Jonathon Duniam's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Selection of Bills Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I ask that the two elements of Senator McKenzie's amendment be put separately.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
What a sorry road we've travelled as a country to this point in time. By that, I refer to the years leading up to the massacre at Bondi on 14 December last year, an event we've talked about in...
What a sorry road we've travelled as a country to this point in time. By that, I refer to the years leading up to the massacre at Bondi on 14 December last year, an event we've talked about in this place in an appropriately respectful way, both in our condolence motion yesterday and, of course, in relation to the legislation that has just passed the House in the form of the firearms laws. The event on 14 December was not a standalone event. It didn't just happen in isolation. The sorry road this nation has traversed I referred to are the years of antisemitic behaviour that have been allowed to flourish in this country unabated, unchecked and unchallenged, and which resulted in those events in Bondi just over a month ago—events which have changed this nation forever, deeply wounding the Jewish community in a way many of us can't even begin to imagine. Of course, as a starting point, it's important to remember not only that this is the worst terror event that has happened on Australian soil in our history but that, of course, it was one motivated by hate, targeted at a group of people defined by who they are—the Jewish community. It was a targeted event relating to Jews celebrating the beginning of Hanukkah, the festival of light, that so many people referred to in their condolence speeches yesterday. As I said before, what led to those events on 14 December was more than two years of failure to stand up against, to stamp out and to challenge the source of antisemitism which has been ravaging our world. We only have to turn our minds back to 7 October 2023, those terrible events, the atrocity in Israel committed by Hamas—again, targeting Jewish people in an act of pure antisemitism where so many people lost their lives. It was the biggest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. Two days later on 9 October, we saw those terrible, despicable events on the steps of the Sydney Opera House, where we had individuals revelling in what had occurred in Israel—the deaths of so many innocent people. They were events that went unchallenged, unchecked and unabated and were allowed to occur. Over the next two years, 2023 and 2024, we saw countless events and incidents of the targeting of Jewish businesses, Jewish schools and Jewish daycare centres. Of course, now we know that, in unbelievable scenes, we have schools and daycare centres with sentries, guards, at their doors to protect the young people inside, who are children—people who are not going to cause harm to anyone else but, sadly, who are a target of harm in our community. In the years 2024 and 2025, there were those despicable attacks on synagogues, places of worship—firebombings while people were inside, graffiti and the like. These sorts of things are not what mark our country or what make it great; these are things that lead to the events we saw occur in Bondi at the end of last year. They were allowed to happen—unchecked, unchallenged, unabated—and here we are today, after years of sad activity which culminated in those terrible events in Bondi. Inaction by government, even as we reached the crescendo of the antisemitism crisis that's ravaged our country, is what has fed this beast and kept it going. From the very beginning, there's been a failure of response. There has been no response with resolve, no response with strength and nothing in the way of a clear response to the actual events that led to this. There was no attempt by the government to even send a message to those who would perpetrate harm and who would direct hate at Jewish Australians. There was no attempt to show what was right and what was wrong. On so many occasions over the last two years, there was no attempt to take decisive action when it counted. Indeed, even after Bondi, the response was wanting. The initial response was, of course, in relation to firearms laws. To an event driven by hate, driven by ideology and with Islamic extremism at its heart, the response was about gun laws. Can I say that, while reforms to gun laws may well be important, they were not going to be the fix to this issue. That is something that, thankfully, the government heard and altered course on. There were the ignored calls for a royal commission from family members of the victims, Jewish community leaders and members of the entire parliament from across the political spectrum that were finally heeded. Then there was a failure to work across communities and the spectrum of parliamentary parties on the laws. We had this truncated and rushed process relating to legislation—done the wrong way around. The consultation was not done at the beginning; it was done at the end. Interaction with other members of parliament to gain insights on what might be possible and what should be included in the laws was done at the eleventh hour, after laws had been tabled. We ended up with a mashed-together, hastily-put-together set of laws including gun reforms, which are very distinct from, as per Labor's first attempt, laws to govern speech, laws to deal with hate groups and laws to deal with hate symbols. All of it was a complete hotchpotch, designed in secret with no input, with the Prime Minister and this government saying: 'Take it or leave it. You've got a week to read the nearly 500 pages of documentation, and we're going to pass it.' Here we are, that one week on, having dealt with this. I give credit to the government for having come back here quickly. That was something we were all calling for—urgent action. But, in addition to urgent action being taken and the urgent recall of parliament, we wanted laws that actually hit the mark and that passed muster, and, frankly, they were fails. What we're doing now, at the eleventh hour, is trying to fix this government's mess—the mess and the attempt to legislate that they got so terribly wrong. I want to acknowledge the thousands of emails that I and, I know, many colleagues have received over the course of the last few days from members of our community who are very worried about the reach, the scope and the extent of the laws we are debating here today. Their concerns were not unfounded. Their concerns have not been ignored either, I should say. We've heard what's been said, and, as opposition, we have acted. Thankfully, of course, Labor's hate speech laws, which were part of this, the racial vilification laws, were dumped. They were an appalling approach for how to respond to this issue. The unintended consequences of those laws as drafted, with seven days to try and understand what these laws would do and what impact they would have on people's capacity to exercise that loved element of our society, freedom of speech, were impossible to determine. Officials at the committee inquiry into this, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry, could not give clarity around what the impact of those laws would be. So they've been dumped. They're gone. They're not part of this, and that is, thankfully, a very good outcome. We could never support laws of that nature with such a wide scope. What's left in the laws? There is the new aggravated offence for religious or spiritual leaders who advocate or threaten violence. The opposition has been able to agree with government on some changes to what was originally proposed, and that included the tightening up of the definitions of who would be included as a religious official or a spiritual leader. This is to end doubt and to ensure that there is a clear cut-out for who would be impacted by this. The application and operation of those laws would be reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security after two years. It is important to point out that these laws don't create a new penalty. The existing criminal code provisions apply to people as they did before these laws passed. It is not catching new people out. It is not applying new laws to people that didn't apply yesterday. If people want to threaten violence and use their position as a religious leader to do so, they will have an increased penalty. That's what these provisions do. I think they're sensible, and, sadly, some of the misinformation out there around what these provisions do has confused a lot of people. This is not about restricting freedoms or unduly penalising people. This is about dealing with people who use their position as a religious leader, as we've seen with some of the hate preachers, to incite violence in the way that they have. It increases penalties for using a postal or similar service to menace or harass, increasing that penalty from two to five years. It introduces aggravated grooming offences for adults radicalising or recruiting children. Again, I think that's a very sound measure to have in place. There is a sentencing aggravating factor for hate motivated offending. It strengthens the hate symbol offences that we passed at the beginning of last year, lowering the fault element to recklessness, and it extends the bans to symbols of prohibited hate groups—which I'll talk about in a moment. It gives police stronger powers to remove and seize symbols, and, again, the opposition sought a two-year review of these provisions because altering fault elements, lowering thresholds and reversing evidentiary burdens is a significant measure. Again, after a period of operation, we want to make sure this is operating properly and not unduly impacting on people in a way it should not. The one that has of course garnered most interest is the one relating to the establishment of a hate group listing regime. There are several elements to this which I think are important to point out in the limited time available to me. So there is no capacity for misunderstanding, we have sought to update the definition of a hate crime that would constitute an offence against a provision of the law under the Commonwealth Criminal Code and, related to that, a number of state and territory provisions. We have insisted that there is a consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and Intelligence review this provision after two years. That is on top of the fact that the director-general of intelligence has to make a recommendation to the minister who then can only list a hate group by way of a legislative instrument which is disallowable. The thresholds in law are incredibly high—and for the most serious of offences—for a hate group to meet them and be listed. This is not about targeting pro-life groups. This is not about targeting people who might be seeking to advocate for a particular cause. This is about people who are targeting a group identified by ethnic, national or racial origin and are seeking to harm them in a violent way as stepped out under the Criminal Code. There is to be no mistake about that. Of course, there are other provisions around the immigration laws and changes to the Migration Act around refusing visas to those who do spread hatred and extremism in our country, including involvement in a hate crime, hateful public statements or links to terrorist and prohibited hate groups. Can I tell you, that is an important part of these laws. We have dealt with the concerns that have been raised through the information that I have offered to the Senate tonight—by making amendments, by tightening definitions and by putting in place review mechanisms to ensure that we minimise risk and that this does not unintentionally catch groups of Australians who should not be caught. This is about dealing with those people in our community who hate Australia, who hate the way our country operates. If you don't vote for these laws, the net effect is that we will be left with a regime where groups like Hizb ut-Tarir will be able to continue to operate in this country. Let me remind you that Hizb ut-Tarir would not be listed as a prohibited hate group if these laws don't succeed through the parliament. In 2017, a video was uploaded to Facebook by Hizb ut-Tarir. It involved two panellists who stated that men are permitted to hit women, preferably with a scarf or a piece of fabric or a short stick. One panellist refers to being hit by a man as a beautiful blessing. This group also went on to talk about women being segregated and argued for women being seated in the back of a room in public meetings. This is something journalist Alison Bevege successfully sued Hizb ut-Tarir for—for segregating her at a meeting. This group defended a man in his 20s who tried to marry a 12-year-old girl in 2014. This is a group that wants to take down Western norms. They're a group that spreads hate. They're a group that is linked to insidious individuals overseas. If we don't want to have a regime in place to deal with groups like this who have no place in our society, then voting against these laws is what you should do. Voting against these laws enables people who come here to spread hate to stay here on a visa. We can't deal with them. They can come in. We can't stop them. That's why these laws are important. It's important to take back control of this situation so we can actually deal with the hate these people have brought here.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Praise the lord, yes. Look, if we could please just stick to the issues at hand here, the other concern that the coalition had in this was the suggestion that dealing with gun laws was going to...
Praise the lord, yes. Look, if we could please just stick to the issues at hand here, the other concern that the coalition had in this was the suggestion that dealing with gun laws was going to be a silver bullet to deal with issues related to antisemitism. The first response of this government after Bondi was to announce that there would be a review of and changes to gun laws. That is not the cause of what happened here. The gun laws we have in this country were not what caused the event in Bondi on 14 December last year. Yes, firearms were used. They were a weapon, along with homemade bombs. As we know by the proliferation of terrorist activity across the globe, there are a range of weapons that people use beyond firearm, sadly. Indeed, there was an impassioned contribution by another colleague of mine, Senator Liddle, around perpetrators of domestic violence and how there are a proliferation of weapons used there. To suggest that the terrible terrorist event perpetrated by Islamic extremists, the worst terror attack on our soil in our history, would be fixed by changing the gun laws in the way we do is, sadly, a misnomer. So we took issue with the fact that the government's first and only response for a period of time was indeed to change the gun laws and say: 'You know what? All will be well.' As we know, as history has shown and as the Prime Minister was forced to concede, there was a need for a royal commission. Everyone was calling for one. The world united to have that beyond a response in the form of firearms legislation amendment. You had the victims' families calling for a royal commission. That's much more than just changes to gun laws. You had business leaders, community leaders and not only the opposition but others in this party calling for a royal commission. They finally did it, beyond firearms legislation amendments, and indeed there was much more required. An omnibus bill landed on the table of this parliament—not even this parliament but the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—of 150 pages which included the racial vilification provisions which the government said were necessary to tackle antisemitism in this country. But, again, as some of the witnesses to that inquiry said, the changes proposed under racial vilification in part 5 of schedule 1 of the bill as it was originally slated were the biggest changes to laws governing speech in this country for more than half a century. That is a serious step that parliament would take and requires more than seven days of rushed consideration on laws that have such a dramatic impact on freedom of speech. It is pleasing, though, that the laws have been separated, and we are dealing with the firearms laws and the customs laws separately. I will also indicate that the coalition were supportive of the provisions of the schedule relating to customs, which were originally, I believe, in schedule 3 of the previous bill. But we do have a myriad of concerns relating to the firearms provisions. I have given voice to those elements we support, and I'm sure other colleagues, including Senator McKenzie, will go into greater detail around the provisions that we actually have real issue with, including through the amendments that the opposition will be moving and including a second reading amendment Senator McKenzie will move. We do want to deal with genuine issues, including the illegal manufacture of firearms, and with some of the issues around unintended consequences relating to electronic files. There are people out there who access information about how to reload ammunition. They need to genuinely understand how to do it properly so that they don't cause injury or harm to themselves or others. But, under these laws, what they do to try and reach a safe outcome will be deemed illegal. These are the unintended consequences for the representatives of shooting bodies and of farmers' and graziers' associations across the country, as Senator McKenzie and others will, I'm sure, talk about and give voice to. With that, I'm pleased to have kicked off debate in the Australian Senate around these laws. Obviously, the position is clear: we don't support these matters as they stand today. There are elements of the bill we are supportive of, but we are not supportive of it in total. Unless amendments can be agreed to, we have real reservations around this, and the coalition will not be supporting this legislation.
I'm not sure what Senator Shoebridge is worried about there, but I was just giving a voice to some of the concerns that have been raised in a very reasonable fashion. Indeed, I'm sure that I'll...
I'm not sure what Senator Shoebridge is worried about there, but I was just giving a voice to some of the concerns that have been raised in a very reasonable fashion. Indeed, I'm sure that I'll be able to interrupt Senator Shoebridge's contribution on the subsequent bill, which, of course, will be very interesting to hear.
I'm pleased to be able to rise on behalf of the coalition to start debate in the Senate on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. As the Senate...
I'm pleased to be able to rise on behalf of the coalition to start debate in the Senate on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. As the Senate would recall, the legislation that we're currently debating was, in fact, part of a broader package of laws all jammed together, all tied in together, as an omnibus bill. These laws, for the most part, deal with gun laws—a framework to set up a gun buyback scheme; a system to enable Commonwealth intelligence agencies to share information around background checking for state and territory law enforcement agencies, which are the responsible bodies to issue licences for firearms in this country. It expands that background check arrangement; it expands the importation controls and new tests; it expands customs import and export prohibitions relating to extremists and hate linked materials, symbols and weapons. One of the big concerns we had about this legislation in the first instance was that it was legislation jammed in with other legislation relating to matters to deal with the antisemitism crisis we face in this country, to deal with how we might proscribe and manage hate groups in this country, how we might deal with individuals under these laws who, of course, are spreading hate, inciting violence, are seeking to do terrible things to unpick the social fabric of our country that are not in our national interest, to deal with people who hate this country, who do not want democracy to succeed, who do not feel that the way we live in this country is indeed the way that it should be. They want to change everything. So to have this set of laws jammed in together was a huge concern for us. I will also point out that these laws were slapped down on the table by the Prime Minister, by his government, and he said, in doing so: You've got a week to look at this. The parliament will be coming back—and here we are—and you've got to get it right by then. You've got to go through the 150 pages or thereabouts of legislation, you've got to read the 350 pages of explanatory memorandum—all of it very complex, all of it impacting existing laws across our statute book, all of it having impacts on things that many of us have raised concerns on towards freedom of speech and the like—and you've got to get it all done within the week. This is a truncated process off the back of legislation having been tabled that no-one outside of government had any input into prior to the legislation being made available to the public on Tuesday of last week—seven days ago. At 9.00 am on Tuesday last week, the government released this legislation, or a draft version of it, for public consultation. Of course, since then, the legislation has been taken out of the omnibus bill they'd tabled, because they did see the writing on the wall. They realised, of course, that in its form then and the approach being taken—'Take it or leave it; we've drafted legislation, and you're going to have to pass it, or we'll blame you for the failure of this legislation'—was not going to work. As anyone tuned into this debate might realise, the Australian Greens political party have offered their support to the government to pass the firearms component of this legislation and the related customs element as well. They saw fit to pass this; they were able to do that in short form. I'm not sure what interrogation was had into this legislation, but they've reached that conclusion anyway. The coalition does support elements of the legislation. If we start with, of course, the provision regarding expanded background checks using intelligence holdings, it's frankly baffling that today we don't actually have that in place, that that is not a standard form, that a police or law enforcement agency—whoever the licence-issuing authority in any state or territory is—doesn't, as a matter of course, go and interrogate the holdings of intelligence information or seek to understand whether there is any information held by national intelligence agencies. It's the fact that here we are in 2026 and that's not actually happening. To that end, it is a good move to have that arrangement in place—that we are actually able to ensure that level of information, which was, as at today, unavailable to agencies who are making decisions, is important. It has also highlighted the very slow-going nature of the National Firearms Register. As I understand it, there are some jurisdictions—and this is the reason we don't have a national firearms registry—that still have a paper based registry. It's not electronic, it is not online, it's not even an Excel spreadsheet! It is an antiquated system, which, of course, makes one wonder how it can be properly administered, especially when there are quite a number of people in our community who do have firearms and who are law-abiding citizens. But how do you manage this kind of system if it's in a book or on a bunch of scraps of paper? Who knows how that operates? But it does show that the government does need to speed up. We, of course, do have some concern around unintended consequences of the expansion of importation controls and the new tests contained in this legislation. We are concerned about the impact of changes to the types of weaponry, the types of ammunition that can be imported and for what purpose, and the arrangement that a firearm licence holder would have to go through to get to them and to comply with the law. My colleague the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator McKenzie, will be moving amendments on behalf of the opposition to deal with some of the concerns we have. We think it is important, given the rushed nature of the legislation here, that we do get the balance right, that we do make sure that this does not improperly impede law-abiding gun owners and licence holders from being able to continue abiding by the law. Some of those concerns, of course, relate to what changes these laws might have on the ability of an individual to continue to earn an income. You've got individuals out there who draw an income from controlling vermin who will have an array of firearms as part of their toolkit to be able to do the job they need to do. A colleague, Senator Colbeck, showed me a picture last night of an individual who manages property at a place called Barrington in Tasmania, where, in his scope, there were hundreds of wallabies destroying the pasture for his livestock. That is an impact on business, so that person legitimately needs a range of weapons which have a range of fixtures—and there's a range of ammunition related to it—which will be caught up and impacted by this legislation. Some of those things, as I say, will be dealt with under the amendments to be moved by Senator McKenzie, who ordinarily would have led debate on this—
Bondi Beach: Attack | Condolences | Senate debates
When parliament rose at the end of 2025, none of us foresaw what was about to happen in New South Wales, in Bondi, on 14 December. To end 2025 with such sadness and horrific loss will be...
When parliament rose at the end of 2025, none of us foresaw what was about to happen in New South Wales, in Bondi, on 14 December. To end 2025 with such sadness and horrific loss will be remembered as a very dark chapter in our nation's history, a chapter laced with hate, antisemitism, extremism and, of course, such great cost and loss. Fifteen innocent lives that are no more. Fifteen people who were going about their lives in this peaceful and freedom-loving country, privately. Fifteen people whose lives were taken away just because of who they were. Fifteen people whose lives were taken away by people inspired by extremist ideology. On Monday 15 December last year, I joined the Jewish community in Bondi. The impact so clearly and obviously felt will forever stay with me as a memory of this time. The deep wound inflicted on the Jewish community by these events was clear in a way that words just can't explain. The grief on the faces of Jewish Australians, who were the target of the worst ever terror attack on our soil in our history, makes clear that things in this country do have to change—that this can never happen again. Over the course of the week, I stayed to show unity with this community and support our Jewish brothers and sisters. Beyond the impact, one thing became clear to me. While Jewish leaders and members of their community, ordinary men and women, were grateful for them, they wanted more than the thoughts and prayers that were being offered. Thoughts and prayers didn't stop this senseless loss of life. Thoughts and prayers didn't stop two people inspired by hate and radical Islam from taking the lives of 15 innocent people. We have let Jewish Australians down, and, indeed, action must be taken. This community has been warning us and has been crying out for action for some time. Despite what I've described, I believe truly and I think the facts and history bear out that this is a resilient community, after years of sustained abuse, harassment and vilification, some of the most disgusting attacks, all because this group of people have a faith and because of who they are—indiscriminate attacks against all members of this community. The Australian Jewish community, having suffered so much and been forced to often hide who they were to avoid attack, have faced all of these events with strength. Children within the Jewish community, their most innocent and vulnerable cohort, had to be protected with armed guards at schools and in childcare centres, and this is not Australia in 2026. This community, despite all of this, remains strong. They remain faithful. They remain steadfast in their commitment to who they are and their right to hold their beliefs—and rightly so. And they want us to stand with them and support their strength and their resilience. What I saw in Bondi during that week, in this strength—the resolve and the resilience—is something we often observe about the Australian spirit more broadly. That shared spirit we have is why we need to stand with the Jewish community at this time. It's that which is good about our country, which saw so many ordinary Australians do the extraordinary on 14 December, from New South Wales police who bravely confronted evil—as we saw in these gunmen—to the volunteers of the surf lifesaving club who, without hesitation, acted to render assistance to those who needed it. There were the members of the public, of course, who did all they could to stop the attack, who have been recognised by so many other speakers in this debate. Every one of these people who did what is right has been impacted forever. They'll never be able to forget what they saw or forget what they heard or experienced that day—and, indeed, the impact since. It'd be dishonest of me if I didn't admit to feeling a little useless when I was in Bondi, trying to support the Jewish community after this most horrendous of attacks. But I can say that I encountered a young man named Matt, who was visibly affected by what had happened and approached me while I was at the memorial in Bondi to ask for help for his friend, whose partner had been lost in the attack. Beyond offering Matt a hug, I was able to work with the government to offer Matt's friend support, and I want to acknowledge Tony Burke and his swift response to my request, which made a massive difference in the life of a family member of one of the victims. Beyond the many differences we have in this place, there is a common humanity, and we should tap into this when confronting what lies ahead for our country, particularly when we need to support a community affected for so long by everything I've described. As Rabbi Yossi Friedman said recently, 'One month on, we must remember, remain strong and remain together.' He's right. We must remember those who lost their lives, honour them and prevent this from happening ever again. We must do it with strength and we must do it together.
Days and Hours of Meeting | Business | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate— a) Omit paragraphs (3) (d) and (e); and b) Amend paragraph (3) (f) as follows: omit "on the motion of a minister" and substitute "once consideration of the bills...
I move: That the Senate— a) Omit paragraphs (3) (d) and (e); and b) Amend paragraph (3) (f) as follows: omit "on the motion of a minister" and substitute "once consideration of the bills has concluded".
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
It'll be very good for your Facebook.
Rearrangement | Business | Senate debates
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of...
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bills until 6.30 pm. In moving this motion, I think it's a great opportunity to continue to ventilate this dodgy deal that we've seen over here between Labor and the Greens, done in a smoke filled room in the ministerial wing of this building away from prying eyes, or maybe it was in the new sumptuous Greens party room down the corridor. We will never know, because these deals will never come out, but I think it is good to have this extended time for scrutiny. I now have realised why Labor and the Greens want to get out of this building tonight. The last speaker belled the cat on why. I now suspect that Senator Wong, Senator Gallagher and others are joining the Greens at this paddle-out in Newcastle. I did not know that the Labor Party were surfers as well, but they're going to go out, and they're going to blockade this coal port and prevent these important fossil fuels from getting in or out of our country and prevent the economy from functioning. I think it is important that this sham process that these poor members of the Public Service have had to sit through—forced to sit here and watch the sausage being made. I'm sorry. I really am. There's no time for scrutiny, no proper accountability, no respect for this chamber of the parliament, no ability to answer basic questions and no respect for the people of Australia and the people of the forestry industry. We have established that here by the simple fact that the Australian Greens have celebrated this victory today. This deal done between Labor and the Greens is something that they've been wanting for a very long time because it brings about the death of the native forestry industry in Australia. They would not be voting for this if it didn't do that. The ridiculous claims by the minister of, 'No, no. The Greens are voting for something that grows the forestry industry because of this growth fund of $300 million,' are madness. I can guarantee you that, when Senator McKim and Senator Whish-Wilson go back down to Tasmania, they're not going to be talking about forestry industry growth as a result of the deal done this week. They're going to be talking about the demise of this evil industry that's been propped up by the taxpayers for so long. So I tell you that this is why we need to get to the bottom of this dirty, dodgy deal that was done between Labor and the Greens to shut down these important industries and make it more difficult than ever before to do business in this country. I feel most aggrieved at the way in which the Labor Party, along with their coalition partners in this new Labor-Greens alliance, have approached democracy and accountability. They shut it down. The point was made earlier on today that the one non-contro bill we had to debate in this place—was it an hour and a quarter or thereabouts of debate time for one non-contro bill? There are seven bills in this package, and, as was originally slated, that's about the amount of time we had to debate these bills in this place, bills that govern a public good, Australia's environment. It's something that belongs to everyone, not just the government and certainly not just the Greens—thank the good Lord; I can tell you. It's something that is an important driver for our economy and something that our future generations need to have a say over as well. They're going to need jobs. They're going to need places to live. They're going to need to be able to pay their power bills. But under this legislation, of course, there is a real concern that all of those things are going to be impossible. I really do worry about the short-sighted nature of this and the fact that we don't have any scrutiny available to do this. So I am putting forward to this chamber—I suppose I'd better be relevant to the question before the chair, which is that we extend—that we need this extra hour and a half to interrogate this legislation. I'm sure that Senator Pocock, Senator Cadell, Senator Bell and Senator Barbara Pocock all have questions to ask this government that is so desperately wanting to get out of this place to join the paddle-out, to blockade the Newcastle port and to end fossil fuel exports, but honestly I'm just so disappointed. Maybe you could come down to Tasmania when the Senate rises, and we can look those forestry workers in the eyes and tell them what you've actually done. But, at the end of the day, it's not a surprise to us that of course this government has done this. They wanted to chalk up a win. They were happy to do a deal with anyone. It just so happens that the Australian Greens' price was—well, we don't actually know. Maybe I'll use the next hour and a half to ask about what that price was. I don't know how much bigger that sumptuous party room could be made, but maybe there's an ensuite being added on, an annex or a patio. I don't know. We'll see! Either way, it won't get through any EPBC laws—this government will have strangled any new development applications, and the party room will be no bigger. I commend this motion to extend the debate to the Senate.
Yes. I'm about to ask a question, Senator David Pocock. I've got three minutes to ask my question. I will do that. Let's not forget, though, that we had 700 pages of legislation thumped on the...
Yes. I'm about to ask a question, Senator David Pocock. I've got three minutes to ask my question. I will do that. Let's not forget, though, that we had 700 pages of legislation thumped on the table. We had a Senate committee inquiry process out to the end of March. I'll try and find it in this pile of paper that's been put on my desk today by the government, who want these bills passed—I'm just going to quote Senator Sarah Hanson-Young again. She said in a Senate inquiry last week, 'The people know it stinks'—'it' is this legislation—'It absolutely stinks, and that's why it needs scrutiny.' Senator Hanson-Young also just said to the chamber, in asking her question before, that she appreciates the urgency with which this is now being attended to. I don't know what's happened in the last week. Something big, something seismic, has shifted here. Senator Hanson-Young, who is normally so strident in her opposition to terrible bills, has suddenly found a way to agree with the government on this arrangement. It was, as I say, a deal to make it harder for resources projects to start. It will make it harder to get more gas into the grid, so we're going to have problems with supply when it comes to this critical resource of energy. It will make it harder to get housing developments up, despite any rhetoric we hear from the government on this. It's just going to be ridiculous. Of course, the crown jewel in their achievements of this week is to shut down the native forest industry and take away tens of thousands of jobs. And, of course, we won't be getting the beautiful timbers that adorn this chamber from Australia forests; we'll be ripping them out of the Congo Basin and we'll be displacing human populations and endangering even more species overseas. But, hey, if it's over the horizon, we don't care. My question to the minister is: can the minister guarantee that not one job will be lost in the forest industry as a result of the arrangement that has been put in place here today with regard to the changes to the RFA?
Thank you, Chair. Now that the temperature has been taken down a couple of degrees, we might get back to the truth of the matter, and that is that the Australian Labor Party have teamed up with...
Thank you, Chair. Now that the temperature has been taken down a couple of degrees, we might get back to the truth of the matter, and that is that the Australian Labor Party have teamed up with the Greens to kill forestry. Let's not forget, though, that this is the same party that was toying with the idea of—
'Save the forests,' says Senator Faruqi. I will take that interjection. What the Labor Party and the Greens have signed up to today is a deal to kill native forestry and, of course, take away all...
'Save the forests,' says Senator Faruqi. I will take that interjection. What the Labor Party and the Greens have signed up to today is a deal to kill native forestry and, of course, take away all of the jobs that go with it. We can't escape that fact. It is just that simple. The Greens would not have signed on if it did not mean this industry would now be brought to its knees. Ms White, the member for Lyons; Ms Collins, the member for Franklin in Tasmania; and my good friends in the Labor Senate team from Tasmania—we should go out on a road trip and talk to the forest workers of Tasmania who have been let down by this Labor government and have had their jobs suddenly pulled out from underneath them. These are people who have mortgages. They live in regional communities like those on the north-west coast of Tasmania. These are people who have kids in schools. These are people who are a part of communities, volunteer fire brigades and sporting clubs. And the Australian government have decided that they don't support these individuals anymore. They've cast them on the scrap heap. Their jobs are not important. They do have a $300 million bailout package—buyout package, scale-down package, whatever it is—to try and ease the pain of shutting down this industry, to soften the blow of the news that today the Labor Party have sold you out. It is interesting, though. I do wonder how the Greens managed to be talked into providing a further $300 million to the native forest industry, an industry that just last Friday Senator Hanson-Young said— Honourable senators interjecting— Sorry, Chair. I can't hear myself.
The proponents of the legislation we are dealing with here seem to have a bet each way when it comes this legislation. They say it's terrible and it's bad and it's written by these awful people...
The proponents of the legislation we are dealing with here seem to have a bet each way when it comes this legislation. They say it's terrible and it's bad and it's written by these awful people in Labor, but they're backing it; they're signing up to it. Have your cake and eat it too, Australian Greens! That's exactly what's going on here. I will say that I understand that the amendments before the chair are identical to the government's amendments relating to unacceptable impact. Hopefully, the government will support these amendments when they're moved. I want to reflect more generally on the debate before— No? We'll talk about it later, I'm sure, Minister. I have to commend the minister for being able to pull off this deal. It was masterful. I don't like it. I think it's terrible. I think it's dirty. I think it's dodgy. But you did a great job of getting this mob down here, the Australian Greens, to again name a price they were willing to pay. Of course it's the shutdown of the native forest industry. The workers out there are screaming into the phones now on radio stations across the country, and they're providing comments to journalists in print and the TV newsrooms. They are wondering how a Labor government that once used to stand for the worker has today said that they will sign the death warrant of the native forest logging industry. The Prime Minister, ahead of the 2022 election, wrote a letter to Tasmanian forest workers committing that he would never do this. He reiterated that commitment in 2025, saying he would never do this. Guess what, he's gone and done it now. There's a bit of a concern now in Tasmania; I think there's a missing person report for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Ms Collins, who's nowhere to be seen on this issue. Has she popped up to justify what the government have done? Has she popped up to defend this dirty, dodgy deal with the Greens? The Greens are celebrating. I heard Senator McKim on the radio just before I went on, and I gave Senator McKim credit for consistency. The Greens have always been consistently against native forest logging. The only ones who've been inconsistent here are the government. They're the ones who've changed their position today by supporting this arrangement that the Greens put to them. I did commend Senator McKim and the rest of the Australian Greens for at least being consistently against this industry for its entire existence. They've never once changed their position, but the government now have. As I said before, at the last two elections—in which promises were made around reduced power prices, and those promises were broken—promises were made to the native forest industry and its workers around their industry being protected, particularly in Tasmania, but they are going to see this unacceptable impact of shutdown. I would be interested to know what detail is out there on this $300 million—I think the government is calling it a growth fund, which I find rather odd, given you can't grow an industry that you're shutting down. The words are interesting, and it's kind of cute, but there are hardworking men and women out there who are now very, very concerned about their futures because of this deal done at the eleventh hour, as we prepare to rise for the year, by the Labor Party, who once used to stand proudly for the forest workers of this country but have now sold them out to the Australian Greens. We heard Senator Faruqi before celebrating how the handbrake is going to be put on this industry and how there is now a spanner in the works. They were the senator's words, I believe. She nods in agreement. That is something the Greens are celebrating, so the government cannot get away from this fact. As I said earlier today, the Greens would not have signed up to this deal if it didn't mean we were going to kill that industry by a thousand cuts.
I move an amendment to the motion, as circulated: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription...
I move an amendment to the motion, as circulated: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2026".
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Limitation of Debate | Bills | Senate debates
I was wondering if we could put paragraph (b) separately.
We ask that paragraph (c) be put separately.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
What a great opportunity this is to have a little bit of scrutiny of the legislation that's before the chamber, which will now be rammed through in record time. This is a pattern of behaviour of...
What a great opportunity this is to have a little bit of scrutiny of the legislation that's before the chamber, which will now be rammed through in record time. This is a pattern of behaviour of the Greens down the end there. At the end of every sitting year we see this arrangement. The mighty new Labor-Greens alliance comes together. They've been behind closed doors for a couple of weeks now, hatching this one up. I'd very much love to know what the price of this latest agreement between the government and their natural bedfellows the Australian Greens political party is this time. Last time, as we know, it was that sumptuous party room down the end of the corridor, lined with myrtle and Huon pine and other endangered old-growth species. But, hey, that doesn't matter. That was the price last time. What have they got this time? Let's not forget that these laws were so important they had to be fully interrogated through the Senate committee process. We had the Greens environment spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, saying, 'We must have a full interrogation of these bills by the committee and we cannot report before the end of March.' Well, here we are, and who's voting to ram the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills through the Senate today? None other than the Australian Greens environment spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, and all of her colleagues. If you look at the Greens press release issued today about the dirty, dodgy deal they've done, with the price unspecified—the price tag we can't find anywhere on the product before us—there are criticisms of the legislation that the Greens are supporting. This is them wanting to have their cake and eat it too. It says, 'Despite significant wins for nature, the bill is still woefully short of what the climate needs, with Labor's refusal to take meaningful climate action,' et cetera, et cetera. You've got the whip hand here, Australian Greens. You signed up. You're supporting the legislation, but you're still unhappy with it. I do not understand how this works—how they can say it's a terrible bill, that it doesn't do what needs to be done, yet they'll sign up and pass it? It's because it is, as I said, just another dodgy, dirty deal made behind closed doors that these warriors for integrity and transparency—not—want to pursue. They will do anything it takes to get whatever it is they need. The list of criticisms goes on in this extensive press release crowing about their win. But, when they sign up and support this legislation, you've got to wonder how serious they are about the issues they are backing in here. I see some of the detail that was talked about in a press conference that was held just over an hour ago, I understand, by the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Environment and Water, and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Gallagher. The shutdown of native forestry happens to be a part of what this government has signed up to today. Why would the Greens support this bill if it didn't do this? I'll tell you what: the only reason they have signed up is that it does do that. This will shut down native forestry in three years time, when the RFAs no longer have their exemption. That's what's been signed up to here today, and that's exactly what's going to happen. Those RFAs will go out the door. Native forestry, a sustainable industry, will be shut down. There will be tens of thousands of workers across the country without a job. We don't know the details yet, but apparently there is a bailout package in the order of $300 million that is being supported by this crowd down the end of the chamber, the Australian Greens, who last week in the Senate told us that this native forestry industry is too reliant on taxpayers' money. But, hey, let's not worry about it. We'll hand them another $300 million of taxpayers' money to exit the industry and shut them down. That sounds like a bit of a prop-up to me, but this is what the Greens have signed up to: more taxpayers' money to native forestry—and Labor has signed up to the shutdown of this industry. I know there are supporters of this industry in Labor ranks. I just wonder where they are on these issues. Where is the union in relation to forestry workers on this issue? Why aren't they standing up for the workers who've been abandoned under this dodgy, dirty, Labor-Greens deal done behind closed doors at the eleventh hour? Where are they? The coalition was negotiating in good faith, and even as late as 10 o'clock last night there were discussions ongoing between the coalition and the government. We still haven't finally heard back. We got our message that they weren't going to deal with us through the press conference this morning. I don't think that's a good-faith discussion. It makes me wonder whether this crowd over here—the government, the Labor Party, the party of the worker, the party that wants to bring down energy prices but won't and in fact sends them in the other direction—had any intention of doing anything other than a deal with the Greens. It's a convenient deal that happens to be one that ultimately sells out workers in a number of industries. Those good-faith negotiations I was talking about—and they were fairly modest—would have gone some way to protecting these industries and these jobs. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs are now at risk because of the added layers of complication that the Greens have inserted into these laws. We won't have a chance today to fully interrogate this legislation. We'll have an hour of committee stage, assuming that the full time for the second reading stage is taken up here today. There is in excess of 700 pages of legislation and in excess of 700 pages of explanatory memoranda. A range of amendments have been announced today—less than an hour ago—and are being circulated only as we speak, but it's all going to be done today. It's all going to be through this parliament and back to the other place so that this government can go on holiday chalking up a win. We said earlier this week, when we announced that we were still keen and had a number of amendments this government should take into account in progressing the laws—a set of amendments that we thought were sensible and that industry were supportive of—that there should be no rush to do a deal with the Greens. As we said, at the very outset, this would come at an extremely high cost, but the government was willing to do a deal with anyone. The coalition supports the mining industry and the forestry industry in all its forms, including the native forestry industry. We support the more than 50,000 workers across the country who have jobs reliant on that industry. We also support the fossil fuel industry, farmers and property developers. Property developers are going to build the houses we need to ease the housing crisis. The government were willing to work with us, according to the minister earlier this week, but apparently they were also willing to do a deal with the Greens, as evidenced by the fact that they have. This is a party that has inserted into this bill, as I said before, a clause that will kill off native forestry at the end of three years. The government will deny it and say they won't, but why is there a $300 million bailout package in there then? If it's not going to kill the industry, why put a penny into dealing with this? It's something this party down the end here, the Australian Greens, have railed against since time immemorial—taxpayers' money going to this industry. But today, it's okay. It does go to the issue of conviction. It does go to the issue of belief, when it comes to this government—the Labor Party as it is in 2025. What do they stand for? They'll happily do a deal with anyone. It doesn't matter what it looks like, because all they needed to do at the end of this week was to chalk up a win, get a bill through—just ram it through, with whoever is willing to do a deal at the lowest price, the easiest price, the most convenient political price. And this is what it looks like today. Mark my words: the Greens would not be supporting this legislation if indeed it was in any way good for industry, good for jobs or good for the things we need to bring down power prices in this country. They wouldn't be supporting it if it meant that there were laws that were making it easier for this country—as the Prime Minister says we need to—to access gas resources, to be able to get energy into the grid to support manufacturing, to support the tens of thousands of jobs in industries now at risk because of Labor's latest dodgy deal with the Greens. Why are they supporting it? Because they get their token wins—things that of course this government have supported, and said they supported, but have sold out on. I do want to go back to a quote here, again, to talk about hypocrisy—the hypocrisy of the Australian Greens—and I wish my colleague Senator Hanson-Young were here to hear this, but she said in the committee hearing just last week: 'The people know it stinks. It absolutely stinks, and that's why it needs scrutiny.' That was what Senator Hanson-Young, the Greens' environment spokesperson, said of this legislation: 'It stinks,' and, 'It needs scrutiny.' It's, 'We will stand our ground, and we will make sure that the government does the right thing and has this full-on committee hearing all the way through to 24 March 2026.' It doesn't stink anymore, does it! It doesn't have the slightest stench of support for fossil fuel industries or for forestry. That's because they've gone and done this dodgy deal which actually cuts the guts out of the laws that were needed to ensure that we could do what this country needs when it comes to growing our economy and all of the other things necessary to deal with the crisis facing us. Just on that, on housing, we know, from the evidence given at the Senate committee, that the laws, which have been made worse by this deal, were going to be difficult for the property industry to comply with. They were going to make it harder for greenfield housing estates to be brought online. The complicating factors around what is now before us, made worse by this deal with the Greens, mean this housing crisis this government is presiding over will not be dealt with any more quickly or any more easily—in fact, quite the opposite. It will be harder for people to build houses in this country. It will be harder for people to get into a house as a result. It will drive up prices because, as we know, the basic laws of economics—supply and demand—mean that, when you've got less supply because of a dodgy Labor-Greens deal, and demand is still being stimulated by all of these bunkum schemes this government runs, prices are going to go up and it is going to be harder to get into a house. So here we are, ramming through this legislation—700-plus pages of laws and explanatory memoranda. There's a range of amendments—goodness knows how many; I haven't been able to count them yet—and, yes, there are some here from the coalition. But they're the ones, of course, the government would be aware of, because they're the ones we've gone to them with over the last few weeks and that we still haven't heard back from the government on. This is not democracy at its best. These are dodgy deals at the end of a sitting, which is exactly what we saw at the end of last year. It's what we saw before the election. It's what we've seen a couple of times since the election. It's a hallmark of this brave new world we have in this parliament, where the Labor Party, finding it a bit difficult to be held to account for their legislation, turn to their friends down the end here. And there is always a plus for the Greens. They are not resolute in their views. They can be bought off. They can be taken in for a price, and they have, once again. The price, sadly, is the people of Australia, who are struggling with power bills, who can't get into a house, who are finding it difficult to get or hold on to a job. These laws will do nothing to assist that. They will not be better for business. There are some mild wins in there—I'm surprised the Greens even went at them—but, honestly, this bill will not make things better, which is the ultimate test here. Will things be better for business and the environment? On both counts, sadly, I think we'll find that neither will be better off as a result of this dirty, dodgy deal. On that, let's talk about being able to access the resources needed for stimulating supply when it comes to energy generation—gas and coal, which we rely on right now. Of course there's a transition underway, which this government is blindly pursuing at any cost, and the people paying the price are the people in the gallery and the people out there in the real world, whose power bills keep getting bigger and bigger. As we saw in the inflation data yesterday, there's been a 37 per cent increase in the last year alone. That's not good. Their policies aren't working, and I can tell you now: this deal is going to make it much worse. Under these laws, with Labor's deal with the Greens and the amendments that will no doubt be made, it is going to be harder to get a new gas project online. They'll champion that. They'll cheer for that. But what does that do for the supply of gas and therefore bringing down prices in a grid that is heavily reliant on gas now? It doesn't do anything good. It does only things that are bad, and that is what we are very upset about today. We tried to make these bills much better than they were. We've expressed our concerns. We've operated in good faith with the government, but, instead, it was easier and quicker for the government to do a dodgy deal with the Greens, whatever the price. As I say, it's not just that people will now have higher power bills as a result. The people who work in institutions that rely on gas or other resources that will be harder to get out of the ground because of these laws—their jobs will now be more uncertain. Investors will now decide: Australia has suddenly become a bit harder to do business in; we'll do business somewhere else. Again, more jobs gone. Then there are the people of the forestry sector. Because of Labor selling out to the Greens today, to chalk up a win to get a bill through this parliament before the end of the year so they can all go out on a high—until they have to look forestry workers in the eye—the people of the forestry sector are the ones who have been sold out today. It is a sad day. I hope that when the Greens speak to these bills today they can tell us what the price was. I think Australians deserve that. (Time expired)
Answers to Questions | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate take note of answers to all questions asked by coalition senators during questions without notice today. In moving that motion, I want to start with the question that I...
I move: That the Senate take note of answers to all questions asked by coalition senators during questions without notice today. In moving that motion, I want to start with the question that I asked, and that was in relation to the exploding industry of illegal tobacco in this country that has happened on this government's watch. It didn't just happen overnight. It's happened over the last three or more years now while this government has been on the Treasury benches, and it has had devastating impacts on the lives of many Australians. Indeed, the government itself is not immune to the impacts of the illicit tobacco trade, losing billions of dollars of revenue in excise collections every year as a result of their hands off approach when it comes to dealing with this insidious issue. There's not an Australian—particularly in major population centres like Melbourne or Sydney, Brisbane perhaps, or even, indeed, some of the regional communities around Australia—that cannot see firsthand the impacts of the illicit tobacco trade. I understand that every day in this country these cartel operations, these crime gangs, are making a $13 million profit off illegal tobacco, and this government has sat on its hands for the last 3½ years. They talk about hundreds of millions of dollars being ploughed into enforcement initiatives. The problem is that it is not stopping the problem. It is not stemming the flow of these terrible products coming into our country, be they illegal cigarettes, loose leaf tobacco or illegal vape products. Of course, we know that these products can be laced with some of the most harmful chemicals with terrible consequences for human health with no approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Again this government and the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs say, 'Virtually nothing to see here.' This is a terrible indictment on government that should have, in its top few priorities, a desire to keep this nation secure and a desire to keep Australians safe, healthy and protected from, as I said before, the insidiousness and harms associated with the illicit tobacco trade. I was in Melbourne, just a couple of weeks ago, and I was able to stand and do a media conference with the Victorian shadow Attorney-General, Mr James Newbury, in a vacant tenancy in the suburb of Prahran. As we know, and as we've seen night after night on television news, in places like Melbourne—and Sydney, as I mentioned before—there are countless firebombings, ram raids, theft activity and physical assaults which are all associated with the illegal tobacco trade. The tenancy we stood in was not a large premises, but it was one that had an insurance cost, I'm told, of roughly $2,000 per annum for the landlord to pay in order to have insurance protection around that tenancy. In a 12-month period, that insurance bill went up from $2,000 per annum to $200,000 per annum because a tenant in that shop area was a legitimate tobacconist. They are someone who was actually paying their GST bills and ensuring that excise was collected on the products that they sold. They dealt in legitimate products, but, because they were doing so, they presented a risk that insurance companies weren't willing to stomach. Therefore, they saw insurance bills for that particular business go up from $2,000 to $200,000 in a one-year period. That is one of the many consequences flowing from this industry. We know of firebombings of people's houses. Representatives of crime gangs have had their homes targeted by rival crime gangs. There have been firebombings gone wrong. We know of fatalities related to that. Again, this government seem to say: 'It's all under control. We're doing everything we can.' The fact of the matter is you are not. The impact from the number of products, and the weight of those products, coming into this country is growing. It's exploding, and there is nothing that these crime gangs are seeing this government do that will in any way deter them from doing what it is they do. The government is losing billions of dollars every year—$3.3 billion last year alone—and billions of dollars over the forward estimates. Humans' lives are at risk. Our country's security and safety is very much under threat because of, as I say, a hands-off approach. This is a government that's happy to set up a taskforce here, a group there and a committee here, but it does nothing meaningful or tangible about this. It's an indictment on this government. It does indicate to me that their priorities are wrong. It is the kind of thing that needs urgent action in collaboration with state and territory authorities, intelligence authorities and law enforcement agencies more broadly. But it is an indictment on this government nonetheless. (Time expired)
Crime: Illicit Tobacco | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
I was after an exact figure. Anyway, in light of the answers to both of those questions, what is the minister's response to the clear exasperation of the New South Wales health minister, Ryan...
I was after an exact figure. Anyway, in light of the answers to both of those questions, what is the minister's response to the clear exasperation of the New South Wales health minister, Ryan Park, who told reporters yesterday that he was very disappointed with the lack of action from the federal government, including that the government has no intention to change anything in this area despite the near constant pledge from state governments to do something about it?