Sue Lines

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 21 June, from Senator Duniam:

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 Victorian Labor Government's decision to end native timber harvesting in January 2024 is a devastating betrayal of timber workers and communities, will cause multiple economic and social problems for Australia, and needs to be met with an immediate and comprehensive policy response from the Federal Labor Government.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Jonathon Duniam

I move:

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

This is a very important motion. There's lots happening in the chamber today but this is an important item for discussion. I was pleased to attend the Australian Forest Products Association dinner last night, along with Minister Watt, Senator Ciccone and a number of other members of this parliament, to talk about what is an extremely important industry, one that sustains thousands of jobs across the country and does so in a sustainable way.

What we're talking about here is a resource that is, as the industry itself says, the ultimate renewable. Trees grow; you cut them down; you use them for the resources that we see displayed proudly in this chamber here; you replant them, as we are required to by law in this country; and they grow again. That's the wonderful thing about this forestry industry.

What's more, we do it to world's best standard. Our forests, be they plantation or native, hardwood or softwood, are managed to world's best standard. And, of course, the forests we harvest and manage here are certified, unlike 80 per cent of the forests from across the rest of the globe, which are not certified. I'll come back to those forests from other parts of the world, where, frankly, standards of forest management are much lower—if indeed they exist at all—than they are here in Australia.

It brings me to what's happening in the state of Victoria, which is a deeply disappointing decision. We all knew back in 2019 that the Victorian Labor government had made their plans, and set them out clearly, to phase out native forest logging by the year 2030. That was a long period of time for that government to work with industry to phase it out. I disagreed with their decision, but at least there was time for them to work with industry to phase out logging of native forests in that state. Now, the reason I disagreed with that is that it was not based on science. It was not based on fact. It was an emotive decision. Mayors of local councils in Victoria, representatives of the industry, workers from the contracting sector and anyone who is interested have been seeking the science that the decision was based upon, yet it has not been forthcoming. There is no document that the government have been able to table to point to and underpin the decision they made to shut down the native forest industry and displace the hundreds and thousands of workers whose incomes are dependent on this, as I said before, sustainable industry, and that is a crying shame.

What's worse is that in their budget the Victorian Labor government made a decision to press fast-forward on this phasing-out of native forest logging. We had seven more years to phase out this industry. A decision bad enough in itself, not based on science—but they brought it forward to seven months. They fast-forwarded it by seven years. So, by the end of this year, that industry, which is sustainable, based on science, world's best practice and good for the environment, will be gone. But you know what won't be gone, President? It's demand for the product that that industry generates: hardwood products of an appearance grade and strength grade to be used in applications that plantation timber can't be.

Australians are still going to want that product. A huge proportion of what we use here we already import. When that demand is still there and we're not producing it in Australia, we're bringing it in from countries that, quite frankly, don't give a damn about the environment. It's those forests, those native forests across the rest of the world—including in the Congo basin where, sadly, trees are ripped out of the ground; deforestation does occur—that we are going to get our timber from. Today we're already importing timber into Victoria from Tasmania.

The pie is not getting any bigger with our sustainable world-leading forests; it's getting smaller. We're dealing ourselves out of the game to make ourselves feel better. We don't have to look at clear-felled coops. We don't have to see that end of the industry. We just get the nice products. We don't care where they come from overseas. And, in the process, we're sending jobs offshore. So there are bad environmental outcomes, because we're seeing deforestation occur—I'd also argue that there are some modern slavery implications to some of these decisions when it comes to the jurisdictions we're taking timber from—but we're are also having an economic hit, with thousands of jobs in regional communities lost, never to return, all based on emotion, to win over inner-city votes in downtown Melbourne. The federal Labor government needs to stand up and stop it.

Anthony Chisholm

I rise to oppose this motion put by Senator Duniam. You'd think Senator Duniam would have some things to worry about in his actual job, rather than worrying about what's going on in the state of Victoria. You'd think he'd have some national issues that he wanted to address. But, as is typical with Senator Duniam, he has become very obsessed with state issues and he just can't quite see the bigger picture. He's really focused on these state things that he seems to specialise in.

But I speak on this motion as a really strong supporter of the forestry industry. To be honest, if I worked in the timber industry I would actually be the third generation of my family to work in the timber industry in Tasmania, where both my grandfathers worked in the timber industry and my father did as well. So I do have a good sense of how important this industry is for regional communities, not only in Victoria but across the country as well.

As I said, the Albanese government is a strong supporter of the forestry industry, from the Prime Minister down, and we're delivering a comprehensive plan for the future of the industry. Through the regional forest agreements process we work with the states and territories to support Australia's forest industries to operate under high standards for environmental management and sustainable harvesting. Our support for a sustainable forestry is well documented, making record investments in a forestry industry that's environmentally, socially and commercially sustainable.

We need timber products and we want the sustainable forest jobs that go with them. That's why we're investing over $300 million to grow plantations, to modernise our timber-manufacturing infrastructure and to build the skills of our forestry workforce. Our forest products industries are vital to our regional communities. They directly employ about 51,000 people, and tens of thousands more jobs are supported indirectly by this sector, which contributes nearly $24 billion to the national economy each year.

The benefits of a competitive, sustainable and renewable forestry industry in our regional communities should not be underestimated. It delivers positive economic and social outcomes. In addition to employment and income throughout the supply chain, it also underpins the social networks and fabric of many of our regional towns and communities. It's astounding to me that the LNP and, in particular, Senator Duniam, should be putting this motion forward, given the timid and insipid approach to the forestry sector during their three terms of government. They failed to chart a path towards a sustainable future for the industry, they failed to intervene when the Victorian government previously scaled back native forestry and they failed to put in appropriate measures to ramp up production in its place. Even worse, they presided over a 10 per cent decline in plantation estate since 2014.

In stark contrast, the Albanese government didn't waste a second in implementing strong policies for a sustainable future in forestry. At the last election we took a suite of policies to the people of Australia to increase production and support new jobs in the sector. Unlike the previous government, which was all announcement and no delivery, we're already seeing these policies put into action. That's whether it's the $100 million for an Australia-wide institute to deliver forestry research and development, or the $8.6 million to extend the life of the 11 Regional Forestry Hubs until 2027 or the $10 million for forestry workforce training needs. Today, our government is also announcing $73 million for a grants program to establish new forestry plantations across Australia. Together, these measures will strengthen the forestry industry's capacity to make greater use of the available timber resources and will drive innovation and growth.

The Victorian government's decision to end native forest logging is a decision for them. It's one that we understand they've taken with a specific operating context in mind, and we will work closely with communities and state governments to maximise the economic opportunities and job opportunities that flow from protecting forests. Certainly, I know that I can speak from my family's experience in that I understand how important forestry jobs are for families. I know the support that my grandfather was able to provide to my mum, who was one of nine, growing up in regional Tasmania, and how important forestry was for them to survive as a family. We want those jobs to be able to continue and we understand that regional communities have been built on the back of strong jobs within forestry. The Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to doing our part to ensure that there's a sustainable forestry industry well into the future.

Janet Rice

The time for native forest logging is over. Native forest logging has to come to an end. Just like whaling finally came to an end in the middle of last century, the time for native forest logging to come to an end is now—way before now! The Victorian government and the WA government are just catching up.

Native forest logging is destructive, it is uneconomic and it has increasingly been shown to be illegal. It is destructive! The number of animal and plant species that have been hurtled towards extinction include the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum and the swift parrot. We have greater gliders shifting from being common to endangered because of the combination of logging and fires and logging that causes fires.

It is destructive. It is uneconomic. Native forest logging has cost the taxpayers over $100 million over the last 10 years. Just think of that: $100 million to prop up a dying industry. In Victoria alone, the Victorian government-owned logging agency has lost close to $100 million over the last 10 years. In 2021, it was reported that the New South Wales government-owned forestry corporation suffered a $20 million loss. Tasmania delivered a whopping $1.3 billion loss.

The future for the timber industry is in plantations, in farm forestry, in urban forestry and in getting greater use out of the wood that is currently being shipped offshore as whole logs and being chipped. There is so much potential here. There are jobs just waiting if we recognise that native forest logging needs to come to an end. If governments across the country did that, there'd be a whole bright new future in the industry. (Time expired)

Long debate text truncated.

Andrew McLachlan

We now come to sheet 2017.

Sarah Henderson

In relation to the amendment on 2017, an amendment of Senator David Pocock. The opposition no longer wishes to proceed with the division. I understand that last night we were the only ones who indicated we would be voting against this, but because it was contingent on another division—another amendment—there was some uncertainty about this. So the Opposition doesn't wish to proceed with division. I believe Senator Pocock may have an amendment in relation to this?

David Pocock

by leave—I move amendment (2) on sheet 2017:

(2) The STARTUP-HELP Guidelines may require higher education providers that provide *accelerator program courses to conduct internal audits, or to arrange for audits, of compliance with the STARTUP-HELP Guidelines with respect to the courses. The Guidelines may prescribe any or all of the following:

(a) circumstances in which audits must be conducted or arranged;

(b) requirements in relation to when and how audits must be conducted or arranged and reported on.

(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 34 (line 5), at the end of the definition of reversed in subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1, add:

; (f) section 128-40 (provider non-compliance).

I'm amending my amendment, changing 'may' to 'must'.

Andrew McLachlan

So there are two instances of 'may' in the document—we need to be absolutely clear. This is for the benefit of Hansard, Senator Pocock: I note that in your amendment on sheet 2017 you are seeking to delete 'may', which appears twice, and insert 'must'. I am going to proceed with the amendment to the amendment—this is for the benefit of the chamber—and then I am going to proceed with the amendment as amended, and, with the will of the chamber, unless anyone calls for a division, the call will hold. I intend to call in the affirmative, I am indicating, unless voices persuade me otherwise. Does anyone have any objection to that course of action on the amendment to the amendment on sheet 2017, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, to replace the word 'may' with 'must'? I now proceed with the amendment as amended, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock. Nobody has indicated they now wish to proceed to a division.

Question agreed to.

We now come to sheet 1931 revised, standing in the name of the Greens, as moved by Senator Faruqi.

Mehreen Faruqi

Could I request that the question on amendments (1) and (2) be put separately?

Andrew McLachlan

Yes, you can, and I am happy to do so unless anyone objects. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1931 revised, as moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 1965 revised, moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan

The question is now that amendment (1) on sheet 1937 revised 2, moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan

The committee is considering the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 as amended. Yesterday evening, divisions were called on various amendments. The votes on these amendments will now be held, starting with amendments moved by Senator Henderson. So we will come to sheet 1937 revised 2, moved by the opposition. The first question is that amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1937 revised 2, moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.

Janet Rice

Before I was interrupted, I was talking about the struggles that so many students face—living in poverty, with totally inadequate student and youth allowance, and then ending up at the end of their degrees with this massive burden of debt around their necks—and about how the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is going to give some support to students but the cost is that it's actually going to increase the amount of debt that they've got and how this is just not doing our future generations any favours at all.

I have just met, for example, with the president and vice-president of the Australian Medical Students Association, and they had three concerns that they wanted to raise with me. One was the medical students cost-of-living crisis. The second was medical students in the rental crisis. The impact of the cost of living on those living in poverty is really hitting all students hard. For medical students, the consequences included people having to drop out of their studies and people not being supported because they have to live on a totally inadequate youth allowance and are living in poverty and cannot afford to live. The reality of the workload of doing a medical degree is that you just have not got the time to do any part-time work, which means it's incredibly inequitable. It means that the only people that can afford to really devote themselves to their studies are those who either have been working for a long time themselves to build up the reserves so that they can continue to afford their studies or have got a very well-off family behind them that can afford to support them. This means that working-class kids, people that you'd really want to be doing a medical degree, just can't afford to do it, and they drop out.

In fact, the Medical Students Association were telling me that, for one of the people that I met with, they had seen if they could organise their study load so that they could afford to fit in part-time work, and it was basically, 'No, you need to be at uni from 8 am to 5 pm every day, so there's no time for you to do part-time work.' What was suggested to the person was that they might like to take a year off from their studies to go and work and build up some income so that they could then come back—that is, delaying their studies for yet another year and probably, because they were building up that amount of money, living in poverty for another year.

We've got to be able to do more. Although this bill is going to give support to students, it's not the direction that we need to be going in. Basically, we need to be making different budget choices. As I said earlier and as our spokesperson for education, Senator Faruqi, will be putting in the second reading amendment, we feel that we should be wiping all student debt rather than adding to student debt. The cost of wiping all student debt is estimated to be $60 billion over 10 years, which sounds like a pretty substantial amount of money—nothing to sneeze at. But what I want to point out is how affordable that would actually be if we had a government that was willing to raise the revenue, to consider that supporting students and other people to not live in poverty was worth it, and to make some budget choices in order to support people rather than giving tax breaks to the big end of town.

So we have $60 billion, on the one hand, to wipe student debt. On the other hand, how much revenue could we raise if we had a government that was serious about it? The obvious one, of course, is to scrap the stage 3 tax cuts. The stage 3 tax cuts, over 10 years, are going to cost the budget bottom line over $300 billion. That's five times the amount of revenue that would be needed to wipe out all student debt. Then you could add in the fossil fuel subsidies. We're currently subsidising the burning of coal, gas and oil, which is creating the climate crisis. We are subsidising that fossil fuel use by over $100 billion. Get rid of all of those subsidies. There we go. We've now got $400 billion that could be raised over the next decade.

We've had a lot of talk about housing and how to increase affordable housing and make rents more affordable. Instead of having negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, you could actually be putting money into building more affordable housing. If you scrapped negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts for second, or more, properties that would save over $100 billion over the next 10 years. You could institute a billionaires tax; our proposed billionaires tax would be a six per cent tax on all of Australia's billionaires—the 122 billionaires. That's not very many people, but if you tax their wealth by six per cent annually that would raise $48 billion over the decade.

How about a super profits tax, incorporating actually getting a decent amount of money out of the petroleum resource rent tax? A 40 per cent super profits tax on corporations with more than $100 million in turnover in Australia would yield $430 billion over the decade—$430 billion! That puts the cost of wiping student debt almost into small change. These are the sorts of choices that could be made. We can afford to wipe student debt and we can afford to have income support payments above the poverty line. We can afford to put dental into Medicare. We could do all of these things if we were making different choices.

And there are a few extra things that the Greens propose. There's a coal export levy; that would raise $21.7 billion over the next 10 years. There's cracking down on tax avoidance—that would raise $4½ billion over the decade. If we add all of these up, basically, we would have a budget with over $1 trillion—a thousand million dollars—over the next 10 years to make different choices. That's the direction to create a fairer society. To create a society where no-one is left behind, these are the sorts of choices that this government should be making.

The Labor government like to talk about how they don't want anyone to be left behind. I tell them: you are leaving plenty of people behind at the moment, and doing little things like adding to student debt by having these startup loans. Those aren't going to help much; we will still have so many people who are left behind. You can make different choices. It is possible to support people and to build a just and sustainable society—to build an Australia where everybody actually does get a fair go to achieve their potential. That's what we, the Greens, are calling on the government to do: to make different choices and to create that better Australia.

Malcolm Roberts

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I now speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This bill does three things. Schedule 1 creates an entirely new form of HECS called STARTUP-HELP, or Startup Year help. Schedule 2 increases the funding cap in the Australian Research Council Act. And schedule 3 adds Avondale University as a provider under the Higher Education Support Act.

Schedules 2 and 3 are relatively uncontroversial and should be passed before the next financial year. Deceptively, though, Labor has tied those time-sensitive measures with the controversial program in schedule 1 so that it can be whisked through. Deceit—yet another example of government deceit. Let's consider schedule 1. Let's cut through the deceit!

This bill started off with the announcement of an initial consultation paper and a student survey to seek the views of current students and recent graduates on the proposed design. It sounds like a great start, and yet the government has not published the outcomes of the survey and it has not published the submissions to the consultation paper it started. We only know about some submissions—in fact, only those submissions whose submitters published them themselves! Of these, many expressed concern about the lack of detail around four things: the criteria for inclusion of eligible programs; how students would be selected; how the allocation of 2,000 places would be distributed; and what the funding could be spent on. Those are pretty critical things and the government wants to hide them.

Given these concerns, it would make sense to have an initial pilot program. Many submissions appeared to agree with this and it was even suggested in the consultation paper. Yet, no, the government has decided that it won't do this, instead pushing straight ahead with the full implementation of an expensive and undefined, untested program, and the creation of an entirely new category of debt. The program doesn't make sense. As even the Australian Technology Network group of universities suggested, if you want to encourage startups, give the money directly to students, not to universities.

That was the government's election promise—to provide grants for startups. Instead we have this Startup Year program, where money will be going to universities. If someone has a startup idea, under this program the government won't give that person money to invest in their idea, to develop research, to produce prototypes or to get market research. Instead, the government will give money to universities, and the student will get left with a HECS debt afterwards. Reading about this program, readers might think that the intention isn't to actually support startup businesses. People might think the intention is to support universities with yet another new cash cow and to funnel extra money towards them through an entirely new type of debt.

Schedule 2 of the bill provides updated funding caps. The minister explained these new funding caps as innocent indexation adjustments. Looking at the table provided in the explanatory memorandum, we have to ask: what the hell is the basis for the indexation rate? It certainly doesn't seem to be the CPI, the consumer price index. For 2022-23, the increase is two per cent. For 2023-24, the increase is 4.8 per cent. That is 1½ times higher. For 2024-25, the increase is—wait for it—7.5 per cent. For 2025-26, the increase is 2.46 per cent.

If these increases were in line with CPI indexation, we would expect the larger indexation to apply in 2022-23—but no. Instead, the 7.46 per cent indexation won't come into effect until 2024-25 after two years of additional indexation has already been applied. So you're compounding the interest. Anyone familiar with how compound interest works will recognise that pushing the larger increase further down the line actually results in a larger increase to the funding. These increases amount to a significant additional 17 per cent or $137 million of taxpayer money going into the Australian Research Council's budget over the forward estimates. It's hard to consider these amounts as innocent indexation adjustments given their size and the deceptive way they've been applied. There's that word again; it shrouds this government—deceit.

I note that Senator Henderson intends to move amendments that in effect split the bill and set up a pilot program. Senator Henderson's amendments would carve out the Startup Year program from the funding and Avondale University matters which must be dealt with before July. They would establish a proper pilot program. This is appropriate. Let's deal with the time-sensitive matters now and then have a proper debate about this back-of-the-envelope idea from Labor for state sanctioned startups.

To properly encourage startups in this country, we need to fix the broken taxation system and make sure energy is as cheap as humanly possible. The government is crippling startups by making it difficult to start up. Shovelling money instead towards universities and building a HECS debt will do nothing to encourage business in this country. It's a transfer of wealth from students to universities. We won't let the Albanese government hold us to ransom, bundling up necessary amendments with radical programs. If not amended and if it remains dishonest and deceitful, One Nation will oppose this bill.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

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

Pauline Hanson

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by no later than midday on Thursday, 22 June 2023:

(a) all grant agreements made with National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funding or between the NDIS or the Department of Social Services and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation (NATSIC), currently in administration with the firm known as Grant Thornton Australia; and

(b) any emails, documents or handwritten notes:

(i) relating to the decisions to enter into those grant agreements,

(ii) relating to fraud prevention or fraud identification during the grant agreements,

(iii) between the grantor and grantee,

(iv) between the Commonwealth and NATSIC,

(v) relating to any visit or meeting with the office bearers of NATSIC,

(vi) relating to any investigation by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations or under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006,

(vii) relating to debts owed by NATSIC resulting from non-performance of the grant agreements,

(viii) relating to Mr Jim Golden-Brown or any aliases, including Jim Sturgeon or similar spelling,

(ix) relating to Graham Aitken,

(x) relating to Harry Harun,

(xi) made by Ryan Sandeman, Grant Schulz, Kirsty Goodwin or Dick Courtney,

(xii) relating to the public interest declaration made by Ms Goodwin in respect of Ryan Sandeman,

(xiii) relating to Michael Roddan's article published in the Australian Financial Review on or around 6 February 2023, and

(xiv) between the NDIS and the NATSIC Chairman, Ian Mye.

Dorinda Cox

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted for one minute.

Dorinda Cox

Here we are once again with another racially charged and utterly pathetic motion on behalf of Senator Hanson about so-called Aboriginal people who are falsely claiming to be black. I thought we put this to bed earlier this week, but it seems that people in this place have seriously not got the message. So let me make this absolutely crystal clear. Our identity as First Peoples in this country is not up for debate. That is not up for debate, especially by non-indigenous people who are raising this issue in bad faith. The High Court settled this. We have a means already to assess it. Neither Senator Hanson nor anyone else—

Andrew McLachlan

Senator Scarr, on a point of order?

Paul Scarr

Deputy President, I understand Senator Cox is passionate about this issue, but she's impugning Senator Hanson's motives when she says this is being raised in bad faith.

Andrew McLachlan

I listened to the comment carefully and I don't think it reaches that imputation. Senator Cox, please finish up.

Dorinda Cox

Neither Senator Hanson nor anyone else in this place can tell First Peoples who, in fact, are or are not Indigenous and First Peoples of this country.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is on item 252, standing in the name of Senator Hanson, in relation to an order for the production of documents.

Sue Lines

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

Sarah Hanson-Young

I seek leave to move a motion to provide for the consideration of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion relating to conduct of business—namely, a motion to provide for the consideration of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills.

I have circulated a motion in the chamber this morning which would allow for the housing bill to be considered after the government and the Prime Minister report back as to what agreement, if any, the Prime Minister can get out of National Cabinet in relation to the extraordinary amount of pressure renters are facing around the country today. We know, of course, that the housing bill, which this government has stubbornly been opposed to negotiating over, is before the Senate today, and the Greens would like for us to postpone that bill until the Prime Minister can show what he is going to do to relieve real pressure on one-third of Australian households.

We have been fighting long and hard to ensure that real money is put on the table to deal with the housing crisis, and—after months of being told that there was nothing that the government could do and they handed down a budget with no real money to deal with the housing crisis—over the weekend, we've seen, finally, a bit of cash, stashed at the back of the couch, put on the table. Finally, the government has found an extra $2 billion to relieve some of the pressure, to start getting on with building affordable, social housing. Well, good. Get on with it. Spend the money. And, in the meantime, give us your plans as to what you're going to do in relation to that one-third of Australians who live every day with the fear that next week, or next month, or next year, their rent is going to be put up. We know that the pressure that Australians in rental accommodation are feeling is extraordinary. We hear the stories every day. Our offices are inundated every day. They want us to act.

This motion says that we can deal with the housing bill on 16 October, after the Prime Minister comes back from National Cabinet having secured a deal. It is disappointing that, so far, the Prime Minister has done nothing for renters in this country. In fact, worse than that, he has said it is out of his hands. I mean, come on, mate. You're the Prime Minister of the country. You're the most powerful man in the land. You can, of course, use your influence, your abilities and the infrastructure of government to get something done. Put some money on the table at National Cabinet and get your colleagues, who we know are wall-to-wall Labor states on the mainland, to deliver for real people right now—renters and those needing social housing. Don't be so stubborn about it; just get the job done. Come to the party and be prepared to negotiate. If Labor acts on soaring rents at National Cabinet, this bill can pass, but, until then, what we are seeing is stubbornness and a refusal to act.

One-third of Australians have been left in the cold because the Prime Minister is playing games. Rents are rising, living costs are soaring and a third of Australians are being told: 'Bad luck. Not my problem.' We need our Prime Minister to take more leadership than that. We need a Prime Minister who is prepared to act for all Australians, whether you own a home, whether you're in social housing or whether you rent. We know that the people in rental accommodation are among the most vulnerable. They're in the most casualised work. They're students. They're single parents. They're young people. They desperately need to hear that this government cares about them, but all they've had so far is refusal, stubbornness and being put in the too-hard basket. It ain't good enough, which is why the Greens are standing here today. We will put this bill off until the Prime Minister comes back from National Cabinet with a plan to help renters.

Don Farrell

Senator Hanson-Young, you don't need to wait until 16 October to start addressing the problems that you're talking about. You can start fixing this problem today. You can vote with the Labor Party to start addressing this problem this very day—not on 16 October but this very day. I can see you already—there you go!—lining up with your allies on this. Senator Ruston and Senator Hanson-Young are working out how they can delay $10 billion worth of legislation that will start improving the position of renters and of homeless people in trouble. How can they start helping? They can start by voting for this today.

Senator Hanson-Young, part of this program that we would vote on today is $100 million for crisis accommodation for women and children. Why are the Greens opposing that? Why wouldn't you vote today to start getting that $100 million out into crisis accommodation for women and children? Why are you lining up with the coalition to block $100 million for crisis accommodation for women and children? There is also $30 million to build housing and provide services for veterans. Again, Senator Hanson-Young, why would the Greens be lining up—we know why the coalition doesn't want to spend money on veterans to give them better accommodation, but why aren't the Greens backing this legislation? Why are they sitting there and lining up with the coalition to block this legislation?

Part of this program is $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote Indigenous communities. On a day when we've just voted to pass legislation to recognise Indigenous Australians through a Voice—a referendum—why on this day, of all days, would the Greens be lining up with the coalition to block $200 million worth of investment for the repair, maintenance and improvement of remote Indigenous housing?

Senator Hanson-Young, here's a proposal: $10 billion to start addressing one of the most serious problems currently in our community. There could be $10 billion of investment, and what are the Greens doing? Are they saying: 'Yes, we'll join with the Labor Party. We understand these problems. We understand the problems that women and children face in finding crisis accommodation. We understand the problems of veterans finding accommodation. We understand the problems of Indigenous Australians and how they might be needing accommodation. We're going to do something sensible here. We're going to put our ideological'—I know you've got lots of divisions. We can see that on a daily basis. We know that you're no longer in control of your own destiny, but there is a way, Senator Hanson-Young, to progress this issue. We don't need to wait until 16 October. We can do this today. We can make progress today. You can leave your coalition colleagues behind. You can leave them to vote against this. You can vote with the Labor Party to get $10 billion worth of investment into housing and into rental accommodation to start solving some of the serious problems.

In time, Senator Hanson-Young, you'll come to realise what a mistake it is to be sitting there, as you were a few minutes ago with Senator Ruston, working out what the strategy is to delay crisis accommodation for women and children, to delay investment in homes for veterans and, worst of all on this particular day, to vote down legislation for remote Indigenous Australian communities.

Anne Ruston

The opposition will be supporting this suspension, because it is our view that the government has had every opportunity to negotiate with the Greens or anybody else in this place so that your bill will actually reflect the will of this chamber, but you haven't. You haven't even tried. Senator Farrell, in your contribution, you said that, if this bill went through, you could start providing this crisis accommodation, veterans accommodation and Indigenous accommodation tomorrow. Well, you could too if you actually negotiated your bill so that it could get through this place.

Instead, you are absolutely hell-bent on coming in here and continuing to put up a $10 billion future fund with not one guarantee of a cent of this money ever ending up in the housing market. Basically, what you're doing is putting forward a bill that is saying that $10 billion is going to be gambled on the stock market—or to that effect. If you were really deadly serious, you could spend this money today. You don't need to put this legislation through in order to put money into the social housing, affordable housing and support housing that you come in here and talk about. You could have just put it into your budget. That would have been a pretty simple way to do it.

But what we are seeing is a government that is losing control. You may have said, Senator Farrell, that the Greens are losing control. I would actually contend that it is you who are losing control, which will be demonstrated by the fact that you can't even control your legislative agenda today because you haven't done your homework.

Deborah O'Neill

Senator Ruston, I remind you to make your comments through the chair.

Anne Ruston

Of course. What we're seeing today is another demonstration of a government that hasn't done its homework on its legislation but is coming in here. This is a pattern of behaviour that we are continuing to see. We have seen it through many other pieces of legislation. It's all a great big headline. 'We're going to spend $10 billion on social and affordable housing.' It sounds great, but you are not spending $10 billion on social and affordable housing. You are investing $10 billion on the stock market, in the hope that it will provide you with a sufficient return to enable you to put some investment into this area. It was the same as your legislation; you were going to come here and put—

Deborah O'Neill

Senator Ruston, just—

Anne Ruston

care back into aged care, Madam Chair. But no: it was a great headline, but there was no reality in terms of how you were going to deliver it. Another one was pharmacy and 60-day dispensing. It sounds like a great idea—cheaper and easier access to medicines—but you forgot to actually do your homework and consult.

What we have here is a classic example of the implications and the result of legislation that has not been consulted on and legislation which has had no consideration of secondary effects. It's legislation, in this instance, that has completely disregarded normal, reasonable budget practices. And guess what has happened? You've lost control of it, because there are those in this place—and I thank the Greens for their sensible consideration of this—that actually take those three things very, very seriously. You must consult, you must understand secondary consequences and you should follow normal budget processes. Stuffing something off the balance sheet just to give yourself a budget surplus is completely irresponsible, and that's why we will be supporting this suspension motion today.

We saw on the weekend that instead of coming and actually negotiating so that you could come up with something that was palatable to this place to enable it to go through and to enable that money to flow in whatever mechanism you were able to negotiate, we saw the Prime Minister just throwing a couple of billion dollars out there. Once again, this is a classic example of where you haven't done your homework and don't have a process in place. It hasn't been a considered reform and it hasn't been a consulted reform. Maybe you'd find that things go through this place a little bit better if you actually do your homework, do your preparation and make sure that everything is in place before you come in here and demand that the representatives of the Australian Senate vote for something. If you're only going to throw headlines out with your legislation; if you aren't going to put the detail in there or provide advice in terms of subordinate legislation; if you aren't going to follow appropriate and proper processes; and if you aren't going to bring the Senate along with you then you'll continue to see that the sensible people in this place will actually hold you to account and make you go through the necessary processes so that we can end up with a situation where the will of this Senate, which reflects the will of the Australian people, is delivered in your legislation. Stop being lazy and actually do your job.

Long debate text truncated.