Slade Brockman

In very brief summary: the Labor Party has shown a complete inability to deal with what is a very important issue in a timely fashion. What we do know is that the Labor Party has had months of notice that this was a risk. The decision was handed down by the High Court a week ago. Those on this side warned about it immediately. I know for a fact that Senator Paterson, the shadow minister for home affairs, warned the next day that urgent legislation was required, and then Labor persisted for a week—basically until yesterday—in insisting that an urgent legislative response was not required. As a result, we saw the Australian community put at risk. That is not an acceptable response from an Australian government, and it is good that we are finally seeing some urgency from those on the other side. We are finally seeing the seriousness of this matter given the attention that it deserves in terms of a legislative response from this chamber. It is also good to see the government agreeing with the sensible amendments put forward by my colleagues. On that note, I will sit down.

Sarah Hanson-Young

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, which is an absolute disgrace. It is an attack on democracy, on our courts, on the rule of law, on liberty and on freedom, all dressed up as one big attempt by Mr Dutton, helped here by the government of the day, to launch a new, full-blown attack on refugees in this country. For years and years, we have seen successive governments use some of the most vulnerable people around the world and in our community, who have come to Australia seeking our assistance, protection and help—refugees—as political footballs. They have been used to win elections, destroy prime ministerships, take power and excuse other bad laws being introduced. And here we are all over again. You'd think we would have learnt by now. You'd think we would have learnt that, every time this place rams through legislation that is designed to attack and undermine the rights of refugees right around the world and who come to our shores asking for our help, eventually the day would come when a brave judge or bench of judges would stand up and say: 'You know what? This is not on. Some things actually are important to uphold.' That's exactly what the High Court has done in the last fortnight—that indefinite detention is illegal. That's what the High Court has ruled. Rather than that warning being taken and understood, what we have seen is now a kneejerk reaction from the Albanese government, at the behest and under the political pressure of Mr Dutton's opposition.

Let me be absolutely clear. I know there are members of the Labor Party who are hanging their heads in shame this afternoon. They know that ramming this piece of legislation through is wrong, is immoral and goes against everything that, as members of the Labor Party, they believe. Yet here they are, jumping at the shadows, the scares and the fear campaign from Peter Dutton and his party. All Mr Dutton has is the politics of fear. We've seen that this year already with the opposition to the voice and the way Peter Dutton and his nasty party behaved during the referendum—the spreading of lies, misinformation and disinformation, whipping up fear, hatred and racism. He got a taste of it only a few months ago, and he's bloodthirsty for it again—bloodthirsty for the fear. That is Peter Dutton to a T.

James McGrath

Senator Paterson?

James Paterson

On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am just seeking your advice on whether or not it's an adverse reflection on a member of the other place to say that they're bloodthirsty. I would have thought it was.

James McGrath

Senator Hanson Young, it is a reflection, and I'd ask you to withdraw, please.

Sarah Hanson-Young

I withdraw.

James McGrath

Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young.

Sarah Hanson-Young

Mr Dutton has got a taste of what fear, misinformation and hatred can deliver him, and he wants more of it. He's hungry for it.

This is the Dutton tail wagging the Labor dog. Make no mistake about it. I've been in this place for nearly 16 years, and this issue continues to be one of nasty politics, using the lives of refugees to score political points and win political ground, and it's disgusting. It's absolutely disgusting, and we're seeing it all over again. I can't count how many times this chamber has had to sit late into the evening because both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party decide that it's time to ram through some draconian law that limits the freedoms, rights and human rights protections of refugees in this country. It's happened so many times, and finally the High Court, a fortnight ago, said the worst of all of those, the indefinite detention of a person without the ruling of a court, without hearing or a trial, at the whim of a minister or his public servant delegate, is illegal. We've known it's wrong, but now we know for sure that it's illegal. But, in the haste to respond to this because the Dutton opposition wants to gain ground by whipping up fear and racism in this country, the Labor Party have gone weak at the knees.

Where is the guts? Where is the political spine to stand up for the basic principles you believe in? Not only are we seeing this legislation being rammed through in a knee-jerk reaction before you've even seen the High Court's deliberations and reasons, we're seeing the Labor Party agree to amend their own rushed piece of legislation to make it even worse because Peter Dutton demanded it—

Sue Lines

Senator Hanson-Young—

Sarah Hanson-Young

because Mr Dutton demanded that the bill must be tougher, must be nastier, must be meaner. So what did the Labor Party do? 'Oh, okay, please stop. Don't say anything more!' It is so sickening to me that you have no spine. What is the point of being in government? What is the point of having a Labor Attorney-General? What is the point of having a Labor immigration minister? What is the point of having a Labor Prime Minister if all you're going to do is implement the policies of the Liberal Party?

People are going to be upset about this, shocked about this and heartbroken about this because it sets a very, very bad precedent. You have just let the cat out of the bag. Peter Dutton says 'Boo!'—

Sue Lines

Senator Hanson-Young, please refer to others in the other chamber by their correct titles.

Sarah Hanson-Young

The cat is out of the bag. Mr Dutton says, 'Boo,' and the Labor Party hides. This is a bad bill. It will be found to be bad in years to come, perhaps only in weeks and months to come. The High Court will not be happy, because they have understood that locking people up without trial, without reason, without a judgement is wrong. Indefinitely locking people up, imprisoning them without a trial, without the independence of a judge, at the whim of a minister, is wrong. If you really want to make sure there are laws that protect the community, give judges and courts the right to do it and to do it properly. That is all you had to do, and you didn't have the guts to do it.

Mehreen Faruqi

Refugees and people seeking asylum have for decades borne the brunt of cruel, inhumane and racist government policies in this country aimed at dehumanising, demonising, deterring, detaining and deporting vulnerable people, resulting in unimaginable damage for thousands of people, including women and children. Refugees have seen decades of bipartisan Labor-Liberal cruelty in the form of temporary protection visas, mandatory detention, offshore processing, being locked up in hotels during the COVID pandemic and not being allowed to go even to university. They have been hidden away with no access to journalists, losing all hope, and in desperation they've harmed themselves, they've died by suicide and they've died because they didn't get medical treatment. That's the extent of the cruelty that Labor and the Liberals have inflicted on people who are just seeking safety in this country.

They are maligned by how they are described: queue jumpers, boat people, illegals, criminal aliens, economic refugees, threats to national security. It is just disgraceful. They are painted as people very different to so-called mainstream Australia. They are from a different culture, we are told. They are not one of us, we are told. It is shameful. Politicians have said they don't want people like that in Australia. These boat people, they say, throw their children into the ocean. They lie. And so continues the othering of people just like us. For years we have watched politicians and the media whip up anti-refugee and anti-immigrant hysteria. For years we have warned of the impact it has on our community. For years we have spoken out about the damage this causes and the sucker it gives to white nationalists that want to kick all non-white people out of Australia.

In 2001—and I do want people to be reminded of this, in case some have forgotten—the then Prime Minister John Howard famously, or should I say, shamefully, said, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' This culminated in the Tampa affair, which you could say was one of the most divisive federal election campaigns in Australia. This was also the first time I ever considered joining a political party, and the Greens were the obvious choice. While both the Liberals and Labor were busily creating panic and demonising desperate people, claiming they had thrown their children overboard, the voice of Bob Brown rose over and above the rubble. When innocent people seeking asylum were maligned by the Howard government, supported by the Beazley opposition, the Greens were the only voice of humanity speaking out to bring them here. I'm so proud of my colleague and comrade Senator Nick McKim, who has carried on the tradition of courage, humanity, fairness and justice for refugees.

From then to now, people who seek asylum and refuge have been increasingly subjected to policies that have become more and more cruel, more restrictive, more punitive and more militarised. Both Liberal and Labor have inflicted this cruelty. The same systemic racism that has played out so viciously for First Nations people results in prejudice against people of colour, against immigrants and results in the mistreatment of refugees again and again. Here we are, yet again. This terrible persecution of refugees goes on, and it gets worse every single time. Under this bill, refugees and stateless persons who were released into the community as a result of a High Court decision which found indefinite detention was unlawful and unconstitutional will be placed in a precarious position yet again, where they are judged and sentenced not by the court of law but by the stroke of a politician's pen.

This will create a subclass of individuals who are judged not by their actions but by their visa status. But white Australia has never been shy about having one rule for it and another for people it regards as second class. Everyone in Australia should be subject to the same criminal legal system regardless of who they are, where they come from or their visa status. When people on visas are sentenced to imprisonment in Australia, they serve those sentences before being taken into immigration detention. Haven't you had enough of the fear and division? Haven't you caused enough harm and damage to these people? Now you are willing to sidestep the judicial process of the courts and challenge the very principles of equality, of democracy, of fairness and of justice that are supposed to be the bedrock of this country's legal system. At what point will you be satisfied? At what point will you see them as humans? We are told refugee policies are not racist. This is then justified by claims that it is fair, impartial and commonsense policy. We are told, 'Shouldn't those who have been patiently waiting for their turn in a queue get priority, rather than those jumping the queue?' We also told, 'Shouldn't we protect our national identity and Australian culture from those who are so very different to us?' And so the real racist agenda emerges, marginalising people who fall outside the very narrow conception of what it is to be one of us.

Labor's decision to fast-track this draconian legislation is yet another capitulation to Mr Peter Dutton's fearmongering and dog whistling. Now you are even writing the amendments for the Liberal Party and going to introduce them, doing their dirty work. This Labor government has no shame whatsoever. But having now seen the depths of Labor's inhumanity in refusing to call for a ceasefire in Gaza when thousands upon thousands of children and civilians are being killed by Israel, sadly, I am not surprised at Labor's lack of human decency and sense of justice for refugees. In both cases Labor is showing complete disregard of its international obligations and its moral responsibility. That is how low the Labor Party has sunk. There is still time to wake up, Labor—there is still time. Stop trampling on human rights and stop persecuting refugees.

David Shoebridge

I want to echo the comments of my colleagues in this debate, each and every one of them. What we are seeing with this bill is Labor and the coalition engaging in a Murdoch fuelled cruelty contest—that is what this is—and using dozens and dozens of refugees, people who came to this country seeking our protection, as political pawns in their contest of cruelty to see who can have the least principles. We're seeing who can place politics above principle and decency in the most shameful possible way. For the Labor government, with all the resources of government behind it, led by the scruff of the neck by the ugliest, nastiest parts of the coalition in responding to the High Court judgement says so much about Labor. Labor are so desperate not to be seen as having any gap between them and the coalition that they've become the coalition when it comes to this policy. Not only could Dutton have written the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 and the amendments to it, but the amendments actually have been written by Dutton.

Sue Lines

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you to refer to members of the other place by their correct titles.

Long debate text truncated.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That general business notice of motion No. 394 be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That on Thursday, 16 November 2023 :

(a) at 12.15 pm, bills be called on in the following order:

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023

Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023

Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023;

(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put at 1.30 pm;

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

(d) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm for the purposes of the bills only.

Simon Birmingham

I move an amendment to the motion as circulated in my name around the chamber:

That on Thursday, 16 November 2023:

(a) at 12.15 pm, bills be called on in the following order:

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.2) Bill 2023

Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023

Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No.2) Bill 2023;

(b) if the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 is not already concluded, then at the conclusion of debate on general business notice of motion no. 394, or at 5.30pm, whichever is earlier, the bill be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined;

(c) the question on the second reading of the bill to be put at 7pm, or at the conclusion of second reading debate, whichever is earlier;

(d) if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 11pm, the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put;

(e) paragraphs (c) and (d) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;

(f) divisions may take place after 4.30pm for the purposes of the bill only; and

(g) the Senate adjourn without debate once consideration of the bill is concluded."

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Simon Birmingham

It's the opposition's view, firmly, that the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill should be dealt with today. It is also our view that it should have been dealt with yesterday—or the day before, or indeed last week. And it is our view that the government should have been prepared not just yesterday or last week but last month or the month before that, because the government has known that the High Court was going to make a decision and a ruling on this critical issue. And the government has had indications in terms of comments made from the bench that that ruling may well have gone against them. Yet they have been caught flat-footed. They have not done the preparatory work. It is clear that this government has been dragged to the position of presenting this legislation to parliament.

Last Thursday the opposition asked where the legislation was and why it wasn't coming forward. We want to see it passed. We will pass it today, but we will scrutinise it and we reserve the right to propose amendments to it.

Nick McKim

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Nick McKim

Well, here we are. We have had a confected emergency—created by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton; cheerled by the Murdoch media in this country; demonising refugees as creating a threat to the community—which has been blown out of all proportion. And what has the government's response been? To collapse in a screaming heap. The Labor Party's response, predictably, has been to collapse in a heap and let the opposition leader tickle their tummy. Make no mistake: this is Prime Minister Albanese's Tampa moment. A confected emergency is providing political cover for the Labor Party to engage in persecuting refugees. That's what's going on here. (Time expired)

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment to government business motion No. 2 as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that government business No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Chisholm and amended by Senator Birmingham, be agreed to.

Anne Urquhart

I present the 14th report of 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 14 OF 2023

16 November 2023

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 7.08 pm

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023, the Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023, and the Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 February 2024 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(b) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 April 2024 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral).

1. The committee recommends that the following bill not be referred to committees:

2. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

3. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

16 November 2023

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To further scrutinise and understand the matters raised within the proposed pieces of legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Stakeholders including the Agriculture industry and other interested parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

December 2023—February 2024

Possible reporting date:

5 February 2024

(signed)

Print name: Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 (and associated Bills)

Reasons for referra1/prindpal issues for consideration:

Scrutiny of specific provisions

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department

Primary industry stakeholders Biosecurity stakeholders and experts

Primary industry research and development stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Late January (if needed) Possible reporting date: 5 February

(signed)·

Nick McKim

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To understand and scrutinize the Bill further.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2024

Possible reporting date:

26 April 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Defence, the Australian Submarine Agency; current regulators (particularly ARPANSA); Australian Shipbuilding Federation of Unions; DFAT; ANSTO.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

26 April 2024

(signed)

A.E. Urquhart:

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Alex Antic

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023, the bill be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 May 2024".

Nick McKim

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 not be referred to a committee".

The Australian Greens are not going to have a bar of the opposition setting up a committee inquiry that will provide a bunch of transphobes with a platform, under parliamentary privilege, to attack transgender people. We are not going to have a bar of transgender kids and transgender folks being attacked by a bunch of right-wing transphobes. That is exactly what Senator Antic, and I'm sure Senator Roberts—

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order?

Malcolm Roberts

On a point of order: those remarks from Senator McKim are inappropriate under standing order 193, particularly in regard to him making a personal reflection.

Sue Lines

Senator Roberts, there wasn't a personal reflection, but I am going to ask that Senator McKim be considerate of his language, because it was sailing close to the wind.

Nick McKim

Trans folks in our community put up with an awful lot. They are attacked on a daily basis. They are attacked for who they are as humans. Their very existence as people is called into doubt by extremist fascists who are transphobes. The amount of rubbish that you see just on social media, on an unprotected platform, is appalling. We are not going to facilitate providing parliamentary privilege to those kinds of people. Trans rights are human rights.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan on a point of order?

Matt O'Sullivan

Yes. It is very clear from that last comment who Senator McKim is referring to. Therefore I ask that you ask him to withdraw.

Sue Lines

Senator O'Sullivan, it is not clear. I will ask Senator McKim if he wishes to clarify.

Nick McKim

Well, if the hat fits, Senator O'Sullivan can put it on if he wants to.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, resume your seat. I ask that this debate be respectful. That is not respectful, and I would ask you to withdraw that comment.

Nick McKim

I withdraw that comment. I will clarify my comments: I'm aiming my comments at transphobes; that's who I'm aiming them at. I'm making the point that trans rights are human rights. Trans men are men, and trans women are women. That is the position of the Australian Greens. We will fight for that position on every front that is opened to us, at every opportunity that is provided to us to do that. We will ensure that we do everything we can to protect trans people from the vicious, disgraceful acts they are subjected to every day, and that includes by doing everything we can to make sure that this bill is not referred to a committee which will provide parliamentary privilege to the very transphobes we are talking about.

Malcolm Roberts

():  I speak in support of Senator Antic's amendment. The Senate has portfolio committees to inquire into legislation for a good reason. Every committee is, from time to time, asked to inquire into a bill that raises issues of significance, as this bill does. The conventions and procedures of a committee inquiry are well suited to handing controversial issues such as this. Such inquiries are conducted all the time, because they're essential to the legislative process. The Senate is open to denying a bill due process, so the question must be asked, why? What is it about this issue that has the Greens on the rampage, the ALP in hiding and the globalist wing of the Liberals rushing to cross the floor to avoid talking about it.

Childhood gender surgery, whether physical or chemical, is not an insignificant matter. It is life changing, often life ending and irreversible. When young gender transitioners realise that it is irreversible and they regret their decision, that can often lead to them choosing suicide, to end their life. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money is involved. More importantly, the lives and health of tens of thousands of Australian children are at risk. There's no room to vote this matter on feelings or fear. We need to get the facts. Gendered identity surgery on children relates to their physical health and to life itself.

I appreciate that there are those even on the conservative side who refuse to question childhood gender surgery. That's their right. Australians are increasingly asking why there is a cover up. Who are you protecting? I have received representatives from constituents from many different states approaching this issue from many different perspectives. Whenever One Nation has brought these perspectives to this place we have been shut down. That is not democracy. That is not the exercise of Senate powers without fear or favour; it is the complete opposite. It is control and shutting down. It is censorship. I have promised my constituents I will bring their perspectives to this place, and I will never take a step back from doing that fairly and honestly.

The public have turned against causing chemical and physical mutilation and harm to children in the name of gender identity. The Senate will have to deal with this issue in the near future, so let us do it now. Let us get on with the job. Send this bill to a committee and let Australia contribute to the debate. Let parents have their say. Let victims of childhood transition have their say. And, yes, let trans people have their say. I point out, that all that is done by this bill that I co-sponsor with Senator Antic and Senator Babet is found mainly in section 8. It prohibits doctors prescribing surgery or puberty blockers to people under the age of 18. That's all it does. A health practitioner—

Sue Lines

Senator McKim on a point of order?

Nick McKim

The point of order is relevance. The question before the chamber does not go to the substance of the bill. It goes to whether or not the bill should be referred to a committee. I ask that Senator Roberts be relevant to the question.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, these are broad-ranging discussions. Senator Roberts is being absolutely on point to the amendments before the chamber.

Long debate text truncated.

Michaelia Cash

I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023. The coalition will be supporting this bill. On behalf of Senator Paterson and myself, we will facilitate its passage through the parliament.

There are three schedules to this bill. Schedule 1 is in relation to parole. This schedule makes a technical amendment to clarify the Attorney-General's decision-making powers in relation to parole under part 1B of the Crimes Act. At present, there is a mandatory requirement for the Attorney-General to make a parole decision in relation to a federal sentence before the end of a non-parole period. However, sometimes it is impossible to meet this obligation. This can happen in two circumstances, the first being where an offender is eligible for parole immediately following sentencing because of time already served while held on remand. Second, it can happen when an offender's sentence is reduced on appeal. When this happens, the legislation is unclear on what the Attorney's obligations are and the legal consequences that flow from the inability to make a parole decision within the stipulated time frame. This schedule puts beyond doubt that the Attorney can still make a decision to grant or refuse parole in these cases.

Schedule 2 concerns drug importation. It changes the way we make regulations to list substances as border controlled plants, drugs and precursors. Currently, to deal effectively with drug importation, we need appropriate powers under the Criminal Code and the Customs Act and appropriate cross-references under the Defence Force Discipline Act. The changes to the regulation-making powers allow substances to be listed in a consistent and flexible way that lines up across all three acts. Importantly, the changes will also allow the government to say that some substances are only treated as serious drugs or precursors for specific and narrowly defined purposes. Specifically, the provisions of schedule 2 allow a substance to be listed as a border controlled plant drug or precursor only in relation to specific offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code or elements of those offences.

As we understand it, the government's intent is to ensure that we are able to deal effectively with dual-use precursors. These are substances that have a legitimate use but can also be turned into illegal drugs. An example is a substance called butanediol, which has a range of legitimate uses as a solvent and in the manufacture of plastics. However, it is also a precursor and substitute for the drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, also known as GHB, or liquid ecstasy. These chemicals are imported legitimately under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019, but it is clear that more action is needed to ensure that the import of these dual-use precursors is effectively disrupted at the border.

We understand that the government intends to use these amended regulation-making powers to make targeted regulations that line up with the licensing system under the Industrial Chemicals Act. The government tells us it intends to use these regulation-making powers to ensure that unlawful import is treated as an offence under the Criminal Code. But targeting the regulations appropriately will ensure that it does not inadvertently criminalise legitimate actions of licensed businesses that follow the rules. We think this is a sensible amendment that allows our drug laws to keep up with changes to the importation of precursors by serious organised crime groups.

In relation to schedule 3—and I will speak on behalf of the shadow minister, Senator James Paterson—this schedule deals with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, otherwise known as the ACIC. The ACIC is one of our premier organisations, bringing together law enforcement, national security, policy and regulatory agencies to combat serious and organised crime. The provisions of this schedule relate to technical processes of the ACIC board and follow changes commenced under the former coalition government and continued by Labor in government. These technical and validation provisions preserve the status quo and ensure that there is no legal doubt about decision-making processes undertaken by the ACIC so it can continue to combat serious and organised crime.

As I said, the coalition stands ready to facilitate the passage of these bills through the parliament. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Long debate text truncated.

Malarndirri McCarthy

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Andrew McLachlan

The question is that the bill be read a third time.

Dean Smith

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2043, standing in the name of Senator Hume:

(1) Schedule 5, page 41 (line 1) to page 44 (line 12), to be opposed.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the committee is that schedule 5 stand as amended.

Dorinda Cox

The committee is considering the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 and amendment (1) on sheet 2038, moved by Senator Dean Smith.

Dean Smith

Just so that everyone is up to speed: we are now dealing with two opposition amendments, one of which I have moved, which is on sheet 2038 and would repeal schedule 4. Soon we will move to the second opposition amendment, on sheet 2043, which deals with the removal of schedule 5.

By removing schedules 4 and 5, the opposition is seeking to hold the government accountable and save the government from itself and the breaking of an election promise—a promise that was given by the former leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and a promise given by the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, on not one but five occasions: in January 2021, 30 March 2021, 15 December 2021, 17 January 2022 and 4 March 2022. The two most senior economic people in the government aspiring to win the election, Mr Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers, gave a commitment to the Australian electorate that they would not change the franking credit regime. They gave that election commitment because they were worried that, having incurred an election loss in 2019, it was in large part—not solely, but in large part—due to a commitment by the then opposition leader, Mr Bill Shorten, to change the franking credit regime, which cost them that election. To create some immunity from that risk for Anthony Albanese and for Dr Chalmers, they went out into the community and said: 'Have no fear. Franking credits will not change in this country.' They said it five times.

What we're dealing with today in the Senate with this Treasury Laws Amendment Bill relates to the government breaking that promise. Proposing that two schedules, schedule 4 and schedule 5, be removed is holding the government accountable, saying to the government, 'Don't proceed with yet another broken promise.' Unfortunately I suspect that the government will proceed, will get the votes to break this election promise, supported by the Australian Greens and by some Independent senators in this chamber.

I just want to stay with the matter of revenue. Senator Bragg asked some questions, but I would like to narrow the commentary and get some commitments and some understanding from the government in regard to my own line of inquiry regarding this matter. I thank the minister for her cooperation to date in making some answers to questions on notice available. I'm just curious to know the time frame in which those questions you've taken on notice will be made available to the chamber.

Malarndirri McCarthy

I would say a week is reasonable.

Dean Smith

In answer to questions on notice, Treasury has made a number of claims about this particular bill. Senate question on notice 1695 asked Treasury whether it acknowledged that the changes to franking credits in the last budget were a tax increase. The Treasury response to that was, 'No, the off-market share buyback measure is designed to improve the integrity of the dividend imputation system and is not a tax increase.' I'm happy to table that response if necessary, but I don't think that really will be necessary. Does the government maintain that the measures contained in schedules 4 and 5 are not a tax increase on Australian companies, investors and retirees?

Malarndirri McCarthy

I'm advised that it it's certainly not a tax increase. It is about closing the loophole.

Dean Smith

So, it's not a tax increase; it's about closing a loophole. Senate question on notice 1694 asked how much of the revenue raised through that measure comes from personal income tax receipts. The answer from the Treasury read: 'Over the forward estimates, personal income tax receipts are expected to increase by $150 million as a result of this policy. Does the government maintain that the measures contained in schedules 4 and 5 are not a tax increase on Australian investors?

Malarndirri McCarthy

That's what happens when you close a loophole.

Dean Smith

You raise taxes?

Malarndirri McCarthy

I refer to my previous answer.

Dean Smith

So when you close a loophole you don't raise taxes?

Malarndirri McCarthy

I do believe that the senator knows the response to his question as I have responded.

Dean Smith

The answer to Senate question on notice No. 1694 clearly states:

Over the forward estimates, personal income tax receipts are expected to increase by $150 million as a result of this policy.

Some in this chamber would contend that that reads that this policy increases income tax receipts by $150 million. Do you agree or disagree?

Malarndirri McCarthy

I refer to my previous answer.

Dean Smith

Can the minister explain to the chamber how it is then that the measure raises $150 million in personal income tax receipts?

Malarndirri McCarthy

As I said, in closing the loophole.

Dean Smith

Does closing the loophole increase tax receipts by $150 million?

Malarndirri McCarthy

McCARTHY (—) (): I refer to my previous answer.

Dean Smith

Senate question on notice No. 1692 asked how much of the revenue raised through the measure is realised through increases to superannuation tax receipts. In response the Treasury said:

Over the forward estimates, superannuation fund tax receipts are expected to increase by $400 million as a result of this policy.

Does the government maintain that the measures contained in schedules 4 and 5 are not a tax increase on Australian retirement savings?

Malarndirri McCarthy

():  I refer to my previous answer.

Dean Smith

How is it then that the policy raises $400 million in superannuation tax receipts?

Malarndirri McCarthy

I refer to my previous answer. We stand by our costings.

Dean Smith

The government stands by the response to question 1692, which shows that there would be an increase in tax receipts of $400 million. And the government stands by its response to question 1694, which identified that there would be an increase of $150 million in tax receipts.

Malarndirri McCarthy

Senator, we stand by our costings.

Dean Smith

The answer to Senate question on notice No. 1693 states that there will be no impact on company tax receipt expected as a result of this policy. If this is a crackdown on companies exploiting a tax loophole, as the government claims, and not a broken promise on taxing franking credits, why does it raise zero dollars from company tax?

Malarndirri McCarthy

We stand by our costings.

Dean Smith

Can you remind the chamber: what are your costings?

Malarndirri McCarthy

As we have said previously in answer to questions throughout this debate, Senator.

Dean Smith

Minister, if it is not a tax increase, as the first answer reads, how does it increase tax receipts?

Malarndirri McCarthy

This is about closing the loophole that we've talked about quite a few times throughout today. That loophole began when the previous government, under Scott Morrison as Treasurer, opened that door in 2016 and never closed it, which is why we are here today.

Dean Smith

In that intervening period, there is the ATO direction, I would add. How does the government reconcile a measure that raises revenue exclusively off personal income tax receipts and superannuation fund tax receipts with the government's claim that this will not hit retirees' franking credits?

Malarndirri McCarthy

We know that when you consistently come forward with the same questions it is about your side of politics recognising that you failed to close a loophole. We know that this is an important piece of legislation in terms of closing a loophole that your side of government never did.

Dean Smith

More fundamentally, it is about a commitment being given by a person who wanted to be the prime minister of this country and by someone who wanted to be the Treasurer of this country saying to the electorate that they would not change the law in regard to franking credits. They made that commitment on five occasions and then decided to break that promise. That's the core issue here. Is it then true—and does the government concede—that this is in fact a retiree tax?

Malarndirri McCarthy

Let's talk about commitments, shall we? You clearly do not want to move past the fact that this began under Scott Morrison as Treasurer in the lower house with wanting to see the closing of this loophole. It never occurred under your government. We are now doing it. The answer to your question is no.

Dean Smith

If it raises tax receipts from superannuation funds, how is it not a retiree tax?

Malarndirri McCarthy

I refer to my previous answers. This is about closing the loophole. The senator knows that, and I refer to my previous answers.

Dean Smith

In January 2021 the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, gave a commitment that franking credits would not be changed, that the tax law in this regard would not be amended. He gave that commitment. Then a commitment was given on ABC Radio on 30 March 2021. Then a commitment was given in Tasmania on 15 December 2021. The then shadow Treasurer gave the commitment on 17 January 2022. Then the Prime Minister on ABC Radio in Perth on 4 March 2022 gave a commitment that there would be no change to franking credits. Then in September 2022 the Treasury distributed a consultation paper on its exposure draft legislation. In which month between March 2022 and September 2022 did the Prime Minister decide to break his promise?

Malarndirri McCarthy

I'm not sure what that has to do with sheet 2038. I refer to my previous answers.

Dean Smith

It has everything to do with sheet 2038, because we are seeking to remove from this bill two schedules which go to the core of the Prime Minister's and the Treasurer's commitment. By removing these two schedules, a promise will not be broken. So, on which month? Was it March 2022, April 2022, May 2022, June 2022, July 2022 or August 2022 that the Prime Minister decided to break his promise?

Malarndirri McCarthy

I refer to my previous answers. This is about closing the loophole.

Dean Smith

Do you concede that this is a broken promise?

Malarndirri McCarthy

I believe I've answered the questions appropriately.

Dean Smith

Was there an answer? I don't believe I've asked that question before. What was the answer to my question regarding whether this is a broken promise?

Malarndirri McCarthy

Senator, just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean they're not answers.

Dean Smith

With all respect, Senator McCarthy, I don't know what the answer was that you gave me.

Malarndirri McCarthy

I have said that I've answered it appropriately. This is about closing the loophole, Senator.

Dean Smith

But my question is, at what time did the Prime Minister decide to break his promise?

Malarndirri McCarthy

This is about closing the loophole, and I encourage the senator to move along.

Dean Smith

Given the generosity that you've shown me in taking other questions on notice, I'm wondering whether you might take this question on notice as well.

Malarndirri McCarthy

I've answered the questions. Thank you, Chair.

Dean Smith

Minister, given that this change to franking credits will raise almost half a billion dollars in superannuation and income tax, can you clarify what the Prime Minister meant when he was quoted in the West Australian newspaper as saying:

I can confirm that Labor has heard that message clearly and that we will not be taking any changes to franking credits to the next election …

Given that this policy raises almost half a billion dollars, can you explain to the chamber and to the Australian electorate, who took the Prime Minister on his word, what he meant by that comment?

Malarndirri McCarthy

It's not for me to know what is in the minds of anyone when they make any comments. But I do know that the Prime Minister would like to see this piece of legislation pass.

Dean Smith

He's happy for the Senate to legislate and give effect to his broken promise?

Malarndirri McCarthy

You clearly have an obsession with our Prime Minister, Senator. I think I've answered that.

Dean Smith

Would the Prime Minister like this Senate chamber to legislate his broken promise—which he made on five separate occasions—not to change franking credits?

Malarndirri McCarthy

Senator, the Prime Minister would like to see this loophole closed, just as your previous Treasurer, Scott Morrison MP, wanted in 2016.

Dean Smith

We've had a parliamentary inquiry and a consultation process. A number of those consultation submissions—I'm being generous, as they were in their thousands—weren't released publicly. I'll ask again: can the Treasury name a single corporate law firm, investor group or industry body that supports these franking credit changes?

Malarndirri McCarthy

It troubles me that you are trying to imply that there has been a lot of secrecy here when we know that public submissions are exactly that—they are on the public record.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

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

We are in a rental crisis with more people experiencing rental stress and unable to afford a home. The Labor government must take action by stopping unlimited rental increases."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.

Nick McKim

I move:

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

We are in a rental crisis with more people experiencing rental stress and unable to afford a home. The Labor government must take action by stopping unlimited rental increases.

As the motion states, we are in a rental crisis in Australia, and more and more people are experiencing rental stress and are unable to afford the basic human right of having a home to live in. This motion does call for the Labor government to take action by stopping unlimited rental increases. It is shameful that in this country renters in most places can face an unlimited number, an unlimited frequency and an unlimited scale of rent rises. In many cases, the number, the frequency and the scale of rent rises is enough to render people homeless.

Labor's rental crisis epitomises a broken social contract between the government and the people that it governs. Labor Housing Minister Julie Collins said the quiet thing out loud earlier this year when she said that Labor views houses as an investment and asset class in Australia. Well, I've got news for Ms Collins: houses are actually homes. Houses are homes, where people and their families build a place for themselves, buy a place for themselves or, in the case of about a third of the houses in Australia, rent a place for themselves to live. The broken social contract between this Labor government and its people represents an understanding that used to exist in Australia, where hard work, education and a reasonable job were keys to a fair crack at prosperity and a good life. This foundational belief, this foundational social contract, has been systematically dismantled by the Albanese government.

The plight of young Australians in particular—but not only young Australians—who rent today tells a stark story. That social contract—the one that represented an agreement, a contract that hard work, education and a reasonable job were the keys to a fair crack at a prosperous life—is broken, and no longer can it be said that hard work alone, that education alone, that a decent job alone is enough to have a good life in Australia. The new class division in this country is between people who own property and people who do not. That is the stark new class division that is emerging in this country—and it is stark and unforgiving. Those who are lucky enough—and I would suggest it's most people in this chamber, who own property—continue to prosper. Those who do not are condemned to the likelihood of a life of economic uncertainty.

ABS figures released today showed that wages grew by about 1.3 per cent. That is a small increase on inflation and that should be celebrated as real wage growth. But rents increased by 2.2 per cent over the same quarter. Rents are skyrocketing, and wages are not keeping up with skyrocketing rents. That is placing the dream of a home further and further out of reach for more and more people. Labor needs to act.

Gerard Rennick

I do have to agree with Senator McKim: we are in a rental crisis, a housing crisis, a cost-of-living crisis and an energy crisis. That, in my view, has been brought about by a very high immigration rate that is unsustainable. In the last reported quarter, the March quarter, we had 150,000 immigrants, which translates to 600,000 immigrants throughout the year, which is, interestingly enough, 200,000 more than what Labor forecast, or rather what Treasury—because they're the guys who actually run the country; overpaid muppets, but anyway—forecast. That is obviously going to increase demand.

The problem with price controls is that you will end up capping supply of new housing. What we've got is an inflation problem, and the cost of building is going up. Because the cost of building is going up, many builders are actually going broke and out of business, which is reducing the supply of new houses into the market. What we really need is for the RBA to get in touch with the real world and to actually use the levers available to them, not just qualitative easing, which in layman's terms is manipulating the price of money on the first Tuesday of every month. The problem with paper shuffling is, if you do too much of it for too long and you keep focused on models, you take your eye off the ball. The name of the game is to actually build things. True freedom is the child of affluence, and affluence comes from productivity. What we really need to do to fix this crisis is get people back on the tools and get them building, not just in housing but in other areas of the economy as well, such as dams, power stations, roads and factories.

There are two other levers I think the RBA have to look at, and I touched on this in a speech earlier this morning. One is quantitative easing. Governments have been brainwashed into thinking the only way that they can issue new capital in the system is by issuing bonds, but there is another form of capital, and that's called equity. Publicly listed corporations do this all the time: they go out and issue new capital. As a sovereign country, we can issue new capital as a means to increase supply.

What the RBA has done is lift interest rates—I've lost count—10 to 12 times in the last 18 months. That's had a devastating impact on demand, and it's had a devastating impact on supply. This is one of the things I get very annoyed with the RBA about, because they don't realise that increasing interest rates doesn't just dampen demand on the housing side but actually dampens supply on the housing side. It dampens supply on the small-business side. Small business, whether they're builders, bricklayers, fruit sellers, butchers or whatever, also borrow money in order to run their businesses.

It's alright for the big end of town: they can tap the equity markets, particularly the superannuation funds, because there's a lazy $3 trillion in cash sitting there that doesn't require work and is just managed by white-collar spivs in the ivory palaces of Sydney and Melbourne. So much for free markets, when 12 per cent of your income is taken from you and given to someone else you don't know! Actually, that's something we could do: we could make superannuation optional so that people can actually afford to buy their own homes as well.

The other thing I want to touch on is our macroprudential controls. In 1985 Paul Keating lifted all the capital controls. I can well remember—I was in grade 10 at the time—that was seen to be a great thing. But all that did was allow the volume of credit in the system to be controlled by foreign banks. What happened was the amount of foreign debt that the four major banks had went from $8 billion to $800 billion by 2008. Nearly all of that money was lent against housing. All that did was inflate house prices from four or five times earnings to 12 to 13 times earnings. And that, of course, when house prices went to 12 to 13 times earnings, put two parents back in the workforce, and now two parents are actually working for the foreign banks, rather than focusing on raising their children and being involved up at the school, where we desperately need more volunteers helping out with fetes and things like that. So we really need to reform our monetary system. This is a broad economy issue. Thank you.

Helen Polley

What we've seen in the debate here this afternoon is the Greens, who live in utopia, wanting to solve every problem that every person is facing. It is very noble, but the reality is that we're a party of government. The Greens never have to deliver. They can have their wish list and they can go out there and slam the government as often as they do. They play games all the time. They come in now and move a resolution in relation to renters. But when we were debating our Housing Future fund—$10 billion that the Albanese Labor government had put together to help alleviate the housing problems and the rental problems, which we are very aware of, but we are trying to find real solutions—what did they do? They stalled and they wouldn't support that legislation until they finally got a little bit more so that they could go out and do all their social media.

The reality is that we know we need more affordable and social housing in this country. We know there's a housing crisis. We actually know there's stress on people who are trying to make ends meet because of the difficulties we're facing with higher mortgages, rising interest rates and inflation. But what we're doing as a government, at the National Cabinet level—what we did back in August—is work with the states and territories to get a commitment to a better deal for renters, to harmonise and strengthen renters' rights across Australia.

But if we tried to adopt the solutions the Greens keep talking about, people outside of governments would not invest in real estate to provide that extra home stock from private investors, because they need to have a return. So, the Greens live in utopia. And unfortunately, as I've said many times in this chamber, when they could actually address some of these very serious issues, as we've seen on climate change over the years, if they don't get exactly what they want then they don't vote in support of the government of the day, which we saw when we were in government last time. As a government we're acknowledging how difficult it is out there. People of all ages are facing a crisis in relation to being able to afford a mortgage, to afford rent. And we know that homelessness is a serious issue in this country.

We want to address that. That's why we've done things like making sure we give more support to women and children who are fleeing domestic violence, because women cannot leave a situation if they don't have somewhere to go. So we need more housing stock so that women don't have to stay in those very dangerous circumstances. At the end of the day, every mother will put their child first each and every day of the week. That's what they do. So if they don't have social housing or affordable housing, they cannot leave that environment. It's those mothers and those children who risk their lives. That is really the issue here today. So we need affordable housing. We need social housing.

Instead of working with the government of the day and supporting us so we can get better outcomes, the Greens move these motions so they can get their clicks on social media, beat up on the Labor government, when in fact if they work with us we will get better outcomes, because at the end of the day we're a Labor government who actually relates to people who need our help. We believe in giving people a helping hand—a hand up, not a handout—because that's what people want; that's what Australians want. And there is no bigger threat to any individual than the threat of being homeless—young people ending up on the streets. I was in Melbourne not so very long ago, and you could not walk half a block in the city of Melbourne without seeing homeless people. There were young people, women—young women—and people that obviously have some mental health issues. They don't belong on the street. They deserve to be cared for and to have a safe, secure home. That's what we're working to provide: more social and affordable housing. So I ask the Greens to reconsider. Instead of just knocking this government, work with us.

Ralph Babet

I understand Senator McKim's intention with the Greens' urgency motion on the rental crisis, but, unfortunately, I cannot support it, because of basic economics. Price caps are not the answer. We all know that. They have never worked. They will never work. The Australian people are hurting because they want to see action from their government, but, unfortunately, the government is fuelling the fire of inflation with the big migration and big, wasteful spending. Rent caps may appear attractive on the surface, but they are not the solution. In fact, they'll make the problem worse. As our good friend Senator Scarr keeps saying, price caps do not work, because of basic economics. He says it all the time. If there is one rule for economic success, it should be this: do the opposite of what the Greens say or recommend.

Price cap policies often worsen the very problems they seek to address. This has been shown across the world, in places like Paris, Berlin and San Francisco. Overseas experience has shown that rent controls lead to many unintended consequences, including reduced supply, higher housing costs and more bureaucratic control. Forget artificial price controls; the real solution is actually very simple. Just increase supply. But how do we increase supply? That's also very simple. I'll tell you how to do it. We've got to reduce regulations on land developments and to fast-track building approvals. We must incentivise supply by eliminating unneeded taxes, duties and levies on land. Increased supply will naturally reduce rents. Socialism, unfortunately, is not the answer. It'll only lead to greater problems, a lower quality of life, higher prices on absolutely everything and a reduction in our standard of living. Make capitalism great again.

Long debate text truncated.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Perth Mint and Commonwealth regulatory compliance be extended to 28 March 2024.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Chisholm.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will be opposing this motion. From day one this has been an inquiry that has been driven by state politics on an issue over which the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction. The committee has used the valuable and scarce resources of the Senate to hold three public hearings and receive submissions, and no new information has come to light. It's time for the committee to stop spending Senate resources and report their findings so the Senate can divert these important resources to important issues within its jurisdiction.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 390, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation's amendment (3) on sheet 2188:

(3) Schedule 2, page 14 (line 1) to page 20 (line 6), to be opposed.

Deborah O'Neill

The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.