Perin Davey's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | Senate debates
I rise not just for myself but to recognise, on behalf of the Nationals in this place, the friend that is Linda Reynolds. She has been a friend to all of us. I think it was Senator Cash who said...
I rise not just for myself but to recognise, on behalf of the Nationals in this place, the friend that is Linda Reynolds. She has been a friend to all of us. I think it was Senator Cash who said Linda lives by the 'pay it forward' ethos. You do so in spades. I am relatively new to this place, having been elected in 2019, and I consider myself one of the lucky ones, because I am a beneficiary of the women, like Linda, who have come before me. I came into this place and I had a defence minister who was a female and who had been the first female brigadier in the Army Reserve. As a former Army reservist myself, I knew of you already. So she was already on a pedestal when I walked into this place. But, Linda, we had Marise Payne, Senator Cash and my colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie, who, as a group, wrapped their arms around all of the new women who walked into this place and said: 'Your experience will not be like ours. Your experience is going to be better, and we will make this place better for women.' And you have done that. All of your colleagues at the cabinet table at that time did that, and so I am forever grateful to have had the privilege of coming in when I did, when there was that generosity of spirit, that real support of women supporting women, and I knew that people like you had my back. That's why I will just say that it was with absolute horror that I saw what you went through. I knew that there was no way that the Linda Reynolds I knew could have been guilty of what she was being accused of. But I don't want to dwell on that, because I want to dwell on all your other achievements. You've spoken on the modern slavery legacy that you leave, and it is true. It will continue to lead to genuine change right across the globe, because I know you're not leaving it alone; you are going to continue to work in that space, and that is fantastic. I've already mentioned the support you've given to women, the work on gender reform that you are truly committed to. It has made a difference. It has made a difference in the Army Reserve and it has made a difference in this place. You will continue to make a difference in that area. I also want to personally thank you for joining me on the Senate Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience, for showing me around and sharing your vast wealth of experience and knowledge from your personal experience as an emergency management minister and a defence minister, and your thorough understanding of the issues we were trying to investigate. Your pragmatic approach was: what is the problem we are trying to fix, and what is a genuine solution that we can present so that the report we produce doesn't end up, like so many reports that are produced in this place, on a shelf collecting dust? You have a proven track record of participating in committees and producing reports that make a difference. I believe that that report will also make a difference. Linda, when I think of you I think of a calm, reasonable, approachable, pragmatic woman who truly lives her values. You are a role model to me. May you continue to be a role model to your colleagues in the Western Australian Liberal Party. I sincerely thank you, but I also want to thank you on behalf of my colleagues in the Nationals. Your door has always been open to us. You've always shared your knowledge. I wish you and Rob all the best in your future, because the next chapter is going to be fantastic.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Let's make no mistake as to why we're here today debating this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025. It is because the coalition...
Let's make no mistake as to why we're here today debating this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025. It is because the coalition has led on this issue. For the last almost 18 months, the coalition has been leading the way to support the salmon industry in Tasmania and in fact right across Australia. Labor has been brought kicking and screaming to the realisation that something needs to be done to protect the salmon industry. But, even in trying to do something right by the salmon industry, they're not getting it right. They can't do it. They can't bring themselves to do it. What Labor is trying to do with this bill today is to win votes, not to support a vital and crucial industry for the Tasmanian economy. The Prime Minister is about saving his own job, not about saving the Tasmanian salmon industry—and, let's face it, this bill is certainly not about saving the job of the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek. This is just the last round in a long-running stoush between the Prime Minister and his environment minister and, to a wider extent, the clearly divided views within the Labor Party itself on environmental policy. This legislation is about factional games. It's about dealing with internal warfare, and it's about political fixes inside the Labor Party—a party absolutely desperate to cling to government at any cost. The salmon industry in Tasmania has been dragged through green tape, red tape and sheer obfuscation by this government, and, at the heart of it, it is the workers who have been living with the uncertainty. It is the workers who have had concerns about their future and the future of the industry that they love and that they are rightly proud of, and it is about the future of those workers who secure such an important economic industry for Tasmania that is—let's face it—enjoyed by all Australians. Who doesn't love a good Aussie smoked salmon blini? The environment minister has been sitting on this review for 15 months. The industry has been living with that uncertainty for those 15 months. Let's go back to why this review started. The Bob Brown Foundation, those doyens of consistency who are so consistent in their environmental beliefs that a wind farm on the mainland is fine but a wind farm in Tasmania is absolutely sacrilegious and cannot go ahead; the Australia Institute, the institute of balanced research; and then, of course, the Albanese government funded Environmental Defenders Office, the organisation that happily takes government money so that they can sue the government—they're the people who instigated the review of the salmon industry in Tasmania, an industry that has operated for years under environmental approvals. This industry has now been sitting with 15 months of uncertainty from a minister who has form for listening to the wrong people and choosing the wrong pathway, pathways that impact negatively not only the environment but communities and regional economies. Look at the track record of this minister. She chose to listen to an Indigenous group that's not registered, not legislated and not formally recognised even by their own land councils on a very questionable submission about a very pretty native bee and put the kibosh on the Blayney gold mine, the McPhillamys gold mine. That's one example of this minister listening to the wrong group. We've seen the ongoing, dragged-out, start-again, stop-again—will we, won't we?—nature-positive legislation that was listed and then not listed and pulled. We've seen the Prime Minister withdraw the legislation from the Notice Paper, the environment minister put it back and then it was withdrawn again. Don't even get me started about this minister and how she listened to the views of environment groups over and above communities, industries, local government and even two of her state government colleague ministers to pursue water buybacks over and above supporting industry. My question to the Prime Minister is: if you can do it for the salmon industry, why can't you do it for the irrigation industry too? Protect the irrigation industry. This government is spending millions of dollars to rip water away from and to undermine the irrigation industry. This bill that we are debating today doesn't even provide the salmon industry with the certainty they need or want. It doesn't prevent a future request for a review. It only gives them enough certainty to get from this side of the election to the other side of the election—and we've seen that from this government before. We've seen the Prime Minister say whatever it takes to win votes. He says, 'We won't touch your superannuation'—until he gets elected, and then he brings in a retrospective tax on unrealised gains for superannuation. He says, 'We won't touch your franking credits' on one side of the election, and then on the other side he makes those tweaks. He says, 'We will support the stage 3 tax cuts' on one side of the election, and then post the election he says, 'No, we won't; we'll change it and we'll throw it all on its head.' And we now learn that, over days of heated caucus meetings, the Prime Minister has again traded off: 'I'll say what I need to say on this side of the election to get those votes to try and win seats in Tasmania, but I will do nothing to give them long-term protection because I'll make an agreement with the environment minister to allow her to again pursue the creation of a federal environment protection agency, which will open up the capacity to review the salmon industry again.' So the Prime Minister has already begun to strip away what it looks like he's giving the salmon industry today through a dirty backroom deal with his minister. The Tasmanian salmon industry deserves to be protected and isolated from future potentially endless reconsideration requests. So, too, I might add, do all the industries that are currently operating in Australia with environmental approvals and have been for multiple years. It is not fair on them that they always have this question mark hanging over their heads, that they could have their right to operate ripped out from under them on the whim of organisations like the Bob Brown Foundation or the EDO. As we've seen through the aforementioned Blayney goldmine exercise, trying to work with activist groups is an expensive and futile exercise. Australia currently suffers from the second-highest level of green lawfare anywhere in the world. Our companies are under siege. In the interests of the overwhelming majority of Australians, who want us to have a high-functioning economy, who want us to have high levels of employment and who—unlike this government—want us to have a high productivity level which will help reduce the pressure on inflation, we need to stop enabling organisations like the EDO to trash our financial and social wellbeing as a nation, supposedly under the guise of doing it for the environment. We know that you are better off working with industry to maximise sustainability than trying to kill off industry, which is not a viable, long-term solution. Let's not forget the poor red herring or, should I say, Maugean skate, in all of this—it's another fish, but not a fish. The poor skate has been used as the enemy of salmon farming. This totally ignores all the steps the industry is taking, and has taken, to improve water quality in Macquarie Harbour and to work to improve outcomes for the skate. I acknowledge that Senator Whish-Wilson, while saying that the science identifies that skate numbers have increased over the years, doesn't accept that that science is robust enough. But others have provided that modelling and indicated that the existence of the skate is not under threat exclusively from salmon farming. So let's look at what other threats there are. Instead of killing off an industry that is actively trying to take steps to help to protect the skate, why don't we work with them to identify what other threats there are? Maybe we can find workarounds there as well, because we need industries like the salmon industry, like broader primary industries—agricultural industries, livestock industries. We need our resources industries. We need projects like the McPhillamys goldmine to go ahead, because it is those industries that underpin the Australian economy, not the green lawfare industry. I call on the government to support the amendments that we will be bringing forward, which will give the salmon industry the certainty that it deserves and needs, so that we can finally put this issue to bed and can get on with trying to increase productivity in Australia, focusing on relieving the cost-of-living pressures, focusing on relieving inflationary pressures and moving this country forward.
Queensland: Natural Disasters | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
I rise today to talk about an ex. Like many exes, this one left behind a trail of destruction and heartbreak. Yes, I'm talking about Alfred. I want to take this moment to thank the many...
I rise today to talk about an ex. Like many exes, this one left behind a trail of destruction and heartbreak. Yes, I'm talking about Alfred. I want to take this moment to thank the many volunteers and frontline services, the SES, the councils and even the Australian Defence Force, who sandbagged, who got out there, who prepared and who were on hand literally in the eye of the storm. But I also want to thank those who come along afterwards to help clean up and mop up and to offer support when people are feeling that heartbreak. Thank you to Disaster Relief Australia volunteers, who come in and help with the clean-up, the logistics and the management of recovery efforts. Thank you to the many insurance assessors—yes, believe it or not—and the call centres who are currently dealing with more than 74,000 claims and counting. Please, I ask them, make it as easy as possible for the claimants. Thank you to the charities like GIVIT who are on the ground assisting, assessing the need but also making sure that charity dollars are spent in communities to help local economies recover. And thank you to the stayers—organisations like the Red Cross and others who work in the community recovery centres, who sit down and work with people to support them and address their needs. Those volunteers are there not just for the days and the weeks but for the months and the years that it takes for some of our most traumatised communities to recover. To all those quiet volunteers and supporters I say a very sincere and heartfelt thank you.
Local Content Broadcasting; Order for the Production of Documents | Documents | Senate debates
When I recite my ABCs, I end with 'X, Y, Zed'. The reason for that is that I'm a Play School girl, not a Sesame Street girl. Play School is Australian content. We want to see more Australian...
When I recite my ABCs, I end with 'X, Y, Zed'. The reason for that is that I'm a Play School girl, not a Sesame Street girl. Play School is Australian content. We want to see more Australian content, and this government promised us Australian content. But, like so on many issues, this government is quite happy to break their promises. We've seen it on superannuation, we've seen it on stage 3 tax cuts and now we see it on what they were so staunch and so proud about. In the arts sector, they've broken their promise to deliver Australian content quotas for streaming platforms. This promise was made in light of that, when we were in government, Paul Fletcher, the former Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, worked with industry and proposed a way forward to develop a content quota regime. We had a change of government. Prior to the change of government the former shadow minister, Tony Burke—at Woodford Folk Festival no less—promised in the summer of 2022 that, if they were elected to government, they would deliver content quotas for streaming platforms. Maybe he thought they wouldn't win; you don't have to worry about a promise made in opposition because you'll never have to deliver. But win they did, so he committed to deliver it and then put a deadline on it. He said that they would have content quotas in place by 1 July 2024. In May 2024, an options paper was released, and they were investigating content quotas on revenue or content quotas on expenditure. They were at least making some progress—while making everyone participating in the consultation sign non-disclosure agreements. Again I'm standing here highlighting the lack of transparency of this government and its reliance on non-disclosure agreements. What have we heard since May 2024? We heard, at the Senate estimates at that time, that the department was still working on the scheme to inform cabinet decisions. Since then, nada. We've heard rumours that the hold-up is now because it's a trade issue, but we've heard nothing. There hasn't been an exposure draft; 1 July came and went, and we are still waiting. The screen production industry in Australia is still waiting. Even worse, what we are also seeing is a continuation of the failure to deliver on their promises. In the May budget last year, we saw a promise that the government would lift the cap on above-the-line costs for the producer offset to apply from 1 July 2024. Has the required legislation that needs to pass actually come through this place? Has it even come through the other place to ensure that can happen? No. It is nine months later; I could have had a baby in that amount of time! Then, in MYEFO, there was a promise to lower the offset threshold, which would benefit some of our smaller screen industry businesses. Yet, again, where is the legislation to enable that? Time after time, this government is failing the Australian screen industry—the very industry that gave me my 0.2 seconds of fame when I appeared in the background of the Australian movie Two Hands. This government is turning its back on the Australian screen industry—unlike the Nationals, who, with Bryan Brown, were able to secure the 40 per cent— (Time expired) Question agreed to.
Stronger Communities Program; Order for the Production of Documents | Documents | Senate debates
I'm not saying I want to shut down Rex Airlines—thank you; I'll take that—in no way. I'm saying I fly Rex Airlines. But what investigations have this government done to investigate...
I'm not saying I want to shut down Rex Airlines—thank you; I'll take that—in no way. I'm saying I fly Rex Airlines. But what investigations have this government done to investigate all opportunities to keep Rex Airlines or regional routes serviced before they've gone into agreeing to a massive debt on behalf of the Australian taxpayer? Our position in the Nationals has been that we must ensure that regional routes continue to be serviced. But there are options, and we are not convinced that the Labor government has considered all those options. The call for the production of documents is so that we can reassure ourselves that the Labor government has considered all options to ensure that our regional routes continue to be serviced so rural and regional Australians are not left out.
What we have seen time and time again from the Prime Minister and the government is a lack of transparency and an absolute unwillingness to actually produce documents requested by this...
What we have seen time and time again from the Prime Minister and the government is a lack of transparency and an absolute unwillingness to actually produce documents requested by this chamber—documents on their programs! With the Stronger Communities Program, if there were nothing to hide, you would think they would be willing to present the documents we're asking for without fear or favour. You would think they would be willing to shout from the rooftops what a success that program has been, but clearly not. It should be a great program, delivering for our regional communities and, importantly, delivering for our volunteer organisations. I want to tell you how important grant programs are, like what the Stronger Communities Program should be, like what we had when we were in government—the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which was highly successful and highly sought after and delivered a huge amount of benefit for regional communities. There is not one community that I have visited that hasn't shown me a community infrastructure facility and said, 'This was delivered through your Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program,' like the former government's Building Better Regions Fund, where communities identify what they need. Organisations like our state emergency services are run by volunteers, who have sheds and just need that little bit of support to upgrade, to do some maintenance or, in the case of so many, put in female change rooms. A lot of our regional and rural fire services' sheds were built at a time when, unfortunately, not many female volunteers were welcomed. Times have changed, but infrastructure has not caught up. These organisations used things like the Building Better Regions Fund, used things like the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, and should be using the Stronger Communities Program to help make their places more welcoming for female volunteers, for volunteers of different abilities and for volunteers from different cultures. But we don't know, because we don't have the documents. This government is not being transparent. This government, which promised transparency, has become the government of nondisclosure agreements, of secrecy and of hiding behind things like commercial confidentiality. It is not good enough. We deserve more openness from this government. We deserve to know what investigations they've done before hurtling into a promise to purchase Rex Airlines. Don't get me wrong: as someone who lives in regional Australia and who is dependent on Rex Airlines—being the only airline that services the Narrandera-to-Sydney route—I want to see Rex Airlines continue to fly. But does it have to be Rex, or could that route be serviced by another regional airline? What investigations have this government done to see if the routes serviced by Rex could be serviced by another commercial operator so I don't have to rely on 'Albo Airways'?
I too question why there's no transparency on Albo airways. I'm wondering whether I want to come fly with him. 'Let's fly, let's fly away.' It'd be lovely to fly Albo airlines. I wonder if there...
I too question why there's no transparency on Albo airways. I'm wondering whether I want to come fly with him. 'Let's fly, let's fly away.' It'd be lovely to fly Albo airlines. I wonder if there are also—
Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
by leave—I move: (1) Amendment (1), omit "substitute '4'", substitute "substitute '5'". (2) Amendment (2), subclause 4(1), omit "A Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and...
by leave—I move: (1) Amendment (1), omit "substitute '4'", substitute "substitute '5'". (2) Amendment (2), subclause 4(1), omit "A Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade", substitute "The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee". (3) Amendment (2), after clause 4, insert: 5 Review of amendments in Schedule 9 The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee must: (a) begin a review of the amendments in Schedule 9 to this Act as soon as practicable after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent; and (b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate by 29 August 2025. While we support the government's amendments, we are moving these amendments to include a review, should it pass, of the veterans commissioner to be. The reason why we believe this review must take place is that their amendment, which would add schedule 9 to the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, has come about at the last minute. There has been a lack of consultation. The veterans community was taken by surprise when they read about their amendment. The veterans community has been engaged from the outset of developing this bill. They have participated in good faith. They participated in the recent Senate inquiry into the substantive bill, at which time this commissioner was not foreshadowed. At that point in time, the veterans community understood that an interim commissioner had been appointed who would work on developing a framework for a legislated commission to be in place by September this year. Their amendment fast-tracks that process and puts the cart before the horse, so to speak, and veterans have not been consulted. Veterans are gravely concerned about what it means and how it will be rolled out. So, briefly, we are moving these amendments to ensure that the Senate can undertake the due diligence and scrutiny that should have happened with an amendment of this scale. I commend our amendments to the amendment to the chamber.
Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 has been far too long in the making given the urgency it should have received. This legislation is...
The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 has been far too long in the making given the urgency it should have received. This legislation is in response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's first recommendation in its interim report, which was handed down in August 2022. The recommendation found that the veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislative system is so complicated that it actually adversely affects the mental health of some veterans and serving ADF members and can contribute to suicidality. The words 'can contribute to suicidality' should have raised a sense of urgency, particularly on an issue that essentially has bipartisan support. Work on simplifying and harmonising the system should have been a priority even as the royal commission completed its vital and sensitive investigations. Yet it took almost two years for the bill to first be introduced, passing the House of Representatives on 6 November last year after debate originally opened in August. Since then, it has languished on the Senate's Notice Paper. It was first put on the paper on 18 November, and it has been on a veritable roller-coaster, being pulled up and then pushed back on the Notice Paper, going up and down, which shows you the level of priority this government has put on securing the health and wellbeing of our veteran personnel. We must ask: how many more will be let down and feel abandoned before the changes of this bill finally come about, given they will not come into effect until July 2026, nearly four years after the original recommendation was made? We currently have about 300,000 veterans in Australia. We currently have about 57,000 serving personnel. So we have a great many reasons why we need to get this legislation correct, to get it passed and to get it working. The royal commission reported that 1,677 veteran suicides had occurred between 1997 and 2021, but it is widely recognised that this figure is probably very shy of the more accurate assessment of upwards of about 3,000. The very, very sad reality is that there is more chance of a veteran dying from suicide than dying while serving our country, and that is tragic. This legislation combines into one the three separate acts that currently exist for entitlements, compensation and rehabilitation support for veterans. The three acts are the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, commonly known as the MRCA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act, or the DRCA; and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. They will be combined into an amended military rehabilitation and compensation or the 'MRCA 2.0', as my colleague in the other place shadow minister for veterans' affairs Barnaby Joyce calls it. Currently, the three acts are over 2,000 pages long. They contain 850 legislative instruments and provide different types of compensation, including pensions, lump sums, periodic compensation payments, healthcare cards and rehabilitation. In some cases, veterans have claims under all three acts. It is no wonder that our veterans community finds it overly complicated as they try and wade through the system. But I want to make the point that it is very important for our veterans community to understand that, in streamlining these three acts into one, no-one who is currently receiving a payment under any of those three acts will be worse off. This is an assurance given to us by the government, and it is an assurance we will hold the government to. In some instances, allowances will increase: funeral allowances, reimbursement of funeral costs and other service related deaths. There might be higher reimbursements for travel and treatment, and for consolidation of household and attendant care, among other enhancements. This is all welcome. While this bill simplifies veterans' compensation arrangements, the systems remain complex, with veterans and their families still eligible for support under multiple acts. This needs very careful management by Veterans' Affairs. This bill also requires ongoing consideration and review. That is why we will be moving a second reading amendment, calling for the government to review the statement of principles and the role of the Repatriation Medical Authority offices—not to try and slow things down but to make sure that the statement of principles is fit for purpose and that no-one is slipping through the cracks because the statement of principles is being applied too rigidly—and to look at ways to ensure that the RMAs can do their job without hindrance. Despite this complexity and despite the time and consideration that has gone into drafting this bill to streamline and harmonise compensation for veterans, we have an eleventh-hour amendment put forward by the government to establish a new veterans commissioner. This is also a recommendation of the royal commission, so the intent and the principle of establishing a commissioner will not be objected to. However, this amendment is being rushed through with a lack of consultation with the very people who have been part of this process all the way along and who participated in the recent Senate inquiry into this bill. This amendment was not part of that inquiry. Those people read about it only last week and have raised quite significant concerns with the way it has been drafted. The question needs to be asked: why does this amendment have to be rushed through today, when a commissioner was already in the pipeline? On 17 January, Mr Michael Manthorpe was appointed interim commissioner to deliver the establishment of a legislated body by September. This amendment is being rushed through to establish a body by September without allowing consultation and scrutiny, and that is the concern that has been raised with us. The Families of Veterans Guild have written to us specifically requesting the amendment be withdrawn because they say the amendment is a surprise to many stakeholders within the veteran community who, despite receiving multiple communications about the vets bill and a media release about the appointment of the interim commissioner, were not advised about this significant amendment. They fundamentally disagree with rushing this unconsulted amendment through parliament, and they point out that it could have significant consequences for the system and communities within it. The key issues they raise are the lack of transparency and consultation and that there are only two public reports on the status of the implementation of the royal commission required by this amendment; they would like to see further reports. While we're not opposing this amendment, we are proposing to put through an amendment of our own requiring that the commission be reviewed. Effectively, what should have happened was for us to have had this amendment at the time of the Senate inquiry or to have had it as a standalone bill that we could have sent to a Senate inquiry and had a review on to ensure that it was for purpose, that people could be consulted and that the design of the commission was fit for purpose. We're now having to do that back to front, because the last thing we want to see is the streamlining and harmonisation of the compensation program be held up in disputes. We will pass the substantive bill and accept the amendment, but we hope that our subsequent amendment calling for a review will also gain support. This is a very sensitive and complex area, and most Defence Force personnel enlist and serve their time and then transition back to civilian life okay. Most of them go on to make an enormous contribution to civilian life. A hell of a lot of them work in voluntary services, and I thank them for their continued service to our nation. I want to take this opportunity to mention and thank Disaster Relief Australia, who are an organisation established by veterans for veterans and veteran volunteers. They step up post disaster and provide management and logistics support to communities that have been impacted by natural disasters. I am sure they are in Far North Queensland as we speak, assisting in the recovery and clean-up efforts. That is an organisation that plays an important role in supporting our veteran community, connecting our veteran members with business holders and with other veterans and giving them that support network. We know through the work of the royal commission that those connections, initiatives and organisations like DRA to assist veterans—similarly to things like veterans' wellbeing centres—provide a hub for connection and support and can really help veterans post their full-time service. We will be supporting this bill, as I said at the outset. It has been a long time coming, but it is the right thing to do to streamline it. I really hope that we continue to watch, monitor and hold the DVA to account. I'm sure they're preparing for the next estimates diligently. Let's hope that we can make our veterans' lives a little bit easier by passing this bill. I move: At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate, (a) notes that there remains concern about aspects of the operation of this bill and, in particular, the rigid nature of the Statement of Principles used in determining claims for liability for injuries, diseases and deaths made by veterans; and (b) calls on the Government to cause a review to be undertaken by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and in consultation with relevant stakeholders, into: (i) whether the Statement of Principles are fit for purpose in ensuring that every veteran receives just and timely support, (ii) the functions of the Repatriation Medical Authority, and (iii) whether further changes are needed to relevant legislation, policy, procedures or guidelines to improve outcomes for veterans with unique or unusual circumstances".
Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
I just want to put on record the opposition's position on this amendment on sheet 2882. The ART, under this government, is experiencing an absolutely unprecedented blowout in its case load. In...
I just want to put on record the opposition's position on this amendment on sheet 2882. The ART, under this government, is experiencing an absolutely unprecedented blowout in its case load. In the migration and protection space, its load increased by 6,000 cases in just the first six weeks. When the coalition were in government, we introduced the fast-track process, through the Immigration Assessment Authority, to deal with Labor's previous massive backlog of unauthorised maritime arrivals. It was logical, sensible and appropriate. It was an appropriate response to Labor's incredible failures on border protection during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. The fast-track process that we established through the IAA was able to resolve those cases very quickly, usually in a matter of weeks rather than months. And the overturn rates were in line with other decisions of the tribunal. Essentially what the Greens want to do with this amendment is reopen every single refugee case that was finally decided by the IAA. This would almost inevitably lead to a massive increase in the burden that is already placed on the tribunal. It will increase costs and increase delays for everyone involved, including the people the Greens say they're trying to help. There is no public benefit in this amendment. It's not an appropriate measure and it should be opposed.
Australia: Natural Disasters | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
What a start to 2025 we've had, with flood and fire at the two ends of the east coast. In Victoria, the fire season started before Christmas, when the Grampians National Park started burning. By...
What a start to 2025 we've had, with flood and fire at the two ends of the east coast. In Victoria, the fire season started before Christmas, when the Grampians National Park started burning. By last weekend, as the fire was contained, 230,000 hectares had been lost. As well as the physical damage, we saw the normal Christmas holiday rush of tourists gone. That has affected businesses right through the region. From the outset, I want to thank all the volunteer firefighters, their support teams and their families. At the same time, we've had floods in Far North Queensland. The region has been battered by tropical lows. Towns have had metres of rain and then some, just when locals thought the worst had passed. Homes have been lost, shops are without food, power is out and, unfortunately, in this case, lives have been lost. There have been two disasters in two states. Both states had visits from the Prime Minister, and both had commitments from the federal government that all assistance—whatever is required—would be provided to support the affected communities. But, when it comes to putting the rubber to the road, the two states are worlds apart. It truly is a tale of two different disasters. The Queensland government moved immediately. Assessments were made, requests were submitted and a range of assistance measures were announced for businesses and primary industries, as well as for people. In Victoria, now that the fires are under control, farms and businesses are still waiting to see if assistance will be offered to them. Councils have assistance, but businesses and farms are still waiting for the state government to do the necessary assessments. They must happen, and they must happen soon. The federal government stands ready. We will support the federal government to get it out the door. (Time expired)
Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Let's be clear: we should all be thanking the Labor Party for us still sitting here at 20 past eight at night when we could have had the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025...
Let's be clear: we should all be thanking the Labor Party for us still sitting here at 20 past eight at night when we could have had the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025 dealt with at 10.30 this morning. It's a non-controversial bill that absolutely has the support of both sides. We've even had the minister in the other place commending the government for their approach to this bill in a non-controversial, bipartisan manner. And yet it then comes to this place, and we have the Labor Party playing games with it instead of rushing it through in a non-controversial way first thing this morning. It could have been done and dusted, and here we are tonight. We will be supporting this bill. This bill fixes a problem that was faced. It will sort things out. We have seen the massive floods up in Townsville, and we know the amount of defence housing up in far North Queensland and in the Townsville area. What we don't want are any question marks over their insurability and the Defence Services Homes Insurance scheme, which is currently administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and provides vital home building insurance to all current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and, can I make it clear, for defence force families, widows and widowers. It is vital that we get this bill through. I'm grateful that it is non-controversial; I just wish we didn't have to play games.
Agriculture Industry | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
The chair of the Australian Food and Agriculture Taskforce, Mark van Dyck, has said, '44 per cent of farmers believed Australia was losing its competitive edge on the global stage.' When will Mr...
The chair of the Australian Food and Agriculture Taskforce, Mark van Dyck, has said, '44 per cent of farmers believed Australia was losing its competitive edge on the global stage.' When will Mr Albanese apologise to our farmers for making it harder to feed and clothe Australians and for breaking his promise that they would be better off under Labor?
Senator Wong, farmers are directly impacted by Labor's cost-of-living crisis, including by higher electricity prices, which are up by 32 per cent; higher insurance and finance costs; and Labor's...
Senator Wong, farmers are directly impacted by Labor's cost-of-living crisis, including by higher electricity prices, which are up by 32 per cent; higher insurance and finance costs; and Labor's truckie tax, which is increasing the cost of getting the produce to market. Why does Labor continue to pursue policies that squeeze out farmers?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Food prices have increased by 12 per cent under Labor and could rise even further as farmers and food processors face...
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Food prices have increased by 12 per cent under Labor and could rise even further as farmers and food processors face increased costs. According to farm performance reports from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, ABARES, dairy farmers' costs have increased 7.4 per cent, and sheep and beef farmers' costs have risen by 14.7 per cent. SPC are in the news today with increases for processing. Why is Labor making it harder and more expensive for farmers to supply the fresh food Australian families need? Why won't Mr Albanese finally admit that Aussie farmers are not better off under Labor?
Bureau of Meteorology | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
On 19 September 2023, the Bureau of Meteorology—who we all lovingly refer to as the BOM, despite their failed attempt at changing their brand during desperate floods—announced that an...
On 19 September 2023, the Bureau of Meteorology—who we all lovingly refer to as the BOM, despite their failed attempt at changing their brand during desperate floods—announced that an El Nino event was pending. By January 2024, the headline on the ABC read 'Farmers frustrated after destocking following BOM's incorrect El Nino forecast'. Sky News had 'BOM's El Nino predictions "cost a lot of farmers a lot of money"'. This one from Beef Central asked the crucial question 'Did BOM's El Nino forecast bomb the 2023 cattle market?' The BOM's forecasts are crucial to regional Australia, not just for farmers and agricultural businesses but also for our communities. At the time, despite people saying that the bureau's predictions were horrifically inaccurate, people were cutting the BOM some slack. One Victorian farmer quoted by the ABC at the time said he did not hold the BOM solely responsible as it provides, after all, a forecast, not gospel. But I wonder how those people feel now, after reading a report by the Australian National Audit Office. It turns out that the BOM has been scrimping on its asset management and maintenance program. The BOM is responsible for providing weather, water, climate and ocean services across Australia and also to overseas clients. They currently have an operating budget of $440 million a year from the federal government, plus about $100 million annually from external sources through commercial enterprises. It should be managing $1.3 billion in non-financial assets, and the observing network assets make up approximately 28 per cent of the bureau's total asset base. The bureau conducted a body of work between 2018 and 2020 to model the cost of their asset management and maintenance program. They made a pitch for extra funding for this, which was duly granted in the 2021-22 budget by the former Liberal and Nationals government to the tune of $225.6 million in additional funding over three years, converting to $143 million each year after that, over 10 years, to maintain a proactive asset maintenance schedule consistent with industry best practice. Four years on, we read the ANAO report, which has found that the BOM has not monitored or reported on whether the money for maintenance is actually being spent on keeping its asset base in order. The enterprise asset management plan approved in 2020 has not been reviewed since. The enterprise asset management system, known as EAMS and used for observing network assets and related IT equipment, was rolled out in 2021, with data transfer completed by 2022. Yet the ANAO report says: In May 2024, the Bureau advised the ANAO that it is not yet able to rely on information from EAMS to report accurately on the performance of assets in its observing network. The draft inventory management plan for replacement parts, which was drafted in 2022, remained in draft form for the next two years. Planned maintenance targets have not been met, instruments are failing to return data and assets have reached or are beyond the end of their useful life. Meanwhile, the bureau is overseeing cost overruns on key projects, including the ROBUST computer data and security program. In estimates hearings, the bureau has repeatedly obfuscated about the cost overruns of the ROBUST program. I must commend Greens senator Barbara Pocock for her investigation and interrogation of the BOM on this issue. The final cost for ROBUST—well, is it final? The bureau's chief, Dr Andrew Johnson, has admitted there's still probably 10 per cent more work to be done. But we do know from costings that were released in September last year that the final cost was $866 million, which is almost $100 million over the original budget. Yet successive governments continue to trust the bureau to deliver. From 2007 to 2017, according to a piece of work by the Weekly Times,which calculated every time we've given the bureau money to develop a go-to water data hub build, time and time again, as a single source of truth, the total is $450 million. That is an incredible amount of money, yet people working in the water industry say they never look at the bureau for water market data information. In 2022, yet again, in the Water market reform: final roadmap report it was recommended that the bureau be given responsibility to develop and implement a data systems framework to include a single national water data hub. So they've been funded from 2007 through to 2017 to develop a single-source-of-truth water data hub, yet we've got recommendations from other agencies that we need a single water data hub, and they're suggesting BOM should do it. I question whether BOM are the right people, given they've already received $450 million and what they've produced is a webpage that no-one looks at, is out of date, reports behind other agencies' websites and is failing on every level. Credit to Dr Johnson, he must be the best salesman out there. He is still going to the government and saying, 'Let us be the experts in the room.' Following the incredible flood events in 2022-23, I asked the BOM who owns all the flood gauge networks in Australia. The answer is multiple agencies. Some are local government, some are private enterprise, some are state government, some are bureau, but they've managed to put the pinch to government, which was accepted, for $236 million for a national ten-year program to enable the bureau to acquire and upgrade flood infrastructure, including high-priority rain and river gauges and supporting communications equipment. On the surface, a single owner of the flood gauge network would be sensible, but, after reading the ANAO report, how can I have confidence that the bureau are the right people to do that job? We've seen their performance from the Lismore floods—appalling. People were reading the BOM's forecast and went to bed one night being told they had two days before the flood peak would reach and it still would still not exceed historic records, and then, at 5 am the next morning, the police knocking on their door telling them to get out and the flood peaking within 24 hours of those people going to bed. The trauma is still palpable. We've seen similar failures in Victoria, in Rochester, Seymour and Echuca. In January 2023, the township of Menindee flooded despite the bureau not picking it up, because they say the Talyawalka Creek, whose swollen flows were coming into the system, is ungauged, yet this same agency has access to satellite systems that can actually monitor when a farmer is illegally diverting water from the system. So do we trust the BOM to get it right? I accept and acknowledge that the minister has now asked the BOM for an urgent briefing to get to the bottom of what's gone wrong. But the ANAO report is absolutely enlightening reading, and I hope Dr Johnson comes to the next estimates prepared to answer questions.
Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 | Matters of Urgency | Senate debates
Everyone knows that I'm not a very sporty person, but my children were gymnasts. They would have had no hope of competing against the Prime Minister's ability to backflip, forward somersault and...
Everyone knows that I'm not a very sporty person, but my children were gymnasts. They would have had no hope of competing against the Prime Minister's ability to backflip, forward somersault and finish with a triple pike without breaking a sweat. That's what we've seen here. We saw the nature positive bill go through the lower house, with the support of the teals—sorry; apparently they like being called 'community independents' today—and the Greens. We saw it listed for debate in the Senate. Then we saw it withdrawn from the listings, and we saw it brought back, to be debated this week. I was asked last week, when I was doing a TV interview: 'What is the opposition's position on this? Has the opposition changed their mind?' I said at the time, 'The only person that I'm aware of who's changed their mind on bringing this bill forward again for debate is the Prime Minister.' And—lo and behold!—he's changed his mind again. Now, when it was listed last year, we heard from the Premier of Western Australia his opposition to the bill, calling out the immense damage this legislation would have on that state's mining based economy. Make no mistake—Western Australia would not be the only state impacted, but at least their Premier is honest enough to have called it out. The new year must have been a really good one for the Prime Minister, because he forgot that he'd withdrawn the bill last year and it appeared on our Notice Paper again. To bring back this bill was a slap in the face for Western Australia. It showed that Western Australia had been held in total contempt by this government. I want to commend Mia Davies, the Nationals' candidate for the seat of Bullwinkel, for her tireless work in calling out not only this bill and the damage it would do to Western Australia but also this government's appalling live sheep export ban. So the bill was relisted, but the phones must have been burning with calls between Western Australia and the Lodge, because over the weekend the Prime Minister yet again shelved this bill. We heard today from Senator Chisholm that they've lodged a motion to withdraw this bill—to discharge it from the Notice Paper. And yet they're not supporting this motion. Do you know why they're not supporting this motion? Because this motion also asked for a guarantee that the legislation as it stands will not be returned to parliament, and the Labor Party will not make that guarantee, because the Labor Party want to leave the door open to do another dirty deal with the Greens and to make an alignment with the teals—or community independents, or whatever you want to call them. If they are voted into a position where they can form a minority government, they will do dirty deals with the Greens and the teals and reintroduce this appalling bill, irrespective of the impact on the people and the economy of Western Australia and on the economy of Queensland, and, indeed, on the economy of New South Wales, where there are also large-scale mining applications in for things like critical minerals, which we'll need if we're going to see a net zero future. This government doesn't want to close the door of opportunity on a Green-teal minority deal. And that's what we are facing. That is why the Labor Party are opposing this motion, which, in all other aspects, they support. It is because they know that they cannot get this bill through before any election, so they're willing to discharge it from the Notice Paper, but they're not willing to commit to not bringing back this bad bill that does nothing to improve our environmental laws and does everything to balloon the size of the bureaucracy even more and duplicate state agencies that are already in existence and are already there to do the job this bill is proposing a new bureaucracy to do.
Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
Can I ask that the question be divided with respect to amendment (14) and the proposed item 24C in amendment (9), to give effect to the amendments on sheet 2990.