Sue Lines

I will put the questions on the remaining stages of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Share—Integrity And Transparency) Bill 2023. The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I shall now deal with the committee of the whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table.

Anthony Chisholm

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendment to be moved to this bill.

Long debate text truncated.

Sarah Henderson

I've got a number of questions for Senator Chisholm. Obviously there are many amendments before the Senate, but I would like to ask those questions now of the Minister representing the Minister for Education, who has made some disparaging comments about the opposition and the opposition's position on this bill. If the government wants to take the so-called politics out of research funding decisions, why is the government retaining ministerial discretion on programs like the Australian Research Council Centres of Excellence and the Industrial Transformation Research Hubs schemes, which, in the 2022-23 year involved some $250 million or so in funding. Surely, Minister, it is gross hypocrisy from this government to suggest that you are taking the politics out of the ARC, when a huge lump of funding is being retained by the minister. In this current year, how much funding is being allocated to research funding programs over which the minister will retain his discretion? What percentage does this represent of total funding provided by the ARC?

Anthony Chisholm

Thanks, Senator Henderson, for that question. I'll take that on notice, and we'll try to get back to you ASAP, whilst we are still in committee on the bill. The minister will no longer be involved in approving individual project grants as part of the National Competitive Grants Program, except when approval enlivens national security concerns. The minister of the day will, however, be involved in designated research programs which help build research capability—that is to say, not individual research projects but whole programs which will help drive Australia's research in the future. This includes programs like the ARC Centres of Excellence, the Industrial Transformation Training Centres, and Industrial Transformation Research Hubs schemes, which have already proven to be significant engines in driving research capabilities. We are confident that that is a better way forward. We can take the interference out of the ARC projects but ensure that we can still have a good outcome where the minister is involved.

Sarah Henderson

Minister, regrettably you didn't address my question. I was seeking information on how much funding is allocated to the research funding programs that the minister will retain ministerial discretion over and what that is as a percentage of total ARC funding? I again ask you, Senator, to explain the basis on which the government is retaining ministerial discretion over some quarter of a million dollars relating to programs like the ARC Centres of Excellence scheme and the Industrial Transformation Research Hubs scheme, for instance. This, I would put to you, is completely inconsistent with the government's position that it is taking the so-called 'politics' out of research funding decisions. If you were doing so—even though we absolutely disagree with that position—the minister would have no discretion. But the fact of the matter, based on the 2022-23 numbers, is that the minister is retaining discretion over at least 25 per cent of total funding, which is some $250 million. So could you please explain that gross inconsistency and also provide the Senate with those numbers that I'm seeking in relation to the amount of moneys over which the minister will retain discretion.

Anthony Chisholm

Senator Henderson, you might have missed it. I said that we'd try and provide that information on the percentage as soon as we can, so we are endeavouring to do that. As I said, the minister will retain authority to approve grants for these three schemes in recognition of the role that they play in creating research capability for Australia. That's why we believe it's important. It will provide flexibility for the government to invest in specific research priorities, strengthen the integrity of the system by drawing on the expertise and recommendations of the College of Experts, and provide opportunities for the minister to collaborate with relevant ministers on key government priorities. That's why we believe it's important to retain that for those three projects.

Sarah Henderson

I think you've just highlighted the gross hypocrisy of what the government is putting in terms of its position. The government is trying to prosecute an argument that it is handing over funding decision-making ability to an independent board, and yet you are now standing on your feet justifying why the minister will retain ministerial discretion over hundreds of millions of dollars. As we have made clear in our contributions in this debate, it is improper for the government to absolve itself of ministerial discretion in relation to all of the moneys provided to the ARC, and I have to raise concerns that I raised in my second reading contribution about the government's cut to research funding in the last MYEFO statement.

As you well know, the Albanese government, when it was in opposition, made a commitment before the 2022 election to increase funding for research, in fact, to three per cent of GDP. So could you please update the Senate on what's happened to that commitment, and how much additional funding this government has provided to the ARC and to research more generally. Frankly, Assistant Minister, when I look at the government's record on research, it is appalling. In the last MYEFO statement, some $102 million was cut from research programs, which shows a very poor commitment, frankly, to Australian research. So I would ask the assistant minister to explain the government's position in that respect and also update the Senate on the now government's election commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP.

Anthony Chisholm

I would reject the characterisation by Senator Henderson in regard to the ministerial approval of designated research programs. It is nuanced. I'd accept that, but not the claims from Senator Henderson. The minister of the day will no longer be involved in approving individual project grants as part of the National Competitive Grants Program, except where an approval enlivens national security concerns. The minister of the day, however, will be involved in approving designated research programs, which will help build research capacity—this is to say: not individual research projects but whole programs, which will help drive Australian research and capability into the future. That is the important difference there.

In regard to university research funding, the government has a proven track record of supporting the research sector, and this bill is the latest proof of that. Following the release of the Australian Universities Accord interim report on 19 July 2023, the government acted immediately on the five priority actions it recommended. The government redirected uncommitted funding from the Regional Research Collaboration Program, as well as a small portion of funds from the Australia's Economic Accelerator program. These priority actions include the establishment of up to 20 additional regional university study hubs in regional Australia and extending demand driven funding to all First Nations students where they meet the eligibility requirements. This is a good use of taxpayers' money, helping more Indigenous children to go to university and creating opportunity for many people studying in regional areas. That's what the experts tell us we need to do, and that's what our Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 did at the end of last year, but I'm not surprised that the coalition want to oppose all of this and remain negative about that aspect.

Sarah Henderson

Assistant Minister, thank you for partially answering my question, but I am deeply concerned that, in trying to explain why the government has cut this funding, this has been characterised as a small cut. This is not a small cut. This government and the Minister for Education, Mr Clare, have shown contempt for the research sector by cutting more than $102 million in the 2023-24 MYEFO in December. They slashed $46.2 million from the Australia's Economic Accelerator program and clawed back a further $56.3 million by cancelling the Regional Research Collaboration Program—two very significant research programs delivered by the former coalition government. So, when you characterise these shocking cuts as small amounts of funding, I think the facts speak for themselves, Minister. I would again ask you to explain why $102 million of funding was cut from research.

I would also ask you to address the other part of my question, which you conveniently did not address, and that is: what has happened to Labor's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP? Is this another broken promise? All we have seen from this government in nearly two years is broken promises, wrong priorities and bad decisions. So I say to you, Assistant Minister, that you owe it to the Australian people to explain this massive cut to research funding and to explain what has happened to Labor's election commitment. Given you are cutting research funding, not adding any money to research funding, this is on track to being another big, fat broken promise by this government. I look forward to you providing the further information, Assistant Minister.

Anthony Chisholm

We're not going to be lectured to about research by the representative of the previous government. I would stack our record on research up against the previous government's any day of the week. There's no better example of that than what we're doing in terms of the ARC report that is being adopted in this bill, which is being opposed by those opposite. I think the research community out there are absolutely sick of the political interference that they saw from the previous government. So we do have a different path that we are pursuing when it comes to research. I'm sure it will be welcomed by the research community, because we understand how important it is and for their international reputation as well.

We make no apologies for redirecting that funding as part of the Universities Accord interim report into things that will make a significant difference for people. You shouldn't put words in my mouth, Senator Henderson. I didn't say 'small'. I do acknowledge that there was a redirection of funding, because we believe it is important to give First Nations people in the greater metropolitan areas greater access to opportunity when it comes to university study. I've seen myself firsthand the difference that regional university study hubs are making in the community, having visited a number of them. I'm really proud about that. I think that they were something that was started by our predecessors that we're encouraged by and think they will make a significant difference, which is why we've invested more money in it. We think that they are significant and that they will make a difference, and that's why that money was redirected.

Sarah Henderson

I agree with you that the Regional University Centres, an initiative of the former coalition government that I'm very proud of, are making a real difference in regional Australia. However, I remind you that a significant number of those centres have now been put into the outer suburbs, which is most regrettable because it is regional and remote students who most need access to university. Students living in the outer suburbs can get on a train or a tram or a bus and go to university. You can't do that in the regions. So it's most regrettable that the government has decided to redirect that very important initiative. The government is expanding the program but redirecting it to suburban centres when so many regional, rural and remote students are crying out for the same opportunities to go to university.

I'm going to ask you this for the third time, Minister. In your earlier answer, you referred to this as a 'small' cut. It's not small. It's $102 million. So it's very, very disappointing that the government has made that decision. I ask you to again address the very specific question that I asked in relation to the government's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP, as the Labor Party promised before the last election. What has happened to that election commitment, Assistant Minister?

Anthony Chisholm

As I said, we absolutely stand by the decision to redirect the $102 million because we believe it will make a significant difference for First Nations people in greater metropolitan areas. In regard to the Regional University Study Hubs, I think Senator Henderson should be aware that that is an expansion of the Regional University Study Hubs and the establishment of outer suburban hubs. So it is an addition. It's not either/or, which I think is important. I think it will be welcomed by many people who live in those areas who don't have easy access to study at a tertiary institution. It's something that I think will be an important legacy of this government.

Sarah Henderson

I am going to ask you again: what has happened to the government's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP? You're continuing to refuse to answer that question. Could you please answer that question.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

As the closure motion was agreed to, I'm now going to put Senator Antic's motion. The question is that a motion proposing a reference to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, as moved by Senator Antic, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, you foreshadowed a motion. Do you wish to move that now?

Nick McKim

I move:

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

(a) notes that these revised tax cuts will still make economic inequality in Australia worse by:

(i) giving politicians and CEOs on incomes of more than $200,000 three times the value of tax cuts compared to the average worker,

(ii) only providing the poorest 20 per cent of society with 0.4 per cent of the share of tax cuts next financial year, compared to the wealthiest 20 per cent of society who will enjoy 50 per cent of the total value of the tax cuts,

(iii) exacerbating the gender pay gap, with 42 per cent of the tax cuts going to women and 58 per cent to men, and

(iv) starving the budget by a jaw-dropping $318 billion over the decade, removing revenue that could support people who rely on aged care services, disability support, income support and families who depend on the public education and health systems; and

(b) calls on the Government to redesign the tax cuts to not give the wealthiest in society $4,529 a year and instead redirect this largesse to expanding public services like more mental health and dental into Medicare and financial support for those earning below the tax-free threshold in this cost of living crisis".

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading amendment 2429 standing in the name of Senator McKim be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Hume on sheet 2418 be agreed to.

Dorinda Cox

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 27 February, 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:

Due to its litany of broken promises, inability to secure our borders against people smugglers, control skyrocketing immigration rates, or effectively tackle the cost-of- living crisis, the Albanese Labor Government has not upheld its responsibilities to the Australian people. Consequently, the Senate must issue a vote of no confidence in the Albanese Labor Government.

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.

Pauline Hanson

I move:

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

Due to its litany of broken promises, inability to secure our borders against people smugglers, control skyrocketing immigration rates, or effectively tackle the cost-of- living crisis, the Albanese Labor Government has not upheld its responsibilities to the Australian people. Consequently, the Senate must issue a vote of no confidence in the Albanese Labor Government.

This is a matter of urgency about the Albanese Labor government. The Prime Minister's shortcomings and his government's litany of failure and broken promises demand action by this chamber. The people smugglers are back, the boats are back and Labor's immigration remains at high records, driving inflation and our housing crisis. Labor has been completely ineffective in tackling our cost-of-living crisis. Labor's own suicidal renewables obsession is driving this crisis, with record energy bills. Labor is attacking our small businesses and farmers at the command of the corrupt union bosses. And, as we discovered today, Labor supported COVID-19 vaccine mandates in Queensland that have been ruled unlawful.

The polls are clear: Australians have lost confidence in the Albanese Labor government. That's because the government is not meeting its responsibilities to the Australian people. It's incumbent on the Senate to express this too and to support a vote of no confidence in the Albanese Labor government. It's the only decent thing to do. When your constituents come to you and demand why you didn't act sooner against the worst government since Whitlam's, at least you'll be able to tell them you tried. The list of failures is endless. The list of broken promises gets longer every day.

Labor's referendum was soundly defeated but succeeded in dividing Australia while costing $450 million. The blame for this has been placed firmly at the Prime Minister's feet by no less than Mick Gooda and Greg Craven. The Prime Minister and his Indigenous Australians ministers blame everyone but themselves. Despite the overwhelming rejection of their politics of racial division, they continue to pursue it. We were promised $275 off our energy bills. They've only gone up, not down. We were promised a transparent and accountable government. We have anything but accountability. Labor has virtually suspended parliamentary democracy in its obscene rush to put union bosses in charge of our country and our economy. They've guillotined a huge number of legislative debates and shut down Senate enquiries.

We were promised the full stage 3 tax cuts. We didn't get them. I was promised regular meetings with the Prime Minister. I've had only one. Australia was promised a royal commission into the COVID-19 pandemic. We have a toothless inquiry in its place that will do nothing but praise dictator premiers in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia.

Labor's incompetence on national security has left our borders wide open to people smugglers. They've released dangerous criminal immigration detainees into the community, including murderers and sex offenders. This incompetence has left our military almost completely unprepared to defend the nation. Education outcomes are in alarming decline. Labor lets teachers indoctrinate children and take them on protests rather than teaching them what they must know. Medicare is under huge strain. We face a shortage of GPs, approaching more than 10,000 in just a few years, because Medicare doesn't pay them fairly. It desperately needs a major overhaul to boost our GP numbers, but Labor does nothing to reform it. Labor just pats itself on the back for creating Medicare—how many decades ago was that?—and ignores how flawed it's become. Labor continues to destroy our environment with the enormous geographic footprint of materials-intensive renewable energy. This effort has failed to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. They're going up, not down. And Labor has failed to reform Australia's unbalanced and unjust family law system instead of making it more fair.

I will go back to the point. You push these renewable energies, and you talk about the environment, but you're seeing hundreds of thousands of hectares in North Queensland being destroyed to put up your wind turbines, which is destroying the flora and fauna. You have no idea of the damage that you are doing. You are actually paying billions of dollars to sustain this renewable energy scam that's going on. If it's good enough, let it stand on its own two feet. People are paying double for it through their higher electricity costs and through the taxes for your subsidies. A lot of these are just multinational companies that don't pay tax in this country.

Deborah O'Neill

While I want to acknowledge Senator Hanson's due election to the parliament here and her right to hold a view and propound a particular point of view in the chamber, I just can't agree with her characterisation of Australia that's embedded in the contribution she's just made. As the daughter of immigrants, the Australia that I live in is something that I'm proud to be a part of. I don't know any country in the world that's going to be perfect at every point of time in history, but the Australia that I know and the Australia that my children are growing up in and my grandson is growing up in is one that I'm really proud of. There's great stuff that we should celebrate. I'm frightened that the whingefest that can garner inches takes away from people's hope and passion for the great future this country has.

I appreciate the time to respond to Senator Hanson's matter, as it gives me the opportunity to clearly put on the record some of the blatant falsehoods that are perpetuated by some, sadly too often, conservative members in this parliament who seem determined to deride the nation rather than lift our sights. Sometimes, it seems they have a few issues with the truth as well. Senator Hanson's motion is less a matter of public importance and more of a grievance list. I'm going to attempt to unravel it and address each one in a respectable and sensible manner, which will echo the sensible and respectable manner of governing that is the hallmark of the Albanese government.

Senator Hanson wishes for clarification on Australian borders, so to this point I'd like to echo what Australia's Border Force Commissioner by the name of Michael Outram has said on the public record. He said that federal funding for border control has reached its highest level since 2015. There's just the fact. This includes considerable investment which was made last year. Mr Outram, who I might add was appointed by the previous government, is continuing a policy of strong border protections and ensuring that immigration only occurs through legal mechanisms.

I would caution Senator Hanson and others who are privileged to serve this nation, our home, Australia: the words we use in this public place matter, and, very sadly, people smugglers—who are profit-driven and don't care who they hurt—listen to what we say in this chamber and in the media. For those opposite to state that the borders of Australia are anything but strong, and that individuals who arrive here illegally will be dealt with in any manner other than the usual course of action, is blatantly incorrect. It's, frankly, dangerous. And it's unworthy of a representative of the nation in this parliament.

Senator Hanson wants to know about the Albanese government's immigration plans. Well, Minister O'Neil clarified, late last year: this government's fixing the immigration system. And goodness! What a state it was in—like on one of those renovation shows: 'We've got a real fixer-upperer!'—when we got here, with huge problems.

Following the findings of the Parkinson review, the plan will have five key objectives: raising living standards by boosting productivity; ensuring a fair go for all Australians and preventing migrant worker exploitation; building stronger communities through sustainable migration; strengthening international relationships by building strong regional economic and social ties; and making the system work by being fast, efficient and fair for migrants and employers. We inherited a broken system, but we're determined to fix it. We are rebuilding the Public Service to do the job that needs to be done.

Now, Senator Hanson wants to talk about Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. Let's be clear: Labor wants every Australian to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. It's not that hard. It's a great message. It's a message for an Australia that is a better place to live. It's a message that people who've come to this country—like my parents—as immigrants, believe is the story of Australia: that they can have a better life here. Our Labor government is committed to doing what is right when it's required to ensure that every Australian who is working is going to get a tax cut in July and improve the quality of their life.

Gerard Rennick

I rise to support this motion, because the Australian people have lost all confidence in the Australian Prime Minister. And can I say: what a shocking display of insensitivity we saw on the weekend, when the Prime Minister was flying around between the capital cities, going to pop concerts, when Australians are doing it tough—when Australians are struggling under the cost of living. Many Australians right now are homeless because of this reckless immigration rate, which has been over 500,000 people. And how does Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, respond? He responds by flying around on a taxpayer funded jet, going to see Taylor Swift in Sydney and then getting on the jet and going to a concert hosted by a billionaire. These are not the hallmarks of a man who is concerned about the suffering that is being endured by the Australian people. It's about time he actually started to come up with some solutions as to how he is going to deal with the cost of living.

I can give him a couple of ideas. First of all, he can lower the immigration rate to a level that is sustainable. Right now—and I'm not against immigration—we really couldn't afford to have anyone coming in. I accept we'll have some people coming in. But we have got people who are homeless—and these people aren't necessarily out of work; they just literally cannot find a house to live in. We have got tent cities springing up all over Australia. And this sort of rubbish has to stop.

I want to call out Senator O'Neill for having the audacity to call this motion a 'whingefest'. This is not a whingefest. How dare the Labor Party say that of us, senators, who are calling out the hypocrisy of the Labor government! They have no solutions. They've basically rebranded the tax cuts, that were originally brought down by the Liberal Party, and now are trying to claim credit for them themselves. And they haven't gone far enough, I might add. As I pointed out yesterday, they are giving back, on average, about $800 a year, and the cost of living, on average, has gone up by about $8,000 per year. It's hardly a satisfactory solution.

We don't want to hear from Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, accusations of a whingefest; that is not fair. The answer we now get every time we raise an issue is: 'Don't be political. Don't play politics with it.' I'm sorry, but this is from the party, the Labor Party, that played politics with a rape allegation; they weaponised a rape allegation to get at the former prime minister. What a disgrace! They weaponised the bushfires in 2019 to get at the former prime minister. They weaponised the pandemic and caused all these unnecessary lockdowns—and, as ruled today, these COVID vaccine mandates were unlawful—all for political purposes. The Labor Party has no right to come in here and call out what the Liberal Party and the coalition are trying to do in trying to hold this government to account.

Another area where the people have lost faith in the Labor Party and the current government is the lack of transparency. This was one of the many lies the current Prime Minister told. He said he would be completely transparent when he got into office, yet he would not release the minutes of the first National Cabinet meeting. He said he would release the minutes of the National Cabinet meeting, and he did not do that. The Labor Party voted against Senator Duniam's very good idea that we have quarterly reporting of energy pricing, so that we can start to benchmark the cost of energy because what gets measured gets improved. I cannot get from the CSIRO an actual way that net zero is calculated. I cannot get from the TGA the primers used in the PCR test to indicate whether or not the PCR test was actually testing for COVID. There are a range of issues on which the Labor Party will not disclose the inner workings of the government. That just goes to show that they're really on the side of big corporations and big unions—and, let's not forget, they wouldn't disclose the fees paid by superannuation funds to unions. This government needs to pick itself up.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday evening at 6.30 pm a division was called on the following motion moved by Senator Colbeck:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 August 2024:

(a) the full effects of energy transition on regional and remote Australia; and

(b) any related matters (26 February 2024).

The question is that the deferred vote from yesterday moved by Senator Colbeck seeking a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be agreed to.

Claire Chandler

I, and also on behalf of Senators Birmingham and Paterson, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that on 28 November 2023, the Senate agreed to order for production of documents no. 405, which required the tabling of:

(i) the Statement of Reasons document held by the Attorney-General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps prepared in January 2023, and

(ii) the 'Nomination Form—Criminal Code' held by the Attorney-General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps prepared in January 2023;

(b) notes that, on 30 November 2023, the Attorney-General made a public interest immunity claim in relation to the documents sought, stating that the production of the documents "would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security"; and

(c) orders the Minister representing the Attorney-General to provide to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on a confidential basis, by midday, Thursday, 29 February 2024, a copy of the documents that were the subject of the order agreed to on 28 November 2023.

Jordon Steele-John

by leave—I move:

Omit "Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on a confidential basis", substitute "Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee".

I also seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

There was no agreement on making a short statement, Senator Steele-John.

Nick McKim

He sought leave. Senator Steele-John was seeking leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

I said there was no agreement. The answer was no.

I heard 'no' when I asked the question.

Anne Ruston

We denied the statement, not leave to move the amendment.

Sue Lines

Yes, which is what I'm doing.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Steele-John to general business notice of motion No. 472 to be agreed to.

Ross Cadell

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That—

(a) there be laid on the table by each chair of a Senate Legislation Committee, in respect of questions taken on notice in that committee during Budget estimates, supplementary estimates, or additional estimates hearings, a statement that provides:

(i) the number of questions taken on notice not answered at the previous round of estimates hearings by the due date set by the committee, and

(ii) an explanation of the action taken by the relevant chair to seek the answers to questions taken on notice not answered at the previous round of estimates hearings;

(b) the statement by the chair be laid on the table not later than 5 days following the due date set for the provision of answers to questions taken on notice;

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

(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will not be supporting this motion moved by Senator Hume. Previously Senator Hume has written to committee chairs trying to put an onus for action onto them about unanswered questions on notice. This notice of motion would formalise that approach. However, the government accepts the onus for action is on ministers, and Senator Hume should accept this too.

The motion duplicates continuing order 21, agreed to by the Senate on the motion of Senator Wong in 2014, which provides that ministers must table the number of questions taken on notice at the previous round of estimates hearings, the number of answers provided to the committee by the date set by the committee for answers, and, of those answers not provided to the committee by the due date, the dates on which answers were provided to the approving minister's office. In addition, a number of committee secretariats have adopted the practice of indicating how many remain unanswered, when answers are circulated. Under standing order 75, senators can seek explanation of unanswered questions on notice, as a mechanism for enforcing compliance. Committees also report to the Senate with respect to consideration of estimates, and the opportunity exists.

David Pocock

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

David Pocock

Thanks, Senator Hume, for pursuing questions on notice, as I think it's a really important part of what we do here, and I've had frustrations about not getting questions on notice back in a timely manner. I am concerned, though, that this—on my reading—provides up to eight hours of debate, and, given how pressed for time we are here, at times, I don't think that's warranted. I would support one hour to debate all of it, but I won't be supporting this motion, given the amount of time it presents us to debate it.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 447, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Cadell, be agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that in response to orders relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework (orders nos 229, 253 and 315) ministers have:

(i) provided relevant documents,

(ii) advised that documents do not exist,

(iii) sought additional time to process or review documents, or

(iv) raised a public interest immunity claim on the established ground that release of documents would be detrimental to relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories;

(b) notes that on 16 October 2023 the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme complied with the order of 14 September 2023 which required him to provide an explanation to the Senate in relation to these matters;

(c) notes that on 8 February 2024 the Minster representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme tabled the report of the Independent National Disability Insurance Scheme review; and

(d) resolves that Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme is satisfactorily complying with his obligations to respond to its orders and discharges him from the requirement to attend the Senate to provide an explanation on the first day of each sitting week.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jonathon Duniam

The minister's public interest immunity claim in relation to the tabling of the NDIS financial sustainability framework is deficient. It has been made on the basis that the release of the document would be detrimental to the relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. When a PII claim is made on these ground, the agreement of the states or territories to disclose the information should be sought, and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection. No such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from a state or territory government; therefore, the coalition opposes this motion.

Jordon Steele-John

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jordon Steele-John

The Greens will be opposing the motion brought by the government today. Let's be really clear: this motion seeks to free them from the demand of the Senate to deliver basic documentation in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Senate demands that the government deliver this basic documentation and the Senate rejects the spurious basis upon which the public interest immunity claim has been made. The government claims that releasing this basic information would jeopardise relationships between the very state and territory governments that have already agreed to the NDIS framework target, the documentation of which the Senate now seeks. The state premiers have agreed to it. The territory chief ministers have agreed to it. The Prime Minister and Treasurer presumably agree to it. The only people who do not know this documentation are disabled people.

Sue Lines

The question is that government business No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Chisholm, be agreed to.