Jonathon Duniam

At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move general business notices of motion No. 169 and No. 170:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 169

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 16 March 2023, any advice or modelling provided by Treasury showing that 80,000 or 0.5% of Australians will be affected by the Government's proposed superannuation changes, referred to in the Prime Minister's press conference on 28 February 2023.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 170

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 16 March 2023, any advice or modelling provided by Treasury showing that 1 in 10 Australians will be affected by the Government's proposed superannuation changes over 30 years, referred to by the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer during question time on 6 March 2023.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notices Nos 169 and 170, standing in the name of Senator Birmingham and moved by Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

I, and also on behalf of Senators Brockman and Cadell, move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 27 March 2023, the following documents in relation to the January 2023 visit by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Mr Andrew Metcalfe AO) to the Middle East:

(a) briefing notes, file notes, emails and written correspondence provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as advice to Secretary Metcalfe and/or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry;

(b) briefing notes, file notes, emails and written correspondence provided by HE Melissa Kelly (Ambassador to Kuwait) as advice to Secretary Metcalfe and/or accompanying staff; and

(c) briefing notes, file notes, emails and written correspondence provided by HE Mark Donovan (Ambassador to Saudi Arabia) as advice to Secretary Metcalfe and/or accompanying staff.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 166 standing in the names of Brockman and Cadell be agreed to.

Nick McKim

At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I move:

(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, by no later than 5 pm on 6 April 2023, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) final inspection report for the petroleum environmental inspection sof the Schlumberger Otway Basin 2DMC Marine Seismic Survey, and associated documents, including:

(a) details of the proposed scope for this inspection and areas of focus;

(b) details of other issues that arose during the course of the inspection;

(c) the overview of the observations and findings from the inspection;

(d) the conclusions and recommendations of that report;

(e) the Schlumberger response to these recommendations; and

(f) the documentation collected by NOPSEMA in the course of the inspection.

(2) That the Senate:

(a) notes the freedom of information disclosure F184 by NOPSEMA on 22 February 2023; and

(b) refers the Minister representing the Minister for Resources to Senate resolution no. 51 relating to the application of Freedom of Information Act 1982 provisions to the Senate's inquiry powers.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 164 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

Nick McKim

On 19 July 2013 Australia's government—a Labor government—reintroduced a policy of offshore detention, making it clear that someone who arrived in Australia by boat to claim asylum would never settle here and instead would be forcibly transferred to an offshore prison. That policy has resulted in murders, rapes, child sex abuse, state sanctioned child abuse, institutional brutality, deliberate dehumanisation of innocent people and the destruction of countless lives.

The policy was arbitrary, it was illegal under international law and it was contrary to Australia's international obligations. It established Australia's offshore gulags. They were designed to harm people so grievously that those people would be forced back to the country that they fled from in the first place to face the persecution and the risks that they had fled from in the first place. It undoubtably qualified under international law as a system of torture. This is because it consisted of the deliberate infliction of severe harm on people for the purpose of coercing them and others into particular actions.

I hope those responsible for this system's design and implementation one day face the consequences of their actions. Charge them with torture, convict them of torture and lock them up for a while and give them a taste of their own medicine. That's what should happen to those people.

That Australia's offshore detention policy framework has been seized upon and promoted by fascists, Nazis and far-right political parties in Europe, even to the extent of using the very same words and the very same font as Australian government communications, tells us everything we need to know about its philosophical underpinnings and the kind of people it was designed to appeal to. Right now, as we debate this bill, the UK government is seeking to implement its own version of Australia's shameful policy. This is one of the most shameful exports this country has ever produced, and it has seen us go from an international human rights champion to an international human rights pariah.

Offshore detention has been a humanitarian calamity and has been one of the darkest and bloodiest chapters in our country's story. It is time we wrote the ending to that chapter, and this bill will help us do that. After 10 long years of offshore detention, it is beyond abhorrent that about 150 people remain in exile in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Every one of those people is suffering. Some of them are suffering grievously.

It is no exaggeration to say that the passage of this bill will save lives. It will save the lives of some innocent people who have been used as human billboards, who, like thousands of others, have been tortured in order to send a message to other people that they should not attempt to come to Australia by boat to claim asylum. This is the Senate's opportunity to make right a small part of the injustice, the lies and the degradations of the last decade.

This legislation does not require the government to settle people permanently in Australia, although that is the Greens' position, but it does require the government to offer to bring them to Australia to support them until a durable third country solution is secured. It is entirely consistent with Labor's policy platform, and on that basis there is no barrier to the Australian Labor Party voting for this legislation other than their own political courage. The fact that the Australian Labor Party sent every one of the 150 people who are still exiled in Papua New Guinea and Nauru to Manus Island and Nauru in the first place means every Labor senator today has a moral responsibility to vote to end their exile.

When Labor was in opposition, Labor senators and MPs were happy to support the Greens' medevac amendment. This bill gives Labor the chance to finish the job. It represents a compassionate and practical solution to the ongoing calamity of offshore detention. It provides a necessary step towards a durable solution for people who have been without one for nearly a decade now. It will offer people a chance at safety in Australia with the support and medical attention they need while awaiting resettlement in a safe third country. This is a critical step in ensuring that people who sought asylum in Australia and were treated so abhorrently finally get an opportunity at the dignity and respect they deserve, and a much-needed chance to rebuild their lives in safety and freedom.

The explanatory memorandum goes through the provisions of this bill. In short, it will compel the government to make an immediate offer of evacuation to all refugees and people who sought asylum in Australia who are still offshore in Papua New Guinea or Nauru—that is, about 150 people. It will compel the government to place all refugees and people seeking asylum who accept the offer into the Australian community and not into held detention, and it will compel the government to make available any medical assessments and treatments that people evacuated to Australia need.

There are many other provisions in this bill, and I urge senators to educate themselves about them by reading the bill and the explanatory memorandum. At the end of the day, there is one thing this bill will indisputably do—that is, save lives. It will actually save the lives of people who have now suffered for 10 long years. It will do that in a way that is completely consistent with the policy platform that the Australian Labor Party took to the most recent election. I could quote you chapter and verse, but time will prevent me from going right through all of Labor's policy positions that this bill is in line with, but Labor commit to giving permanent protection to those found to be owed Australia's protection. I make the point here that almost all of the people that this bill covers have been found to be owed protection. They have been found to be owed protection, and under Labor's policy they should be given permanent protection.

Labor promises that people in detention will be treated fairly and reasonably within the law and promises that people in detention will be provided an appropriate standard of care, including the provision of health, mental health and education services, to a standard consistent with that afforded to the Australian community. That is not being delivered to the people in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. I want to make it clear here: the people in Papua New Guinea whom the previous government, the LNP government, washed its hands of in a disgraceful abrogation of its duty of care still should be, and are, under Australia's duty of care. It is beyond shameful that a Labor government has refused to address the decision made by Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton and, instead, is carrying on like some kind of pale version of the LNP. It is beyond disgraceful. The people in Papua New Guinea have to be considered under Australia's care because we owe them a duty of care having exiled them—under a Labor government, I might add—so long ago.

It's critical in this debate that we hear some of the voices of the actual people, who are suffering and who have suffered under this disgraceful policy framework. I want to place some of those on the record now in a de-identified way. Firstly, here are some words from Shariff, who is a refugee in Nauru who is awaiting urgent evacuation to Australia. I might add, doctors in Nauru and an Australian specialist have recommended Shariff be transferred to Australia for treatment. That still hasn't happened, disgracefully, and it has been a decade since Shariff has seen his family, including his two children. Shariff says:

It is important to get evacuated because we do not get any treatment here in Nauru.

…   …   …

At the moment I cannot imagine being able to think about resettlement, I can only imagine after I have treatment.

Here is Rajah, a Tamil refugee held in Nauru who is in excruciating pain, which is increasing each day. Rajah says:

Take one minute for us and think about our feelings and our families. We are separated from our children, siblings and parents. It is not easy. If we have done anything wrong, tell us.

Nur Mohammed is a refugee recently transferred to Australia from Nauru for medical treatment. He says:

Australian immigration forced me to Nauru, and I did not want to go, but for 10 years I followed the rules.

…   …   …

I want to see justice for my friends in Nauru and PNG. Open your hearts and minds and do something.

Those are some of the many case studies that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard about during the inquiry, the report of which was tabled in the Senate yesterday.

I want to diverge slightly and refer to one further submission to that inquiry. This was the only submission the inquiry received, I might add, that called for this bill to be rejected by the Senate. That, completely unsurprisingly, was from the Department of Home Affairs. It is beyond belief that those rampant hypocrites in the Department of Home Affairs would dare try to use the Convention on the Rights of the Child as an argument against this bill. I mean, please! These people have been torturing children on Nauru for a decade. They oversaw a system of deliberate, state-sanctioned child abuse on Nauru, and then they have the barefaced gall to argue against this bill in their submission using the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Give us a break! I mean, seriously! These people who deliberately tortured children have no right to be quoting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Get back in the bin, you absolute monsters! You absolute monsters, get back in the bin. You're a disgrace!

The 150 people left stranded in Nauru and in Papua New Guinea are the small remnants of the thousands who were exiled in the first place. They are innocent people who face murder, who face rape, who face child sex abuse, who face medical neglect, who face deliberate dehumanisation and who've witnessed the destruction of so many lives. They are innocent people who reached out a hand to our country and asked for our help, and they were treated disgracefully and abominably. They were used like the corpses that used to be impaled on the walls of medieval cities to send a message to other desperate people that they should not try to enter. Those who remain stranded today have been suffering for 10 years, and they are still suffering today.

We've got an opportunity today to take a small step towards ending some of that suffering. Many have chronic and critical health conditions that need urgent treatment that is not able to be provided in Papua New Guinea or Nauru. There is simply no point in extending their suffering. It achieves precisely nothing. It is simply brutality for the sake of brutality. Surely, colleagues, we are a better country than that. Well, we're about to find out.

Nita Green

I'm pleased to be speaking on the Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023 today, the private senator's bill on amending the Migration Act. I rise and speak on this bill as Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I've had the opportunity to discuss the bill with the senator who has moved this bill's second reading and to receive a wide range of evidence from stakeholders and the department. Over the course of the inquiry, we received over 150 submissions about the bill and the issues it seeks to address. On the record, I want to thank the organisations and individuals who took the time to make a submission to the legislation inquiry. I understand that views on this issue are deeply held and strongly felt across the community and across the parliament.

At the last election, the now Prime Minister spoke of the need to be strong on borders without being weak on humanity. Being strong on borders without being weak on humanity—it's an important balance, and it's one that we are getting right in government. It's one that only a Labor government can get right, which is why we have already followed through on our election promise to provide a permanent visa pathway for existing temporary protection visa holders and safe haven enterprise visa holders. And—perhaps inconveniently to the mover of this bill—since the election the number of displaced people on Nauru has more than halved.

Nick McKim

Why would that be an inconvenience?

Nita Green

Through you, Acting Deputy President, I'll take that interjection. What I'm going to do today is stand here and calmly state the facts, the policy and the actions that our government is taking. What I'm not going to do is to grandstand, speak over other senators and allow other senators to draw this debate into an exercise in making viral social media videos using emotive language.

Matt O'Sullivan

Senator McKim, on a point of order?

Nick McKim

Yes: improper reflection on another senator. Firstly, Senator Green has said that somehow people being removed from Nauru is inconvenient for me. That is a personal reflection which is not true, and I ask her to withdraw that. Secondly, she has stated very clearly that my outrage is confected and for the purpose of delivering social media content. It's not confected; it is genuine and appropriate. I ask her to withdraw that as well.

Nita Green

On the point of order, respectfully, senators across the chamber sat through the language that was used by the senator who moved this bill. There were no points of order called. I appreciate this is an emotive debate, but there is no point of order.

Matt O'Sullivan

Thank you; I'll rule on that. I don't believe there was a point of order, but it may assist the Chamber if there was anything that you could withdraw. But it's up to you.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

We'll now move to urgency motions. I'm going to deal with the urgency motion put forward by Senator David Pocock, who has submitted a proposal under standing order 75:

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

That the Safeguard Mechanism reform must be effective in bringing Australia into line with holding global warming to 1.5°C. The design must be based on an emissions reduction hierarchy that delivers genuine emissions reductions while also ensuring a future for essential industries."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required b y 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 ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly, and I call Senator Pocock.

David Pocock

I move:

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

That the Safeguard Mechanism reform must be effective in bringing Australia into line with holding global warming to 1.5°C. The design must be based on an emissions reduction hierarchy that delivers genuine emissions reductions while also ensuring a future for essential industries.

Australians elected the 47th Parliament with a mandate for real and ambitious climate action. The government may have their mandate of 43 per cent, but there are many MPs and senators with a mandate for action more in line with the science. Scientists have spent decades telling us that we need to act now to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change—effects that we are already seeing and that communities across the country are experiencing. The costs are mounting. We're seeing natural disaster after natural disaster, but we're not seeing the kind of action from politicians that we need.

The safeguard mechanism presents an opportunity for us to show the children who come through here and watch Senate proceedings, children across the country and children who have taken the government to court to say: 'You have a duty of care to look after us.' And we've seen the Australian government challenge that, and say, 'We don't have a duty of care to young people and to future generations.' We have an opportunity, with the safeguard mechanism, to begin to bring our climate action in line with the science. The safeguard mechanism has to work. It has to actually reduce emissions, and this means ensuring that emissions reductions are real and not just on paper.

Under the proposed reform, Australia will join Kazakhstan as one of only two countries in the world that allow unfettered access to offsets, and it's obviously no good. There is a huge amount of evidence and agreement on the need for an emissions reduction hierarchy. Companies must first avoid and then reduce their own emissions. Offsets can only be used as a last resort. To quote the former Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb:

Offsets can't be a device which big emitters use not to change their behaviour, not to do something about reducing emissions.

I have no doubt that coalition senators will stand up and speak about how the safeguard mechanism will put industries at risk and push up prices. What they're missing is the opportunity for industry in a low-carbon economy. What they are missing is the moral obligation to act on the biggest challenge humans have ever faced.

We're blessed with an incredible wealth of resources in this country. We hear a lot about resources, and resources will be a big part of our future, but not fossil fuel resources. We need to focus on the resources of the future and stop allowing politicians to conflate the two and present people who want a livable future and a transition away from fossil fuels as people who are against resources. Our major trading partners are decarbonising and starting to give preferential treatment to low-carbon imports. That is a massive opportunity for Australia, with our incredible mineral wealth.

From the government, we will likely hear that finally something is being done and put in place for real climate policy. But we don't have time for incremental changes. We can't just say we're heading in the right direction. The fires and floods of the last few years should be a wake-up call for all of us. We owe it to those communities. We owe it to Australians. We owe it to Australians who haven't been born yet to deal with this now, and we have an opportunity with this legislation. We will likely hear that a hierarchy of mitigation is assumed in the legislation, but there is nothing explicit to ensure that we are avoiding emissions, reducing emissions and then, as a last resort, using the land sector to offset.

So I commend this to the Senate. This is a really important policy, but we have to get it right and we have to ensure that it reduces emissions in this country.

Jonathon Duniam

I thank Senator Pocock for the opportunity to speak on his urgency motion relating to the safeguard mechanism reform, which of course is a live issue in this parliament and something that there's been much deliberation upon. I note that, in the matter of urgency that Senator Pocock put before the chamber, he references global warming and keeping it to 1.5 degrees and goes on to talk about the design needing to be based on an emissions reduction hierarchy—which we've just heard him speak about—that delivers genuine emissions reductions while also ensuring a future for essential industries. I think it's important to focus on a couple of points in that as I provide a response from the coalition on this issue.

The issue of climate change is, as this motion points out, a global one. It's one where there is a global responsibility. So it is right for us to do what we can here in this country. I think it is imperative that a country that can should show responsibility and do what it can to minimise its impact on the environment, including when it comes to carbon emissions. But the problem with the matter we're dealing with, when it comes to the safeguard mechanism that is the subject of consideration here, is that there is a difference of opinion in this place about exactly how best, under what is being proposed, we can achieve what we seek to achieve: minimising human impact on the environment and, in this case, minimising carbon emissions, without having an undue and damaging impact on the economy. It's something I've talked about a couple of times here.

For what it's worth, the coalition's view is that the proposal that is referenced in broad terms in the motion is one whose environmental impact we haven't seen properly assessed. We actually don't know what impact it will have on emissions reduction. There are some projections. We've just dealt with a motion around some of the modelling that the government refuses to reveal to us. We don't know what the impact will be—what reliance on carbon credits. Similarly, we don't know what impact such a proposition will have on the economy. It is something we've flagged as needing more serious consideration and more thought put into it.

The second part of Senator Pocock's matter of urgency, particularly at the tail end—'delivering genuine emissions reductions while also ensuring a future for essential industries'—is I think absolutely important. Part of the concern the coalition has around what is currently before us is the idea that we will see industries that cannot meet emission reductions mandated under this legislation and under matching regulation and that cannot access carbon credits, either through the safeguard mechanism credits or through ACCUs, faced with this increased cost of doing business in this country. The end result, despite promises that there will be a scheme to protect these trade exposed industries, like cement manufacturing and aluminium production, will be protected through a formula. We're not convinced that that is the case. The proposal doesn't ensure a future for essential industries, and that is as important as making sure we get right what we need to when it comes to reducing emissions. If you don't get both of those things right, then we're failing on both counts, and no-one is better off.

Indeed, when you don't protect these trade exposed industries and try to bring them on the journey with you—try to work with them to invest in innovation and technology, to work with academic and educational institutions to provide better technology to minimise the impact on the environment—then those businesses, because of this penalty of $275 per tonne of carbon above the baseline, will either reduce production here, in the best case, or simply shut up shop and go offshore. Then those emissions, which we could otherwise be working with them on to minimise, will be generated offshore, somewhere else.

To go back to that original point: it's a global responsibility; it's a global problem. We can't simply offshore our problems and make someone else try to deal with them, because we will still have the issues Senator Pocock talked about before. That's why it is right to expect the information needed to understand the government's proposal and to ensure that we're getting it right in what we're putting in place to reduce emissions but also to minimise the impact on the environment for our future generations.

Jenny McAllister

Thank you, Senator Pocock, for bringing forward this afternoon's urgency debate. Action on safeguards is urgent. That is something we can both agree on. It is exactly why the government has legislation before the parliament right now that alters the safeguard mechanism so that facilities covered by the mechanism must reduce their direct emissions in the future. We can also agree, I think, that reforms to the safeguard mechanism must ensure that Australia's biggest emitters do their fair share when it comes to emissions reduction. On that basis, we're happy to support the motion and have this conversation here in the Senate. But we think it is important to be clear about the safeguard mechanism reforms that we propose and what we are doing, because we don't agree with the whole of the senator's contention in the motion.

Our government is unapologetically focused on transforming Australia's domestic economy to a low-carbon economy. It is the most important thing we can do to support the ambitious international action that is necessary to contain global warming to 1½ degrees. It's why one of our first acts in government was to legislate an ambitious but achievable emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030—a floor, not a ceiling—and our safeguard reforms have been carefully designed to support that and to support Australia's biggest emitters to remain competitive in a decarbonising global economy whilst reducing their emissions. A fit-for-purpose safeguard mechanism does provide the policy certainty for businesses to invest in decarbonisation and seize the opportunities from global energy transformation.

The mechanism we propose will progressively lower baselines, consistent with our legislated target. We estimate it will deliver 205 million tonnes of abatement by 2030. With respect to Senator Pocock, this is not trivial and this is not, as characterised, incremental. These reforms are significant, and they are designed so that all facilities, whether they are existing or new, reduce their emissions. The proposal creates strong incentives for facilities to reduce those emissions onsite and for the industrial sector to decarbonise. Of course, for facilities who may reduce emissions below their baseline, they will have the opportunity to create and sell safeguard mechanism credits. It is part of arrangements for flexibility that secure both our economic capacity and our emissions reduction. We want to ensure not only that these facilities meet their obligations but also that they can grow.

We know that many safeguard facilities are in hard-to-abate sectors, like cement and steel, where technologies have not yet been demonstrated or aren't yet commercially available. The access to flexible options is incredibly important for these sectors. ACCUs are part of this. The land sector is part of this. An ACCU represents a tonne of emissions avoided or sequestered. We are strengthening confidence in that scheme to ensure the continued integrity of that abatement. We've done that through the Chubb recommendations, which found that the scheme is sound. Of course, Professor Chubb made recommendations for reform, and we're committed to implementing those. But let's be real about this. These ACCUs contribute to our legislated targets, and they are not a free pass. Facilities that choose to use ACCUs will have to buy them on the open market, and many businesses will choose to permanently reduce emissions in their own facilities onsite.

Of course, as indicated just now and in recent weeks, those opposite have made themselves irrelevant to this process by opposing a policy that they themselves proposed to implement when they were last in government. The former government had grand plans for safeguard crediting. In fact, it was their policy right up to election day, included in their election document 'Our Plan for Resources'. Yet here we are, with coalition senators repeating the same old lines. After a decade of delay, denial and dysfunction, all that there is on offer is half-baked scare campaigns that are made up from the same old talking points.

But, for the first time in a decade, we have a parliament comprising members and senators who are willing to deliver what the Australian people have been crying out for for a decade: action on climate. They called for action loudly at the election, and now they have a government that is willing to deliver. But we cannot do this on our own. We require a majority in this place, and, when the legislation comes before senators, it will be a choice of real significance. We can seize or squander the only chance before us to get emissions down from our largest industrial emitters. I thank senators for their constructive engagement with Minister Bowen and with the government, and I look forward to the debate proper when it commences in this place.

Long debate text truncated.

Mehreen Faruqi

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1838 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 10), after subsection 42-1(1), insert:

(1A) The strategy must not be inconsistent with *Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 15 (after line 15), after the definition of Australia's Economic Accelerator program information, insert:

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets means:

(a) if:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution was communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement in June 2022; and

(ii) that nationally determined contribution has not been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement;

the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in paragraphs 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Climate Change Act 2022; or

(b) in any other case—the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; or

(ii) if that nationally determined contribution has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement—that nationally determined contribution, as adjusted and in force from time to time.

Paris Agreement means the Paris Agreement, done at Paris on 12 December 2015, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time.

Note: The Agreement is in Australian Treaty Series 2016 No. 24 ([2016] ATS 24) and could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

As I flagged in my second reading speech, these amendments are to ensure that the accelerator advisory board's research commercialisation strategy cannot be inconsistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. These are important to ensure that this significant new funding program cannot be used to fund research that could put our emissions reduction targets at risk, and to make sure that the strategy remains consistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions targets. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Anthony Chisholm

I want to indicate that the government is committed to its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. We believe the proposed amendment is sensible and highlights that commitment from the government, so we will be supporting it.

Sarah Henderson

The coalition will not be supporting it.

James McGrath

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1838 moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

Sarah Henderson

As I was saying earlier on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia’s Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022, we outlined the mechanisms to drive these reforms through five key strategic and targeted investments, including our $243 million Trailblazer Universities program to boost research and development, and drive commercialisation outcomes of industry partners; a $150 million capital injection to expand the CSIRO Main Sequence Ventures program, which backs startup companies and helps create commercial opportunities; $296 million for 1,800 industry PhDs and over 800 in new fellowships; the creation of a new IP framework for universities to support greater university-industry collaboration and the uptake of research outputs; and, of course, $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator, a new stage-gated competitive funding program to help university projects bridge the so-called 'valley of death' on the road to commercialisation—the subject of this bill.

In relation to the first element of the package, the Trailblazer Program, this research component was aligned with delivering research that would support our national manufacturing priorities. These priority areas were those we had identified as areas where Australia has significant comparative advantage and a strategic national interest. The areas at the time were medical products, food and beverage, recycling and clean energy, resources technology and critical minerals processing, defence industry and space. We ran an expression of interest to determine what potential projects were out there, to identify where there could be partnerships with industry and where these ideas could be supported through to commercial application. This process garnered significant interest from researchers, and the types of projects proposed were impressive. The proposals were reviewed by a panel comprised of leaders in the research field as well as industry and business leaders.

We announced the successful trailblazer universities in early 2022. They included Curtin University for the resources technology for critical minerals trailblazer, to establish our competitive advantage in the critical mineral sector and to look at ways to shield Australia supply-chain disruptions; the University of Southern Queensland for a space project dubbed 'iLAuNCH' that will look at automation, novel materials, communications and hypersonics; the University of Queensland for a food and beverage project that would support doubling the value of Australia's food and beverage sector by 2030; the University of New South Wales to lead a recycling and clean energy initiative to innovate our technologies from the lab to industry, from communities and homes; the University of Adelaide for a defence trailblazer aptly named 'concept to sovereign capability', which is focused on developing new technologies and defence projects; and to Deakin University—in my hometown of Geelong—for a recycling and clean energy commercialisation hub, also known as 'REACH', which will spearhead our recycling and clean energy advanced manufacturing ecosystem in Australia.

The REACH project at Deakin, on its own, is expected to generate more than $1.4 billion in revenue and create around 2½ thousand direct jobs over the next decade. With further investment and partnerships, Deakin estimates it could create as many as 7,000 additional jobs—all driven by the coalition's trailblazer program. Deakin will partner with other universities and education institutes including Federation University, RMIT, Swinburne and the University of Southern Queensland. Deakin also has vocational education partners, which are essential for enhancing the skills and knowledge of the workforce. These partners include the Gordon in Geelong, Bendigo Kangan Institute, South West TAFE, Holmesglen Institute of TAFE, Wodonga TAFE and Swinburne TAFE. There is a long list of industry partners for this project. I'll just raise and mention a few, including Scale Facilitation and Recharge Industries—which are headquartered in Geelong—BMNT Technology, Calix Limited, Oztron Energy, Gen 2 Carbon, Carbon Revolution—another great advanced manufacturer based in Geelong—White Graphene, Quickstep, Viva Energy, JET Technology and HighQ. As I say, the list goes on and on.

These six projects alone, supported by close to $250 million in coalition funding, will create hundreds of partnerships across the higher education sector and, most importantly, with industry. They will inject billions of dollars into the economy and create thousands of jobs right across our nation. It is certainly a very exciting time for research in Australia.

The key element of our University Research Commercialisation Package, as I mentioned, is our $1.6 billion investment in Australia's Economic Accelerator, the subject of the bill before the Senate today. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to make the appropriate provisions in schedule 1 to deliver this program and provide increased support to our universities to commercialise their world-leading research. This component of our package provides a 10-year investment for a competitive grant funding program. Again, our investment was to be aligned to areas that we identified as national priorities outlined in our Modern Manufacturing Strategy, a strategy which was focused on expanding and modernising Australia's sovereign manufacturing capability, securing the supply chains and investing in the skills and world-class research needed by our manufacturing businesses.

The Albanese government has since scrapped this strategy and is attempting to replace it with its National Reconstruction Fund, which is really just a big bucket to fund their election commitments. Labor keep saying this will rebuild Australia's industrial capability and that they want Australia to be a country that makes things again, but they simply aren't listening to the sector. These businesses are essential to our economy and yet they are being crippled by skyrocketing energy prices and are struggling to get the workers they need to keep their doors open. And of course they are facing great concerns with Labor's IR changes, including its introduction of multiemployer bargaining. Economic mismanagement and skyrocketing inflation will only mean businesses will pay more under this Albanese government.

I can tell you that these concerns are ricocheting through many businesses across this country. I was at the Geelong Manufacturing Council's 25th anniversary dinner last week, and there was deep concern about Labor's mismanagement of energy policy as well as its IR changes, including multiemployer bargaining. So there is deep concern across our country about what Labor is doing to small businesses and medium businesses and large businesses, including in manufacturing.

I do want to say that we designed our competitive grant for Australia's Economic Accelerator program around three stage gates. The first is the initial proof of concept, the idea and the testing stage, to establish if the project is viable. The second is to support the idea through what, in research terms, is known as the valley of death. This is typically the development phase where significant investment is required and where the greatest risk of projects not proceeding lies. The final stage is supporting the project through to commercial realisation. This is all about getting the product through the development process where it is ready to be sold in the marketplace.

At each stage of the process, projects will be evaluated for their probability of success, with larger funding for each stage and greater industry contribution. This will ensure we are supporting projects with the greatest likelihood of success. The commercialisation component, effectively stage 3, or the final stage, would be further supported through the $150 million commitment to CSIRO's main sequence venture. The program will work to attract projects with high-commercialisation potential at the proof-of-concept or proof-of-scale level of commercial readiness.

To support this new grant opportunity and ensure its success, the bill also establishes a governance framework, including a new advisory board. The board will have up to eight expert representatives from government, industry, business and the research sectors. The advisory board will oversee the program, drawing upon their collective experience, to drive the translation and commercialisation of research.

The next and final element of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to allow for grants to be made under part 2 and part 3 of the act to support the new industry-led study and postgraduate research grants. This will enable the creation of industry-led programs that pave the way for clear and structured career pathways. It will also imbed researchers in industry settings, build research careers within industry and, more importantly, create cohesion between academia and industry. Industry will benefit from the opportunities to host PhD students, which will open pathways for them to recruit high-calibre graduates.

This is a very exciting bill. It has attracted enormous support. I am pleased to see that the government has carried this through and is attracting support of the government. Let me reiterate the support from the Group of Eight universities, who said in February:

The commercialisation of Australia's world class university research is key to the nation's growth and prosperity, meeting the challenges ahead and enhancing the lives of future generations.

The Business Council of Australia said:

The government's $2.2 billion package will significantly improve Australia's ability to commercialise our best ideas and innovations, scaling them up to create exciting new industries, new exports and new highly skilled jobs for Australians.

This bill to support Australia's Economic Accelerator program and all of the supporting elements of the coalition's university research commercialisation package ensures that government investment into research is targeted and supports areas of national priority.

Our investment supports the economy, industries, businesses and our local communities by creating the jobs for our future generations. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Long debate text truncated.

Malcolm Roberts

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on 9 February 2023, all modelling by the Department of the Treasury in relation to:

(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022;

(b) the draft Competition and Consumer Amendment (Gas Market) Bill 2022; and

(c) the impact of the war in Ukraine on the price of coal and gas.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, No. 125, be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 124 before asking that it be taken as a formal motion. The amendment changes the return date from 9 February to 9 March.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 5 pm on 9 March 2023, the total cost in relation to the recalling of Parliament for the unscheduled sitting on 15 December 2022, including a breakdown of the costs in relation to the following categories:

(a) parliamentarian travel allowance;

(b) parliamentarian airfares;

(c) parliamentarian Commonwealth car, cabcharge and rideshare expenses;

(d) staff travel allowance;

(e) staff airfares;

(f) staff cabcharge and rideshare expenses;

(g) any additional staffing requirements (including, but not limited to, security services, attendants, restaurants and catering staff); and

(h) any other costs in relation to the recalling of Parliament.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will be opposing this motion. The costs described in Senator Roberts's motion will be disclosed in the normal process through public expenditure reporting when PEMS functionality resumes. As Senator Roberts would know, during routine public expenditure reporting, parliamentarians and their officers have an opportunity to examine their expenditure to ensure all costs are true and correct. Officers have not yet had a chance to properly examine this expenditure. Accurate reporting of parliamentary expenses is a key pillar of our transparent democratic system and is essential to ensure the proper use of Commonwealth funds.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the chamber is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, No. 124, be agreed to.

David Pocock

At this stage, I will not be moving my amendments, after some discussions with the government. I have raised the concerns around the burden that this is going to place on small businesses. I accept that there is an argument for medium and large businesses to maintain the interaction and the connection between the employer and the employee in administering PPL. In my discussions with small businesses, small tweaks to payroll can result in not insignificant time. Even a half hour, an hour or two extra hours to do payroll adds up if you are a small business. In 2010, this was raised by small business groups and small businesses. In 2014, there was a Senate committee hearing on this, and it was raised again.

I don't understand why we can't address this. What I'm proposing to government is 12 months to set up a system where small businesses can opt in or opt out of this requirement, to give them the flexibility. Should they be topping up PPL, as some small businesses are, and they want to administer it then they should be able to do that. They shouldn't be forced into a situation where they have to take on this extra administrative burden, particularly as we begin to increase paid parental leave in Australia, which I'm fully supportive of. The evidence is so clear that this a good thing for children, for parents, for families and for our community. This is something that I really would like dealt with by the government. I would like small businesses to be heard. And I would really like to know from the government and the department, in coming up with these changes, which small businesses and small business peak bodies were consulted.

Larissa Waters

I will just make a brief contribution. I'm pleased to hear that Senator D Pocock will not be moving his amendments. We had some concerns that the effect of those amendments—whilst well-intentioned to try to relieve the administrative burden on small business, which we're conscious of as well—would be to further sever the connection between the work place and a new parent.

This is a work place entitlement, and our concern is that we seek to strengthen that relationship. The whole point of having paid parental leave is to make sure that the connection to the work place is maintained and women's economic participation after the birth of a child can continue, and that they are supported and encouraged to go back into the work force when they so choose. So, I'm just placing on record that we would not have supported those amendments, and we're pleased that they're not being moved today.

Anne Ruston

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 1832 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Schedule 3, heading, page 57 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add "relating to Schedules 1 and 2".

(3) Schedule 3, item 2, page 57 (line 19), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(4) Schedule 3, item 2, page 57 (line 26), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(5) Schedule 3, item 2, page 58 (line 7), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(6) Schedule 3, item 2, page 58 (line 14), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(7) Schedule 3, item 2, page 59 (line 13), after "amendments made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(8) Schedule 3, item 7, page 61 (line 4), after "amendments or repeals made by", insert "Schedules 1 and 2 to".

(9) Schedule 3, item 7, page 61 (line 9), before "this Act", insert "Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to".

(10) Page 61 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Payment of instalments

Pai d Parental Leave Act 2010

1 Section 4 (paragraph beginning "Part 3-5")

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

Part 3-5 is about employer determinations. If an employer determination is in force for an employer and a person, the employer must pay instalments to the person, unless the employer employs less than 50 employees. In that case, the employer may elect to pay instalments to the person. The Secretary must be satisfied that certain conditions have been met before the Secretary can make an employer determination.

2 Section 6 (definition of acceptance notice )

Omit "section 103", substitute "paragraphs 103(1)(a) and (2)(a)".

3 Section 6 (definition of employer determination )

Omit "section 101", substitute "subsections 101(1) and (1A)".

4 Section 6

Insert:

non-acceptance notice: see paragraph 103(2)(b).

5 Section 100 (paragraph beginning "This Part")

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

This Part is about employer determinations. If an employer determination is in force for an employer and a person, the employer must pay instalments to the person, unless the employer employs less than 50 employees. In that case, the employer may elect to pay instalments to the person.

6 Section 100 (paragraph beginning "If the Secretary makes")

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

If the Secretary makes an employer determination for a person and the person's employer and the employer employs 50 employees or more, the employer must:

(a) give the Secretary certain information to enable the Secretary to pay the employer PPL funding amounts for the person; or

(b) apply for review of the employer determination under Part 5-1 or 5-2.

If the Secretary makes an employer determination for a person and the person's employer and the employer employs fewer than 50 employees, the employer may elect to pay instalments to the person. If the employer does not make an election, the Secretary must pay instalments to the person.

7 Subsection 101(1)

Omit "under this section", substitute "under this subsection".

8 After paragraph 101(1)(a)

Insert:

(aa) the employer employs 50 or more employees; and

9 After subsection 101(1)

Insert:

(1A) The Secretary must make a determination under this section (the employer determination) that a person's employer is to pay the person instalments if the Secretary is satisfied, when making the determination, that:

(a) either:

(i) a payability determination under section 13 or 14 that parental leave pay is payable to the person for a child is in force; or

(ii) an initial eligibility determination under section 26A for the person in relation to a child is in force; and

(b) the employer employs fewer than 50 employees; and

(c) the employer has made an election under section 109 to pay instalments and that election applies to the person; and

(d) the person has consented in the claim to the employer paying instalments to the person; and

(e) the person has a continuous flexible period for the child and is likely to be an Australian-based employee of the employer during that period; and

(f) there are no other flexible PPL days prior to the person's continuous flexible period in respect of which:

(i) parental leave pay is payable to the person for the child; or

(ii) the person is initially eligible for parental leave pay for the child; and

(g) the employer has an ABN.

10 Paragraph 101(3)(a)

After "subsection (1)", insert "or (1A)".

11 Paragraph 101(3)(b)

After "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or (1A)(a)".

12 Subsection 101(4)

Omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)".

13 At the end of section 101

Insert:

Calculating number of employees

(7) For the purpose of calculating the number of employees employed by an employer at a particular time for the purposes of this section:

(a) subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), all employees employed by the employer at that time are to be counted; and

(b) seasonal workers and other irregular casual employees are not to be counted.

14 Section 103

Repeal the section, substitute:

103 Employer response to notice of employer determination

(1) If an employer is given a notice under section 102 that an employer determination has been made under subsection 101(1), the employer must, within 14 days after the date of the notice, do one of the following:

(a) give the Secretary a written notice (the acceptance notice) that complies with section 104;

(b) apply for a review of the employer determination under Part 5-1 or 5-2.

Note: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see section 146).

(2) If an employer is given a notice under section 102 that an employer determination has been made under subsection 101(1A), the employer may, within the period referred to in subsection (3):

(a) give the Secretary a written notice (the acceptance notice) that complies with section 104; or

(b) give the Secretary notice (the non-acceptance notice), orally or in writing, declaring that the employer does not accept the employer's obligations to pay instalments to the person.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the period is 14 days, or such longer period allowed by the Secretary, after the date of the notice given under section 102.

15 Paragraph 106(c)

After "subsection 101(1)", insert "or (1A)".

16 Subsection 108(1) (after table item 1)

Insert:

17 Subsection 108(1) (table item 2, column 1)

Omit "section 103", substitute "subsection 103(1)".

18 Subsection 108(1) (after table item 2)

Insert:

19 Section 146 (cell at table item 10, column 1)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

Subsection 103(1)

20 Paragraphs 157(1)(b) and 159(1)(b)

Omit "section 103", substitute "subsection 103(1)".

21 Subsections 203(2) and 207(1)

Omit "section 101", substitute "subsection 101(1)".

22 Subsection 207(5)

Omit "section 103", substitute "subsection 103(1)".

23 Subsection 207(5) (note)

Omit "Section 103", substitute "Subsection 103(1)".

24 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to an employer determination that is made on or after the commencement of this Schedule in relation to a claim for parental leave pay that is made before, on or after that commencement.

I thank Senator Pocock for raising this really important issue in relation to the administrative burden on small businesses. This pay clerk function of the PPL scheme is something we have long supported so as to remove the unnecessary red tape that's associated with the administration of this really important initiative that has got the bipartisan, or the multipartisan, support of this place. We certainly believe that small businesses and stakeholders and industry groups generally don't support the employer role in the administration of PPL payments because it adds a burden to what is already a very onerous life as a small business operator in this country.

I also commend Senator Pocock for allowing the 12-month period to enable a lead-in, which should provide time for Services Australia to be able to arrange the necessary back-of-house processes necessary to implement this change. The coalition want to put on the record that we will always support anything that reduces compliance burden placed on the engine room of our economy, which is small businesses and, accordingly, we will be supporting this amendment and thank Senator Pocock for moving it.

Don Farrell

I thank Senator David Pocock for the constructive discussions that have gone on in the last hour or so, and we will continue those discussions and ensure that the basis of those discussions will be implemented. It is remarkable that Senator Ruston now jumps up to move Senator Pocock's amendments. If this was such an important issue and the opposition were so concerned about small business, why didn't they move these amendments themselves in the first instance? I think that is the $64 question. I think I do have an answer to that. Although Senator Ruston and her colleagues in the coalition talk the talk on small business, they never ever walk the walk. We've only had to see what has happened with the Bellarine Peninsula. What happened to small businesses in the tourism industry during the pandemic? You didn't care an iota.

You never cared one iota about those small businesses. Suddenly—

Helen Polley

Senator Henderson, the senator should be heard in silence.

Don Farrell

Thank you for that protection, Temporary Chair. I make the point that you can't believe the coalition when they say they are remotely interested in helping small business. There's only one party in this country that's going to help small business, and that is the Australian Labor Party. We're the only party that is interested in helping small business—

Sarah Henderson

The Geelong Manufacturing Council says that you are destroying manufacturing businesses.

Long debate text truncated.