We'll move to question time and I have Senator Bragg. Thank you very much, President. My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer of Senator Gallagher. Minister, recent research from Finder reveals that 42% of Australian mortgage holders are struggling to meet their home loan repayment in August. The highest level of mortgage stress in many years. The average owner-occupier mortgage now has risen to $634,000, a 9.3% increase from 2023. Meanwhile, yesterday's latest building activity data shows the Government's housing agenda is making things worse. Between 2023 and 24, home-building commencements dropped 8.8% to the lowest level in a decade, with just 158,690 new starts. Minister, why is Labor's housing policy making a bad situation even worse? Thank you, Senator Bragg. Minister Gallagher. Thank you, will I reject the assumption or the end of that question that it's making the situation worse at all? I would say what's making the housing situation worse is not having agreement in this Chamber around a range of policies that could be implemented to support both the construction of new housing, people from renting into housing and supporting investments in other housing options. That's the handbrake, that's the block that's happening at the moment. We are doing everything we can as a Government to ensure that the Federal Government has control over, that we are moving them all in the direction of additional supply of housing. We acknowledge that those who have mortgages are under stress, that's what happens when you have interest rate increases in during a period of high inflation, which is why we've also been looking at ways to support people who are in that position with effective cost of living relief. But we have been putting in place agreements with the states and territories about housing and homelessness. We have got agreements with a social housing accelerator. We've put in a billion dollars to help support enabling infrastructure, because local government tell us that that for them is a handbrake on getting more housing developed. We've got the states and territories agreeing to review their planning, essentially their planning requirements, again, to accelerate the capability to get more housing supply in the system sooner. And made announcements about the Housing Australia Future Fund. We've got help to buy, build to rent that are being stuck here. We've got the home owner guarantee scheme that's been very popular, that's supported over 100,000 into home ownership. So on every single level and every measure you look at, we are doing what we can to increase the supply of housing in this country if it's not a problem that occurred overnight. The time for answering has expired, Senator Bragg, first supplementary. Thanks, President. Minister, can you confirm that to keep Labor's promise of 1.2 million new houses, one new house needs to be built every 2.2 minutes. Will Labor ever meet this target? Thank you, Senator Bragg. Minister Gallagher, who? Thank you. Well, we are proud to have a housing target that includes the plan to build 1.2 million homes. And we have set that target and we are putting the policies to drive that target, to meet that target. Now, obviously, working with the states and territories is really important here, but also is training more tradies. Part of the issue that we've got is around workforce, funding more apprenticeships, growing that workforce, looking at how we can cut red tape, which is the work that we're doing with local government and planning reform, providing incentives to state governments to get homes built quickly, delivering the biggest investment in social housing in more than a decade and working out with the states and territories on how to reduce homelessness. I would just say to those opposite that this was a problem of a decade in the making because of the distinct lack of interest from those opposite in housing. We didn't even have a housing minister for a substantial period of time. Thank you, Minister. The time for answering has expired order. At Senators, yesterday was extremely disorderly when senators were attempting to ask their questions and when ministers were responding. I am going to go back to rulings of Senator Ryan and Senator Brockman. That questions and answers be given and heard in silence. Senator Bragg. Thank you very much, President. Under Labor, the prospect of owning your own house has become the preserve of the rich. Baron Joey Datta shows that the share of Commonwealth Bank home loans for owner occupiers, earning more than $200,000, has doubled in the past few years, but the share going to borrow us on less than $100,000 has almost halved. Minister, won't your government's business-burdening, industrial relations changes, green and red tape, make a bad situation even worse? I thank you, Senator Bragg. Minister Gallagher. Thank you. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Thank you very much for that question and for reminding us what the coalition would do if they were to win government again on the industrial relations front. They want to wind back workers in tidal means, they want to wind back wages growth, they want to make working in jobs, in construction and others more insecure, and we disagree with that. It will be a point of disagreement. Senator, I ask for silence when Senators were asking their question and when the Minister was answering. That is what I expect. Minister, please continue. Thank you, President. In terms of the beginning of that question, I am dealt with the IR component of that question in terms of the first bit. Why would we have invested in the social housing accelerator? Why would we be investing in housing Australia's future funds? Senator Bragg, which part of my statement did you fail to understand, particularly when the Senate was silent, when your question was asked? You are being disrespectful to me and to this Chamber. Minister, please continue. I couldn't disagree stronger with Senator Bragg on the fact that our policies are only around housing for the rich. Social housing accelerator, housing Australia's future fund, Commonwealth Range Assistance. We are about housing for all. Housing for everybody. Thank you, Minister. The time for answering has expired. Senator Mariel Smith. Thank you, President. My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. We have heard this week about how the Government has helped Australians with tax cuts and other costs of living relief whilst helping with the inflation challenge with back-to-back surpluses and paying down liberal debt. Another area of focus for the Government is cracking down on dodgy supermarket practices, including tackling shrinkflation. Minister, can you please explain how the urban, easy labour government is working to ensure that Australians get a fair deal when they do their weekly supermarket shop? Thank you, Senator Smith. Minister Gallagher. Thank you and I thank President and I thank Senator Smith for the question and for focusing on those key costs of living issues affecting Australians, and we know and the Government believes that Australians deserve a fair deal when they do their weekly supermarket shot. Last week we announced a crackdown on dodgy supermarket practices, including tackling shrink inflation, where customers are charged the same for less product. We don't want to see ordinary Australians, families and pensioners being taken for a ride by the supermarkets, and we're taking steps to make sure they get a fair go at the checkout. We have provided the ACCC with a $30 million boost to crackdown on market conduct, including misleading and deceptive pricing practices. We've commenced consultation on a mandatory food and grocery code. We've commenced work with the states and territories to revitalise national competition policy, including on planning and zoning for supermarkets. We've supported choice to release its second Albanese government funded price monitoring report, giving Australians accurate data on where to get the cheapest groceries. These are real common-sense reforms that will make a difference to Australians when they're doing their shopping and it's backed by the ACCC. These aren't thought bubbles and political bluster that come from the unholy alliance that we've been seeing developing between the Australian Greens and the Coalition. Whilst undertaking these reforms to make the system fairer, we're also providing immediate cost of living relief in the form of tax cuts and power bill relief. It always wakes you up, though, doesn't it, because it's so uncomfortable. We're reducing health costs for Australians with cheaper medicines, increasing bulk billing and free urgent care clinics across the country, with 76 more of those to come. We're working hard to get the budget and the economy in order after a decade of mismanagement by the Coalition, back-to-back surpluses, less of Australia's money spent on Liberal debt and bringing down inflation. Senator Smith's first supplementary. Yes, thank you, Minister. It's good to hear that the government is working closely with the ACCC to ensure a fair go for Australians. Today in the House, the Treasurer introduced Mergers and Acquisition Reform to drive competition across our economy. Why is this important? Thank you, Senator Smith. Minister Gallagher. Thank you. And thanks, Senator Smith. That was an important announcement today. The Treasurer can new the Albanese Labor Government's work with the ACCC today with the introduction of a bill to enact historic reforms for a more competitive economy. The new system will set clear thresholds to determine whether a merger needs ACCC approval and there are also powers to ensure all the high-risk mergers are looked at. This new approach will also ensure that the ACCC is notified of every merger in the supermarket sector. Reviewing every supermarket merger is part of the decisive action our government is taking to help Australians get fairer prices at the checkout. We want to make sure that supermarket mergers don't come at the cost of Australians, families, pensioners, getting a fair price on their groceries. The Government thanks ACCC chair Gina Cascob Leib for the work she does in promoting competition and ensuring that consumers get a fair go. Thank you. Minister, Senator Smith. Second supplementary. Thank you. The Albanese Labor Government has repaired the budget in order to provide the cost of living relief Australians need and deserve. What challenges has the government faced in providing cost of living relief to Australians and what risks have emerged that threaten the delivery of services that Australians need and deserve? Thank you, Senator. Smith. Minister Guava, who? Thank you, Senator Smith. Well, we've seen in this chamber during the course of the last two years attempts to frustrate the government in ensuring that Australians were able to get the cost of living relief that they deserve. We've seen it when it came to providing energy bill relief, to when it came to providing cheaper medicines and even investments in cheaper childcare. Today we saw it with that unholy alliance that I spoke about earlier with the Greens and the Liberals and Nationals voting together against a future made in Australia. It is very difficult to explain to our constituents why you would vote against a future made in Australia, but there you go. Of course, we know that those opposite have already foreshadowed that if they were to form government, they would cut $315 billion out of the budget, hurting pensioners, hurting all of those that rely on important government services. Thank you, Senator. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine, sir. That's fine. It has expired. Senator Birmingham. Thanks, President. Thanks, President. My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. I refer the Minister to media reporting regarding the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Minister confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister is currently the Chair of the Government Staff and Committee? If so, has the Government Staff and Committee considered any matters relating to potential breaches of the Ministerial Staff Code of Conduct in the Deputy Prime Minister's Office? Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Minister Farrell. Senator Birmingham, for that question, and thank you, President. No and no. Thank you, Minister Farrell. Senator Birmingham, first supplementary. Thanks, President. Can the Minister confirm what role the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff has in the employment of the Deputy Prime Minister's staff under the Members of Parliament Staff Act, and whether the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff has any authority or has acted to make any employment arrangements on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister or his office? Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Minister Farrell. Thank you, President, and thank Senator Birmingham, for his first supplementary question. In respect to the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister, he is on the Committee, the Staff and Committee, just as to – I don't recall any circumstances in which the issues that you're referred to have been discussed at the Staff and Committee, but I'll take that question on notice and come back to you. Thank you, Minister. Senator Birmingham, second supplementary. Thank you, President. Can the Special Minister of State confirm that he is to the Minister delegated to administer the Members of Parliament Staff Act and the Ministerial Staff Code of Conduct? And if so, what action has the Minister taken to ensure that any action is taken by the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff in relation to the matters reported in the media today are compliant with the Act and compliant with the Code? Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Minister Farrell. Thank you, President, and thank Senator Birmingham for his second supplementary question. It's been a very long-standing practice in this place that particularly Special Ministers of State don't start going into specific details about employment relations. Well, that has been the long – well, Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Order. Order. Order. Order. Senator Cash. Senator Birmingham. Thank you, President. On a – I'm sorry, Senator Birmingham. I do need your side. Order on my left. I'm not sure who that was, but I'm going to ask them to withdraw. No. You stand and withdraw, and I think it was used – thank you. Thank you, Senator Reynolds. Thank you, President. The point of order goes to matters of direct relevance. The question was quite tightly worded, asking the Minister in terms of actions he's taken to ensure himself of compliance with the Members of Parliament Staff Act and the Ministerial Staff Code of Conduct, not to go into the details of any matter, but ministerial action to ensure compliance. I thought the Minister was being relevant, but I'll continue to listen carefully, Senator Birmingham, noting your concern. Minister Farrell. Thank you. President, as I said, I don't make a practice of commenting publicly about these issues and the actions that I take. In this particular job, you come across a lot of information about both staff and Members of Parliament, and if I was called upon to release information about all of those issues from time to time. Thank you, Minister. That's fine. Senator Ormond Payne. Thank you, President. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. The Robodette tragedy was only possible because income support recipients were, and still are, trapped on poverty payments. This made them acutely vulnerable to the actions of the Government and departments. Will Labor take seriously your duty as a Government and raise the rate of income support above the poverty line, or will you condemn income support recipients to the whims of a future Government? Thank you, Senator Ormond Payne. Minister Farrell. I called you, sorry. Thank you. Thank you, President, and I thank the Senator for her for her question. While you talk about Robodette, Senator, which party was the party that pursued the issue of the abuse of the Robodette system, it was the Labor Party, and we successfully prosecuted that case to the point where the former Government eventually threw in the towel and accepted that system was an illegal system and repaid money to the people that had been abused as a result of that system. Of course, in Government, we continue to deal with this issue in a comprehensive and systematic fashion. That means that we continue to look after all of the people who rely on the social security system in this country to receive the appropriate payments. The reality is that for the whole Robodette fiasco was dealt with by this Government. We prosecuted an opposition and dealt with it in Government. Thank you, Mr. Senator Ormond Payne, first supplementary. The ability of services Australia to pursue years-old debts underpinned the Robodette scheme. Will this Government finally act on the Royal Commission's recommendation to legislate a six-year limitation on debt recovery? Thank you, President, and I thank the Senator for her first supplementary question. The Government is aware of the report, obviously, and in due course, we will respond to the recommendations in accordance with the advice that we received. But can I say this, that in terms of the social safety net, just in the last budget alone, around 1.1 million individuals on low or no earnings, including access to more than 51,000 recipients, aged 55 years over, received a higher rate. Around 4,700 single people with significant barriers to work received a higher rate of job seeker. We have been increasing the Commonwealth rent assistance to around 1 million low-income householders, who benefited by a 15 per cent. It is now over a year since the final report of the Royal Commission. Will this Government commit to real justice and transparency for victims of the scheme and release the sealed chapter of the Robodette Royal Commission report? Thank you, Senator Ormond Payne, Minister Farrell. I thank the President and I thank Senator Ormond Payne for her second supplementary question. This matter, of course, is very appropriately being dealt with by the Attorney General and the Minister for Finance, and they will respond shortly to the report. In terms of the sealed section, that is an issue that the Attorney General is dealing with, and he will, at the appropriate time, make a statement about that issue. Thank you, Minister Farrell, Senator Grogan. Thank you, President. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator McAllister. The NBN is a piece of critical infrastructure designed to provide reliable and affordable internet across the country. How does the NBN assist in supporting all Australians, regardless of where they live? Thank you, Senator Grogan, Minister McAllister. Thank you, President. I thank Senator Grogan for her question. Order. You are. That's your plan. Please continue. I'd like to continue. And I want to congratulate Senator Grogan for her tireless support. Mr McAllister, please resume your seat. It is a shame that I have to remind Senators to listen in silence to the response from the Minister. Please continue. Thanks, President. I do want to congratulate Senator Grogan for her tireless support in levelling the playing field for regional Australians, because we know how important it is to have fast, reliable and affordable broadband for all Australians, but particularly those Australians that live in regional Australia, because the NBN allows Australians to work remotely and run their businesses more productively. Thinking about people like Brandt and Angie Petrie, whose Mount Wilbur Cattle Farm operates some 550 kilometres west of Rockhampton in regional Queensland, and before Brandt and Angie connected to the NBN, they had little to know mobile service or internet connection and would record all their cattle numbers with a notebook and pencil. Everything to the NBN has meant that Angie and Brandt can now run their banking, their payroll and their admin over the internet, and as Angie said, we wouldn't be able to run our farm today without the NBN. It's as simple as that, gone are the days of the notebook and the pencil. So this government is supporting families and businesses like Brandt and Angie's right across Australia. 8.6 million active premises already connected to the NBN, with over 12.4 million ready to connect. Now our fixed wireless upgrades are on track for completion by the end of the year, with 2,300 towers upgraded. It means faster speeds, it means less network faults and this week we have introduced legislation to ensure that this critical infrastructure asset remains publicly owned. As it should be, Senator Gragan, I am sure you will agree. Thank you, Minister. Senator Gragan, first supplementary. That's excellent information, Minister, thank you so much. Now we know that the Albanese Labor Government's approach is different from the previous government, but can you outline for us what the emerging risks are to the NBN remaining affordable and reliable for all Australians. Thank you, Senator Gragan, Minister McAllister. Thank you, President. Again, I thank Senator Gragan for her supplementary question, because it really took less than 24 hours for the opposition to show Australians why they can't trust them with our publicly owned assets. So Senator Hume was first out of the gate, saying it was always the plan that the NBN would be privatised and when asked, and she was asked whether she would support the legislation to keep the NBN in public hands and she refused. Senator Hume, your seat, order on my left, order, Senator Watt, order. Senator Hume, when you've finished, Senator Hume. Minister McAllister, please continue. Well, that's right, so Senator Hume was asked to confirm her position, which he supported legislation to not sell the NBN and to refuse saying it wasn't that simple. Now, we had another Liberal member backing in Senator Hume, Solidarity Forever, confirming that it has always been in contemplation that the NBN would be privatised. And then lastly, we saw the Shadow Minister for Communications trying to mop it all up on our end, but he wouldn't commit to supporting our bill either. Thank you, Mr. Senator Colbett, I'm not quite sure which part of my instruction to be silent when ministers were answering, you failed to hear or follow through, but you are being disrespectful at Senator Grogan's second supplementary. Thank you, President. We know that the NBN makes a real difference in the lives of Australians through faster, more reliable internet access. And the bill that you've referred to that's in before the Parliament, can you just tell us if that does not pass, what price will regional Australians pay and how do we prevent that from happening? I'm just waiting for silence, seriously, Senator Henderson and Senator Hume and Senator Watt. If you can't listen in silence, please leave the chamber, Minister McAllister. Well, thanks, Senator Grogan, for that question, because actually, public ownership is the best way to deliver an NBN that continues to be affordable and ensures that Australians have the access to high-speed internet. Now, this is important for regional Australians who rely on the NBN to run their businesses and remain connected while living sometimes in very remote locations. Senator Henderson, when I call your name, you're not in a debate with me and you don't call back. I've asked you respectfully to be quiet and you've completely ignored me, you are deep being disrespectful. Minister McAllister, please continue. So, look, the Government's bill will ensure, of course, that the NBN remains in public hands. But those opposite are refusing to support it, and you have to ask the question why? Why use that? Well, it's because we know they actually want to sell it, just like those old Telstra. That's the risk. That's the risk, Senator Grogan, and it's one that is reinforced by all of the comments that have been made this morning, and privatising this asset will mean that people, like Angie and like Brent, will be paying a higher price for a worse product. If those opposite truly support regional Australians, they'll support our bill. Thank you, Minister. Our time for answering has expired. Senator Tyrell. Thank you, President. Children, Senator Tyrell, I'm very sorry. Please use him. You'll see. Order across the Chamber. Order. I expect Senator Tyrell to be able to ask her question in complete silence. Senator Tyrell, I don't need her here because you were one of the Senators being disorderly. I'm waiting to call Senator Tyrell. Order. Order. Order. Senator Tyrell, please ask your question. Thank you, President. I appreciate it. My Senator is to Senator Gallagher, representing the Minister for Health. Tasmania has spent $182 million on low-income doctors and agency nurses in the year 2324, which has tripled the cost from three years ago. I know relying on low-coms is not a sustainable solution, and that the fixed for Tasmania's lack of health professionals needs a multi-pronged approach. One element that could be tweaked is reviewing the modified Monash model, as this makes it easier for Tasmania medical practices to hire health professionals. Will the Government commit to a review of the Monash model classifications in Tasmania to allow us to attract more health professionals? Thank you, Senator Tyrell, Minister Gallagher. Thank you, President, and I thank Senator Tyrell for the question and for the work she does around health care and health care provision in Tasmania, and Senator Tyrell is right. The health workforce is under a huge amount of pressure in Tasmania, but also around the country. GPs in particular, which are the first point of contact for many as either getting a health check or if they have a health problem. I know that Senator Tyrell engages with the Health Minister frequently on the matters that relate to Tasmania. I'm not here to commit to a review of the Monash model as she is the Senator has asked me about today, but we have done a range of things to invest in the health workforce since we came to Government. The health workforce delivers all of the health care, so when you're looking at measures like trying to increase the bulk billing rate and all of those things, we need health professionals to be able to do that. I think the Health Minister has been very clear about the pressure that the GP workforce has the college and others, so it's not just a matter, I think, of incentivising. The bigger problem we've got to fix is the supply of GPs more broadly, and whilst it is a significant issue in Tasmania, there are also quite a number of other areas around the country where this is an issue too, and how you can support and incentivise the primary health care model is something that this Government is focussed on and looking at a range of ways. One of them is how we make sure that we've got more doctors coming through the system, but also looking at scope of practise issues for nurse practitioners and others, but they can't do all of the work of a medical professional and we remain committed and indeed happy to work with Senator Tyrell on ideas to support Tasmanian health has expired. Senator Tyrell, first supplementary. Thank you, President. Medical practices in Tasmanian regional towns are suffering due to the modified Monash model. The medical practice at Lilydale is only 100 metres outside the medium rural town boundary, and the practice in New Norfolk falls inside the regional centre boundary. This makes it harder for these practices to recoup medical practitioners. If there is no review of the model, would the Government consider case-by-case assessment to help practices in regional areas? Thank you, Senator Tyrell, Minister Gallagher. Thank you, President. I thank Senator Tyrell for the question. Look, I think that in general the Health Minister's door is always open and to representations and ideas to support the delivery of primary health care around the country, including in Tasmania. I note today in the local paper there was in the Mercury, I think there was a story about some improvements in GP numbers and bulk billing in Tasmania, which is hugely welcome. I imagine driven by some of the measures we have been talking about, including tripling the bulk billing rate, but acknowledge that there is much more work to do. Looking at how some of the incentives and programs, I think we have to look at the whole of the country, not just one particular aspect, because incentives do change behaviour as the reason that underpins the Monash model. So I think the focus is on supply, getting more doctors into the system, but happy to continue to work with Senator Tyrell on ideas you may have. I have to, Minister, Senator Tyrell, second supplementary. President, another issue with the modified Monash model is that each area's economy is not considered as part of the model's classification process. Good population data and economic status have been linked to the modified Monash model to make it more relevant to small regional towns where there are pockets of disadvantage. Thank you, Senator Tyrell. Minister Gallojo. Thank you. I do thank you, Senator Tyrell, and a number of aspects of our health system, including some of the items through MBS, are targeted based on demographics and taking into consideration some of the factors that Senator Tyrell has raised. I think also the working better for Medicare review was handed down this week. It did consider the modified Monash model, and obviously it's been handed this week, so handed down this week, so the Minister for Health will be considering the recommendations and consulting on them, and so it may be in that context, Senator Tyrell, that you could have further discussions with what might be possible in the good state of Tasmania. Thank you, Minister. Senator Cash. Thank you very much. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Earlier this week, Cosboa and Kombank released a report saying small businesses were thriving or living through the toughest operating environment in recent memory, and we saw data confirming that quarterly insolvencies are now at an all-time high. Despite that tremendous pressure on small and family businesses across Australia, the government is planning to hit those businesses with $13.9 billion in new costs through your AML-CTF legislation. This isn't our assessment of those costs. These are the costs listed in the government's own explanatory materials. How will these small and family businesses afford to pay for your legislation? Thank you, Senator Cash. Minister Wong. Thank you very much, President. Thank you to Senator Cash for the question. Obviously, as we all know, small businesses are a very important part of our economy, about the engine room of our economy. And I think you would have heard Senator Collins acknowledge the pressures on small businesses right now, which is why the government is looking at—is the government's policies are targeted at improving the long-term resilience of small businesses and providing practical support for those small businesses experiencing challenges? Our most recent budget helped to ease the pressure on Australia's two and a half. Senator Cash. The point of order in relation to relevance. This question is about a $13.9 billion cost on the government's own analysis. It will impose on small business on its own piece of legislation. It is a specific question about the $13.9 billion hit on small businesses. Thank you, Senator Cash. I do remind you you don't need to repeat the whole question. The minister is being relevant. You talked about the operating environment for small businesses. You went to the issue of insolvency in a number of matters. The minister is being relevant. Minister Wong. Thank you. Senator Cash, you did use the acronym, as you are referring to the anti-money laundering arrangements. It took me a little while to— Obviously, we do think that arguing across the Chamber while a minister is on her feet is incredibly disrespectful. Minister, please continue. Senator, this is about money laundering which facilitates serious crimes. Senator Cash, this is about money laundering which facilitates serious crimes. We have taken action to both protect Australians and combat organised transnational crime. I appreciate that that is an additional level of regulation. But it is regulation with a very important public policy purpose, which is to counter one of the ways in which criminal activities are funded. This is the government of the question of years to be— Councillor interjecting. After three minutes. Please resume your seat. The senators shouting out across the Chamber need to stop. I've said today that questions and answers need to be heard in silence. If you can't manage that, please leave the Chamber. Minister Wong, please continue. Is the logic of the question that the government shouldn't act on money laundering that facilitates criminal behaviour? Is that the logic of the question? Senator, I am surprised, given your tough-on crime rhetoric, that you would even ask me such a question. Thank you, Senator Cash, for a supplementary. Thank you very much. Experience with similar legislation in New Zealand shows that small real estate agencies had to pay between an additional 30,000 and 60,000 each to just comply with the law. There are similar experiences amongst small law firms, small accountants and others brought into the regime. This is real money paid by real men and women who just want to run a business. How many businesses, as a government expect, will be driven to the wall by your legislation? Minister Wong. Thank you. I am advised of a number of things, which I will, in the interest of assisting the Senate, make an outline. First, we are committed to working closely with small businesses and other stakeholders on these reforms. There have been two rounds of consultations and meetings with industry stakeholders. The second point I would make is Australia has been singled out by the Global Financial Action Task Force as one of only three jurisdictions in the world who do not meet financial action task force requirements, which puts us at risk of being greylisted, which would have negative economic impacts, including reduction in credit rating and consequences for foreign direct investment and international banking connections, as the country is perceived to be hiring. So these are the risks that we are trying to do with. You've asked your question now, listen in silence. Minister Wong, please continue. That obviously very substantial risk to the economy if we don't do this, very substantial benefits to criminals if we do. Again, we've worked through this for this business. Senator O'Neill, your running commentary is also unhelpful. Senator O'Neill, what she needs to brief in silence. Senator Cash, second supplementary. Thank you, Minister. Is the government really arguing that a $13.9 billion regulatory cost is reasonable, in particular when it's on small businesses, and will you review and act to reduce these costs, so that small businesses in Australia don't have to continue to close as they are doing under this government? Order. Order. Order. Order on my right. Order. Order. Minister Wong. The information I have is that the impact analysis estimates on upfront costs of $28,000 a year, and your ongoing burden of $33,000 for new regulated small businesses will turn over up to $2 million. The cost of introduction of reforms is your point over 10 years, $13.9 billion. The cost of money laundering to Australia is estimated at over $16 billion a year. I am very surprised that one of the people in this Chamber who talks so much about being tough on crime is actually coming into here and saying that we shouldn't act on money laundering. You know, tough on workers, but not tough on criminals who use monolaundry, that's Senator Cash. Order. Order. Order. I don't know how many time senators I have to call you, Senator O'Neill, and you, Senator Cash, and more recently, Senator Rustin. You are being disrespectful, Senator Babette. Thank you, President. My question is for the Minister representing the climate change in Energy Minister, Minister McAllister. Minister Bowen recently stated that electricity prices fell 17.9% in the 12 months to August. He said it is a good step forward and an indication that our reliable renewables energy plan is working. He quoted the ABS-August CPI indicator stating that this was the largest annual fall for electricity on record. He neglected to repeat the next sentence from that report, which states of a combined impact of Commonwealth state and territory rebates drove the annual fall in electricity prices. Has Minister Bowen misled the Australian people on the underlying cause of reduced electricity bills? Thank you, Senator Babette. Minister McAllister. Thanks very much, President. I mean, the short answer, Senator, is no. Our government understands that energy prices are, in fact, a very serious issue for households and for businesses. It is why our number one priority is delivering cost of living relief, and that includes cost of living relief that is targeted towards costs associated with electricity. So every Australian household is receiving $300 in energy bill relief, and the truth is that the alternative plan, the plan put forward by the coalition, is a plan that would absolutely guarantee higher prices for those households. Now in the medium term, there is work to be done, because over the last decade, 22 failed energy policies, none of which landed, saw megawatts of electricity, gigawatts of electricity leaving the system, and that dispatchable capacity was not replaced. And so on coming to government, our policies have been aimed at stabilising that system, restoring confidence from investors so that we can actually see investment regime in the kinds of electricity system that we know offers the least cost option for consumers in the future. And that, of course, is a reliable renewable plan. It does mean, actually, Senator, that wholesale energy prices are now considerably lower when the coalition left office. And over the medium term, it will mean that the Albanese government's plan is the only plan that we will actually continue to see those prices delivered for consumers. Now the coalition has taken a different approach. Of course, Senator, they voted against energy price relief. They want to wind back the rebate that's going out to Australian families and businesses right now. And as you know, they're advocating for nuclear energy. Now that will add hundreds, hundreds to Australian bills, but will supply less than 4 per cent of the energy that households and businesses have. Thank you, Minister. Senator Rustin, your running commentary is really disrespectful. Senator Bibet, first supplementary. Thank you, President. So you just said there that the cost of power has come down under your government's leadership. Now, can you advise what change in electricity prices would have occurred without using taxpayer money to temporarily and artificially, in my opinion, reduce electricity bills? Thank you, Senator Bibet, Minister McAllister. Senator, I do have those numbers here somewhere in my fold. What I can tell you, 22 energy policies, maybe that's a good question. Yeah, that's a good question. So, Senator, what I can tell you is that the consequence of the Commonwealth rebates would have seen the, for example, in Victoria, the year on year change for an average standing offer was 23 per cent reduction. Had the rebates not been in place, it would have been down 6 per cent. In Western Australia, the consequence of the relief that was put in place by the Australian Government saw a 13 per cent reduction estimated, but had that the bill relief not been in place, it would have been a 2 per cent increase. In Tasmania, a 14 per cent reduction, as a consequence of our measures, had those measures not been in place, the reduction would only have been three per cent reduction. Thank you, Minister. The time for answering has expired. Senator Bibet, second supplementary. Thank you, President. Now, Minister of the Australian Bureau of Statistics noted in the same report that I referred to earlier that excluding rebates, electricity costs for households would have increased 16.6 per cent since June 2023, is a 16.6 per cent increase and indication that your, I guess, so-called renewable energy plan is working or not working. Thank you, Senator Bibet, Minister McAllister. Thanks, President. Well, as everyone here understands, I think even those opposite understand it, we inherited an absolute mess in the energy system when we came into government. The average wholesale price when we came to government was $286 a megawatt hour. Retail prices had increased up to almost 20 per cent, which those opposite shamefully sought to hide took active steps to hide on the eve of an election. The truth is that a driver of that, a significant driver, was a lack of investment caused by uncertainty driven by policy dysfunction, denial and chaos within the government from those opposite. Now, the driver, of course, was our exposure to international energy prices, international gas prices, which were going up as a consequence of the Russian invasion in Ukraine. So, we are responding to that mess. We are responding to the mess that was left by those opposite. Thank you, Minister. The time for answering has expired, Senator Payman. Thank you, President. My question is to the Minister of Finance, Senator Gallagher. The Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act, governing financial resource management of government departments, has no provision to impose civil or criminal penalties. In 2024, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, tabled an inquiry report and found that National Disability Insurance Agency officials failed to disclose years of secret gifts and hospitality received from Global IT Giant Salesforce despite the company securing lucrative government contracts and massive variations. Minister, will the government commit to closing this corrupt loophole affecting approximately 80 billion dollars of taxpayer money spent each year on government tenders by amending the PGPA Act to implement civil or criminal penalties for breaches of this act? Thank you, Senator Payman. Minister Gauru. Thank you. Will we have enacted the National Anti-Corruption Commission and if there are concerns of corrupt conduct in the National Disability Insurance Agency, they should be referred to the appropriate body for investigating that. In terms of the public service more broadly around donation or gifts or anything received during your role as a public servant in your dealings with others, there is a requirement to disclose those matters. The PGPA Act is there, of course, to provide legislative guidance or legislative rules around appropriate conduct in a whole range of areas, but I think departments take those responsibilities seriously in terms of reporting. Reporting through annual reports, attending estimates to be accountable for decisions that they may have made or if they haven't provided appropriate transparency to be held responsible for that. Of course, I think the National Anti-Corruption Commission, if they are, as Senator Payman says, corrupt dealings, then that is a matter for the National Anti-Corruption Commission that would not be dealt with through the PGPA Act. I have no plans at this point to amend that act to incorporate penalties that Senator Payman has outlined, but the appropriate avenue and authority for investigating corrupt conduct in public office is through the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Thank you, Minister. Senator Payman, first supplementary. The National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is intended to stamp out the sort of corruption which contributed to last year's $18 billion blowout across defence projects, has not been able to punish people for the corruption as the PGPA Act gives them no avenue to do so, Minister. Why is it that a government elected, when the public was crying out for leadership on integrity, has so comprehensively failed to enact anything more than a toothless Victorian-style anti-corruption for answering has expired? Minister Gatorho? I think you will, I don't agree with that at all, and I don't agree with that assessment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and I don't agree with that in terms of assessment about integrity measures that we are putting in place across the Australian Public Service. We have made amendments to the Public Service Act to improve integrity and transparency since coming to government. Those amendments have passed this place with the support of senators. We have sought to strengthen the independence of the public service. We have resourced the public service appropriately so that it is able to do the job that we ask it to do because that matters about the quality of the delivery of work through the public service. If they don't have enough workers to do the work, we rely on contractors and others to do that. I think concerns have been raised about the quality of the delivery of public service. We put a range of measures, integrity measures, around procurement processes across the APS as well, and there is more to do. Senator Prime Minister, second supplementary. The previously mentioned blowout is nothing compared to the Mother of All Rorts, and that is the Orcas submarine deal. With costs expected to reach at least $368 billion over the coming decades, this program will be a burden on taxpayers and the budget, a deal that is more political than strategic. How can the Minister justify shipping billions of dollars of taxpayer money overseas to multinationals during this cost of living crisis? With respect, President, I don't believe that is a supplementary question. Yes, Senator Payne, that was not a supplementary question. It needs to be related to your primary and your first question. I will invite the Minister, if she wishes, to make a contribution to do so, but she is not obliged to. Minister Gallagher. Thank you very much, President. Firstly, I would say the examples that Senator Payne seeks to identify as corrupt behaviour, including a blowout of $18 billion, I think, if she does believe that that is corruption, then she should refer that matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In relation to Orcas, we are proud supporters of Orcas. We believe it is in our national interest, and our national interest, security interests, to have the Orcas program, I think, in terms of being a centre from WA, there are significant economic benefits from Orcas, including jobs and opportunities in the home state of WA. We do not agree at all that the resource in going in to support the delivery of Orcas in anywhere constitutes or what seeks to put the smear on, that it is inappropriate allocation of resources. Thank you, Minister. Senator McKenzie. Thank you, Madam President. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It was reported today that the Government's hand-picked Administrator of the CFMEU, Mark Irving, has continued to employ Mr Joel Shackleton of the CFMEU, despite Mr Shackleton being charged with making death threats against the owner of an Indigenous Labor hire firm. Following other profanities, Mr Shackleton is caught on video saying, and I quote, "I'll effing take your soul and I'll rip your effing head off." Minister, if the Government is genuine in its campaign to clean up the CFMEU, will the Albanese Government today intervene and instruct the Administrator to terminate the employment of Mr Shackleton? Thank you, Senator McKenzie, Minister Wong. Thank you, President. Thank you, Senator McKenzie, for that question, and I would say to Senator McKenzie, I share your reaction to the statements by Mr Shackleton, which have been reported. I haven't seen the video, but which have been reported. And I again say what Senator Wadd has said, and as the Prime Minister has said, sugaring environments have no place in Australia's workplaces and on Australia's building sites. In relation to the decision by the Administrator, I would make the point that the strongest possible action has been taken by the Government in appointing an independent administrator. That person has removed over a dozen full-time officials permanently from office as part of the scheme of administration, as well as hundreds of other office spirits. Obviously, the decision of the Administrator is a matter for him. What I would say is that we have taken stronger action than any Government has to clean up the CFMEU, and that is because we do not believe that thuggery and corruption and violence have any place in our trade union movement or in Australia's workplaces. Thank you, Minister. Senator McKenzie, first supplementary. Does the Government believe that it can end the CFMEU's decades-long culture of law-breaking criminal activity, bullying, harassment, corruption, bribery and standover tactics when the Administrator seems to be quite happy to continue the employment of those caught on video-making death threats and from the Minister's first response would seem the Government is not of a mind to suggest he does remove. Thank you, Senator McKenzie, Minister Wong. I can try and answer the parts of that question. In relation to the last part, I think I opened my answer, Senator, with the view expressed about the inappropriate and aggressive language that was used, which I understand is reported to be the subject of a criminal investigation, that I shared the concern to express to your colleagues. I don't agree with the last political point you made in your answer, but I again go back to this point, Senator, for all of the talk, for all of the attack on workers, our Government and this Minister has taken stronger action to clean up the CFMEU, the CFMEU, than any Government in Australia. Thank you, Minister, that time for answering has expired, Senator McKenzie's second supplementary. Will the Minister confirm, given the answers today, that the Government does not actually care about actually cleaning up the CFMEU, because it is desperately trying to gain the CFMEU's support, their manpower and their donations for the upcoming elections, and we refuse to have the conversation with the Administrator about the acceptable employment of Mr Shackleton. Thank you, Senator McKenzie, Minister Wong. Well, I absolutely reject those assertions, and if you might have noticed there's a fair idea, I think you might have seen some of the former CFMEU and their members make their displeasure at the Government's actions clear. We are focused on doing what we believe is the right thing, which is to clean it up. We don't believe Australian workers or the Australian trade union movement are benefited in any way by violence, thuggery and corruption inside trade unions, and this Minister and this Government has taken stronger action than any Government has to clean up the CFMEU, and that Administrator has removed hundreds of office bearers and a dozen full-time officials, so that is stronger action than has ever been taken, and all that I ask that further questions be placed onwards.
