James McGrath

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Nampijinpa Price:

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 Prime Minister Albanese to support the Opposition's call for a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities, audit spending on Indigenous programs, and support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians to help Close the Gap."

Is consideration of 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.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

I move:

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

The need for Prime Minister Albanese to support the Opposition's call for a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities, audit spending on Indigenous programs, and support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians to help Close the Gap.

I rise today to speak on the urgent need for Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor government to support the coalition's call for a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities, audit spending on Indigenous programs and support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians and to help close the gap.

Earlier this year, I had the privilege of being joined by the Leader of the Opposition, who has on several occasions travelled to spend real time on the ground in the Northern Territory and hear directly from remote and rural Australian communities. While in the Territory, in my home town of Alice Springs, the opposition leader heard stories of what too many people in remote and rural Australia know all too well—stories of child sexual abuse and stories of children being neglected and abused.

Stories of Indigenous Australians are being ignored because their problems and the solutions they are suggesting don’t fit this government's agenda. There are stories like that of my niece known as Ruby, as reported in the_Australian_ in 2022. In the remote Northern Territory town of Yuendumu, Ruby, then just 15, was beaten and raped by her own father. Ruby recounts trying to tell her family in Yuendumu of the horrific abuse she was suffering but says they didn't want to believe her. Incredibly, Ruby found the courage to speak up, and two years later, at just 17 years old, she testified against him. A judge in the case said the abuse had been protracted and prolonged and involved the use of weapons.

I know of a case now being dealt with where, from the age of six, a girl was raped and abused by her cousin, a man 12 years older than her. For seven years this young girl was tortured, frightened and in need of help, with no-one to turn to because too many community and family members turned a blind eye. It was only after leaving her home and moving interstate with a family member that she was able to find an adult who would help her.

But helplessness extends to the hands of organisations funded supposedly to help. The ANAO has found that the Northern Land Council is not fully implementing its fraud and corruption policy and that the Central Land Council's fraud control arrangements fall short of the minimum requirements. As I've said many times before, the gap is more about place than about race. It exists not between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians but between the cities and remote Australia, between those who have easy access to education, medicines and emergency services and those who do not. We need to focus our efforts on our most marginalised.

Over the weekend, Australians sent a loud and clear message that they want real outcomes for Indigenous Australians, and particularly our most marginalised. They do not want more of the same. They don't want more bureaucracy; they don't want an activist talkfest. They want accountability, they want transparency and they want action. We need action for those children in remote communities, our most marginalised, suffering sexual abuse, neglect and other abuse. Labor, the Greens and Senator David Pocock have denied our attempts before and chosen to be silent and overlook these issues. This is the last time. Join us in what Australians overwhelmingly seek or we will do it ourselves and hold you all to account.

Tim Ayres

Of course child sexual assault is abhorrent, and everybody in this place would condemn it. I notice that the relevant organisation in this space in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, SNAICC, has said another royal commission, another inquiry, is not a solution. Like many of the interventions by those opposite, this is all about the politics and not about the solution. It's always about the politics, never about the solution. What is the content of this motion and the letter really about? It's really about an angry pursuit of the people who those opposite don't like and who didn't agree with them in the recent referendum.

Let me make the government's position on this referendum really clear. We accept the result of the referendum unequivocally—without equivocation. The Prime Minister made that very clear on Saturday evening. I understand that there are those opposite who are not interested in solutions but interested in the politics. They are interested in looking for an argument, not in looking for solutions. What we as a government will do is listen. We will listen carefully. We will, as I said, having accepted what happened over the course of the weekend, listen carefully and continue to proceed in a careful and deliberate way. We will listen carefully to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There is a difference, of course, between the approaches. The Prime Minister of Australia said many, many times in the lead-up to the last election that we would hold a referendum on the request that was made to us in the Uluru statement. And do you know what the Prime Minister did? He held the referendum.

Dorinda Cox

Everyone sat here and listened to Jacinta! How about some respect!

James McGrath

Order at that end of the chamber! Senator Cox!

Tim Ayres

We advocated for the argument that we believed in the referendum and we did not prevail—

James McGrath

Order! Senator Hughes?

Hollie Hughes

On a point of order, this is just not relevant. This has absolutely nothing to do with the question. The point of order is on the direct relevance of this contribution, which has nothing to do with the royal commission.

James McGrath

It is a wide-ranging debate, and interjections are disorderly. Senator Ayres, if you could wander back—

Tim Ayres

I am, of course, responding to the contribution before me, which dealt in substance with these issues. Of course, that's what the Prime Minister did. He did what he said he was going to do, and he advocated for what he believed in. What have we seen from the Leader of the Opposition? In the lead-up to the end of the referendum campaign, he said he wanted a second referendum. And then, in record-breaking time, he flipped over and said we won't have a referendum.

Opposition senators interjecting—

James McGrath

Order!

Tim Ayres

Then, less than 24 hours later, he said we will have one. He changed his mind more quickly and more often than Kamahl. At least Kamahl is popular! What this Leader of the Opposition—

James McGrath

Order! Senator Hughes?

Hollie Hughes

I raise a point of order on relevance. This has nothing to do with the royal commission—it's a wide berth. It's in a different state let alone suburb.

Nita Green

Read the motion!

Hollie Hughes

Do you know what? We have read the motion.

James McGrath

Order! Interjections—

Hollie Hughes

It's child sexual abuse, and you are turning it down. You are turning a blind eye to child sexual assault. You should be ashamed of yourself.

James McGrath

Senator Hughes, please! All interjections are disorderly. I would remind the chamber of that and that speakers should be heard in respectful silence.

Tim Ayres

We have the Leader of the Opposition—the angriest man in Australian politics and the most extreme leader of the Liberal and National parties in our history, always looking for an argument, never interested in solutions—all of a sudden saying he's interested in a common approach. You'd have to be forgiven for being cynical about what that is all about. Of course, all of the claims will be made and all of the politics played, but what this government will do is continue to listen. (Time expired)

Dorinda Cox

This motion, which calls for a royal commission, has been moved, but it's not in good faith. As someone who's worked with, advocated for and supported victims-survivors, I know the unacceptable statistics for broader Australia but also for First Nations people. This week, the hypocritical attempt to talk up another royal commission into this issue will just be another segue into the intervention-type approach to demonise First Nations people in this country. It will never be framed to understand the real issues, which the opposition have already stated that they don't believe exist for our people, which goes against the plethora of research. It definitely won't focus on the prevalence of white people targeting our communities. It will not be framed in a way that's trauma informed. It won't talk about the systemic failures, most of which have been during the time of their successive governments. It will be dressed up to demonise our communities and our culture, which have sustained us for tens of thousands of years.

Our mob are hurting right now. And I know some people in this chamber don't care. But it's another attempt at their erasure politics—the lack of care, the lack of support and the lack of empathy.

Culture is definitely not the issue here. It is about poverty.

Hollie Hughes

If you're poor, you can rape children? Really?

Dorinda Cox

It is about lack of access to health care, trauma counselling and healing, education, overcrowding—

Nick McKim

A point of order—

Honourable senators interjecting—

James McGrath

Order! Order, please! Senator McKim?

Nick McKim

Acting Deputy President, since Senator Cox rose to her feet to commence her contribution, there has been a wall of noise coming from Senator Price and Senator Hughes. It is most disrespectful. And, Chair, I remind you: you have just reminded the chamber that all interjections are disorderly. Would you please call them to order.

James McGrath

Thank you, Senator McKim, and I'll remind all senators that all interjections are disorderly. Senator Cox.

Dorinda Cox

How many royal commissions and inquiries are sitting and collecting dust on the shelf? Let me enlighten you. There were four national inquiries between 1997 and 2012, and three of those were Senate community affairs committee inquiries. There were also 15 state-led inquiries between 1990 and 2016. The money that would be spent on a royal commission—because that's what's on show here, in another bloody audit—would have been better spent directly in those communities.

And what is at the core of this is unspeakable. The end goal for that side of the chamber is something completely different from what's written in this motion.

Now I want to read a statement that was given to me today, because those on that side of the chamber who are bringing this motion in here today didn't even go to the national frontline services for sexual assault in this country. And the statement reads: 'NASASV does not support any further inquiries and encourages funding to frontline sexual assault services, to support work in this area across Australia. NASASV does not believe any more inquiries will benefit people and committees. In fact, further inquiries would do more harm. Resources would be better directed to immediate action, including funding frontline sexual assault services. Inquiries will not add any further knowledge base to what we already know, and what we need right now is action.'

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the motion proposing a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, moved by Senator Cash, be agreed to.

Ross Cadell

At the request of Senator Nampijinpa-Price, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) orders for production of documents nos 281 and 282 agreed by the Senate on 7 August 2023, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians to table documents in relation to Makarrata and the Makarrata Commission, has not been complied with, and

(ii) the Minister for Indigenous Australians, in her response to the orders, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would breach confidential Cabinet deliberations;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Indigenous Australians noting that a claim cannot be made simply because a document has the word 'Cabinet' in or on it; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians to comply with the orders by no later than midday on Tuesday, 12 September 2023.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that the motion standing in the name of Senator Nampijinpa Price, moved by Senator Cadell, regarding compliance with an order for the production of documents be agreed to.

No motion text available

Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday evening two matters relating to proposed references to committees were deferred. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now. I'm going to deal with the first matter, and that is the motion moved by Senators Colbeck and Cadell.

The question is that the following matter be referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:

The adequacy and fairness of processes and compensation to acquire or compulsorily access agricultural land, Indigenous land, marine environments and environmental lands for the development of major renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, solar farms and transmission lines, with particular reference to:

(a) power imbalance between farmers and fishers, and governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds;

(b) terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition;

(c) fairness of compensation;

(d) options for the development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition;

(e) options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries; and

(f) any other matter.

Anne Ruston

by leave—I move opposition amendment (1) and request (2) on sheet 1978 together:

(1) Schedule 2, Part 1, page 4 (line 3) to page 13 (line 18), omit the Part, substitute:

Part 1 — Jobseeker payment increase for certain persons who have turned 55

Social Security Act 1991

1 P oint 1068-B1 (table B, item 4A, column 2, paragraph (b))

Omit "60", substitute "55".

2 Point 1068-B1 (table B, item 4B, column 2, paragraph (b))

Omit "60", substitute "55".

3 Point 1068-B1 (table B, item 5, column 2, paragraph (a))

Omit "60", substitute "55".

4 Application of amendments

The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Part apply in relation to working out the following:

(a) the rate of a person's jobseeker payment for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023;

(b) the rate of a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

(2) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Increase to income free areas for certain working age payments

Part 1 — Disability support pension (under 21)

Social Security Act 1991

1 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 3)

Omit "$2,184", substitute "$9,204".

2 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 4)

Omit "$80", substitute "$354".

3 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$8,580".

4 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$330".

5 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$8,580".

6 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$330".

7 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$8,580".

8 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$330".

Part 2 — Youth allowance

Social Security Act 1991

9 Paragraphs 1067G-H29(a) and (aa)

Omit "$400", substitute "$630".

10 Paragraph 1067G-H29(b)

Omit "$150", substitute "$300".

Part 3 — Austudy payment

Social Security Act 1991

11 Point 1067L-D28

Omit "$400", substitute "$630".

Part 4 — Jobseeker payment

Social Security Act 1991

12 Point 1068-G12

Omit "$150", substitute "$300".

Part 5 — Parenting payment (partnered)

Social Security Act 1991

13 Point 1068B-D27

Omit "$150", substitute "$300".

Part 6 — Application of amendments

14 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following:

(a) the rate of a person's disability support pension, youth allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment or benefit PP (partnered) in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023;

(b) whether a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 is payable in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

(2) For the purposes of indexing an amount:

(a) specified in:

(i) the table in point 1066A-F3 of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; or

(ii) paragraph 1067G-H29(a) or (aa) of that Act, as amended by this Schedule; or

(iii) point 1067L-D28 of that Act, as amended by this Schedule;

(b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences;

the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount.

Statement pursuant to the order of__the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the ordinary income free area for the disability support pension (under 21), youth allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment and parenting payment (partnered) under the Social Security Act 1991. As the income free area is the amount of income a person can receive before their payment begins to decrease, increasing the income free area would result in some recipients receiving a higher rate of payment and would also increase the number of people for whom payments are payable.

Increasing the income free area for youth allowance and jobseeker payment under the Social Security Act 1991 will also increase the number of people for whom the farm household allowance is payable under the Farm Household Support Act 2014. This is because the income free area for youth allowance and jobseeker payment is used to work out whether the farm household allowance is payable.

The effect of the amendment would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

The coalition's amendment and request remove the $40 increase per fortnight for JobSeeker and related working-age payments and replaces it with an increase to the income-free areas of $150 per fortnight. These payments include JobSeeker, disability support pension under 21, youth allowance, Austudy payment and parenting payment partner. There is nothing in this bill as it stands that genuinely reduces barriers for Australians to get into work. At a time when we have hundreds of thousands of job vacancies right across the country, we believe that removing barriers and incentivising people to take up work is the most appropriate way not only to deal with supporting Australians who are on working-age payments but also to support our labour market.

The tightness in the labour market is absolutely obvious for every Australian to see. Every second business seems to have a sign in the window, looking for people to fill job vacancies or to fill vacant shifts. At a time of historically-low unemployment rates, we believe that the coalition's amendment will go a long way to help, as I said, both jobseekers and the businesses who are so desperately crying out for Australians to come and work in their business. We also recognise that millions of Australians go to work every day to pay their taxes that allow governments to provide the safety nets that they do in our social welfare system. But the reality is we have a situation where Australian businesses are crying out for employees, and we have hundreds of thousands of job vacancies. There is a reasonable expectation that we, as the legislators in this place, will put in place incentives to enable those opportunities to be taken up. We believe encouraging jobseekers by giving financial incentives is a far superior way of encouraging Australians who are on working-age payments to get into the workforce.

Obviously, typically, at a time of low unemployment, those opposite see it more as a priority to simply increase the base rate while providing no additional incentives or breaking down any barriers. We would say to the Labor Party: 'Look at ways that are actually going to help Australians get off working-age payments.' Despite what the minister said in his contribution to the previous amendment, we know that those Australians on working-age payments who report earnings are more than twice as likely to take on full-time employment. This is an investment in the longer term to see Australians on working-age payments make that little bit extra so they can move from being on payments to being fully independent and in the workforce.

It's not just the coalition who appreciates the benefits of increasing income-free areas. At the recent Senate inquiry, we heard about the benefits from the law reform officer from Economic Justice Australia:

At present the income free area for JobSeeker, Parenting Payment Partnered and Youth Allowance constrains recipients' opportunities for training and experience by severely limiting the numbers of hours they can work before facing deductions to their income support.

The executive manager for Community and Family Care, from Wesley Mission:

We find that people want to engage, but, as soon as their ceiling is maxed out, they'll stop, or the employer limit can't give them full and proper support.

Our amendment encourages those 77 per cent of Australian jobseekers who have reported no earnings to get out there, put their toe in the water and test out the market before we see it eating into their JobSeeker payments.

We know the longer you are out of the workforce, the harder it is to return. We believe incentivising work, not incentivising welfare, is the best approach to get people back to the workforce, filling those job vacancies, helping those businesses creating jobs and opportunity, and creating wealth for our country. That is why we think it is absolutely important that the coalition's policy is the best proposal for payments to recipients because we know it's not just about the economic dividend paid to working-age payment recipients; we know it's more broadly around assisting them in terms of their wellbeing, sense of purpose and opportunities for their future life.

We believe the coalition's amendment is sensible and reasonable. We encourage the government, and we certainly encourage the Australian Greens, to consider supporting the increase in the income-free area as proposed by this amendment because it is absolutely fair. It reflects the nuances across the working-age payment system because not all working-age payments have the same existing income-free areas for reasons that Labor put in in the first place. We believe this amendment is about the dignity of work and the dignity of having a mission. That's why we believe our approach is superior. We urge all senators to consider this amendment and request.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

Senator Roberts has submitted the following proposal under standing order 75 today:

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:

"Fear-based net zero 'climate' policies are harming everyday Australians and have no environmental justification"

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by t he 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.

Malcolm Roberts

I move:

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

Fear-based net zero 'climate' policies are harming everyday Australians and have no environmental justification.

As a servant to the many different people who make up our wonderful Queensland community, I say that fear-based net zero climate policies are harming everyday Australians and have no environmental or scientific justification. Yesterday this chamber saw a display from the Greens that is best described as fear based. I could feel their terror. They were terrified. It was not fear of some impending human barbecue; it was fear of impending political irrelevance. The public are starting to wake up to the fact that climate change is the greatest display of mass formation psychosis since the Salem witch hunts.

Last weekend, Tory Prime Minister Sunak in Britain won a surprise victory in the Uxbridge by-election, campaigning against Lord Mayor Sadiq Khan's net zero policies. A Conservative politician took a stand against net zero and won. The British media have sensed the changing mood and their reporting tone has changed. Here's a sample of their headlines from the last few weeks. 'Change the ludicrous net zero timetable,' read the Telegraph__. 'Rishi Sunak must be bold and delay our net zero deadlines or the cost will be ruinous.' That was the Sun, saying what I have been saying for last 15 years, except I've been saying 'cancel', not just 'delay'. 'Sunak will have to water down net zero,' read the Spectator. The Washington Post weighed in with: 'Backlash to climate policies is growing.'

The UK going off-reservation and winding back net zero will provide economic competition to countries like Australia which continue to commit economic suicide with a net zero agenda. The money flowing into the pockets of the predatory billionaires who are behind this scam is already under threat. Swedish state energy company Vattenfall has announced one of the world's biggest offshore wind developments, the 1,400-megawatt Norfolk Boreas project in the UK, has been suspended due to spiralling costs. Increasing prices for wind turbine materials, including copper, zinc, chromium, nickel, rare earths, cement and the oil for the fibreglass blades, gearbox and lubricants, have caused a 40 per cent cost overrun. This pushed their projected cost per megawatt hour from $85 to over $100 a megawatt hour.

Offshore wind is not cheap electricity and it never will be. Wind energy is expensive and, due to the laws of physics, always will be prohibitively expensive.

This insane ideology is causing everyday Australians to feel deep pain and hurt. Building a home is getting dearer because all of the materials used in net zero are used in homes. Rising construction costs mean home ownership is harder and rents are increasing. Retooling our entire energy grid, both generation and transmission, is transferring hundreds of billions of dollars out of the pockets of everyday Australians into the pockets of the climate carpetbaggers running this scam, using rising electricity prices and higher taxes. We are the world's most energy-rich country, yet we have some of the world's highest prices for electricity. We export coal and uranium so foreign countries can have cheap, reliable power; yet the energy policies of the Greens, Liberals, Labor and the Nationals mean we cannot use it here—all in the name of this new religion of green self-flagellation.

In two weeks, I will be visiting the site of the latest green environmental vandalism in Chalumbin, Queensland. Thousands of hectares of native forest are to be chopped down for an industrial wind turbine complex—killing the environment to save it, apparently. Oil companies are experiencing record margins and profits thanks to the Albanese government allowing this profiteering, despite having the power to bring prices down. The higher the price of petrol, the less people use their cars, allowing the Albanese-Bowen government to claim progress towards net zero.

All of this is based on faulty science and selective misuse of natural events—fraud. We were told this was the hottest July on record, when in fact it was the hottest July since last year. We were told the ice extent is shrinking. However, the Arctic is within long-term fluctuations and the Antarctic is not melting, except for the section where there's significant volcanic eruption under the ice. You fearmongers didn't bother to mention that, did you?

In my adjournment speech tonight I'll speak on the warmers' scientific fraud. Even the fearmonger in chief, Jim Skea, the new head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has had to ask for an end to the hyperbole. Speaking on the weekend, Skea said, 'We should not despair and fall into a state of shock,' if global temperatures were to increase by 1.5 degrees. He said, 'The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees.' Rebranding climate change as climate boiling is designed to drive fear.

Senator McKim said yesterday that billions of people will die. That's what he said—no facts, just fear—because the Greens are terrified of the rapidly changing public mood. People are waking up that the public are being bullied into continued support for policies that achieve nothing except to hurt human beings and harm our natural environment. Now, in this debate, the Greens are silent. (Time expired)

Carol Brown

OL BROWN (—) (): It's always good to follow Senator Roberts's contribution to what is a very important issue. We are, despite the previous contribution, living in a climate emergency. This is our reality. It's an emergency which is showing us that our summers will be marred by extremes of bushfires and floods. In the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20, 24 million hectares of land were destroyed, millions of native animals were killed, 33 people directly lost their lives and a further 450 people are estimated to have died due to smoke inhalation. In 2022, eastern Australia was devastated by repeated floods. At least 22 people lost their lives, and thousands lost their homes or businesses, with an estimated $5 billion hit to the economy. Last year in Australia, seven out of 10 people lived in an area declared as a natural disaster zone at some point in their life, often more than once.

Since coming into office, this government hasn't wasted a moment in getting on with the job. We've lifted our 2030 emissions reduction target by half, from 26 per cent to 43 per cent. Just two weeks ago we announced we would be developing decarbonisation plans for each major sector of the Australian economy, underpinned by sector-wide economic modelling, to set us on a path to reaching our ambitious but achievable goal of net zero by 2050. One of those industries is one I work closely with in my responsibility as Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.

The transport industry contributes 19 per cent of all greenhouse gases in Australia, vastly more than any other industry. Since 2005 greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 11 per cent and are currently projected to be the largest source of CO2 emissions in Australia by 2030. This government knows that reducing emissions in the transport sector through using more renewable energy sources will require concerted action across government and industry to secure long-lasting benefits by managing and minimising the impacts of the transition. That's why this government is acting through the development of a transport and infrastructure net zero road map and action plan. A draft road map will be developed this year, and the action plan will be drafted in early 2024.

This action plan will present an integrated decarbonisation road map to ensure that we take up the opportunities by carefully managing the transition to new energy sources. Further, the government is already decarbonising the transport sector through increasing the uptake of electric vehicles and developing a fuel efficiency standard through the National Electric Vehicle Strategy. Fuel efficiency standards are common elsewhere around the world. In fact, through the inaction of the former government, Australia is playing catch-up in introducing these standards. That's just a fact. We are playing catch-up because of the inaction of the previous government. Fuel efficiency standards help by reducing transport emissions, improving air quality in and around our cities, making it easier for Australians to breathe and, importantly, ensuring for people around the country that they will save money at the petrol pump.

Moving away from how we are tackling emissions in transport, the government has also reformed the safeguard mechanism. This mechanism is an important reform and one which we took to the Australian people in the last election and received a strong mandate for. No amount of denial by those opposite, who seek to undermine the climate emergency— (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam

What a delight it is to follow Senator Brown in that rousing contribution about the government's position on the motion before us. I like Utopia, and I'm sure that the Albanese Labor government have picked most of their policy nomenclature from the script of Utopia. We've got a sector-wide strategy. We've got a road map. We've got an action plan, and all of it is going to lead nowhere, frankly, apart from disaster and destruction for the Australian economy—the offshoring of jobs, the increasing pressures on household budgets—and all of it on the basis of what Senator Brown and her colleagues describe as a 'climate emergency'.

Someone must have missed the memo, because earlier today, during question time, the government actually did refer to something that is impacting on Australians, and that is the cost-of-living crisis that we're facing. Thank the good Lord, of course, the Reserve Bank today put a hold on interest rates, but someone has missed the memo in that contribution just given from and on behalf of the Australian government about what really matters to Australians. I have to apologise to Senator Roberts, because while his motion is fantastic in many respects, it is not going to change a blasted thing when it comes to the direction the Australian government is taking with the bedfellows down the end here, the Australian Greens. Disastrous and destructive policies based on anything other than science—emotion, headline grabs, Utopia scripts, as we already heard today—if we look at these things, I think the construction of his motion points to some very important points, because balance and proportionality are important when it comes to government responses. I don't know that there's anyone in this chamber that wants to destroy the environment, contrary to the assertions that are often made about people being 'planet haters' and 'climate deniers'. I actually want this place to be a wonderful place for my three sons and their children, should they choose to have them. I'd like them to enjoy the beautiful wilderness in Tasmania.

But shutting down entire industries without any regard for the economic impact is, I think, irresponsible and it won't fix the climate emergency. It will in fact make this cost-of-living crisis worse.

Take, for example, this climate emergency that Senator Brown referred to in her contribution in talking about the bushfires on the east coast of Australia in recent times. It's Labor across the country that are shutting down the native forest industry. They want to lock up swathes of forest and throw away the key, with no management whatsoever. We have seen it happen in Victoria. We have seen it happen in Western Australia. Do you know what? When you remove management of our productive forests, you increase bushfire risks.

Nick McKim

Oh, rubbish!

Sue Lines

Senator McKim!

Jonathon Duniam

You see bunkum reports out there suggesting forestry contributes to bushfires. I tell you what: not managing forests is actually bad for our environment.

Nick McKim

That is an absolute load of rubbish, and you know it.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, I've called you to order. I expect you to stop interjecting.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

We are now dealing with opposition amendments on sheets 1940 to 1946. I understand Senator Askew will seek leave to put some different views from senators at the end. No? Okay, I think other senators might seek leave. Then we might put that particular amendment by itself, because we need to check that it doesn't alter the overall vote. So the question is that these amendments be agreed to.

O pposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1940

1) Page 3 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of unpaid parental leave amendments

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 2 to this Act.

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must:

(a) consider whether the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 2 is appropriate and effective; and

(b) identify any unintended consequences of the amendments made by Schedule 2; and

(c) consider whether amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009, or any other legislation, are necessary to:

(i) improve the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 2; or

(ii) rectify any unintended consequences identified under paragraph (b).

(3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 6 months after the commencement of Schedule 2.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

_____

SHEET 1941

(1) Schedule 2, item 49, page 11 (lines 11 to 13), omit the item, substitute:

49 Subsection 74(3C)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(3C) If any of the leave covered by the notice is to be taken under section 72A, the notice must specify:

(a) the total number of days (flexible days) of flexible unpaid parental leave that the employee intends to take in relation to the child; and

(b) the intended start and end dates of the leave, or each period of the leave.

(2) Schedule 2, item 51, page 11 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute:

51 Subsection 74(4) (heading)

Omit "72", substitute "72A".

(3) Schedule 2, items 53 to 56, page 11 (line 23) to page 12 (line 8), omit the items, substitute:

53 Subsection 74(4)

Omit "72", substitute "72A".

54 At the end of subsection 74(4)

Add:

Note: Whether or not it is practicable for the employee to advise the employer of any changes to the intended start and end dates of the leave will depend on the employee's personal and family circumstances. For example, it may not be practicable for the employee to advise the employer of any changes to the intended start and end dates of the leave where the employee experiences a health issue, a pregnancy complication or an unexpected change in the employee's child care arrangements.

55 Subsections 74(4A) to (4C)

Repeal the subsections.

(4) Schedule 8, item 1, page 32 (line 7), omit "or (4B)".

_____

SHEET 1942

(1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 19 (after line 19), at the end of Division 10A, add:

116F Pecuniary penalty orders

A court must not make a pecuniary penalty order against an employer for a contravention of a civil penalty provision that relates to a contravention of this Division if the conduct constituting the contravention was in accordance with binding advice given by or on behalf of the Commissioner of Taxation.

(2) Schedule 3, Part 1, page 19 (after line 19), at the end of the Part, add:

2A Subsection 546(1) (before the note)

Insert:

Note 1: Pecuniary penalty orders cannot be made in relation to certain conduct that contravenes Division 10A of Part 2-2 (see section 116F).

2B Subsection 546(1) (note)

Omit "Note:", substitute "Note 2:".

_____

SHEET 1943

(1) Schedule 3, Part 2, page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Part, add:

5 After subsection 739(2)

Insert:

(2A) The FWC must not deal with a dispute to the extent that the dispute is about the operation of a Commonwealth Act or instrument relating to superannuation.

_____

SHEET 1944

(1) Schedule 5, page 22 (after line 25), at the end of the Schedule, add:

4 At the end of section 324

Add:

(4) If the deductions are for amounts as varied from time to time, any variation that increases the amount of one or more of the deductions must be authorised in writing by the employee.

_____

SHEET 1945

(1) Schedule 6, item 9, page 26 (line 28), omit "and bonuses", substitute ", bonuses and casual loading but excluding any other monetary allowance, loading or other separately identifiable amount".

(2) Schedule 6, item 13, page 27 (line 26), omit "and bonuses", substitute ", bonuses and casual loading but excluding any other monetary allowance, loading or other separately identifiable amount".

_____

SHEET 1946

(1) Schedule 3, Part 1, page 19 (after line 19), at the end of the Part, add:

Taxation Administration Act 1953

2C Subsection 255-5(2) in Schedule 1

Omit "The Commissioner", substitute "Subject to section 255-6, the Commissioner".

2D At the end of Subdivision 255-A in Schedule 1

Add:

255-6 Commencing certain proceedings relating to superannuation guarantee charge

Proceedings cannot be commenced under subsection 255-5(2) to recover an amount of a *tax-related liability of yours that is superannuation guarantee charge payable under the Superannuation Guarantee (__Administration) Act 1992 if:

(a) a person has applied for an order under Division 2 of Part 4-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to a contravention, or alleged contravention, by you of a civil remedy provision within the meaning of that Act that relates to a contravention of Division 10A of Part 2-2 of that Act; and

(b) your *superannuation guarantee shortfall in respect of which the superannuation guarantee charge is imposed includes an *individual superannuation guarantee shortfall for an employee to whom the contravention, or alleged contravention, wholly or partly relates; and

(c) the proceedings for the order have not been finally disposed of or discontinued.

Tim Ayres

As I was desperately trying to do before the last hard marker, I'll continue the second reading summing up speech. Senator Thorpe's dissenting report also recommended a substantive investment in social services and wraparound supports in communities. In last year's budget a significant investment of $158 million was committed for support services in former cashless debit card and income management communities, including for the Northern Territory, where the majority of income management participants are located. That included $7½ million over 2022-23 to 2023-24 to deliver mobile and internet services and digital literacy support in regional and remote Northern Territory communities, including wi-fi connectivity for four Alice Springs town camps. It also included $10 million provided in 2023-24 for other support services in the Northern Territory.

We're working in genuine partnership with communities to co-design a range of targeted services that benefit individuals, families and the broader community. This includes initiatives supporting financial literacy and money management, programs that support pathways to greater economic independence and targeted support to address addiction to alcohol and other drugs.

I also note the recommendation of the dissenting report by the coalition senators, which called for the government to publish key metrics of social harm in relation to communities where the cashless debit card formerly operated. I remind those senators that this bill doesn't deal in any way, shape or form with the cashless debit card or the communities in which it used to operate. However, in response to that recommendation the government does not support it. It is a waste of Commonwealth government resources and a shameful attempt to force the government's attention away from doing what actually works and funding the services which communities have actually said they wanted to see on the ground.

I remind senators that it has been the Albanese government which has extended the existing support services in former cashless debit card communities and has indeed funded new ones. The government is investing over $26.3 million in 2022-23 and 2023-24 for more than 40 established and trusted support services to continue, providing certainty for providers and the community in these locations after the former government failed to fund these services past 30 June this year. There is $23 million to support the creation of economic and employment pathways in the Cape York, Goldfields, East Kimberley and Ceduna regions; $3 million in local brokerage funds for Ceduna, East Kimberley and the Goldfields; and $1.8 million to expand support initiatives in the Goldfields. On top of this funding, the government is also investing an additional $16 million to support priorities identified in the local services plans for each former CDC site to ensure that support services are provided efficiently and are responsive to the unique needs of each of the target community.

It was the Albanese government that actually listened to communities and delivered the support that they wanted to see, and that is something that we remain absolutely committed to. As the minister has said, our focus and our objective as a government remain clear: to empower people in communities and provide individuals and communities with a range of supports that they can choose to use when and how it suits them best. I look forward to further addressing the matters raised in the report and various dissenting reports in the Committee of the Whole. In line with the second of the committee's recommendations I recommend the bill be passed.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

Dean Smith

I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Perth Mint and Commonwealth regulatory compliance, be established to inquire into and report on the corporate and regulatory compliance of Gold Corporation and its trading entity, the Perth Mint, with Commonwealth legislation, with particular reference to:

(a) current and historical compliance with Australian anti-money laundering regulatory requirements, specifically:

(i) the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006,

(ii) the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1),

(iii) the Privacy Act 1988,

(iv) the National Measurement Act 1960,

(v) the National Trade Measurement Regulations 2009, and

(vi) any other associated Commonwealth laws and regulations or instruments;

(b) events that led to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre ordering the appointment of an external auditor to Gold Corporation under subsection 162(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Fin__ancing Act 2006;

(c) events that led to the London Bullion Market Association initiating an

'Incident Review Process';

(d) matters concerning the corporate and statutory governance of Gold Corporation;

(e) the extent to which Australia's reputation as a precious metals producer, refiner and exporter may have been damaged by Gold Corporation's failure to comply with all necessary corporate and regulatory requirements; and

(f) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 13 December 2023.

(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows:

(a) three nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

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

(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and

(d) one nominated by minority party or independent senators.

(4) That:

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

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

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

(5) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.

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

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

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

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

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

(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 2 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

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

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

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

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will be opposing this motion. We take matters of corporate and regulatory compliance very seriously, which is why AUSTRAC and a leading expert are doing an independent audit of the Perth Mint's compliance with anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism finance laws. It's also why the WA government is investing $34 million to overhaul the Perth Mint's internal systems and procedures and has commissioned a comprehensive strategic review into the Perth Mint's future. AUSTRAC and the WA government are taking these matters seriously, as we are. The senator knows this motion will not only duplicate this effort but also risks compromising these independent investigations. We do not support a motion that is driven by state politics that would disrespect and undermine due process.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 262, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.