Skip navigation

Pages tagged "Vote: in favour"

FOR – Bills — National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the Ndis Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024; Reference to Committee

Anne Ruston

I move:

That the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for further inquiry, including examining any circulated amendments to the bill and the positions of state and territory governments, and report by 5 August 2024.

Sue Lines

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

Read more

FOR – Business — Rearrangement

Sue Lines

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

Read more

FOR – Business — Rearrangement

Anne Ruston

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the referral of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the referral of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee.

What we saw today before we moved into question time was a filibuster on the other side on the NDIS bill simply so we couldn't get to a position where we could allow the community the opportunity to debate this bill in the committee and see the intention of this bill. Six hundred and sixty thousand Australians rely on the NDIS. Six hundred and sixty thousand people will be impacted by the conditions, terms and amendments that are contained in the NDIS bill. All we are asking this chamber for is permission to enable that bill to be fully ventilated with the community so that people who are going to be impacted and their families, communities and friends have the opportunity to really understand what is being proposed here by the Labor Party. So we've just sought to refer this bill for a short additional length of time because of the truncated nature of the previous referral. We're more than happy for this bill to come back into this place the next time the parliament sits after this particular sitting session. But no. The Labor Party continue to be obstructive about this, without any regard whatsoever.

I have to say this has become an extraordinary track record of this government. They do not want transparency about what they're doing. It's not just this bill. Bill after bill after bill and measure after measure after measure is shoved into this place with little if any consultation. Earlier this week, we saw an absolute classic when the very people impacted by a decision of this government that was shoved through this place—that is, the 6,000 small-business community pharmacies of this country—had something forced on them and they found out about it when they heard about it in the media. If this is what you think running a country is all about, I think you will be very sadly informed differently when you get to the ballot box next time, because I think Australians are sick to death of the contempt with which this government is treating them. We see this happen time and time again.

So I am seeking to refer this bill to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee so that we can get the NDIA—the National Disability Insurance Agency, the very organisation that oversees the running and administration of the NDIS—before that committee. The NDIS is a scheme put into place with bipartisan support. It was very poorly put together at the time, I might say, but it received bipartisan support because we, the coalition, saw at that time, and still do see, the absolutely vital service that this provides for the Australians that rely on it. I acknowledge that this is causing extraordinary heartbreak and concern to the many Australians legitimately on the NDIS. Every morning that they wake up and see that this government wants to shove through a bill without giving them the opportunity to have their say on what's going on, they wonder why it is that their government is betraying them and not giving them the opportunity to have their say.

I also commend Senator Steele-John for the fact that he and the Greens have seen that this is such an important issue that it deserves the kind of scrutiny that we are asking for it to have. So far we've had 2½ days of hearings on a matter that is going to affect 660 vulnerable Australians. If this government thinks that that is adequate, then they are completely missing the point. But I'm not overly surprised about the government missing the point because we keep seeing them missing the point because they keep failing to actually understand that real hard-working Australians are being affected and hurt by many of the policies that they continue to shove through this place without consultation or consideration. But I think it is an even greater shame on them that they would be doing it to some of the most vulnerable Australians—that is, those people who live with disability.

I would hope that this chamber will reconsider the position that they are currently holding and allow this bill to be referred without any further argument. I think it would be a sign of good faith to those Australians who rely on the NDIS. It would give them some certainty about the changes that are going to be made by this bill and how the change are going to affect them, and make sure that they have their say. And, hopefully, when they have their say, they will actually be listened to, so that the relevant changes can be made to this act so that we can have an NDIS going into the future which is fit for purpose but which makes sure that it continues to provide the extraordinary support that it needs so that Australians who live with disability get the support that they need.

I commend this motion to the chamber.

Tim Ayres

I want to indicate briefly the government's position in relation to this suspension motion and in relation to the bill. It is clear to me, at least, that the government does not have the numbers to defeat this proposition, but I just want to outline who is engaged in this conspiracy to prevent reform in the interests of—

Jordon Steele-John

Not me!

Sue Lines

Order! Senator Steele-John, I've called you.

Senator Steele-John! Senator Hughes.

Hollie Hughes

I ask Senator Ayres to withdraw for impugning motive of conspiracy. What a disgrace! What a disgraceful imputation!

Sue Lines

Senator Hughes, resume your seat. Senator Hughes, there was no reference to you. There was no reference to any senator that I heard. Senator Ayres, please continue.

Tim Ayres

It may be clear to some—

Hollie Hughes

I'm a mother of a participant, you grub!

Tim Ayres

who is engaged in this sordid, partisan plot—

Sue Lines

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, you will come to order! You have a choice to remain here and be silent or to leave the chamber or to make a contribution. Senator Ayres, please continue.

Tim Ayres

A sordid, partisan plot—that is exactly what this is. Because what is in the interests of Australians here, and particularly in the interests of disabled people and their families and carers, is that we establish the platform for reform that is set out in this bill.

This has had the broadest consultation of any piece of legislation—

Sue Lines

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Just as I invited Senator Hughes—

Senator Shoebridge, I am speaking! Just as I invited Senator Hughes to remain and listen in silence, to leave or to make a contribution by standing and seeking the call, that is exactly what I'm asking all senators in this place to do. Senator Steele-John, I had to call you three or four times in a row. Then I had interjections from Senator McKim and Senator Shoebridge after I had called for order. You are out of order. If you want to make a contribution, stand up and seek the call or signal that you want the call. Senator Ayres.

Tim Ayres

I understand, President, that it is uncomfortable having the bitterness, the nastiness and the partisanship of this position here, which is putting the bitterness, the nastiness and the partisanship above the public interest and above the interest of disabled people and their carers. That is what is going on here. The Liberal and National parties have decided to do the same old trick, which is claim that they are interested in working with the government in order to fix this scheme and make sure that it is fit for purpose, that it does what it says it is supposed to do, that the growth in the scheme is moderated in a way that means it supports the Australians who it's designed to support and in the way that it's designed to support them and that it's fit for the future so that disabled people and their families can count on it. So they say that but then work with the party that will never agree to decent reform in this area—will never agree and will always position.

So the two of them united together are out there trying to scare disabled Australians and to frighten communities about what is contained in this bill. The other thing that unites them is the dishonesty of that position.

Sue Lines

Order, Senator Steele-John!

Tim Ayres

What it will mean is that, while this is going out to some new Senate committee process—

Sue Lines

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Steele-John, you are being incredibly disrespectful. I have called for order. As I said before, you have a choice. You can listen in silence, you can leave the chamber or you can seek to make a contribution. Senator Ayres.

Tim Ayres

I have watched the contributions of various senators who have been engaged in this over some time. I have watched them. This is the apotheosis of those contributions—partisanship over the interests of ordinary Australians who have a disability, who need the support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and who need the certainty of a scheme for the future that will deliver. All this is about is crude politics and trying to position in the last half of 2024 and the first half of 2025. There is no interest in the public policy outcome and no interest in engaging with families and stakeholders.

I know that it may be a futile task here, but my job is to ask people in this place to reflect on their duty to ordinary Australians—to disabled Australians, in particular—and to put the public interest first. But I know that, when the sordid partisan fix is in, the fix is in.

Sarah Hanson-Young

I move:

That the question be put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the question be put.

Read more

FOR – Business — Consideration of Legislation

Nick McKim

I move:

That—

(a) following the introduction and first reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, the bill be divided into two bills and amended in accordance with the amendments on sheet 2683, to create two bills as follows:

(i) Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024—containing Schedules 2 to 7, and

(ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024—containing Schedule 1;

(b) the bills be printed;

(c) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 September 2024;

(d) the following reporting dates apply to the Economics Legislation Committee's inquiries into the:

(i) Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, as amended—2 August 2024,

(ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024—4 September 2024, and

(iii) Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024—4 September 2024; and

(e) further consideration of each bill be an order of the day for the corresponding date listed in paragraph (d).

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McKim be agreed with.

Read more

FOR – Committees — Selection of Bills Committee; Report

Sue Lines

I'm now going to deal with part (b) of Senator Gallagher's amendment. Senator McKenzie has foreshadowed an amendment, which she's invited to move.

Bridget McKenzie

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2024".

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKenzie to part (b) of Senator Gallagher's amendment be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Committees — Selection of Bills Committee; Report

Sue Lines

The question is that part (a) of the amendment that Senator Gallagher's moved to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Committees — Selection of Bills Committee; Report

Anne Urquhart

I present Report No. 6 of 2024 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. 6 of 2024

27 June 2024

Members o f t he 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 Maria Kovacic

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

  1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 June 2024 at 7.12 pm 2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(b) the provisions of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

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

Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024

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

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

27 June 2024

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Private Sexual Material) Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To ensure there is a committee enquiry into this important matter.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Individuals, stakeholders, and other parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

July

Possible reporting date:

8 August 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Private Sexual Material) Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Online safety

Public interest, harm prevention

Regulatory reform

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Public advocacy organisations

Privacy groups

Parents, Principals, victims

Media and technology orgs

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

July 2024

Possible reporting date:

8 August 2024

(signed)

A. E. Urquhart

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024

Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024

Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To enquire into the Governments proposed laws.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties, agricultural stakeholders, and other individuals.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

July

Possible reporting date:

8 August 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Nature Positive Bills (EPA, EIA and transitional)

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Allow time to consider details of proposed legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Environment sector, experts, scientists, business

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment & Communications

Possible hearing date(s):

August

Possible reporting date:

3 September

(signed)

Nick McKim

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Katy Gallagher

I move:

At the end of the motion, add: ", and:

(a) the provisions of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2024; and

(b) the provisions of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee.

Anne Ruston

Can I ask that the amendment just moved by the minister be split and voted on separately?

Sue Lines

Yes.

Nick McKim

I'm also going to ask that those are put separately, because the Greens intend to vote differently on them, and I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the provisions of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report by 3 September 2024".

And I want to speak to that briefly. I just want to be clear about how broken our environment laws are in Australia. Our environment laws are misnamed; they are actually development laws, laws that enable the destruction of our environment. They do not do what most people think they should in this country, which is protect our environment from destruction. There are so many flaws in Australia's environment laws. But one, if not the biggest, flaw is that logging is exempt from our environment laws if it is conducted under a regional forest agreement. It's time to end native forest logging in Australia. It's also time to end the carve-out from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that the mendicant native forest logging industry in this country enjoys.

To that end I want to tell the Senate about a recent trip I had, hosted by the legends at the Bob Brown Foundation, and the brave Australians who are defending this most beautiful, spectacular piece of forest right in the heart of Takayna, the Tarkine, at the junction of the Arthur and the Frankland rivers, where right now the loggers are logging into the night under floodlights to try and get that coupe completely destroyed before the end of the month when they will have to stop logging it because it is wedge-tailed eagle habitat and they're not allowed to log it into July. That's why they're logging into the night right now under floodlights and that is why heroic forest defenders supported by the legends at the Bob Brown Foundation are now into their 38th day of direct action.

They are brave Australians, who stand on the right side of history and who stand to protect nature, the carbon in those forests, the beautiful myriad creatures that call those forests home, the significant Aboriginal cultural heritage of that area, the carbon in the soils, the carbon in the trees, the carbon in the deadwood and the senescent trees that provide habitat for so many beautiful creatures, including the endangered masked owl. Those brave forest defenders are there on the ground right now, and I want to give a massive shout-out to them. I want to give a massive shout-out to the heroes and legends at the Bob Brown Foundation.

Coupe FR002A is being logged by the Tasmanian Liberal government with the support of a federal Labor government using public subsidies handed out to a mendicant native forest logging industry that would be finished overnight if you just pulled the public subsidies out of it. That would be the end of the native forest logging industry because it can't even turn a profit without tens of millions of dollars a year in Tasmania alone going into public subsidies in that industry.

We need an adequate inquiry into the so-called nature positive cognate package of bills, which I remind folks constitutes a huge and horrendous breach of trust from the environment minister, Ms Plibersek, and in fact every single Labor member in this place and the other place, who committed to the Australian people before the last election that we would get the significant overhaul of our environment laws that so many millions of Australians want to see. It's a broken promise. Here we find ourselves with a massive broken promise. Why did they break that promise? Because this is the Labor Party and they don't care about nature. They just care about their political donors in the fossil fuel industries. They just care about developers turning a profit. And once again it is nature who loses out. Well, the Greens won't let nature lose out. We'll always fight for it.

Long debate text truncated.

Read more

FOR – Committees — Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee; Reference

Bridget McKenzie

Prior to my contribution, I wish to add senators to this motion who've come to me since it's been lodged. In addition to National Party Senators Davey, Canavan, Nampijinpa Price, McDonald and Cadell, I'd like to add Senators Brockman, O'Sullivan, Reynolds, Cash and McGrath. I, and also on behalf of Senators Davey, McDonald, Nampijinpa Price, Canavan, Cadell, Brockman, O'Sullivan, Reynolds, Cash and McGrath, move:

That the provisions of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2024.

Here we have another tick-and-flick, cheap-and-dirty attempt by the Labor Party to consult the communities they have continued to abuse for over two years after coming to power. The pathway to the Lodge for Anthony Albanese was paved through Western Australia. What has he done? East coast Labor has turned their back on the west. How have they done this? They have instigated the ban on live sheep trade forthwith.

In Senate estimates, the minister made it very clear: 'It is Senate inquiries that do the legislation inquiries, and I'm sure that will happen.' Well, Minister Watt, now it is time to stand up for the agriculture community. Now is the time to actually put your political muscle and mouth—which is always on show—to work. Give us the Senate inquiry that you promised industry and that industry, our exporters, our producers and our regional communities, particularly in Western Australia, have requested after the absolute sham process in the other place, which was an abomination and a shame on what should be good consultation.

This government, time and time again, has made decision after decision that undermines the legitimacy and the strength and the prosperity of our mighty agriculture industry. As Australia's first female agriculture minister and having had the great privilege of serving the industry and serving our country, I know firsthand what a world-class live sheep export industry we have out of the west. In terms of servicing culturally appropriate protein to the Middle East, you love to talk about cultural appropriation but not when talking about how the Middle East communities would like to receive their food and what sort of industry we have, which is absolutely world-class.

I had the great privilege to head over to Muresk, in the great state of WA, for the second of those Senate inquiries, to hear directly from primary producers, from advocacy bodies, from local champions, from those employing thousands of people in the West. And don't think this is a west coast problem. When this occurs, as is already happening, it's having a flow-on impact to the east coast industry as well. In Muresk, the Keep the Sheep campaign spokesperson, Benno, was very clear: 'The clear message we want to send today, come and look us in the eye and see the people you're hurting. Listen to our stories. Do you think you know better than us?' Thank you, Benno. It's the transport operator. It's the supply chain. It's not just the primary producers. Glenn Sterle comes in here and talks a big game backing truckies. Now is his opportunity to do that. He could actually chair the legislation inquiry that the minister has promised and that the Senate and these communities deserve.

The Keep the Sheep petition has over 44,000 signatures in a single week. It's up to 60,000 now. Log onto any of our Facebook pages if you want to show your support for this great, world-class industry. Brownie also said, 'Labor is actually wanting to take away our livelihoods and potentially our lives.' We heard from farmer Leanne Dring: 'This was a line-in-the-sand moment. I never thought that at the age of 60 I would have to fight for a social licence to feed the world.' Well, under Anthony Albanese and Murray Watt, that's exactly what you have to do. He'll come in and say, 'We had an election commitment, and we're going through with it.' At least have the decency to look these people in the eye and give them the opportunity to put their case. Over 13,000 submissions were received to the House of Representatives inquiry. They haven't even been able to be uploaded and publicly available. If that happened in one of the Greens' or the Labor Party's Senate inquiries, there would be an uproar that we were silencing the people. But, when it is an industry that underpins the regions and the seven million of us that live out there, this government doesn't care. This motion is about giving them a voice.

Jess Walsh

():  Ending live sheep exports is a commitment that has been well known for some years, and it has been well consulted. Labor went to both the 2019 and 2022 federal elections committing to phase out live sheep exports by sea. In government, we've overseen a significant consultation on how to implement that commitment and implement it in a way that delivers jobs and opportunities to regional Australia. The coalition, apparently, wants to stand in the way of these opportunities. They want to stand in the way of the certainty that industry needs to navigate the future, a future with a four-year phase-out, a future with $100 million of investment for new opportunities, a future that has long been signalled, has been extensively consulted and has been well known for some time.

The independent panel, which we established, consulted on how and when this phase-out could occur. Between March and October last year, it went out and sought views about how this would work. The independent panel hosted over 2,000 people at in-person forums and 330 attendees at virtual forums. They held 80 meetings with organisations and farmer representative groups. They received over 800 written submissions and over 3,000 survey responses. Through all of this consultation, they made their 28 recommendations to government, including the recommendation to end the export in four years' time. That was the recommendation that was made by the independent panel. This recommendation was strongly informed by the overwhelming decline of the live sheep export industry. In 2022-23, live sheep exports by sea represented less than one per cent of the total value of Australia's sheep exports—less than one per cent!

The government has put forward a bill to address this economic reality. The bill that is before the parliament has been consulted on and it's been examined by members of parliament. It's been examined by members of the coalition. They've had that opportunity. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture conducted an inquiry into this bill. They've looked into it. They've held two public hearings on it. They've sought the views of everyone. They have received hundreds of submissions. They have received thousands of letters—notably, 7,000 letters in support of the bill. But those opposite just close their eyes, block their ears, and pretend that didn't happen. They pretend that an independent inquiry and another parliamentary inquiry never happened. They ignore all of the evidence before them and they just say, 'No, apparently we need another inquiry.'

Instead of watching the trade, businesses and communities just collapse slowly over time, as live sheep export by sea makes up less than one per cent of the industry today, the government has stepped in to maximise the opportunities that are actually here: to focus on and grow the processing of these animals locally, right here in Australia. We have allocated over $100 million to assist the entire supply chain, including farmers, processors, truckies and shearers. We have allocated $100 million to navigate that transition. This is something that you would think that those opposite would embrace: more jobs in the agriculture sector, more jobs in regional Australia, more support for local businesses, building a new meat processing industry in Australia—

Dean Smith

Where are the WA senators?

Karen Grogan

Senator Smith! Order!

Jess Walsh

But they can't pass up the opportunity to play politics with this. They want to pass up all of those opportunities and instead play politics on this issue, play politics with regional Australia and try to block the opportunities that we want to create.

Mehreen Faruqi

The Greens oppose this referral, and that should come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber. The Nationals just can't deal with the fact that this is it. This is it! This is the end of the cruel live export industry which lost its social licence decades ago, and for good reason. It is a barbaric trade that results in the suffering of animals as they are crammed into overcrowded, filthy containers and forced to endure long and gruelling journeys, subjected to extreme temperatures, thirst and hunger, and thousands upon thousands have actually died. There is no need for another inquiry. Everyone knows why this trade must end. The research has been done. Extensive and lengthy stakeholder engagement has been undertaken. The independent panel appointed to investigate a ban on live sheep export has received 800 submissions and over 3,000 survey responses. They met with over 2,000 people and held 96 stakeholder meetings. The 225-page report recommended the phase-out of live sheep export, although of course the Greens would like it to be in 2026 rather than in 2028.

Live exports, we all know, have been in long-term structural decline for decades, and there is now a generous package to transition to the chilled meat trade to provide some sustainability and security. The community knows that sheep are not cargo. Here's why it needs to end. They are not a commodity or a cargo. They are living, breathing, sentient beings, and the horrors inflicted upon them, all for the industry to make profits, are an affront to anything decent and humane. This cruel trade must end, and this cruel trade will end, no matter how many motions the coalition brings into this chamber.

Eighty per cent of submissions to the independent panel supported the end of live export. Eighty-five per cent of submissions to the recent House inquiry supported the end of live sheep export. In 2023, 71 per cent of Western Australians supported the phase-out, including 69 per cent of people in rural and regional areas. In 2022, polling showed that nationally 78 per cent of people support the phase-out of live sheep export. Back in October 2018, I tabled a petition against live sheep exports in the Senate, and it was signed by 238,000 people. That's about 10,000 pages long.

So all the hard work done by the community, animal welfare advocates and activists, whistleblowers and the Greens has finally forced Labor to end live sheep exports, and we're not going to let you undo this historic decision. The motion does nothing other than delay the inevitable. The Nationals are not interested in inquiring into the bill; they just want animal cruelty to continue, and they will not be successful.

I have said this many times, and I will say it again: until this cruel trade ends, live export will remain incompatible with animal welfare, because animal cruelty is at the absolute core of the industry's business model. The coalition would have you believe that animal cruelty is a problem of the past, but that's just plain wrong. In fact, with summer temperatures rising unbearably because of global warming, these ships of misery will get even worse for animals, and no set of standards will make live export ships safe for the sheep. They will still remain ships of misery for the sheep. This cruel trade is irredeemable, and the only option is to shut it down. It was really good to see the bill to end live sheep export pass the House today, and I am looking forward to it coming to the Senate and passing as well, because it is way past time to end live sheep export, and the bill to ensure that must pass immediately.

Long debate text truncated.

Read more

FOR – Bills — Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024; in Committee

Andrew McLachlan

The next questions relate to the amendments moved by Senator McCarthy on sheet ZC286. So, the first question is that amendments (1) to (10) and (12) to (27) on sheet ZC286, moved by Senator McCarthy, be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Bills — Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Sue Lines

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Read more