suffering on animals; it's on us to do everything we can to make sure that they can lead a dignified life.

Animals may not have a voice to come into this place and argue for their own rights and their own interests. They may not have a voice to come into this place and argue that they should be treated humanely. They may not have a voice to come into this place and argue that they should have a life free from suffering inflicted by humans for profit. They may not have a voice to argue those things, but that's what the Greens are here to do: to give voice to those arguments.

The history of live export is replete with the most horrendous animal suffering. Major party governments, the establishment parties in this place, have facilitated the live export trade for many decades. They have condemned many, many tens of thousands of animals to horrific deaths, and many hundreds of thousands of innocent sentient animals have been condemned to long periods of suffering. In 1966, 67,000 sheep died on one vessel alone, the Uniceb. In 1980, 40,000 sheep died on another single vessel. In 2003, over 5,000 sheep died on the MV Cormo Express. In 2014, 4,000 sheep died on another vessel. In 2017, 3,000 sheep died on another vessel and, again, on a separate vessel in 2017, another 2,400 animals died.

These are horrendous figures just on their own, but sheer mortality numbers do not tell the story. Live export is a business model for profit built on the suffering of innocent animals—animals that are sentient beings that feel suffering, just like we all do, and that are aware of their existence, just as we are all aware of our existence. Like horses, greyhounds and a whole range of other species, animals that are subjected to the live export trade have suffering deliberately inflicted on them so that some small number of humans can make a profit. It's not acceptable; it's never been acceptable; it never should have been acceptable. This parliament should never have allowed it, and there is shame on everyone—the establishment politicians in particular, who voted for it time after time over the decades when they were given the opportunity to do the right thing.

I can't let my time speaking on this legislation go past without reflecting on Senator O'Sullivan's contribution that we just heard. I've heard some weird and wacky reasons for supporting the live export trade over my time in politics, but Senator O'Sullivan's argument, boiled down, is this: some farmers overstock their farms. They make bad decisions. Then, when it becomes apparent they've overstocked their farms, they need to inflict suffering on animals in order to get them out of the bad decisions they've made, and it's the animals that are going to suffer for the bad decisions that human farmers have made. I know that it would be only a small number of farmers that Senator O'Sullivan is referring to, but, believe me, that's what his argument boiled down to in the end.

Of course, there's never a good reason to torture an animal, and making a dollar is certainly not a good reason to torture an animal. We've seen dozens of reviews, inquiries and reforms on live exports, but the cruelty has continued and, tragically, the cruelty will continue for years, even after this legislation is passed. We know Australians overwhelmingly do not support live export. They do not support it. Poll after poll shows that as many as 85 per cent of Australians do not support live export. I often say, when you hear numbers that high in a poll, that if you polled support for breathing you'd only get 90 per cent. That is pretty much as high as you get in a poll, 85 per cent. But some polls have shown that that is the level of opposition to live export in this country.

The establishment parties have run interference for this cruel, barbaric practice for far too long. The industry has done everything it can to hide the extent of suffering, and Labor and the LNP governments over the decades have enabled that to occur. It's thanks to brave whistleblowers, courageous activists and hundreds of thousands of Australians who have campaigned so hard that an end to this cruelty has been brought about. This vote today will be a vote that's made possible by those people.

I've sat in on a lot of prominent votes in my time in politics. A lot of votes I've made I'm really proud of. But this vote tonight is a vote for the whistleblowers, a vote for the animal rights activists, a vote for the millions of Australians who do not support live exports and ultimately a vote for animals—those beautiful sentient beings that are aware of their surroundings and who have as much right as we do to lead a dignified life free of suffering; it is a vote for those animals. It will be as profound a vote as I have ever participated in during my time in politics. Those animals may not have a voice to come into this place and argue for their rights, but today a majority of this Senate and therefore a majority of the parliament is going to give voice to the voiceless and we're going to do something for them. That, for me, and I'm sure for many other senators, will be a proud moment.

Well, it's about the third or fourth time I've been in this chamber today, and I've said nothing good about Labor, and I won't be saying anything good about Labor in this debate either. Labor and their coalition partners, the Greens, and probably Senators Pocock, Tyrrell and Thorpe, are at war with Australian farmers. The union labour movement has always hated Australian farmers, but in the Albanese government and the extremist Greens, the unions have some especially useful patsies who are happy to attack Australian farmers regardless of the consequences. The war is being fought on several fronts. We are debating live sheep exports now, but let's talk about the other fronts in this war first.

In the Murray-Darling Basin, where 40 per cent of our food is produced, Labor and the Greens have increased the scope of water buybacks, which have already devastated river communities. Labor and the Greens are relishing the opportunity to take more water from irrigators and more jobs and services from communities in the basin. They're engineering the demise of these irrigation industries and the communities they support. Labor's reckless pursuit of its renewables disaster is also a major threat to farmers. Not only does this ongoing trainwreck of a policy cost our farmers in higher electricity prices; the enormous geographic footprint of renewables technology threatens the destruction of productive agricultural land that has been farmed for generations. Climate change ideology has also been the driver of attempts to store waste carbon dioxide in the Great Artesian Basin. This has the potential to contaminate groundwater that is relied upon for almost $13 billion worth of primarily agricultural production.

Perhaps the most dangerous attack on our farmers has come in the form of Labor's appalling industrial relations legislation, backed by Senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie. It is a direct attack on farmers' ability to hire casual employees. It forces on farmers retrenchment liabilities that will completely compromise their requirements for labour flexibility and also make it much harder for farmers to secure loans. Farmers who supply larger businesses will also be forced into erroneous climate reporting—yet more red tape getting in their way.

Finally, we come to Labor's legislation to destroy farms and regional jobs by ending live sheep exports from Australia, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This won't stop sheep being exported by about another 100 countries, none of which do it to the same animal welfare standards as Australia. Our longstanding customers who have made it very clear they want Australia to continue live sheep exports will just source live sheep from other countries with lower standards. As we've learned from the animal rights extremists that have pushed Labor into this bill, this is just the first step towards destroying Australia's livestock industry and ending meat consumption. Labor says this bill meets an election promise. Well, let me remind Labor of some other promises: reducing electricity bills by $275; 1.2 million houses, of which not a single one has been built, despite $35 million spent so far in administration costs; and passing on the full stage 3 tax cuts. There have been all these promises but no results. Now you say it was an election promise.

Animal rights extremists actually think 8.1 billion human beings alive today—and up to 11 billion by the end of the century—can survive solely on plants and bugs for nutrition. That proves how stupid they are. They also think that ending livestock production will mean the end of animals dying in order to feed people, but it won't. Indeed, it's been proven that more animals are killed to support plant based agriculture than to support animal agriculture. According to the University of New South Wales, about 25 times as many animals die to produce a kilogram of protein from wheat as die to produce a kilogram of protein from beef. The hypocrisy of these animal rights extremists goes even further. Many of the plants they want us to exclusively eat rely on animal products for fertiliser and crop protection.

Civilisation itself would not exist today had early human beings not learned to farm animals instead of risking death or injury hunting them in the wild. Everything we are today rests on the foundation of animal agriculture. It's undeniable. There are many regional communities and farming businesses whose foundation is live sheep exports. This industry has supported communities in Western Australia since live exports first began in 1845. Australia has ridden on the sheep's back for more than two centuries. We have the best wool and lamb producers on this planet, in addition to having the highest animal welfare standards on the globe in the live sheep export industry. This is the world-leading industry that Labor and the Greens want to destroy with this bill.

I joined a few thousand Western Australian sheep producers and their supporters as they gathered in Avon Valley a couple of weeks ago. Farmers, workers, truckies and residents of regional communities came together in force to send the message that this legislation must not pass. Their livelihoods and way of life are at stake, and Labor does not care.

I listened to Senator McKim say here today that they only want to make money out of it. I've never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. This is a food source, people. I'm sure McKim's had a piece of pork, goat or steak in his mouth at some time in his life. Now he's denying the fact of sheep, talking as if they're human beings. They're not human beings. It is a food source—a necessary food source. I for one don't want to spend the rest of my life eating bloody bugs, which you're trying to promote to people as the way to go. I've never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life.

I listened to Senator Faruqi and others going on about this all being about care and attention, going back to the 1980s. How ridiculous! Yes, there were issues, but the 1980s were 40 years ago. So you have to drag that up to justify passing this bill to stop live sheep exports? Senator Watt mentioned, on the floor today, a report about the health of the sheep. I read a report when I was over in Western Australia that stated that 12 Independents said there was no problem with it. Sheep were not dying on the ships because of poor health conditions. That was not the reason for it. That is not the case for this.

Labor's agriculture minister, Senator Watt, said everything will be fine because there's a transition package worth $107 million funded by taxpayers. This is a drop in the ocean that will help no-one. The industry that has generated almost $200 million a year over the past decade will still be lost. No amount of money can replace the hard work and sweat of sheep producers, but Labor does not care.

The National Farmers Federation has made other impacts of this legislation very clear. It harms Australia's reputation for quality food exports in key markets. The short timeline for the ban and Labor's pathetic transition package spell catastrophe for the industry, as does consigning sheep from other countries to live export practices Australia banned more than a decade ago. That's right. A massive effort and expense has been incurred this past decade to ensure Australian live sheep exports set the global benchmark for animal welfare both on ships and at the destination. Sheep are more likely to die of natural causes or from weather, feral predators or disease in an Australian paddock than on an Australian live export ship.

If you're really serious about these sheep, go and ask some of the farmers that find their lambs with their eyes pecked out because of the crows—but the crows are protected! Yet you're worrying about the sheep. What about the foxes and wild dogs? You're a bunch of bleeding hearts here, aren't you? You really are. You'd get rid of these animals that are killing the live sheep if you were really worried about them. How pathetic. Crows, foxes, wild dogs and pigs all prey on lambs.

All of this effort and expense has been wasted, and this anti-farming Labor government, supported by their coalition partners, the Greens, think a paltry $107 million from taxpayers is appropriate compensation. It isn't. One Nation absolutely oppose this legislation because we stand with regional communities and Australia's farmers.

The government will have to fund the slaughter of sheep. I'll tell you why. When I was over in WA I got to talk to the farmers. One farmer said to me, 'They don't understand. North of Geraldton there are about 100,000 sheep and they're purely bred for the market.' They're male sheep. He said, 'They can't be sold on the local market. We're going to be stuck with the sheep, and we'll have to slaughter them.' I spoke to another farmer, a fifth-generation young farmer, who was there with his father. The look on his face showed he was devastated. Tears were in his eyes. That was his whole life. But he knew.

If you know these farmers and understand them, you know they really care about their animals. Very few people in the farming sector don't look after their animals, whether it's cows, pigs, goats or whatever. The fact is that these farmers are losing their livelihoods. Do you care about that? Have you really thought about this? You're affecting the farmers, the truckies and the shearers. They will find a loss of income to their communities, so these communities will be ruined. It's just devastating, especially hearing about it when speaking to some of these farmers.

I'll tell you what I want to see from this government that's dead set on stopping this live sheep export. The farmers told me they're stuck with these sheep that are now down to $20 a head. The last shipload they exported was last November. So you've done the damage already. You've put out the message. Around the world, countries are looking for other markets to supply their sheep. But you just don't seem to care. You don't get it. You don't understand at all. You've destroyed the dairy farmers.

You would not listen to me about that farm gate price. You supported me when you were in opposition but you don't now that you're in government. You're all talk and no action. That's the Labor Party. That's the Greens as well. You're all talk and no action. When you get there, the true colours shine through. What do you think those farmers over there will do? Where do you think your $107 million will go to prop up these communities? I'll tell you: nowhere. If these farmers have to shoot their sheep, you'll pay for it—not out of your $107 million. You'll supply the shooters and the bullets. If you don't, you'll put many of these farmers through mental health issues, which will have an impact on these communities. Have you thought about that? No, you haven't, because you couldn't care less. That's the damage that will be done.

This legislation is not about animal welfare, so it forces me to wonder if Labor have done some dirty backroom deal with another country to stop us competing in live exports in exchange for something else. Think about that, and I want the farmers out there to think about it. To the sheep farmers and workers, truckies and regional communities they support, I say this: don't give up hope. The coalition is opposing this legislation, just like they opposed the knee-jerk ban on live cattle exports over a decade ago, and that was overturned. If they remain true to their word, there is hope this ban could be repealed.

I will stay true to my word. There is also hope that this government will be thrown out of this place after the next election. Then, I hope this stupid ban will be repealed and we'll get some common sense and support our farming sector. I support live sheep exports.

The Albanese government's policy to end live sheep exports by sea is blatantly ideological, reckless, shameless and, most particularly, driven by an anti-Western Australian agricultural sentiment inside the heart of this Labor government. I say this as a Western Australian, an Australian and a senator. It is why I must join with others in the coalition in calling out this poor policy, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024.

Along with the rest of the federal coalition, I condemn and oppose Labor's destructive policy to shut down live sheep exports by sea. I remind our farming communities across Western Australia and the agricultural sector more broadly that the coalition stands in strong solidarity with you. Rest assured, the coalition will reverse Labor's misguided decision and reinstate the live sheep export industry when it's elected to government. I encourage people to maintain hope, because hope only requires one action: to change the government.

The Albanese government's policy is not based on data or evidence, as good agricultural policy should be. Instead, this is the manifestation of an activist agenda, as we heard in the contribution from Senator McKim just a moment ago. It is an activist agenda that is hurting innocent people, their families and their rural communities. Labor's actions carry ongoing consequences for Australian agriculture. It's not an overstatement to say that, right now, no agricultural industry in this country can consider itself safe after having watched this government and this policy. If we allow this policy to be implemented, it sets a precedent for any lawful agricultural industry to be impacted when it suits this Labor government to do so. Our farmers are now right to ask: which industry will be next and when?

It's no surprise that peak industry bodies in the agricultural sector are unanimous in their opposition to this Labor folly. In September 2023, 23 peak groups co-signed a letter to the Prime Minister urging the Albanese government to reconsider this policy. This is an important element, because those of us familiar with agricultural politics know that it is not common—it is actually uncommon—for agricultural industries to speak with a united voice. But speaking with a united voice were the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, the National Farmers Federation, WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, Sheep Producers Australia, Wool Producers Australia, Cattle Australia, Grain Producers Australia, Australian Dairy Farmers, the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Queensland Livestock Exporters Association, Livestock SA, the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Livestock Collective. They are all speaking with one voice against this ruinous Labor policy.

There was the unprecedented mass walkout during Minister's Watt's keynote address at this year's agricultural industry budget breakfast. In the same month, the National Farmers Federation passed a motion of no confidence in the Albanese government, citing the live export ban as a key and critical factor. On 31 March, an almost 1,300-strong convoy, involving an estimated 3,000 farmers and hundreds of livestock trucks, stormed major roads during peak hour in Perth's CBD as part of the Keep the Sheep campaign. It was WA's biggest agricultural protest in living memory. On 14 June, thousands of farmers protested at Muresk, near Northam, when the House committee inquiry held its public hearing in Western Australia. I was there myself. I saw it and heard it for myself. I saw the anger and anxiety that Labor is causing regional communities across my home state of Western Australia. Since it was announced, a petition launched by Keep the Sheep has received more than 60,000 signatures, thousands more than the RSPCA petition cited by the Albanese government that garnered just 43,000 signatures last August. These are the voices of Australian agriculture. So why does this Labor government refuse to listen to them?

The government has made a strategic error. It thinks that the low population of WA's regional communities means there will be little or no political fallout for it in Western Australia. That's wrong. The decision by Kate Chaney, the member for Curtin, to change her position and support the interests of WA's regional communities is the most powerful demonstration of opposition to this ban—that it's not a regional opposition but a statewide opposition. And the Labor government will feel the full wrath of this—and on other issues—at the coming election. It deserves to be punished. Labor said with great clarity at the last election, in May 2022, that it would stand up for WA. There can be no greater demonstration of how the government has decided not to stand up for WA than this issue.

Federal Labor chooses to ignore the voices of WA Labor. The Albanese government's policy to end live sheep exports has caused a rift with the WA state Labor government, which is also publicly opposed. Premier Roger Cook has labelled the policy as unnecessary. He noted, 'They believe the welfare arrangements that are in place, the checks and balances that have been put in place as a result of the reforms, have been sufficient.' It appears the relationship between WA's agriculture minister, Jackie Jarvis, and the federal agriculture minister, Senator Watt, is now in tatters. Ms Jarvis has rightly observed that the live export ban is not in the interests of Western Australia. She said, 'It is difficult to see how we can work collaboratively.' In fact, she flew into Canberra last week in an attempt to convince her own party to dump the ban, making it clear that the WA Labor Party will continue to fight for WA's state farmers—meaning the WA Labor government will choose to fight against its federal Labor government counterpart. It says a great deal about the effort and advocacy and fighting capability of both Premier Roger Cook and the agriculture minister, Jackie Jarvis, that they have failed to hold their own party accountable here in Canberra.

WA federal Labor MPs should be taking notice, as well as a stand, because the state of Western Australia is who they are supposed to represent. They have been blindly negligent, both in the House of Representatives and, I suspect, in the next few hours here in the Senate, in consciously choosing to put the interests of Western Australia last—to put the interests of Western Australian regional communities behind the interests of the Australian Labor Party. The political and electoral consequences for WA Labor and federal Labor in Western Australia are real, and they will be very visible when we head to the polls later this year.

Speaking of impact, Labor's policy to shut down the live sheep export industry fails entirely to acknowledge the key importance of this sector to our state and beyond. The live sheep trade employs thousands of Western Australians and supports their many communities—shearers, truck drivers, fodder suppliers, livestock agents, farmers, producers, and the list goes on. It's also not simply a matter of economics. Labor's policy disregards the psychological and social welfare of WA farming communities. The hardship is real. The anxiety has never been felt at this level before. They are disappointed that the people they've elected to represent them in Canberra have chosen not to.

Labor senators in this place who represent the whole state of Western Australia, including regional communities, should hold their heads in shame. The mental health impact has been real and, unfortunately, it will be horrific. Indeed, I know, from many interactions with constituents, that this is already, sadly, the case. Labor's transition package acknowledges the seriousness of this issue but totally underestimates its scale and impact. The reality is, though, that no amount of counselling can soften the blow to each and every person whose livelihood has been put at risk by federal Labor. They have been shamed by activists as animal abusers, yet they really are responsible operators.

It's made all the worse when you consider that these communities and workforces have taken extensive steps, over many years already, to improve animal welfare standards. Since 2018, the live sheep export industry and its regulatory framework have undergone significant and positive change. These reforms include an industry initiated moratorium on sheep being exported during a Northern Hemisphere summer; increased space available for each animal; improved ventilation requirements; independent government observers, to provide additional assurances; skilled stock handlers; veterinarians to inspect sheep on arrival and to quarantine and exclude any animals not suitable for export and travel; sheep loaded with a minimum amount of wool; and sheep often offloaded at night or during cooler parts of the day when in the Middle East.

These reforms were necessary and they have been successful. They have maintained Australia's high standards of international animal welfare. The evidence speaks for itself. There have been no reportable mortality incidents since 2018. While mortality isn't the only measure, it cannot be denied that the results have been exceptional in recent years. They compare favourably to domestic extensive and intensive livestock operations as well as to domestic transport. Australia is also the only country in the world that insists that every facility that receives our livestock, such as feedlots and abattoirs, must first meet Australian regulations.

By contrast, Labor's blinkered approach will inevitably lead to much poorer levels of international animal welfare. If Australia doesn't export live sheep, its existing trade partners will source alternatives from countries that do not share our world-leading commitment to good animal welfare practices. This is what is so perverse about this government's policy. The fact is that animal welfare standards across the globe will be diminished, not improved, by the decision to deny Australian participation in that trade.

Of course, why was it that the Labor government decided not to give rural and regional voices a credible parliamentary inquiry? The inquiry process on this particular matter has done nothing to deliver the necessary transparency or truth on this important trade. It is because their truth—the truth of regional communities across Western Australia—is an inconvenient one for the Albanese government.

On 3 June 2024, Minister Watt instructed the Standing Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives to consider the bill and provide a report by 21 June 2024. That's a space of less than three weeks. Only one week was given for public submissions, and there were only two public hearings. The timeframe added insult to injury. Despite this, by the close of the submission period, over 13,000 submissions had been received in opposition to the government's policy. But, of course, it was not possible for the committee to consider all these submissions, and many went completely disregarded. It sounded loud and clear to those hardworking people and communities that made a submission that this Labor government doesn't care. So this inquiry, which is so important to so many, has been an appalling sham, and it demonstrated an appalling contempt for all those impacted.

Further compounding this, on 27 June the Albanese government voted against referring this bill to a comprehensive Senate inquiry for the scrutiny that it deserved. It was quite a remarkable feature to see senators in this place, Labor senators and Greens senators and others, deny the Senate the opportunity for its own inquiry, instead leaning only on the House of Representatives and on an independent taskforce report. The idea that Australian senators would deny themselves the opportunity to test these issues for themselves was just unbelievable.

But, as I have said, there is cause for hope. All that is needed to maintain hope is to change the government, and you change the government by voting against Labor in seats like Cowan and Pearce and Tangney and Hasluck and voting against the Labor Party in the Australian Senate when you vote for senators.

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This is terrible policy you're introducing. It is absolutely terrible policy that the Labor government is introducing with the support of the Greens. It really is hard to fathom that you're introducing policy which will have such an onerous negative impact on thousands of people in Western Australia, will cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars in exports and will actually have a negative impact on the welfare of animals. It really is hard to fathom.

The live sheep export industry will continue. The only change will be that it won't continue with Australia's participation. So the country which has been a world leader in introducing humanitarian welfare checks and balances in relation to the welfare of the sheep, the animals that are the subject of this trade, is going to be stopped from participating in the trade, so the world standards are going to fall because we no longer participate in the trade. It's madness—absolute madness!

The first issue I'd like to talk about is process and transparency. As my friend and colleague Senator David Smith said, the process in relation to the introduction of this bill has been an absolute travesty. The minister obtained an independent panel report in March 2023 and then sat on it until 25 October 2023. For six months, he sat on it. It took six months to release the report. And then there's been a bastardisation of a committee process. The reference to the committee in the other place occurred on 3 June, and they had to report by 21 June. For six months, the minister sat on the report. The committee could have been meeting during that six-month period. A committee of this place could have had three months to consider the impacts on affected communities. But this Senate was deprived of that opportunity because the minister sat on the report for six months and then had the gall to refer it to a committee in the other place on 3 June and give them until 21 June to report.

The committee started its work on Tuesday 4 June and therefore had 13 business days to complete its inquiry— in the context where it had received 668 submissions. I went on the committee's website this afternoon and had a look at it. There are pages and pages of submissions. It was physically impossible for the people participating in that bastardisation of a committee process to read the submissions from affected Australians. It's an absolute travesty. Then there were only two public hearings, for a total of 12 hours. I looked at the agenda for the public hearings. Some of them had five sets of witnesses who had all of one hour to contribute to the public hearing. Again, that's a bastardisation of the process. I don't even know why you bothered really. It's an absolute insult. 'Tick a box,' as my friend Senator Canavan says. Then you voted against the Senate inquiry on 27 June. We're meant to be the House of review, but you deprived the Senate of that opportunity.

I also note that, in relation to the committee process that took place in the House of Representatives, the committee accepted 15 late submissions, one of which was by a veterinary group called Livestock Veterinarians Australia, which strongly refuted a significant volume of veterinary evidence to which the chair's report heavily referred in the decision-making process. But their professional opinions—from the veterinarians intimately involved in this trade—could not be taken into account because of the timeframes. It's disgraceful.

Questions on notice for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry were not responded to within the allocated timeframe. I can't blame the public servants. They were given an impossible timeframe in which to respond. That's at the feet of the minister. To the extent that there are officers here or listening to the debate: I don't attribute any blame to you. I'm sure you did your best given an impossible burden by the minister. Fifty-two separate questions from committee deputy chair, Mr Rick Wilson, were answered with a one-size-fits-all statement. There was no attempt whatsoever to answer the specific questions that were asked. It was an absolute travesty of a process.

Dissenting members of the committee were given less than 24 hours to respond to the chair's report. Again, that's at the minister's feet. There were 13 business days to complete a report in relation to such a contested area of policy. That's absolutely disgraceful. In my view the process has been undertaken in bad faith with absolute contempt for the processes of this Australian parliament. It's absolutely disgraceful.

The second issue I want to refer to is the impact on trade. This is about food security for the destination markets. It's also about respect for culture. I want to quote Mr Neil Smith, who's chair of the Merredin and Districts Farm Improvement Group, who shared his experience on an educational visit to the Middle East, when people of the Middle East actually went to participate in the process of acquiring their meat for the purposes of celebrating Eid. This is what he said:

It was interesting to see families come to a feedlot, choose a sheep, follow it through the abattoir and receive the meat at the other end. They were connected to the sheep, and then they would celebrate with their friends and family for the festival. Little children were educated to understand this connection …

…   …   …

Australian sheep were given special treatment compared to all other nations' sheep and livestock for processing, and we should be proud as a nation of what we have achieved. But I can assure you that these welfare outcomes will be lost if sheep are not allowed to be exported live from Australia.

So these markets aren't going to accept boxed meat or chilled meat from Australia. This is a fantasy. It's part of their culture to go and follow the process as the live sheep are imported into the markets—the destinations. It's an absolute fantasy that they're going to import chilled sheep or boxed sheep—chilled or frozen meat. How do we know this? They've told us! In a March 2023 letter to agriculture minister, Senator Watt, the then Kuwaiti Minister of Commerce and Industry said:

The requirement for live sheep cannot be substituted with chilled or frozen meat for our population. It's not our preference to switch our live sheep source.

They're not going to change from acquiring live sheep. All we're doing is punishing an Australian industry which is doing the right thing. Absolutely mad! Where are they going to get the live sheep from? I had a look at the figures for exporters in 2023. Live sheep exports from the EU were 2.9 million; Romania, 2.3 million; Spain, 1.45 million; Jordan, 1.3 million; Namibia, 542,000; Portugal, 501,000; and Georgia, 456,000. There are countries that will fill the export gap. All we are doing is punishing our own people and doing nothing for animal welfare. It will go backwards, because we've been world leaders.

This will have a huge negative impact on our fellow Australians, those in regional Western Australia in particular. There are more than 3,000 people directly employed by this industry: shearers, truck drivers, suppliers, farmers and producers, and there's also the impact on the towns. It's a $1 billion industry. Senator Watt had the gall to come in here earlier today and say the industry was unsuccessful, yet I'm looking at figures that say 380,000 animals were exported in 2022 and it increased to 654,000 in 2023. And we actually had the prospect of Saudi Arabia, once again, taking live sheep from Australia. This is an industry that potentially could boom. Absolutely disgraceful! Let me use the rest of my time to read quotes from those who will be most impacted.

In my first speech in this place, I spoke about parliaments and governments making decisions at the behest of activists and punishing regional communities. The activists come in here and they advocate for certain outcomes. They're not going to be negatively impacted by this policy. They're the not ones negatively impacted; it's the regional communities in Western Australia who will suffer. This is an awful example of that phenomenon. So I want to use the rest of my time to quote from the people who are going to be impacted. Shire of Wagin president, Phil Bright, said:

Many regional towns are at a tipping point. Banning one of the industries that provides employment for the area will have significant human cost. Even a small loss in economic vitality has an outsized impact on small, rural communities.

The North Eastern Wheatbelt Regional Organisation of Councils CEO, Caroline Robertson, said:

Not all of them are involved in live export, but live export absolutely benefits all of them. … They each require a shearer, truckie, a wool buyer, an agent and a rural trader at the minimum. Some of those supporting businesses are in the NEWROC shires, but the majority of them are in the rest of regional WA. When you pull the lever on a policy like this in one area, there is a cause and effect, and it happens in another area. … Over 20 years, it'll be $180 million in seven shires.

Kristy D'Aprile, of another shire, said:

The Upper Great Southern has 2.6 million sheep—and 1,927 small businesses, including growers …All of their livelihoods are intrinsically tied to the agricultural industry and sheep.

The WoolProducers Australia CEO, Jo Hall, said:

The mental health impacts of the decision to ban live exports cannot be overstated. As a cohort, primary producers are already overrepresented in suicide rates as compared to the general public, a responsible government should be developing policies to reduce this incidence, not making decisions that add further stress.

Darren Spencer, President of the WA Shearing Industry Association, said:

The hardworking people of our shearing industry, including shearers, rousies, pressers, cooks, classers and shearing contractors feel very let down and abandoned by a government who is preferencing the ideological agenda of animal activists over the real-world impacts on hardworking Australians.

Let me read that again:

… abandoned by a government—

This Labor government, with the support of the Greens, or, in fact, which is being driven by the Greens on this ideological madness—

who is preferencing the ideological agenda of animal activists over the real-world impacts on hardworking Australians. I fear for our industry. You can't expect to remove one building block out of a finely balanced agri model and not have serious cascading consequences.

…   …   …

I fear for our members and our contractors.

…   …   …

I fear for our workers.

…   …   …

I fear for shearers like the 14-year-old—who was possibly on the autism spectrum but undiagnosed—who didn't fit into the school system but was able to fit into my shearing crew as a rouseabout. He went on to become a wool presser and then a shearer.

…   …   …

He saved enough to purchase his own house and, 36 years later, he's still working for me in Lake Grace, now in his 50s. What are his prospects? What does he transition to?'

Chris Wheatcroft from Rural West, financial counsellors, said they have seen 'no suicide of any client in 15 years, although we deal with people going through significant change and stress'. He also said: ' In terms of how you spend the money on mental health, it's about enabling people to sit with someone who can actually work through the actual impact for them.' There are pages of this in the dissenting report of the abbreviated committee processes—pages and pages of this, people from the community who are going to be impacted by this awful policy decision.

Another shire CEO said:

In the three years that I was at Wyalkatchem, we lost the bank, we lost the butcher, we lost our sole cafe and we lost the football club … many of our communities are on a knife's edge. They're at a tipping point. The loss of any activity has community significance in rural WA, and the loss of an industry like the live sheep industry is another matter altogether.

Even the WA Minister for Agriculture and Food—one of your own, the Labor minister in the state—said: 'The position of the WA government has been consistent from the start. The phase-out of live export will negatively impact WA regional communities and the livelihoods of many. We do not support it.'

If this bill is passed, it will be a millstone around the neck of the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia and other regional communities until the next election.

Tonight is a potentially historic night in the short history of our Commonwealth, because, in our 123-year history as the Commonwealth of Australia, I don't believe we have ever banned the export of a farming product, until tonight. This is an extremely historic night. As my learned colleague Senator Scarr has pointed out, we're going to do so without a Senate inquiry, without a committee stage to ask questions of the minister and without an opportunity to debate amendments to this bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. You can only hazard a guess that the government is doing this because it is ashamed that it will go down in history as the first government to criminalise farming in this nation. Potentially, after tonight, if you have the temerity to grow some food for people to eat around the world and if you export that food to others, you will be designated a criminal by this government. This government is criminalising farming, making farmers who are just trying to feed the world into criminals.

This is not about regulations. It would be fair enough if there were regulations around, making sure we protect animals and the environment. All states and territories and the federal government have regulations on that, but this is not about that; this is just a straight-out ban. It doesn't matter what you. It doesn't matter how high a water mark you reach; you'll be banned. You'll be a criminal for farming in this nation. It's a shocking day for a proud farming nation like Australia.

As I said, we have introduced regulation changes to farming, many times, and many of those regulatory changes have had the effect of some farmers going out of business not a whole industry. I can't find a situation where we've banned a whole industry. I thought we might have done that to the tobacco industry, but, when I looked at it, in fact, we just removed subsidies and imposed tariffs and effectively the tobacco industry became uneconomic. So we have made those sorts of changes in the past.

Another reason the government might be ashamed and doing this dirty deal late at night to sweep through these historic once-in-a-century changes to our laws is that any reasonable look at the assistance the government's offering to shut down a whole industry is clearly inadequate and, in fact, a complete insult to our nation's farmers. A few weeks ago this government put aside, in the budget, $107 million to shut down an entire industry. But, when you read the fine print, only $64 million of that goes directly to farmers. The rest employs bureaucrats and does a lot of other things that probably won't amount to much. So there's $64 million directly to farmers to shut down an entire industry. The government gave no rationale at Senate estimates as to why and how it calculated the precise figure of $64.6 million. There's no stated rationale behind it. It looks inadequate, on the gross numbers. There are about 4,000 farmers in Australia that engage in the live sheep industry. So that $64 million amounts to $16,000 per farmer—to be exact, $16,150 per farmer. That's an insult.

Imagine if someone came along and shut down your business and said, 'I'll put you out of a job. You'll no longer be in the industry you trained for and you're skilled in. We're shutting it down. You won't have a job anymore. But here's $16,000. Don't spend it all at once.' That's what this government has done. Even if you take the higher figure, the $107 million, it's still only $26,000. It's nothing. When you compare this to many of the other adjustment packages that governments have done in the past, it's a total insult.

It's unclear how the government came up with this. Take, for example, the dairy industry, which had major changes made to it around 20 years ago. Twenty years ago there was a highly regulated dairy industry across Australia. There were different regulations in different states. There were, in effect, restrictions on the trade of milk between states. That helped protect the industry. We had a much larger dairy industry in my home state of Queensland. But in the 2000s those regulations were progressively removed—largely at the state level, not the federal level. It wasn't even a federal decision or change to regulations. All governments recognised the heartache that would be imposed on many dairy farmers from these changes.

In total—keep in mind the figures—there's $64 million for live sheep exports. Twenty years ago, the Australian government put aside $1.3 billion to help the dairy industry. That was around 2005. There was $1.287 billion, to be precise, for the dairy industry. I checked ABARES' figures. In 2003, when this process kicked off, there were apparently 11,239 dairy farmers in Australia. So that $1.3 billion amounted to $114,000 per dairy farmer. These guys are offering $16,000 to shut down the whole industry. The dairy package wasn't shutting down milk production; it was just some regulatory changes that would put thousands of those dairy farmers out of a job. On average, they received $114,000. Obviously, those who went out of business would have received many multiples more than that, because not all 11,000 got out of their livelihood. It's a total insult.

How does the government come up with these figures? It would be nice to ask some questions about this in a committee stage, which we would normally do on normal legislation, let alone a one-in-123-years piece of legislation that has never been done before in our Commonwealth. The government had very few answers to all of this in Senate estimates.

For the record, I should briefly add figures for the packages to other industries. These figures came from the Productivity Commission report that was done in 2010-11. They calculated the assistance to various industries from the mid-nineties to that time. The sugar industry over those years received $480 million. Again, we weren't shutting it down or anything; we were just changing some tariffs and opening up trade. For the fisheries industry, it was $462 million. For forestry, it was $215 million. These are all in dollar terms that are 20 years or so old, so you'd add at least 50 per cent to them because of inflation. All of them are higher than this one, which does a much more radical thing than any of those changes a generation ago.

The government have very few answers here. You would think one thing the government would do before they shut down an industry is work out: if we are going to shut down this particular business in live sheep exports for farmers, how many farmers might go out of business and how many of them might decide that they won't farm anymore? That might help us calculate the assistance we might need. I asked the government how many of these 4,000 businesses it thinks will just pack up sticks and say: 'Okay. That's it, I can't farm anymore. I can't make this a viable business.' Or, 'I don't want to reskill as a cropping person or a cattle person.'

I don't think the government quite understands the agricultural industry, or the Labor Party seems to struggle with it. They're not farmers. They do different things. Very different skill sets are required to work with cattle, to work with crops and to work with sheep. Even within the sheep industry there are different skill sets needed for wool compared to meat sheep, and many farmers who might be in their 50s or 60s or even younger might think: 'I don't want to reskill into a whole new trade. I might get out of this business now that this has been shut down on me.'

When I put to the government, 'How many do you think will go out of business?' the answer was, 'We don't have those figures, Senator.' Yet I was then able to pull up a government commissioned report by Episode 3 in Senate estimates, and in that report they'd done surveys of farmers to work out how many would potentially leave. Episode 3 said that when they surveyed the industry, 44 per cent of sheep producers were intending to leave the sheep farming industry. Another survey by the sheep producers themselves found it was 14 per cent. There's a bit of variance there, but either of those figures is a lot of people going out of business. That's thousands of farmers facing the end of their livelihoods. The government didn't even know those figures.

It's not just the farmers, though there is an understandable focus on the farmers. They are at the front lines of the impact of what we're doing tonight, so we're criminalising their industry, making them feel like criminals in their own country just for having the temerity to grow food. It's not just them in the supply chain. There are truck drivers that come and pick up the sheep to take them to the port. There are fencing contractors on the farms. There are also shearers in the wool industry, which we're not shutting down, but, if we shut down one part of the sheep industry here, there is evidence in these lengthy reports the government commissioned which no one seems to have read—the minister hadn't read them—that the shearing industry will be affected as well because some will get out of sheep farming completely. Some of their sheep would have gone to live exports and some would have been shorn, but now there'll be fewer sheep shorn according to this government commissioned study by Episode 3, which calculated this.

In that study it found that 40 per cent of truck drivers said they would exit the industry. The government comes in here constantly and says it's in favour of workers and it believes in supporting the working class in this country. These are truck drivers, and 40 per cent want to go out of business. There's nothing in the assistance packages for them at all. They're not even getting the $16,000. What are they going to get? They get put out on the streets. Some of these truck drivers will own their trucks, so it's not just their job they're losing but their capital equipment, or it could be a loan to the bank they probably won't be able to service. What happens to them? Are they going to be bailed out? No. They're just going to be left to pick up the pieces, all because the government has done a political deal here with its friends in the Greens to rush this through.

You've got to wonder why they're doing this. We don't actually even need this legislation. The government has all the power to end this anyway. They don't need to push this through parliament. Why are they going through this hassle? They're obviously not doing the inquiry, and they want to rush it through. There's legislation called the Export Control Act, which they could use tomorrow to issue a ministerial declaration which would ban the export of live sheep or whatever they like. We've got constitutional powers to do this, and there are powers in the Export Control Act to do these things. Why aren't they doing that? It might have something to do with the fact that the last time the Labor Party used the Export Control Act and used ministerial discretion to ban the export of live cattle—as I said, there was no legislation then, so this is an historic night—it was found that that government decision was completely negligent and did not go through the proper processes. The taxpayer is now on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars or possibly billions of dollars in compensation, which the government is dragging its heel on. It's amazing that they're shutting down another live farming industry before they've even compensated the farmers for their last complete debacle in trying to shut down live cattle, now more than 13 years ago.

Perhaps the rationale for rushing this legislation through is that this decision won't be justiciable—it won't go through the courts—and the farmers can't take any action against the government if it's passed through parliament. If it had been a ministerial decision then the minister would have been held to account through our court processes. We have a minister who is rushing from any accountability—from parliamentary accountability, from judicial accountability and from any accountability to the people—because the Labor Party are ashamed of what they're doing. I know many people in the Labor Party are ashamed that they're criminalising farming and putting truck drivers out of a job. It's a shameful day for the Australian Labor Party when they're teaming up with the radical activists in the Greens to shut down the farming industry in this country.

When you look at it, we don't prohibit that much stuff at the moment. I was surprised by the list of what we prohibit. I'll quickly read it out. We prohibit biological agents; certain chemical compounds; defence and strategic goods; human body fluids; nuclear material; precursor materials; prescription medicines; native animals; cat and dog fur products; counterfeit credit cards—fair enough; cultural heritage goods; rough diamonds; endangered animal species; firearms; hazardous waste; ozone-depleting substances; pesticides; pornography; radioactive substances; exports to sanctioned countries; security-sensitive ammonium nitrate; suicide devices; viable material derived from human embryo clones; and toothfish, which is an endangered species itself. That's it. That's what we ban. And now we're going to add to that list farmers growing food! They're also going to be on the very special prohibited list thanks to this government and its deal with the Greens. We now know that this government is not on the side of Australian farmers.

The problem with this legislation is that it will send a chill through all productive industries in this country. Your industry can be shut down due to an election result and an election deal. That's what has been done. The government has done a preferences deal with the Animal Justice Party and the Greens party. They've done a deal to shut down your industry, and they've done so without even basic, adequate compensation, as I've gone through. What's to stop them doing this to any industry in the country? Does every industry have to watch election results to know whether its business is still viable in this country? That is no basis to build a productive economy. That is no basis to encourage people to invest in this country, to grow businesses and to take a stake in this nation. This is a shameful day in our nation's history. For the first time tonight, potentially, we will criminalise a farming activity, and we should all be embarrassed about that.

Before I call Senator Liddle, I remind senators about not wearing apparel with signs that can be read on the front.

What's mutton? Mutton is not likely to be found in slick city restaurants or supermarkets in Marrickville or the CBD of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. I asked a few people this week if they knew what mutton was, and I got a lot of blank faces. This bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, is to appease inner-city interests, without any regard for the impact in Western Australia or for the Australian sheep industry generally outside that state's borders.

Mutton is intensely red meat with a strong flavour. It's sheepmeat from an animal that is older than a year—ideally, around three years. Australia produces about 170,000 carcass-weight tonnes of mutton, compared to 540,000 carcass-weight tonnes of lamb, so there is much more appetite for lamb—much, much more. What happens under this ban to all that excess mutton meat, when Australians I've spoken to are not even aware what mutton is, let alone having it on the menu tonight?

Australians love their lamb. It's lamb—tough, tender or trimmed—that you will find at your local supermarket or butcher, not mutton, because Australians consume about six kilograms of sheepmeat per person per year. It's a different story, though, if you live in Afghanistan, Algeria or the Middle East, including Syria. In those places, they relish a meal of mutton, which makes up the great bulk of Australia's live sheep exports. What will happen to those merino sheep, bred for the insatiable clothing industry for their fleece until it's no longer a viable option to sell the fleece? What then happens to those mature animals with this ban? Some could end up as pet food, but most will just be destroyed, and it will be farmers who bear the loss and the cost.

Australia's first live sheep exports were from Western Australia to Mauritius and Singapore in 1845. Last year, live sheep exports by sea increased by 22 per cent, or 177,000 head, to nearly 600,000 head. That's not an industry in decline on any measure. This ban, this transformation of the industry, has been without consideration or regard for the implications for the whole sheep industry, not just for Western Australia. Those who know the industry—the farmers, the feedlots, the breeders and the towns that support the industry's workforce—know that this ban will be devastating and will change their lives and their towns forever.

The Australian sheep-farming industry is worth more than $6 billion a year. It comprises nearly 20,000 agricultural businesses that employ people and contribute to gross state product and gross domestic product. My home state of South Australia accounts for about 15 per cent of the nation's 70 million-plus flock of sheep. I spoke with one of South Australia's largest sheep farmers, who runs some 150,000 head of sheep on his 130-year-old family property—generations of people who know the sheep industry. For them, this is not just about money; it's their livelihood, and it has broader implications over the border. I'd listen to them rather than the Australian Greens and the Albanese government, whose only engagement with sheepmeat is at the supermarket or the dinner table.

But what do I know about sheep? Not much now, but in a previous life I had to know how to shear one, muster it and do all the stuff to them that's needed to take care of them. That was a long time ago, so I don't pretend to be an expert, but I know enough to know what I don't know and when to ask more—much more, much, much more. That's why I asked some stakeholders in the industry with decades of intergenerational knowledge. It's the least one should do when you are shutting them down—their lives, their farms and their businesses. I heard that removing the export option for farmers can only have a negative impact on livestock prices across Australia more broadly as supply increases. There's been something like this before, I heard, though related to mulesing, where Australian growers told their customers what they had to buy. It didn't work then. It came today with a warning that this approach is a recipe for disaster. One farmer said that he had no confidence this would have the impact that it is intended to have, because its ignorant architects haven't thought this through.

Yet again, this overpromising, underdelivering Albanese government is acting without looking at the whole picture. Of all its promises, this is the one it should have broken because it will break sheep farmers. You can't ban live sheep exports and not consider the impacts outside the farm gate and at the state border or the impacts not just at the export point but at the import point. Have the implications for those countries who currently rely on this trade even been explored or understood? The industry has undergone significant change and done what has been asked of it. This will do nothing to change demand. The demand will simply be met by others.

It is crucial to recognise that the live sheep export industry employs shearers, truck drivers, fodder suppliers, livestock agents, producers and maritime workers. All of these areas, the workers within them and their families are affected by this bill. For towns to flourish, they need commercial sectors to flourish, and the removal of a billion-dollar industry is an antithesis to this goal. Without the sheep export industry, schools in those regional towns will slip into decline. There's not been proper consultation with anyone who is directly affected by this, despite the significant impact of this enormous change. There will be an impact on transport businesses, agricultural supply businesses and grain stores, to name just a few.

Why so much secrecy when those most affected engage in the debate? The Albanese government only published 668 of the 13,000 contributions that were provided to the committee. It was a sham consultation. It left hundreds of submissions from members of Sheep Producers Australia, a significant opposition group, unpublished, never to see the light of day. So much for the Prime Minister's pledge for greater transparency in government and leaving no-one behind! You left a whole industry behind.

In question time, Minister Watt continually references the independent panel consultations, but the terms of reference specifically precluded any discussion on the policy itself. How's that transparency? Instead, it acted as if the ban was a foregone conclusion, asking not whether to phase out live exports but how to phase out live exports. That's not community consultation. That's not transparent. It's a joke: a sick joke at the expense of the farmers, and they're not laughing. The joke's on them. An inquiry that wasn't rushed in the Senate, the house of review, would have been an important step towards understanding these impacts on the community and those most affected.

We've already seen in the other place the impact of proper community feedback on this bill—even a little community feedback. Independent member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, was in support of the bill when it was first raised in the House. But after meeting with stakeholders in her electorate and hearing the grievances of the tens of thousands of farmers negatively impacted by this ban, she changed her mind and voted against the bill. It was disappointing to see the government refuse to interact with the community like Ms Chaney has. Yet again, the Albanese government is acting with its blinkers on and not actually talking to those directly impacted by this bill.

A 40-year veterinarian with extensive live animal export experience, whose last voyage was in November 2023, stated in his inquiry submission that he was 'disgusted by the lies and deceitful tactics used by those with little or no firsthand experience or knowledge of the live sheep export industry who are trying to shut it down'. He says the reforms made have resulted in the industry's current performance not losing but gaining the social licence to continue operating. It has done the work.

This does nothing but continue the Labor Party's prolonged attacked on the Australian farmer. The Labor Party and Australian Greens have real form on this. Last year, the Albanese Labor government pushed the water buybacks bill through the Senate. Ultimately, opposition to live sheep exports is an ideological obsession of the Labor Party. When they were last in government, under Prime Ministers Gillard and Rudd, the Labor Party forced legislation through parliament suspending the cattle trade with Indonesia. It took the coalition government lifting this ban for the agricultural sector to return to its full capacity. Don't get it wrong: the Albanese Labor government are not pushing this bill to protect the welfare of sheep; they're pushing this bill to further advance their attack on Australian farmers and to curry serious favour with the Australian Greens, their coalition.

I echo the sentiment of the coalition's second reading amendment: ending live sheep exports is shortsighted. The bill maligns the Australian livestock industry. It neglects to admit that Australia has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. To do this won't change demand. The demand will just be served by others. Any productive, successful, viable, long-term industry in Australia might be next.

I rise to speak on the very important Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 tonight. It is another example of how the Labor Party's attempting to destroy primary production in this country and our agricultural sector. It goes without saying that Australia basically made its wealth on the back of the sheep industry—first with wool, then meat. As someone who grew up on a western Queensland sheep station of 150,000 acres with 10,000 sheep, in the glory days of wool, this is something that's very close to my heart. I spent many school holidays and many weekends either out in a 20,000-acre paddock on the back of a motorbike with four kelpies behind a big mob of sheep or in the sheep yards, rounding up and getting the sheep ready to be shorn. On many occasions, as the sheep got older, we would sell the sheep off to market.

There is no doubt that working with livestock is a tough industry. if you're not used to it, it may appear, from the outside looking in, that it's a brutal industry. But that is not true at all. The sheep are beasts of burden, effectively, and this is a fact of life. Unfortunately, it's a fact of life that I think too many of our children aren't exposed to today, in terms of understanding the birds and the bees and how the world actually works.

One of my best mates, who I grew up with, is a long-term vet who has worked for what was Australian quarantine. He's worked in abattoirs all his life, and he's travelled on many ships over to the Middle East. As he said, they are fed better and looked after better on those ships than they are in the paddock. We know that LiveCorp themselves said that the death rate on those ships is half the death rate of sheep in the actual paddocks, so I can see no real reason why the Labor Party feels the need to shut this industry down.

Over time, as these poorer countries get better electricity and better refrigeration and better freezers, I'm sure this industry will slowly decline over the years. We have seen that over the last decades. As the standard of living has increased in poorer countries, more and more households can afford freezers. But, until such time as they have freezers, they are still going to be buying sheep or butchered meat from a butcher to take home and cook that night. That is just the way it is in many poorer countries. Until the time that these countries are able to actually freeze meat, there is no reason to destroy an industry that is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet if the Labor government would just get out of their lives.

We are talking about the lives of thousands and thousands of farmers and hundreds and hundreds of towns and all the related people who make a living off the farmers in those industries. Particularly in Western Australia, but even out in my hometown of Chinchilla and further west, there are still thousands of sheep out there. There are not as many as there used to be, I might add, thanks to the dingoes and the decline in the wool price on a relative basis, but it is still a viable industry, and it's one that we should maintain. If we turn our backs on the sheep industry in this country, we turn our backs on our own history, heritage and culture and, most importantly, on the livelihoods of hardworking Australians who deserve a fair go.

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. I can't agree with much of the conclusion Senator Rennick just reached, but I do appreciate very much his reflections on the value of farming life and the value of agriculture from a community and a family perspective. It's a long time since I've been engaged in farming activity, but I did as a kid. I did through most of my adolescent life, not in the sheep industry but in the cattle industry. I too share Senator Rennick's—I don't think it's unfair to say—romantic view about how important that kind of life is and what that means for families—the kind of hard work that farming families engage in, particularly on family farms. And I agree with him that many more young people should be exposed to hard work on farms, fencing and working with livestock in particular, because it is an honourable life to be engaged in farming.

I don't agree with Senator Rennick's conclusions about the future of live exports of sheep from our west coast. I can't agree with him on that subject. Some of my disagreement with that is founded in my experience of what decent animal management practices are and what proper animal husbandry is, and it is informed by my engagement with people in the farming community who have a very different view to Senator Rennick's about the future of the live export industry for sheep. There is a strong view in the farming community, no matter what our colleagues in the National Party say, about decent animal husbandry practices. That's the truth. It's not a universal view, but there is strong disagreement across the agricultural sector about whether or not this industry should have a future.

I was sitting in my office reluctant to contribute to this debate, but then I heard Senator Canavan's contribution. There I was, sitting down with my feet up, and he said: 'Why do industries have to watch election results to see if their business is still viable? That's no basis to build a productive economy. That's no basis to encourage people to invest, to build a business and to take a stake in this nation.' That's what he said. What extraordinary hypocrisy! Obviously, the Labor Party has been not just to one election on this issue but to a second election on this issue, where we won government.

I'll get to the hypocrisy, Senator Canavan. Don't you worry about that!

I'll just build up to it over a little bit of time, Senator Canavan. But I do assert that the Labor Party won government with the very clear understanding in the community amongst not just people who strongly supported a ban on live exports but also people in the suburbs and the regions who understood exactly what it was that the Labor Party stood for. In fact, we recorded a historically high vote in the state of Western Australia. The truth is that this policy remains popular, despite all of the carry-on and the misrepresentations of those opposite. It's an industry that is in strong decline and has been declining more strongly every year. The reason I say it's hypocrisy is that this comes from the same government, informed by previous iterations of Senator Canavan's old pals at the previous Productivity Commission, that pushed the car industry out of Australia. The then government shut the car industry down. They closed the industry, and 40,000 people lost their jobs.

You're unbelievable. You're an idiot.

You might scoff at 40,000 people in Melbourne's and Adelaide's outer suburbs—

Senator Ayres, could you resume your seat for just one moment. Senator Ciccone.

I heard Senator Canavan refer to Senator Ayres as an idiot, and I think he should withdraw that comment.

Thanks, Raff!

He's not an idiot.

Senator Canavan, would you withdraw your comment?

Clearly Raff doesn't want live sheep exports to end. I know he doesn't, so he's happy to repeat the epithet. But I will withdraw.

Senator O'Sullivan, that's enough heckling.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Let's have some order in here.

I'm grateful as always for Senator Ciccone's support, but I have been called far, far worse things, I can assure you! But a whole industry—it was not a small industry; it was a very big industry that was consequential for Australia's future—was closed down, and they laughed it off. For them, it was an article of faith to force those manufacturing jobs offshore. When we look over our shoulder, we see there was no electoral mandate. They never went to the people of Victoria and South Australia and said: 'Guess what? We think it would be a good idea if we shut your industry down.' So, looking over your shoulder, you see that's what happened in the past.

What about the future? They have this idea that industry shouldn't have to consider what approach future governments might have, when they have this catastrophe over there for our energy sector, the 'disinvestment Dutton show' that is determined to drive investment in our energy sector offshore. And they want to complain that this government went to not one but two elections very, very clear about what it was that we would do. And of course the energy sector is utterly consequential for the future of this country. So we are—

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan and Senator O'Sullivan, I've called you to order a number of times. Will you please keep this in some semblance of order?

Senator Canavan, that is enough. Senator Ayres, please continue.

Honestly, the slogan that these characters run around Western Australia with is 'keep the sheep'. It is the most dishonest slogan I've ever heard. It doesn't say 'protect the live export trade', because nobody supports that proposition. It was tested in a focus group; it is fake, utterly fake.

We are a government—this may be an utterly foreign concept—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. This debate is getting out of hand. I've called you to order a number of times. We'll listen to Senator Ayres's contribution—

Senator McKenzie! Senator Ayres, please continue.

It may be a novel concept to those on the other side of this argument that an opposition should construct a policy, should receive a mandate and should implement and do what it said that it would do. I know this is a foreign concept to those opposite. It's not something that they ever did in government, but this is a government that does what it says that it was going to do. And we have worked through our election program in a systematic way, and you know what? Australians want governments that do what they say they are going to do.

When you look at the merits of the arguments that are put for this errant campaign, what was see is an industry in decline. In 2014-15, 2.1 million sheep were exported by sea at a value of $224 million; in 2021-22, 475,000 sheep were exported by sea at a value of $80 million—a complete collapse during the period that the opposition was in government. And what support did they offer this industry—that they now say is an utterly core principle for them to protect? Nothing. What did the previous government do to assist this industry to deal with the social licence values that have so utterly collapsed? Nothing. There was no contribution. Live exports by sea decreased by $144 million over that period and by over 1½ million head.

The Leader of the Nationals, Mr Littleproud, has said that the coalition partnership is contingent on the reinstatement of the live sheep export trade. That's what's really going on here. It's an opposition that, in government, utterly failed to support this sector. It completely failed to assist them to transition to value adding onshore or to more exports of boxed meat offshore. That is what people in country towns need. It's more decent jobs in our meat-processing sector. There was no effort from the previous government in that regard, and now there has been a sustained performance over a couple of weeks on that issue.

The truth is it's an industry that is in terminal decline. The proposition that this government offers is a serious and substantial package to ensure that the industry is able to work through the difficult issues of transition and value adding and all of the other issues that confront them. The alternative is a continued terminal decline and continued zero support from government. This is a government that will support the agricultural sector, even when times are tough and even when there is disagreement. We will work in partnership with the sector to get things done.

It's now my honour to close out the debate on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, prior to us moving to a series of votes on something that has been discussed in this country for a very long time.

Let's be very clear regarding what this debate is about. It's about implementing an election commitment that Labor took to the last two elections—nothing more, nothing less. We're in this curious situation where members of the opposition are calling for this government to abandon an election commitment, something we've never seen an opposition do before. We fully intend to deliver this commitment by passing this legislation tonight. We went to the last two federal elections committing to phase out live sheep exports by sea. Today, by passing this legislation—as I hope we soon will do—we will be delivering on our election commitment to the Australian people by bringing the export of live sheep by sea to an end on 1 May 2028.

In doing this, we won't just be delivering an election commitment; we will be delivering a substantial reform for animal welfare in Australia that many thousands of people have sought for a long, long time and that is widely supported across the Australian community. But what we'll also be doing is assisting the sheep industry in Western Australia, which is the only state that continues to export live sheep by sea. We'll be supporting that industry to transition towards a stronger future based on more value adding, more onshore processing and more jobs for Western Australians. This policy is about keeping jobs in Western Australia rather than sending those jobs offshore. In doing so, we will be putting forward a strong future for the Western Australian sheep industry.

I recognise that, as with pretty much everything we debate in this chamber, this is not a policy that is supported by 100 per cent of Australians or 100 per cent of Western Australians. At all times while carrying this reform through the government and through the parliament, I have sought to be respectful of the fact that there are different views on this. Today I met again with representatives of the sheep industry in Western Australia, many of whom are sheep farmers themselves or those involved in the supply chain like shearers and truckies. I think that brings it to about 14 meetings I've now had with representatives of the sheep industry in Western Australia, including sheep farmers themselves. At all times I have dealt with all parties in this debate respectfully, agreeing to meet with them and listen to them, and being really honest with them about what can be done and what can't be done. From the very first meeting that I've had with those groups, I've made very clear that we have every intention of delivering our election commitment but that we would listen to them and work with them on how we would implement that commitment. I've made that offer again today.

As I said, I recognise that this policy is not supported by every single member of the sheep industry or every single Australian, but I repeat the point that this is a commitment that was taken to not just one but two elections and was endorsed by the Australian people and the Western Australian people at the last federal election. It continues to have widespread support, with the latest surveys that I've seen demonstrating that even in Western Australia—the one state which continues to export live sheep by sea—our policy of phasing out this industry retains the support of about 70 per cent of Western Australians. So this does have widespread support in Western Australia, just as it does in Australia. I understand that those opposite—and we'll come to their record—don't support this and want to stop this from happening. This is a policy that Australians have voted for and that is still supported by about 70 per cent of Western Australians.

I want to put on record again my thanks to the members of the independent panel we appointed early last year to consider and provide advice to the government on how and when we should implement this election commitment. I invite anyone interested in this issue to have a look at their report and look at the government's response to that panel's report. By and large, we've accepted pretty much all of the recommendations that the panel made, including their recommendation that we should phase out this industry once and for all on 1 May 2028. In addition, this government recognises that this will be a significant adjustment for many people in the sheep industry in Western Australia. That's why we have put on the table a $107 million transition package funded by every taxpayer in Australia. Let's remember, we're talking about an industry that brought in $77 million last year. We're putting in $107 million of taxpayer funds, with every taxpayer in Australia contributing towards an industry that has been in decline for 20 years.

I'll come to what's happened in the past and the decline and the lack of assistance that's been provided to this industry in the past. Before doing so, I think a few facts need to be put on the record again about this industry, because, if you listen to the National Party and the Liberal Party, you would think that we are talking about the backbone of Western Australia's agricultural sector. As important as this sector is to those involved in it, we are talking about a tiny fraction of the Western Australian agriculture industry as a whole. In 2022-23, live sheep exports by sea represented less than one per cent of the total value of Australia's sheep exports. In 2022-23, live sheep exports by sea from Australia were worth $77 million, while sheepmeat exports reached $4.5 billion in 2021-22.

We hear a lot from the National Party and the Liberal Party about how much they care about this industry and how it needs to stay in place and how they're the biggest supporters of the industry. What the National Party and the Liberal Party don't want to admit is that this industry plummeted in size and in importance to the Western Australian agricultural sector when they were in government. I mentioned in question time today that in 2014-15, Australia exported 2.1 million sheep by sea at a value of $224 million.

Senator McKenzie!

By the end of the former government, that number had fallen from 2.1 million sheep being exported in 2014-15 to 475,000 sheep being exported in 2021-22. So these people who want to characterise themselves as the defenders of the sheep industry were the very people who saw an 80 per cent fall in the number of sheep being exported by sea while they were in office.

The truth is that this industry has been in decline for about 20 years. At the very same time, what has been going through the roof? It is the export of sheepmeat. You may not be aware of this, but exports of sheepmeat are part of the agriculture sector as well. People who work meat processing are part of the agriculture supply chain. That is the part of this industry that has been going through the roof, with the potential to grow further.

We know that there's a lot of hypocrisy on display here. I did remind the chamber during question time today that Labor is not alone in supporting the end of the live sheep export industry. We do know that the now Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Ms Sussan Ley, introduced a private member's bill in 2018 seeking to ban the trade, stating:

The live sheep trade is in terminal decline …

…   …   …

Unfortunately this is an industry with an operating model built on the suffering of animals.

Those were the words of the deputy Liberal leader only about four years ago. Of course, she was backed in by now Senator Henderson, who was then a member of the House of Representatives.

Senator McKenzie!

They both said:

… the sensible path for both sides of the debate is to construct a carefully considered transition to ending the trade permanently …

…   …   …

… what we both believe—

This is Sussan Ley and Sarah Henderson, now Senator Henderson—

is an inevitable and permanent ceasing of all live sheep exports to the Middle East.

So it's not just Labor who is supporting this, although we do support this because we can see the opportunity for the sheep industry in more value-adding and more job creation in Western Australia. We're not going to be hypocrites like the National Party and the Liberal Party, who try to pretend that they're the friends of farmers and who try to pretend that they're sticking up for a trade that fell by 80 percent on their watch when they were in government and for which they provided not one cent in transition support, compared to a Labor government that is providing $107 million.

Enough of the hypocrisy from the Nationals and the Liberals. We need to get on with a reform that was voted on by the Australian people at the last election, that is supported by about 70 per cent of the Western Australian public and that will be an improvement to animal welfare while creating hundreds of new jobs in Western Australia.

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Wong?

I'm just wondering if Senator McKenzie could possibly just let up for one or two seconds during the debate.

Senator McKenzie, I have called you, and I would ask for silence for the remainder of the time. Minister Watt.

It's time to implement our election commitment. It's time to move this trade from live exports to onshore processing. It's time to pass this legislation.

Thank you, Minister Watt. The time for debate on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 and other bills has expired.

At the request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.

Colleagues, what can I say? Minister Watt has just said it all. Tonight, the Australian Labor Party say they'll deliver an election commitment. Guess what? We, on this side of the chamber, say you will close down an industry in Western Australia. You will turn your back on Western Australians, including the truckies, the farmers and the shearers. But you don't care because, despite 60,000 people signing the Keep the Sheep petition and despite the thousands and thousands of jobs that will soon—

Senator Cash, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, not only have I called you to order but you are now interjecting on your own leader. You can come to order, you can leave the chamber or you can seek the call. Please continue, Senator Cash.

As I said, there are thousands and thousands of jobs that Senator Watt tonight has officially said are all over. They are no more. Senator Watt says it is an election commitment that the Australian Labor Party are delivering on.

Isn't it interesting, though, that, even though it's an election commitment and they claim that they have the right to deliver on the end of this industry in Western Australia, they still don't have the guts to have it properly scrutinised by the Australian Senate? What we just hit at 10 o'clock was, of course, the end of the debate, and when we say 'the end of the debate' what we mean is that we've just hit a guillotine. Why have we hit a guillotine? Because the Australian Labor Party knows that this is not playing out well at the moment in Western Australia.

So they give you a choice. You can have some speeches in the second reading debate tonight and then we hit the guillotine and—guess what—it's all over. Why don't you have the guts to allow an actual committee stage on this bill tonight? What are you hiding from the people of, in particular, Western Australia? What is it that you don't want to tell them? That you don't have an evidence base in relation to the decision that you have just made? That you know that over 60,000 people have signed the Keep the Sheep petition to keep this industry going in Western Australia? You know that the people of Western Australia do not want this bill to go through tonight. But none of that matters to the Australian Labor Party.

The good news for voters is that this time next year—guess what—we will have gone to an election, and I can assure you that in Western Australia we will be making it very, very clear to people that they have a black and white decision to make. If you believe in Western Australia, in the farmers, in the shearers, in the truckies and in those people who wake up every single day and keep our state going, you get to vote for the coalition. It is as simple as that. It is a binary decision. Either you want to back Western Australia and vote for the coalition or—and the 'or' is Mr Albanese, the Australian Labor Party and all of those senators, including the Labor senators from Western Australia, and Labor members of the House of Representatives who have turned their backs on Western Australia.

Mr Albanese likes to tell people that he is a great friend of our state. Guess what, Mr Albanese: actions speak louder than words. It doesn't matter what Minister Watt said in his summing-up speech tonight. The fact of the matter is that that, with the support of the Australian Greens, this bill will shortly go through the Senate chamber, and it goes through the Senate chamber under a guillotine, because the Australian Labor Party, quite frankly, don't have the guts to answer questions on this bill. Why don't they want a committee stage? Perhaps if they had a committee stage they might actually be shown for what they are—a government that quite frankly puts the word 'transparency' to shame, despite what they said prior to the election.

What did Senator Birmingham say when we were once again in this situation a little while ago? What were we promised by Mr Albanese? What were we promised by Senator Wong? What were we promised by the Australian Labor Party? And of course, prior to the election, what did they promise Australians? Well, they promised Australians a lot, but one of the things they promised was greater accountability. And tonight, once again, those words promised prior to the election, 'greater accountability', are about to be trashed. That is a great shame. The only people tonight who are not going to benefit are the people of Western Australia. But a very clear decision can soon be made. A vote for Peter Dutton is a vote for the industry; a vote for Anthony Albanese is not.

These are more delaying tactics from an opposition that has sought at every stage to delay debate and delay the delivery of an election commitment that the Australian people voted for. That's what going on here tonight. Let's be very clear about what we're debating. We're debating something that the Labor Party took to the last two federal elections and won the last federal election on. It wasn't that long ago that Senator Henderson was actually supporting us on it. We can go back and have a look at those quotes from Senator Henderson. I think she described it as an 'immoral trade'. I think those were her words. It wasn't that long ago that Senator Henderson was actually going much further in her language than anyone in the Labor Party has ever done.

So what we're debating here tonight, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, is a piece of legislation to deliver an election commitment that was voted for by the Australian people and that Western Australians largely supported at the last federal election. It then went through months of consultation through an independent panel of four people appointed by the government, who provided advice to the government on it. It then went to a House of Representatives inquiry with two hearings, one of which was in Canberra and one of which was in Western Australia. It was then debated and passed in the House of Representatives, and it is now here in the Senate. For anyone in this chamber, particularly those on the other side of this chamber, to argue—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Order on my left. I just had Senator Cash on her feet, and every single senator in this place respected her right to be listened to in silence. I now have the minister on his feet, and you will listen in respectful silence or choose to leave the chamber. Minister, please continue.

Again, this is just more delaying tactics from an opposition that isn't prepared to respect the result of the last election and isn't prepared to respect the work of the independent panel that we appointed to undertake some consultation across Western Australia. The panel met with hundreds of people across Western Australia, took thousands of submissions from across Western Australia and provided advice to the government on how we should deliver this election commitment. That's what this legislation is about. We've got an opposition that continues to refuse to accept the result of the last election, where the Australian people actually voted for us to do this.

They're also not prepared to accept a $107 million transition package that the people of Australia are committing to through their government. I remind you that under the last government we saw the number of live sheep exported by sea fall by 80 per cent in the life of the last government with not a cent of assistance being provided by that government to assist this industry to transition. In contrast, this government listened to the words of the industry when it said that it needs support to make this transition—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Once again, I call senators on my left to order. You are to listen with respect and in silence. Minister, please continue.

What we should do is get on and debate this legislation and pass this legislation to deliver and implement the election commitment. What we've been doing all day is debating this legislation here and—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. I have Senator O'Sullivan on his feet, but I had just sat the minister down, and I asked for silence. You all acted disrespectfully and ignored me. Senator O'Sullivan, were you on a point of order?

No.

Thank you. Minister Watt.

We should be passing this legislation tonight. It's legislation that was supported at the last election by the Australian people. It's been to a House of Representatives inquiry. It's had months of consultation. We should pass the legislation, and I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the closure motion moved by Minister Watt be agreed to.

The question is that the suspension motion, as moved by Senator Cash, be agreed to.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bills listed in that resolution. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Cash on sheet 2697 be agreed to.

The question now is that the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition on sheet 2695 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate:

(a) criticises the Government for imposing its reckless and ideological decision to shut down Australia's live sheep export industry by sea;

(b) recognises that:

(i) Australia's live sheep export industry employs more than 3,000 people in Western Australia, including shearers, truck drivers, fodder suppliers, livestock agents, farmers and producers,

(ii) these workers now face the prospect of losing their job, and families that are struggling under financial stress may now face a difficult decision to leave their rural towns and communities,

(iii) this industry has delivered comprehensive reforms which have secured exemplary animal welfare outcomes, and

(iv) Australia has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world;

(c) further criticises the Government for the mismanagement and lack of consultation on this policy to end live sheep exports with farmers, sheep producers and impacted communities;

(d) acknowledges that this policy is widely and strongly opposed across the agriculture sector;

(e) expresses concern that if the live sheep export industry is banned, alternatives will be sourced from countries that do not share Australia's animal welfare standards, resulting in perverse international animal welfare outcomes; and

(f) calls on the Government to immediately reverse its policy to shut down this industry".

The question is that the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition on sheet 2698 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the bill be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2024".

The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2699 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Independent review

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider:

(a) the operation and effectiveness of the independent panel that was appointed to consult with stakeholders on how and when the Government should phase-out live sheep exports by sea; and

(b) the operation and effectiveness of Division 6A of Part 6 of Chapter 11 of the Export Control Act 2020 (relating to assistance in relation to the phasing out of the export of live sheep by sea); and

(c) whether any rural, regional, remote or Indigenous communities are adversely affected or worse off as a result of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 3 months after this Act commences.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 12 months of the commencement of the review.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

The question is that the amendment on sheet 2699 be agreed to.

The question is that the Greens amendments on sheet 2641 revised be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 19), omit "1 May 2028", substitute "1 May 2026".

(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 9), omit "1 May 2028", substitute "1 May 2026".

(3) Page 11 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Quotas for the live export of sheep

Part 1 — Amendments to the Export Control Act 2020

Export Control Act 2020

1 At the end of subsection 376(1)

Add:

; (e) Subsection 424AA(2).

2 Subsection 381(1) (after table item 76)

Add:

3 At the end of Division 6 of Part 6 of Chapter 11

Add:

424AA Allocation for export of sheep

Total allocation

(1) The total allocation for the export of sheep by sea is:

(a) for the period beginning on the commencement of Schedule 2 to the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Act 2024 and ending on 31 May 2025—400,000 sheep;

(b) for the period beginning on 1 June 2025 and ending on 30 April 2026—200,000 sheep.

Application for individual allocation

(2) If the holder of an export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock intends to export one or more consignments of sheep during a period referred to in subsection (1) they may apply to the Secretary under this section for an allocation (an individual allocation) for that period.

Note: Section 379 sets out requirements for applications.

Secretary must give individual allocation to applicant

(3) If the Secretary receives an application under subsection (2), the Secretary must give the holder of the export licence an individual allocation for the intended export.

Note 1: The allocation may be zero sheep.

Note 2: A decision to give an individual allocation is a reviewable decision (see Part 2 of Chapter 11) and the Secretary must give the person written notice of the decision (see section 382).

(4) The Secretary must, to the extent practicable, give a greater individual allocation to exporters whose animal health and welfare record does not raise concerns, or in relation to whom the Secretary does not have reasonable grounds to believe that any future export of the exporter will raise animal health and welfare concerns, than to other exporters.

Note: The Secretary is not required to deal with applications under subsection (2) in the order in which the applications are received by the Secretary.

(5) In considering whether animal welfare concerns may exist under subsection (4), the Secretary must have regard to the following:

(a) if the holder of the export licence who made the application has previously exported sheep from Australia—the animal health and welfare record of the holder;

(b) any other matter relevant to the health and welfare of sheep;

(c) any other matter the Secretary considers relevant;

(d) any other matter prescribed by the rules.

Variation of individual allocation

(6) The Secretary may vary the individual allocation given to a person under subsection (3).

Note: A decision to vary an individual allocation is a reviewable decision (see Part 2 of Chapter 11) and the Secretary must give the person written notice of the decision (see section 382).

(7) In considering whether it is necessary to vary an individual allocation, the Secretary must have regard to the matters prescribed by the rules.

Total number of sheep in individual allocations cannot exceed total allocation

(8) The number of sheep included in the total number of individual allocations given by the Secretary under subsection (3) for a period cannot exceed the total allocation for that period.

Obligation of holder of individual allocation

(9) A person who has been given an individual allocation for a period under subsection (3) must not export more than the total number of sheep included in that allocation during that period.

Holder of export licence must comply with this section

(10) An export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock is subject to the condition that the holder of the licence must comply with this section.

Note 1: The holder of an export licence may commit an offence or be liable to a civil penalty if a condition of the licence is contravened (see section 217).

Note 2: An export licence may be suspended or revoked if a condition of the licence is contravened (see sections 205 and 212).

Part 2 — Amendments to the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021

Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021

4 Section 2-3 (after table item 4)

Insert:

5 Section 2-7

After "applies in relation to prescribed livestock", insert ", other than sheep,".

6 Before paragraph 7-1(2)(a)

Insert:

(aa) if the export permit is for a consignment of sheep by sea—an individual allocation for the relevant period has been received from the Secretary under subsection 424AA(3) of the Act.

7 After subsection 8-3(1)

Insert:

(1A) A notice of intention to export a consignment of sheep by sea may not be given if the person who intends to export the consignment has not received an individual allocation from the Secretary under subsection 424AA(3) of the Act.

Part 3 — Application and transitional provisions

8 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Export Control Act 2020 and the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021 made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

(a) an export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock that is in force on or after the commencement of this item, whether the licence was granted before, on or after that commencement; and

(b) an act or omission occurring on or after the commencement of this item.

9 Transitional rules

(1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, make rules for or in relation to matters of a transitional nature (including provision for any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Act.

(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of this Act.

(3) Subsection 12(2) (retrospective application of legislative instruments) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to rules made for the purposes of this item.

(4) Page 11 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Secretary's approved export programs for the live export of sheep

Part 1 — Amendments

Export Control Act 2020

1 After subsection 311

Insert:

311A Approvals of programs of export operations for export of sheep

Secretary's obligation to ensure certain exports covered by approved export program

(1) The Secretary must ensure that every export, or intended export, of sheep by sea is covered by a program of export operations to be carried out by an authorised officer and an accredited veterinarian for the purpose of ensuring the health and welfare of the sheep.

(2) Without limiting the export operations that may be carried out in a program referred to in subsection (1), those export operations must:

(a) be carried out in a manner that is objective, independent, fair and accurate; and

(b) include:

(i) monitoring the health and welfare of sheep;

(ii) examining, testing or treating sheep;

(iii) keeping records of the implementation of the program;

(iv) making declarations attesting to the completion of the requirements of the program; and

(v) public reporting on the implementation and completion of the program.

Program may be undertaken within or outside Australian territory

(3) A program of export operations referred to in subsection (1) may be undertaken within or outside Australian territory.

Expiry date

(4) The Secretary may, if the Secretary considers it appropriate, set an expiry date for an approved export program referred to in subsection (1).

(5) An export program referred to in subsection (1) remains in force:

(a) if there is an expiry date for the export program—until that expiry date unless the program is revoked; or

(b) if there is no expiry date for the program—until the program is revoked.

Secretary may vary approved export program

(6) The Secretary may vary an approved export program referred to in subsection (1) if the Secretary is satisfied that the approved export program, as proposed to be varied, is for the purpose of ensuring the health and welfare of the sheep in the course of export operations to which the approved export program relates.

(7) If the Secretary varies an approved export program under subsection (6), the Secretary must, in writing, notify the exporters to whose export operations the approved export program relates.

(8) The notice under subsection (7) must state:

(a) details of the variation; and

(b) the day the variation takes effect.

Secretary may approve more than one approved export program

(9) The Secretary may approve more than one program of export operations to be carried out in relation to sheep to be exported by sea by a person.

Part 2 — Application and transitional provisions

2 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Export Control Act 2020 and the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021 made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

(a) an export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock that is in force on or after the commencement of this item, whether the licence was granted before, on or after that commencement; and

(b) an act or omission occurring on or after the commencement of this item.

3 Transitional rules

(1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, make rules for or in relation to matters of a transitional nature (including provision for any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Act.

(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act.

(5) Page 11 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Northern summer trade prohibition

Part 1 — Amendments

Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021

1 Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 2 of Chapter 6

Repeal the Subdivision, substitute:

Subdivision B — Prohibition on export to specific places

6-12 Sheep must not be exported to the Northern Hemisphere between 1 May and 31 October

A consignment of sheep must not be exported to the Northern Hemisphere by sea on a vessel that leaves an Australian port between 1 May in a year and 31 October in that year.

2 Subdivision C of Division 4 of Part 2 of Chapter 6

Repeal the Subdivision.

Part 2 — Application and transitional provisions

3 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Export Control Act 2020 and the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021 made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

(a) an export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock that is in force on or after the commencement of this item, whether the licence was granted before, on or after that commencement; and

(b) an act or omission occurring on or after the commencement of this item.

4 Transitional rules

(1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, make rules for or in relation to matters of a transitional nature (including provision for any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Act.

(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of this Act.

(3) Subsection 12(2) (retrospective application of legislative instruments) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to rules made for the purposes of this item.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

I table addenda to the explanatory memoranda relating to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023 and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023. The addenda respond to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The question is that the amendments on sheets 2420, 2421 and 2422, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 2420

Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), after the definition of animal, insert:

Animal Health Australia has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 22), after the definition of charge, insert:

emergency animal biosecurity response deed has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

emergency plant biosecurity response deed has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

(3) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 11), after the definition of plant, insert:

Plant Health Australia has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

(4) Clause 7, page 6 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraphs (3)(c) and (d), substitute:

(c) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:

(i) are undertaken by, or at the direction of, Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and

(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;

(d) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:

(i) an emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or

(ii) an emergency plant biosecurity response deed;

(5) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:

(i) are undertaken by, or at the direction of, Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and

(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;

(b) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:

(i) an emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or

(ii) an emergency plant biosecurity response deed.

_____

SHEET 2421

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), after the definition of animal, insert:

Animal Health Australia has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 20), after the definition of aquaculture, insert:

emergency animal biosecurity response deed has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

emergency plant biosecurity response deed has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

(3) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 15), after the definition of plant, insert:

Plant Health Australia has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

(4) Clause 7, page 6 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraphs (3)(c) and (d), substitute:

(c) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:

(i) are undertaken by, or at the direction of, Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and

(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;

(d) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:

(i) an emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or

(ii) an emergency plant biosecurity response deed;

(5) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:

(i) are undertaken by, or at the direction of, Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and

(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;

(b) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:

(i) an emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or

(ii) an emergency plant biosecurity response deed.

(6) Clause 13, page 10 (lines 23 to 26), omit paragraphs (2)(c) and (d), substitute:

(c) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:

(i) are undertaken by, or at the direction of, Plant Health Australia; and

(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants;

(d) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under an emergency plant biosecurity response deed;

_____

SHEET 2422

Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), after the definition of animal, insert:

Animal Health Australia has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 20), after the definition of aquaculture, insert:

emergency animal biosecurity response deed has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

emergency plant biosecurity response deed has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

(3) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 11), after the definition of plant, insert:

Plant Health Australia has the same meaning as in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2024.

(4) Clause 7, page 6 (lines 24 to 27), omit paragraphs (3)(c) and (d), substitute:

(c) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:

(i) are undertaken by, or at the direction of, Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and

(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;

(d) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:

(i) an emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or

(ii) an emergency plant biosecurity response deed;

PRESIDENT (): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 22 : 46