Jacqui Lambie

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to an order for the production of documents regarding the transparency of official appointments. This motion has been circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to a contingent motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to an order for the production of documents.

In the coming weeks, in the run-up to the budget, the corridors of this building will be swarming with lobbyists, big business representatives and political donors seeking to influence government policies, decisions and beyond. They will be having quiet words with ministers and their staff and they'll be greasing the machinery of government to ensure that their interests, not the public interests, are protected and promoted.

Publication of the names of the people who lobby government is a vital transparency and integrity measure for this place, but yesterday Labor and the coalition combined forces to block a motion moved by me that would have provided for the quarterly publication of the names of the people outside government who are meeting with ministers to influence government policy or decisions. There was nothing radical in this motion. That proposed scheme was based on the New South Wales Premier's memorandum M2014-07 on the publication of ministerial diaries, an arrangement that's been in place for nearly nine years. The Premier's memo was born out of the 2010 New South Wales ICAC report titled Investigation into corruption risks involved in lobbying.

Publishing ministers' diaries is a key anticorruption measure. Official ministerial diaries are already published in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT. It's also done in New Zealand. Even the United States President releases and publishes White House visitor logs. This is a baseline anticorruption measure that should stand alongside the new National Anti-Corruption Commission and political donations reform, so it's an absolute disgrace that Labor and the coalition combined against the crossbench and the Greens to block this transparency measure. It's all the more a shame because Labor and the coalition have both previously expressed support for ministerial diaries to be transparent.

In the previous parliament, Labor—notably, now Attorney-General Dreyfus—supported public disclosure of ministerial diaries. The then coalition government resisted. In this parliament, the coalition initially developed a newfound interest in transparency. Following the government's obstruction of efforts by a journalist to obtain FOI, freedom of information, access to the Prime Minister's appointment diary, Senator Birmingham pursued the matter with Senator Wong in question time. After former senator Patrick was in the news for having been asked to pay $13,444 for 197 days of the PM's diary, paying the deposit and then being told that he was not going to get them anyway, Senator Birmingham pursued the government at February estimates. Senator Wong says there is no need for a general disclosure scheme, claiming that FOI is still an effective transparency mechanism despite knowing full well that, thanks to our broken freedom of information system, the government can delay access for years if not indefinitely.

However, Senator Birmingham's transparency enthusiasm apparently evaporated in a puff of smoke yesterday, and now the coalition is on a unity ticket with Labor against openness and integrity. One wonders what happened. Perhaps former Prime Minister Morrison's secrecy obsessions live on inside the Liberal Party. Perhaps Senator Birmingham just has no ticker. In any case, the truth is that both major parties are allergic to integrity measures in this place. Shame on you. In the coming weeks, there will be plenty of lobbyists scurrying along the corridors of power. If you turn on the lights, the cockroaches head for the exits. That's what we need and that's why this motion is urgent.

I relented. Instead of taking my ideas, which came from a very normal disclosure arrangement in New South Wales, my motion lets the government decide the best way. How reasonable is that? I've tried compromise. We need this motion passed now so we can have some resolution by next week. It gives the government another chance to do the right thing and live up to its promise from the last election—transparency, transparency, transparency! Oh my goodness, isn't that evaporating at the speed of light? How's that going for you? You just have more broken promises, and transparency is a big one. If they don't pass this motion, then I have to ask: what are you hiding? What are you so scared to show in those diaries? What don't you want the public to know out there? I cannot implore you enough to come back to the transparency measures you promised the people in the last election and do what you said you would do.

Larissa Waters

The Greens strongly support this motion. After years of political scandals, secrecy, misuse of funds and the trashing of conventions, the community has little confidence that politicians in this place will act in anything other than their own interests, and too often their own interests are influenced by industry lobbyists offering cushy post-parliament roles sweetened by the winking promise of political donations. Far too many deals in this place are thrashed out between ministers and their donors behind closed doors. You only have to see the number of orange lanyards in the hallways to understand that lobbyists are constantly in and out of ministers' offices. And you only have to look at the policy outcomes to see the influence they have over decisions. Privileged access, generous donations and promises of a cushy role when they're done clearly influence political decisions.

We know that the minister responsible for regulating gambling has met with the gambling industry seven times more often than she has met with gambling harm reduction advocates, and we only know that because it was interrogated through estimates, not because that information is put out in the public for all to see. So it's safe to assume that the ministers responsible for the safeguard mechanism are being lobbied by the very industries that will be regulated by it. It's no shock that many of them have loudly supported the weak proposal that would allow them to keep polluting. Remember when the Minerals Council toppled a prime minister over a proposed superprofits tax, or when casinos were exempted from COVID restrictions? It's a level of access and influence that most community organisations working in the public interest can only dream of, and it undermines democracy. The very least that the public could expect is for ministers to be open about who they're meeting with and what they're talking about. Labor should be supporting greater transparency. The current Attorney-General took legal action arguing that former attorney-general George Brandis should release his ministerial diaries. The Queensland state Labor government has been publishing ministerial diaries for years, and the sky hasn't fallen in.

The Greens want to get big money and corporate influence out of politics altogether. We were calling for a national integrity commission for about a decade before Labor finally saw the light, and we're glad that we'll finally see one this year—albeit without the public hearings and whistleblower protections that we'll keep calling for. But a strong corruption watchdog is just one step in restoring public confidence in democracy. Cleaning up politics is not just about exposing corruption and punishing the corrupt; it's about getting rid of the conditions that allow corruption and poor standards to flourish in the first place. We need better checks and balances on who gets to bend the ears of politicians—a strong lobbying code that lets people see who's meeting with who, and one that would put an end to the revolving door that sees politicians and staffers, within moments of leaving parliament, take on highly paid senior roles in industries they used to regulate.

Lobbyists are defined under the current weak Lobbying Code of Conduct as people or companies lobbying 'on behalf of a third party'. This excludes in-house lobbying—lobbying directly for a company or an industry—which is a loophole the size of a mining truck. Ministers exploit that language so that in-house lobbyists and post-ministerial roles are treated in a way that falls outside the lobbying regulated under the code. It clearly undermines the objectives of the code, and it must be fixed. We need an enforceable code of conduct for politicians, with meaningful consequences for misconduct. We've recently strengthened the code to address harassment and bad behaviour, but we need to go further and address integrity. We need a strong public sector providing frank and fearless advice to ministers and curbing their excesses. We need well-resourced oversight agencies, like the ANAO, and freedom of information laws that actually promote transparency. We need a culture that encourages people to expose misconduct, knowing that there are strong protections for whistleblowers and a genuine expectation that the misconduct they have exposed will lead to punishment for those who are abusing their positions. And we need to remove the corrupting influence of political donations.

We want to ban donations from industries with a track record of buying influence, like fossil fuels, weapons, gambling and pharmaceuticals, to stop those industries standing in the way of science based reforms and humane policies. We also want to ensure that all donations over a thousand dollars are disclosed in real time, not up to 19 months after the gift, which is currently the case. And we want the definition of gift to capture the full gift—not just the money explicitly given as a donation but exorbitant memberships, meeting fees and expensive dinners. Real-time disclosure of gifts would allow people to know who's funding the parties they voted for. Everybody benefits from a culture of honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability in politics. Let's just get on with it.

Katy Gallagher

We don't support the suspension motion that the chamber is currently debating—although we have, as usual, traversed into the substance of the motion that is being sought to be moved. The reason we don't agree with the suspension is that the Senate has a number of pieces of legislation for this time, which is meant for government business. I note that the suspension motion wasn't moved at the beginning of the day, which allowed for private senators' matters to be dealt with, but is eating into government business time. We have a number of key pieces of legislation that we would like to progress, including—this morning if possible—the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill. As people would understand, it is very important to progress that and to put a new arrangement in place. It is time critical. It needs to pass this week so that we can put in the arrangements required for reporting at a business level about the steps organisations are taking to close the gender pay gap and publicising the gender pay gap that exists in businesses, because that's a real handbrake on women's economic equality.

That is the reason we won't support the suspension of the standing orders. There are a range of times in the chamber when this motion could be moved. Notice could have been given to deal with it on Monday. We dealt with a motion yesterday. So there is simply no argument that this has to be done at this point in time. I also say that the usual courtesy is to provide some heads-up that this is happening so that we can prepare. The chamber operates on these conventions.

Jacqui Lambie

Oh, right.

Long debate text truncated.

Lidia Thorpe

I move amendment (1) on sheet 1855 revised:

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 11 — Voter information

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986

1 After paragraph 11(1)(db)

Insert:

(dc) the functions conferred on the Commission by section 35S; and

2 After Division 4B of Part II

Insert:

Division 4C — Functions relating to impartial referendum information

35R Interpretation

In this Division:

Electoral Commissioner has the same meaning as in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

referendum has the same meaning as in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

Referendum Minister means the Minister administering the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

35S Functions of Commission relating to impartial referendum information

(1) The following functions are conferred on the Commission:

(a) to prepare arguments in favour of, and against, a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament in accordance with subsections (2) and (3);

(b) to promote an understanding of the processes relating to referendums in First Nations and culturally diverse communities;

(c) to prepare, and to publish in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate, factual and impartial information relating to referendum processes in multiple languages, including First Nations languages;

(d) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the preceding functions.

(2) If a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament, being a proposed law passed by an absolute majority of both Houses of the Parliament, is to be submitted to the electors, the Commission must, within 4 weeks after the passage of that proposed law through both Houses of the Parliament, prepare and forward to the Electoral Commissioner:

(a) an argument in favour of the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words; and

(b) an argument against the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words.

(3) If a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament, being a proposed law passed by an absolute majority of one House of the Parliament only, is to be submitted to the electors, the Commission must, within 4 weeks after the second passage of that proposed law through that House of the Parliament, prepare and forward to the Electoral Commissioner:

(a) an argument in favour of the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words.

(b) an argument against the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words.

(4) This section ceases to have effect at the end of the polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023.

35T Performance of functions relating to impartial referendum information

The Commission may perform the functions referred to in section 35S during the period commencing immediately after either:

(a) a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament is passed by an absolute majority of both Houses of the Parliament; or

(b) the second passage of a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament by an absolute majority of one House of the Parliament only;

and ending either:

(c) at the end of the voting day for a referendum relating to a Voice to Parliament; or

(d) the day after the day the Referendum Minister informs the President that the referendum is not to be held.

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

3 Paragraph 11(1)(b)

Before "within", insert "unless paragraph (c) applies—".

4 Afte r paragraph 11(1)(b)

Insert:

(c) if the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relates to a Voice to Parliament—there is forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner by the Australian Human Rights Commission, arguments prepared in accordance with subsection 35S(2) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; and

5 Paragraph 11(2)(b)

Before "within", insert "unless paragraph (c) applies—".

6 After paragraph 11(2)(b)

Insert:

(c) if the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relates to a Voice to Parliament—there is forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner by the Australian Human Rights Commission, arguments prepared in accordance with subsection 35S(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; and

7 After subsection 11(2)

Insert:

(2AA) Paragraphs (1)(c) and (2)(c) cease to have effect at the end of the polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023.

There has been much debate about the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet being produced by politicians in the so-called two camps. This amendment would take the politics out of preparing essential information about the two cases and put it into the hands of the Australian Human Rights Commission, an entity we all respect, which can ensure that the information provided is correct, factual and provided in clearly accessible terms, ensuring human rights are respected in the process. I urge you all to support this important amendment, as it would vastly improve the process in the upcoming referendum.

Don Farrell

I indicate that the government opposes this amendment.

Jane Hume

I indicate that the opposition is also opposing this amendment.

Larissa Waters

I note that the Greens will be supporting this amendment. As I said in my speech on the second reading, the Greens support the public having access to clear, objective, accurate and respectful information outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases. For many Australians the implications of a referendum are not clear, and they need to have the confidence that the official material produced in this place will help inform their decision. We have already seen the dangers of misinformation and missing information in the current debate.

Submitters to the inquiry into this bill and to the various referendum reviews that preceded it have called for an independent panel to produce the official material. That would help ensure that the material was clearly communicated, that it was accurate, that it was unbiased, that it candidly outlined the pros and cons without fearmongering and that it did not include discretionary or racist talking points. The Australian Human Rights Commission is an expert independent and well-respected body. We support the amendment to give them responsibility for producing the materials to help Australians understand the referendum question. Giving people information they can trust will help to ensure that we get a referendum result with integrity.

I might add that we actually would like to see broader reforms in this space and have truth in political advertising laws, something that we have advocated for for many years now. And I hope that we can have that conversation as well as many others in the course of the JSCEM reforms that are coming down the line. But, in the absence of those laws which actually would have delivered a good and impartial result, we think this is a good suggestion. We will also be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment, which makes a slightly different proposal but with the same intent, to ensure that there's a basis of truth and independence in the preparation of these materials.

Andrew McLachlan

I will put the question that the amendment on sheet 1855, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

Lidia Thorpe

by leave—Can I have my position noted as being in favour of the amendment?

Andrew McLachlan

Yes, it will be recorded.

Larissa Waters

by leave—Likewise for the Australia Greens, please.

Andrew McLachlan

It will be recorded. Senator Pocock, do you wish to be recorded as being in support?

Long debate text truncated.

James McGrath

HAIR ( Senator McGrath ) (): The committee is considering the amendments moved by Senator Farrell on sheets QE100, PX151, PX149, PX150 and ZB195, and the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock to government amendment No. (1) on sheet ZZB195. The current question before the chair is that Senator David Pocock's amendment be agreed to.

James Paterson

Minister, I wonder if you had the opportunity to refresh your memory or to seek wider advice from your colleagues about the issues we were discussing this morning?

Don Farrell

Thank you, Senator Paterson. I've had a response from the Attorney-General and it's a very long response. I'm happy to give it to you—to read it out or to table it. What about that? Are you happy to receive it through tabling?

James Paterson

I certainly have no objection to it being tabled, but I would also like to ask follow-up questions based on it. If it's a very long statement, I suppose that we shouldn't waste time on reading it out. Perhaps other senators can ask their questions and deal with their matters while I consider the document, after it has been tabled, and then I can ask questions on that basis.

Don Farrell

by leave—I table the document.

Jane Hume

Minister, how will the AEC police electoral material with no authorisation during the referendum?

Don Farrell

I would have thought that they would police it in the same way they police it in a general election: if somebody makes a complaint or they discover that somebody hasn't authorised relevant material then they would take the action they would take in any other set of circumstances.

Jane Hume

Does the government intend to provide the electoral roll to any organisation campaigning during the referendum?

Don Farrell

No.

Jane Hume

Minister, will parliamentarians be allowed to provide their access to the electoral roll to organisations that are campaigning during the referendum?

Don Farrell

That is not permitted.

Jane Hume

Under the legislation, Minister, can a parliamentarian campaign for either case at the referendum? And can the staff of a parliamentarian campaign for either case at the referendum as part of their duties?

Don Farrell

Yes.

Jane Hume

Minister, noting that certain electoral activities undertaken by parliamentarians and political parties associated with them are exempt from the Privacy Act 1988, will the activities of participants captured by the referendum machinery provisions in this bill and the act be subject to the same exemptions?

Don Farrell

They're not registered political parties, so there would be no exemption.

Jane Hume

You've said that you want this to be a civil-society led referendum, and many community groups will be involved. If a community group nominates to fundraise for the purpose of putting forward an argument in the referendum, will they be captured by the donation regime?

Don Farrell

My understanding is that if they go over the disclosure threshold then they would have to declare. That threshold, which I think I talked about earlier today, is in the vicinity of $15,000.

Jane Hume

Minister, what mechanisms are in place to prevent a community group from accepting a foreign donation, prior to them actually receiving it?

Don Farrell

This act replicates the foreign donations provisions of the Electoral Act. As I've said so many times today, the idea is to match the same experience, and so the same provisions would apply.

Jane Hume

The foreign donations law applies to registered political entities, and these organisations won't be registered political entities or registered political parties. Is there a mechanism that's specifically in place to prevent civil society at large from accepting foreign donations, prior to them actually doing it?

Don Farrell

If they became a referendum entity by virtue of the level of donations then, yes, they would be captured if they were in receipt of foreign donations.

Jane Hume

So a referendum entity is something that has to be registered? Earlier today you said that there wasn't necessarily going to be a register of entities that can campaign as part of the referendum.

Don Farrell

They're not formally registered. They're required to disclose and, as such, they would then attract the regulation regarding foreign donations.

Jane Hume

Will a community organisation be liable for receiving an illegal donation if they are ignorant of the provisions against foreign donations?

Don Farrell

As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no defence. That wouldn't be any different in these circumstances, and, obviously, they are subject to the foreign disclosure provisions.

Jane Hume

Will the government then expect a community group to be prosecuted by the AEC if they receive an illegal donation?

Don Farrell

The idea is that, by virtue of the foreign donations rules, it would work in the same way it would work in a general election. We're not seeking to do anything different here. The idea is to standardise the experience that people get and the obligations organisations have, whether it be for a general election or for a referendum.

Jane Hume

What is the penalty for receiving an illegal foreign donation, and what action would the government take when it becomes aware of foreign donations occurring?

Don Farrell

I understand it to be 100 penalty units. What was your second question?

Jane Hume

What action would the government take?

Don Farrell

It wouldn't be the government taking the action. It would be the Australian Electoral Commission, who would do whatever they usually do when they find a breach of any aspect of the electoral law, which I imagine would be a prosecution.

Jane Hume

How might donations of cryptocurrency be treated under this donations regime?

Don Farrell

I'll get the AEC to give me a response to that question.

Jane Hume

How will donations in kind to organisations campaigning in the referendum be treated under the donations regime?

Don Farrell

They will be treated exactly the same as the Electoral Act currently provides.

Jane Hume

Will foreign citizens be able to purchase goods and services that are sold for the purpose of funding referendum activities?

Don Farrell

Again, it's exactly the same provisions as in the Electoral Act, which is that if it's in excess of $100 then yes, it applies.

Jane Hume

Can you explain to me what will happen to funds raised by a referendum campaign organisation that isn't expended prior to the referendum?

Don Farrell

Could you repeat that question?

Jane Hume

If an organisation is a campaigning organisation for the referendum and is accepting donations from citizens to campaign for the referendum, what will happen to that money if the organisation hasn't expended all of those donations prior to the referendum?

Don Farrell

It would be the same as it is for a political organisation if they raise more money than they use in an election. It would sit somewhere, I guess, in a bank account. Obviously, if it exceeds the threshold, they would be required to declare that. I assume it would be up to the organisation as to what it subsequently does with the money.

Jane Hume

nator HUME () (): Is there any obligation on the organisation to notify those that have donated that it still contains money in a bank account somewhere that belongs to them and hasn't been expended?

Don Farrell

I think the rule would be the same as a political party getting more money than it expends. I don't know how often that happens. I suppose it happens occasionally. It never happens in the Labor Party, so we never have this issue. The only answer I can give you is that the organisation would have to resolve how they dealt with the money. If it were no longer required, you'd hopefully get them to return the money if that were possible.

Jane Hume

My concern there, of course, is that if you donate to a political party the chances are it's going to be fighting another election—a referendum is a one-off occurrence. I think that there probably needs to be some clarity around that. Perhaps you could confirm for the chamber that the government is considering how to build some clarity around that.

Don Farrell

I'll give it some very deep thought.

Jane Hume

What confidence should Australians have that they'll be donating to a genuine referendum campaign organisation?

Don Farrell

The hope of the government is that this referendum will be conducted in a civil fashion—that each side will have an opportunity to progress its arguments through civil society. Our expectation is that people will abide by that sense of civility in the processes and that we won't find people doing things that are inappropriate or, for that matter, illegal.

If we find that issues arise in that regard, and I hope we don't find that those sorts of issues arise, then I guess we'll have to deal with them. But we're working on the basis that people are going to behave appropriately throughout the course of the referendum and that we won't get into a situation where, for instance, people are illegally taking money on false pretences. But I guess there are other laws which might come into play. If somebody set themselves up as an organisation receiving money for the 'yes' or 'no' case and we discovered that in fact they were a bogus organisation, I imagine there are laws in place that deal with those sorts of things quite independently of the referendum.

I think we have to work on the basis of a degree of trust in the Australian people and trust that this will be a civil campaign and that, at the end of the day, whether it's a 'yes' case or a 'no' case, people are satisfied that the Australian people have had appropriate opportunity to express their view on a Voice to Parliament.

Jane Hume

Minister, do you think that, without a register of organisations or an official 'yes' or 'no' campaign, this is a situation that is ripe for scammers?

Don Farrell

No.

Jane Hume

Minister, when a private company engages in pro bono work on behalf of a referendum entity or a participant captured by one of the disclosure regimes, would that activity be captured as a donation or a gift? How would that be disclosed—as a donation or a gift by the individual, or as a donation or a gift by the company?

Don Farrell

It will be treated as an in-kind donation for both.

Jane Hume

Where a private company becomes aware of work conducted using its resources and its staff for a referendum entity or a participant and it hasn't disclosed that activity, will that organisation then be subject to penalties?

Don Farrell

That would be an issue for the AEC to work through, in the same way they would do that in respect of a general election.

Jane Hume

Could the minister confirm that the donation and disclosure regimes in the bill, and the act, will apply retrospectively?

Don Farrell

Are you talking in respect of contributions that might already have been made to either the 'yes' case or the 'no' case?

Jane Hume

Or to a community entity or community organisation or to a private company who are—

Don Farrell

It's a reasonably complicated answer. Let me see if I can explain it. If the money is received and spent in the six months prior to the issuing of the writ then, yes, it will have to be included in the declaration that you make. I consider that a prospective rather than retrospective application because the declaration would have to be done after the issuing of the writ.

Jane Hume

Can I just clarify? Because we don't know the date of the issuing of the writ yet there are companies out there right now who may be donating their time, may be donating their staff's time and may be donating money that don't realise that they have to declare that or record it yet. Is that a concern for the government?

Don Farrell

What we're concerned about is that when this legislation, hopefully, passes today—if you don't have too many more questions for me—all organisations understand their obligations and comply with them.

Jane Hume

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure that organisations understand their obligations, because those obligations haven't been specified to those organisations yet and they don't know whether they fall outside or inside that six-month regime. Is there a message from the government that you would like to send today to those organisations that want to provide pro bono work to a campaign organisation?

Don Farrell

Yes, there is a message, and thank you for the opportunity you've given me to give them a message: please comply with the obligations under this new legislation, and we'll do our level best to make sure that you're aware of what your obligations are. I suspect the sorts of organisations that you are talking about, Senator Hume, will take a very careful look at the legislation and take the opportunity to get some advice. I'm sure my office—and perhaps even yours—after this legislation goes through would be happy to advise them exactly what their obligations are.

Long debate text truncated.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by 9.30 am on Friday, 24 March 2023:

(a) the complete email and any associated attachments sent on Friday, 3 March 2023 at 6.03 pm, with the subject line 'Large balances: Q&A for QT and additional info [SEC=OFFICIAL]', to or from the Treasurer's office or the Treasury; and

(b) any document titled 'Large superannuation balances' generated within the Treasury or the Treasurer's office between 2 and 10 March 2023 that contains the following text: 'In 30 years, it projected that roughly only the top 10 per cent of earners will retire with superannuation balances of around $3 million or more'.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 193, standing in the name of Senator Birmingham, be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie

I move:

That—

(1) There be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, no later than 5 sitting days after 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October each year, a letter of advice that all ministers' official appointments diaries, covering the periods 1 October to 31 December, 1 January to 31 March, 1 April to 30 June and 1 July to 30 September respectively, in accordance with paragraph (2), have been published on a single government website.

(2) The official appointment diaries referred to in paragraph (1) must indicate:

(a) each meeting (regardless of format) held by the Minister with external persons who seek to influence government policy or decisions; a meeting with external persons does not include:

(i) internal meetings held by ministers exclusively with other federal ministers and/or federal ministerial staff and/or federal government officials,

(ii) strictly personal meetings,

(iii) electorate meetings,

(iv) party political meetings, or

(v) public or strictly social events;

(b) the attendees at each meeting, including:

(i) the name(s) of the individual(s),

(ii) organisation name(s),

(iii) where an individual attends a meeting in a non-official capacity and does not represent any organisation, the individual's name, except where publication of the individual's name could cause harm to the individual (eg a whistleblower's name or a police informant's name), and

(iv) where a third-party lobbyist is present at a meeting, the name of the lobbying firm, the name of any personnel present at the meeting and the name of the client on whose behalf the

third-party lobbyist is present;

(c) a brief description of the topic or purpose of the meeting (however, the topic or purpose of the meeting does not need to be disclosed where there is an overriding public interest against disclosure, in which case the nature of the harm must be provided); and

(d) the city or town where the meeting occurred, and:

(i) where publicly funded travel is involved, for travel outside of the Australian Capital Territory or beyond 30 km of the Minister's normal electoral office—the mode of transport (eg regular public transport flight, special purpose flight, charter flight, Comcar, hire car, etc), and

(ii) where meeting attendee funded travel is involved—the mode of transport (eg charter flight, private flight, chauffeur driven car, etc).

(3) This order takes effect from 1 April 2023 and is of continuing effect.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 174 standing in the name of Senator Lambie be agreed to.

Jonathon Duniam

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes:

(i) the failure of the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to comply with order for the production of documents no. 162, relating to Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), and

(ii) the Minister failed to comply with the order despite the Senate rejecting the Minister's claim of public interest immunity in relation to the documents that he provided to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 1 March 2023;

(b) the Senate again rejects the Minister's claim of public interest immunity, provided to the Senate on 9 March 2023;

(c) further consideration of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 be postponed and made an order of the day for the next day of sitting after the documents and modelling relied on for the forecast usage of ACCUs over the decade to 2030 are laid on the table; and

(d) the Senate further notes that the Government has indicated that it will use regulations to implement elements of its safeguard mechanism reforms, which will come before the Senate for scrutiny through the disallowance process.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

As the Senate will already be aware, these documents are both sensitive and cabinet-in-confidence, and, as such, cannot be released.

Jacqui Lambie

I ask that the question of paragraph (c) be put separately.

Sue Lines

The motion is listed as (a), (b), (c) and (d), and you've asked for (c) to be put separately. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 182, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, clauses (a), (b) and (d), be agreed to.

Sarah Henderson

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 29 September 2022, the Government announced the commencement of the Startup Year program consultation process, releasing a consultation paper, and called for submissions by 15 November 2022,

(ii) during the consultation, the Government also conducted a survey in relation to the Startup Year program with current students and recent graduates,

(iii) the Government has not made public all submissions it has received or details of the student survey, and

(iv) following the introduction of the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023, the bill is scheduled to be introduced into the Senate on 23 March 2023; and

(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 23 March 2023, the following information relating to the consultation on the Startup Year program:

(i) a copy of each such submission made to the Government, and

(ii) a copy of the details of the student survey, including all data collected and the analysis of such data.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

This is an unnecessary motion. The Department of Education is engaged in a process of clearing submissions from the consultation process and de-identifying student survey data for publication. This is a standard process to address privacy issues. The process is ongoing, and it's expected that it will be completed in the coming days. The minister's office has been responsive to the shadow minister's office on this bill, going so far as to prepare, at their request, a bespoke mark-up of the bill for their consideration and pointing to where public copies of certain submissions are already available. This motion will be opposed, as cleared submissions will be available in the next few days.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 186, standing in the name of Senator Henderson, be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on 27 March 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.

James McGrath

The question before the Senate is that the motion, No. 177, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Hughes, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2023:

Allocations of grant funding under the Improving Mobile Coverage Round (IMCR) of the Mobile Black Spot Program (MBSP), with particular reference to:

(a) advice provided by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to the Minister for Communications in relation to the MBSP generally and specifically the IMCR;

(b) the role of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts in recommending locations for the IMCR;

(c) the role of the Minister for Communications and her office in relation to the locations selected for the IMCR;

(d) communications with communities seeking funding from the MBSP, including communities who sought to be included in the IMCR but were excluded; and

(e) any other related matters.

Andrew McLachlan

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Askew standing in the name of Senator Hughes concerning a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee regarding grant funding under the Mobile Black Spot Program be agreed to.

Jordon Steele-John

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the 20th anniversary of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War.

The Greens move this motion today and put this matter before the Senate on this, the 20th anniversary of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq. There is no more appropriate day to consider this matter than today, given that it is, in fact, a moment in time when there are parties in political decision-making positions who oppose the Iraq War and given that family members across Australia worry for the safety of their children who are still deployed to Iraq, to this very day, under operations Accordion and Okra.

The Greens move this motion as the first order of business for the Senate this morning with sorrow in our hearts. We move it with sorrow for the over 500,000 who have died as a result of the Iraq War and of the destruction of the infrastructure created by that war, sorrow for the 1.2 million people still to this day internally displaced because of the war in Iraq and sorrow because of the five million orphans created by that war—five per cent of the entire orphan population of the globe.

We move this motion today in solidarity with the 92 per cent of Australians who gathered together—hundreds of thousands—in cities across the country, who marched to oppose the Iraq war because they knew that the community was being lied to. They knew they were being presented with false intelligence. They knew that they were being marched to war by men who wished to see other people's children placed in harm's way to suit their political ends. We do this in solidarity with the organisers of those protests. I am honoured to work, to this day, alongside Damian Lawson, a key organiser of the anti-Iraq War protest here in Australia, which formed part of the largest global protest in human history. And we do so this morning with a renewed sense of determination, a commitment from every single Green in the Senate, every single Green in the House of Representatives, every single Green in the state parliaments and every single Green in the local governments of this country to oppose ever again being led into an illegal, immoral and unjust war at the reckless hands of the United States of America.

We do this in the full knowledge that the Australian people, at the time and to this day, knew full well that we should not go to Iraq, that it would be a humanitarian and foreign-policy disaster. They knew it, they protested and the Prime Minister ignored them point-blank because there is no requirement in this country to seek a vote of the parliament before the deployment of ADF personnel. ADF personnel from this nation were asked to go into harm's way in Iraq and in Afghanistan, yet not a single member of the government or opposition was required to vote before that occurred. Shame on this chamber for, to this day, opposing this reform that is supported by 86 per cent of the Australian people. Shame!

Finally, in closing, let me say this: those mothers and fathers that, to this day, are kept up at night for fear of the safety of their children deployed to Iraq still under Operation Accordion and Operation Okra deserve to finally have that fear come to an end. Twenty years later, Australia must end its deployments to Iraq. We must finally bring our troops home and work for an independent and peaceful foreign policy that sees that never again are we called into a war based on a lie led by the United States of America.

Murray Watt

T (—) (): Firstly, I want to state clearly once again for the record that Labor opposed the Iraq War at the time, and our position has not changed. As Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd brought Australia's combat troops home. But, on this anniversary of the commencement of the war, I want to say that our argument was never with our troops; it was always with the Howard government.

Twenty years on from the Iraq War, we all reflect on the many tragedies of that conflict and its ongoing effects. Our thoughts are with the people of Iraq as well as the Iraqi community here in Australia, some of whom fled that conflict. Our thoughts today, as always, are with our veterans. We acknowledge the brave contribution and sacrifices made by the ADF and civilian personnel who conducted or supported operations in Iraq. We remember the four Australian service personnel who died, and we all share our deepest sympathies to the families and friends that still feel their loss. We express our support to those who still live with the physical and mental scars of that conflict and those who returned home and are tragically no longer with us.

Labor did not support the Howard government's decision for Australia to go to Iraq in 2003, nor did we support the Howard government's decision to send a further 450 troops to Iraq, reneging on a 2004 election commitment. At the time he withdrew combat troops from Iraq, then Prime Minister Rudd said:

… this government does not believe that our alliance with the United States mandates automatic compliance with every element of United States foreign policy.

The Greens view that they have a monopoly on resistance to sending Australian troops to the Iraq War is odd, given Labor opposed it vigorously.

Opposition Senators

Opposition senators interjecting—

Murray Watt

They are wrong in thinking they have some moral superiority, although it is something we are very used to, and they are just as wrong in their claims that, through AUKUS, we have lost strategic autonomy. I hear members of the Greens heckling during this speech, and again it reinforces the point that they seem to think they have a monopoly on resistance to sending Australian trips to the Iraq war. Some of them may not remember the political debates that happened at the time as a result of Labor taking a principled stand on this issue. It's not clear whether the Greens actually misunderstand or just pretend to misunderstand in order to exploit this issue for crass political purposes.

But let there be no doubt: Australia makes its own choices. Acquiring AUKUS's military capability was a sovereign decision. Any decision to use this capability will also be ours alone. Let me also be clear that our intent in acquiring this capability is to make our contribution to the strategic balance of the region. We want to have a stable region where no country dominates and no country has dominated. If that is to be the case, we each have a responsibility to play our part in collective deterrence of aggression. If any country can make the calculation that they can successfully dominate another, the region becomes unstable and the risk of conflict increases.

I make this point acknowledging that our region has been home to an unprecedented military build-up in recent years, meaning that we must work hard and fast if we are to maintain equilibrium. Increasing our capability sits alongside our diplomacy, which is about increasing the opportunities and benefits from peace and partnership—positive incentives for peace. As well as positive incentives for peace, we need deterrence to conflict and aggression. By having strong defence capabilities of our own and by working with partners who are investing in their own capabilities, we change the calculus for any potential aggressor.

There are those in this building who like to beat the drums of war, and there are those who like to believe that peace can come from passively hoping for the best. But this government knows that part of maintaining peace is making sure all countries are invested in that peace through effective diplomacy, and part of making peace is making sure any potential aggressor knows they cannot afford the costs of war.

The government will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders, as there are plenty of alternative opportunities in the Senate that the Greens could use to debate this and related issues, rather than taking time out of government business that is needed to progress important legislation relating to issues such as the referendum for a Voice to Parliament, equality, national reconstruction, housing, and climate safeguards. So, I remind the Greens that it was the federal Labor Party who opposed the Iraq War at the time. We still consider that that was the right decision. Please: give up trying to lecture the rest of us. We're a bit tired of it.

Simon Birmingham

I begin by acknowledging all Australian servicemen and servicewomen who served in Iraq and who continue to serve in Iraq—those who have paid a price and for their service and particularly the families of those who have paid that price. We thank you for your service, we acknowledge your contribution and we pay tribute to the work you have done. You should know that it is valued, notwithstanding some of the debates that ensue around that conflict and war. I want to also acknowledge the Iraqi people and all those who served alongside—those who have suffered and those who have felt loss. That is significant, and that is a loss that we should recognise, and we should recognise the pain and suffering that that caused in so many cases. But loss is of course not something the Iraqi people were immune to prior to this war and this conflict. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a leader who showed complete—

Hon. Senators

Honourable senators interjecting—

Simon Birmingham

I cannot believe that the Australian Greens are seeking to argue with that point. Let me state it again: Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a world leader who showed complete disregard for lives, for human rights, and for international laws and rules. He was a leader who used chemical and biological weapons—poison gas—against neighbouring countries, against his own citizens, against the Kurdish people.

Whatever the attempts to form a black-and-white view of right or wrong, of war or conflict, some facts and realities should stand in relation to what Saddam Hussein, his dictatorship and his regime undertook. He didn't just use those biological and chemical weapons against his own people. He maintained, when the international community sought to scrutinise that, a deliberate ambiguity around whether he continued to hold those weapons. He deliberately sought to lure other nations into believing he continued to have them and would use them, as he had sought to do so in the past. He also led a regime that sponsored suicide bombers. He led a regime that was recognised as a state sponsor of terrorism. He was responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of people. The world and Iraq are better off for being rid of Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship. That is not to say that there are no lessons that can be learned. There are always lessons to learn. Those lessons go to the intelligence and analysis available and how that is scrutinised in the future. They have been widely debated and canvassed over the two decades since the war commenced.

However, it's important that we do recognise Iraq today as a democracy, not a perfect one but one where the Iraqi people, as is acknowledged by many experts in the field, have more say over their future than they did 20 years ago. Where their rights are far from universally respected, there is better regard than there was 20 years ago. Calls to remove the remaining assistance from the ADF deployment or otherwise from Iraq would be to show disregard for the advances that have been made during that time. The Greens are misplaced in arguing that we should bring the remaining personnel home. We should be showing support to work with the democratically elected government of Iraq, to work with the people of Iraq, to ensure that the sense of greater stability, the improvement in standards and the development in relation to their democracy is supported and underpinned at this critical time as best as we possibly can.

I lastly turn to the arguments advanced by the Greens. They're not contained in the motion they have sought to have debated about the decision-making processes and the powers of executive government. It remains the position of the coalition that the executive government of the day should have authority in relation to troop and personnel deployments. Our system is one where there is immense scrutiny of decisions made by government. But we should enable governments to exercise those powers under the appropriate scrutiny, transparency and accountability of parliamentary democracy.

Long debate text truncated.