The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 1 pm.
Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan—Select Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 5.10 pm.
The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
The CHAIR (09:31): The committee is considering amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 8819, moved by Senator Keneally. The question is that items 5, 9 to 13, 19 to 21, 27, 28, 34, 35, 41, 42, 47 and 48 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:32): I must address comments made yesterday during the committee stage related to this bill. Bluster and rhetoric delivered with disconcerting force do not alter the facts and do not bother me. We read Labor's amendment, I listened to the debate and I spoke with the crossbench. I then examined the history of harmonisation and asked questions of the department. I say again: I responded to Senator Carr's and Senator Ayres's comments in previous debate, and we went and got our facts. The result from getting our facts and consulting all those people was a clear understanding that this amendment from Labor is pointless and counterproductive. I did seek, through the questions I asked, to indicate to Labor, to the crossbench and to the many Australians listening to parliament that Labor's amendment was predicated on a thorough misunderstanding of the bill. It became clear, in looking at the history of the bill, that Labor had previously been in support, and I pointed that out. Senator Carr said yesterday, 'You can quote Hansard all you like,' and, yes, I did reference the senator's words in Hansard back to him. The purpose was not to upset the senator. The purpose was to ask—and I thought this was clear from my questions—what has changed? How do you get from being a strong supporter of the bill to being a strong critic, with no change in the fundamentals behind that decision, no change in the facts?
This bill is identical to one in 2018 amending another group of free trade agreements in the same way as this bill does. I recall that Labor voted in support of free trade agreements with this same harmonised system only last year, those agreements being the Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong free trade agreements. What has changed in these few short months? Well, nothing. Harmonising industry definitions and descriptions makes it easier for exporters to export. Instead of dealing with 15 sets of rules, they only need to deal with one. If a rule change by the World Customs Organization results in a material change to a free trade agreement—a change in commitments which means we lose money or opportunities or control as a result of that change—then the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties are required to examine the change and recommend yes or no, and then parliament can scrutinise their finding, which is presented as a legislative instrument. This is the same procedure that Labor is trying to introduce with this amendment. Labor is introducing a measure that already exists. Labor can huff and puff all they like, but this is a pointless amendment that has the effect of cancelling a system that they voted for only a few months ago. It will make it harder for our exporters to export. It will not protect our industries or workers any more than they are protected now; in fact, it will make things harder for them.
I have no idea what election or social media messaging Labor was trying to set up with this amendment, but I can't see it as an honest one. One Nation remains opposed to Labor's hollow, grandstanding amendment. One Nation remains opposed to free trade agreements that the Liberal-National coalition and Labor pass together, as a duopoly. Yet, as always, we will work honestly with anyone who wants to improve on the mess that the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor jointly create with their free trade agreements. That's why, in this case, we support legislation that reduces bureaucracy, makes it easier for Australian producers to export, minimises the cost to taxpayers and still retains parliamentary oversight.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:36): I'd like to make a brief contribution to this debate in the committee stage. I understand that Senator Roberts and One Nation are very new to this trade debate. Senator Carr gave a very considered overview yesterday of his many years in this chamber and as a minister working in the trade area. I'd like to point out that the Greens too are very aware that the fundamental principle at stake here is one of executive power—more executive power—being wrestled off parliament, of more decisions being outsourced to the bureaucracy. The Greens, back in 2014-15, initiated an inquiry into our treaty-making process. We believe that the trade- and treaty-making process in this place is broken and needs to be revisited. We had a very interesting and long Senate inquiry into that. I then introduced a private member's bill into this place, to reform the trade treaty process.
Parliament has always been aware that the executive holds the power in trade negotiations. This is a hangover of the old Westminster system. It goes back hundreds of years, to when governments negotiated treaties, to when the British Empire conquered countries and negotiated treaties. It really hasn't changed that much. What the government did back in the seventies and eighties, when debate started on this, was to introduce the JSCOT process. I've sat on JSCOT for many years, as have my colleagues. What Senator Roberts doesn't understand is that it is a government dominated committee and a rubber stamp process. The trade negotiations that set the rules and regulations that go into the treaties that we ratify in parliament—and I underline that word 'ratify'—are done in secret. Essentially, DFAT, in the process of trade negotiations, is a black box. Having sat for many years with my colleagues, trying to ask questions about decisions around, for example, the TPP, I can tell Senator Roberts and One Nation that we have virtually no say in what goes into these trade agreements.
If you listen to the senators across the chamber, you might think this is about farmers exporting more products. Trade is about that, but these trade treaty processes have been almost completely overwhelmed by trade in services and a whole range of other exports and imports. The kinds of trade treaty processes we are negotiating in this day and age are extremely complex and ubiquitous across every aspect of our life in this country. They affect everything we do—everything—and yet this parliament only gets to ratify them. If you want to change a trade treaty process and you raise those issues in JSCOT, they will be rejected, because it's a government run committee. If you come in here and ask to amend a trade treaty process, you can't, even if they're entirely sensible amendments, because those decisions have been made by bureaucrats and stamped by the executive. Before it even comes to parliament and to JSCOT, it's already been signed; I bet Senator Roberts didn't know that. These things have already been signed before they even come to us. You can reject it and vote against it—as, I'm very proud to say, the Greens have done on a number of trade deals—but you cannot change it. Our preference would be to amend them and change them, but that option is not available to us as parliamentarians.
The last thing we should be doing is giving more power to the executive and to bureaucrats, and removing our role of oversight in this chamber as senators. It's almost like there is a parallel economic system and governance system in this country and around the world in the context of globalisation—that is, through the trade and treaty process where executives of countries negotiate this. May I say: the people who actually do know what's going on in these very complex trade and treaty processes are mostly big pharmaceutical companies and big corporations. Civil society, including the unions, might get invited to a couple of shallow presentations and given some detail, but they're not invited into the trade and treaty process. I would urge One Nation to reject this bill and, more importantly, fundamentally reject the principle of giving more power to the executive and removing the power that we have as senators of oversight of these critically important matters.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:41): In looking at these amendments, I'm going to declare that, unfortunately, until yesterday I wasn't really across the subtleties of them. With that in mind, I'm going to ask the minister some questions to try and clarify in my mind exactly what is happening here. I apologise; it's subtle but nonetheless important. I share the view of people on this side of the chamber that we always want to make sure that the parliament is doing its job in conducting scrutiny. I've listened, and I re-read last night's Hansard for Senator Keneally's contribution and Senator Carr's contribution. I just want to get an understanding from the minister, from her perspective, of the amendments that Labor are proposing and where she says they cause harm. I'd appreciate it if you could help me through that.
The CHAIR: Senator Patrick, just before I call the minister, there's no need to apologise. This is Committee of the Whole, and this process is for every senator who wishes to fully interrogate the bill that the Senate is discussing. It is your absolute right to ask whatever questions you have in relation to the bill, so there is no need to apologise.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (09:43): Senator Patrick, thank you very much for those questions. I will answer them in two parts. First of all I'll go through the reasons why the government doesn't support the amendments, and then I'll clarify what this bill is about and what it's not about, because there are some things that the government doesn't agree will impact in some of those areas.
First of all, we don't support the proposed amendments because we believe that they would render the bill ineffective. They would break the mechanism incorporating the PSR changes by reference to the updated annex of the relevant FTAs. The intent of the bill is to enable the Customs Act to automatically incorporate periodic PSR updates by referring to the agreed updated PSR schedule in the relevant free trade agreement, rather than requiring a duplicative regulatory amendment to that to accomplish this. The proposed amendments would require those duplicative regulations to still be produced for these last six FTA agreements that are under consideration here today. We also think that the proposed amendments would also defeat the intent of aligning Australia's FTA practice for all of our FTAs. One of the key principles of this is to make sure that all of our 15 FTAs are fully aligned in terms of process. That is currently not the case; we've done nine of them this way and we now want to bring the remaining six into the same framework. Specifically, the bill seeks to align, as I said, these six FTAs. We believe continuing to use the old practice, which still applies to these particular six FTAs, is burdensome and also unnecessary. It's very difficult for traders and for industry to have two different processes in place. I would point out that the Australian parliament has already approved the automatic incorporation practice for nine of Australia's 15 FTAs and in 2018 the parliament passed, with opposition support at the time, as we discussed at some length yesterday, the amendment to the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Act. The 2018 act has the identical impact of this bill; there is no difference, because we're seeking to align and harmonise all of these FTAs.
All other FTAs that have been implemented since 2017 have also included this automatic referral mechanism. So this is the third time that this mechanism has now come to this place. Again, as I said, it's all about harmonising and having all of our FTAs under the same rules. A practical consequence of failing to bring the last six FTAs into alignment with our broader practice is that not only will it create that additional regulatory burden that we don't have for the nine FTAs who have this provision but also it will be incredibly challenging for traders who are trading across many of these FTAs. So, in answer to that first part of your question, that is the reason why we are doing this: to bring them all into alignment in a way that we have already done twice in this place—in exactly the identical way.
You referred to some of our colleagues' comments and contributions yesterday. I will just address a couple of what I'll politely call myths that were brought into the debate. This bill does not introduce a new process to deal with these FTA amendments. It is exactly what we've done twice before. It does not affect JSCOT and the parliament's ability to scrutinise. It does not introduce any new procedures. When the World Customs Organization makes these changes every five years for harmonisation, the process for us to work through the FTA agreements and take any of those amendments through JSCOT is exactly the same; there is no change to that. Yesterday one of our colleagues referred to this bill as somehow relating to antidumping. This is not an antidumping measure and doesn't impact any of our antidumping measures.
So, what is it? It's the same as the identical bill in 2018 for our FTAs with China, Japan, ASEAN, New Zealand and Singapore. It basically streamlines our arrangements with Thailand, Malaysia, the United States, the Republic of Korea, China and New Zealand to align with those other nine so that they are all treated the same. And it also reduces, of these agreements, 3,000 pages to 80 pages, which makes them simpler and cleaner to administer and also to understand. Again, as I said yesterday, this exact same measure was endorsed as uncontroversial and administrative in nature, as Senator Carr said two years ago. In fact, he stated on this exact same bill two years ago that this was simple and administrative. Yesterday he said that the facts have changed. Well, the government would state very strongly that these are exactly identical circumstances.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:48): I will just come back to you with my apology. It's worth saying this because people watching wonder if this is all just politicking. I can absolutely assure you I will end up making my decision on the floor on the basis of the debate that I've heard and the answers that are coming, so it is an important process. My apology really is for my ill preparedness personally in respect of this, having been originally of the understanding that it wasn't controversial, so that's where my apology rests. I do like the process, and, for people who are watching, this is quite a genuine process.
In relation to your answer, Minister, the area I have particular concern over is the reduction of scrutiny, where something that would require a regulation no longer requires a regulation; it simply becomes an automatic process. And I take what you said about previous passings of the bill. But when I read the committee report last night it became obvious that attention came to this in some sense accidentally through a Bills Digest—someone raised a concern. I think Labor have responded to that concern, which is why they've changed their position. We all know that sometimes in this place not everything's perfect, and it does rely on the different gateways a bill goes through. So, I'm not particularly persuaded in this instance about what's happened in the past. I really just want to get to the point of perhaps a new understanding about a scrutiny element.
As I understand it, when we're dealing with these PSRs, they're associated with harmonised codes, with which I am familiar from a previous life. It was put to me by the department this morning—and I thank you for organising the briefing that you did—that the bill that's before us today only changes the harmonised code and the mapping of harmonised codes to PSRs. Harmonised codes are changed every five years. You might have a harmonised code—I'll use the example that might be associated with some sort of food-related oil—and then five years comes along. I'm using this as a hypothetical, so I'm not going to get technical on you. But say you have an oil as a harmonised code and then some country decides they want to break that up into palm oil and olive oil. So, now we end up with two harmonised codes that map to a PSR or to the PSRs. My understanding is that this legislation, if I were to take what the department told me at face value, deals only with the mapping of the harmonised codes to the PSRs; it doesn't deal with changes to the PSR itself.
My first question is: is that the case? Is that your view? My second question is: the department put to me that, if there is to be a change to the PSR itself—and it's a different story to what's been told to me in this chamber and outside the chamber—that still requires a regulation. I just want to confirm that. So, first question: this bill is dealing only with the mapping of harmonised codes to PSRs. Second question: in order to change a PSR, that has to be done by way of regulation, if I understand this correctly.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (09:52): Thank you, Senator Patrick, for your comments about the briefing. I'll answer the first question as yes, and I'll just walk you through the example you've used—oils. In that hypothetical example, if a future revision of the HS tariff code reclassifies olive oils, as in your example, as a new category of goods, distinct from its previous category of food oils, it will be necessary to update Australia's free trade agreement itself to accept and to acknowledge this change of classification. So, the update process would apply to the PSR treatment agreed by both parties for food oils to make it the new category of olive oils, for example, in the updated PSR schedule.
Neither the process of updating the PSRs for olive oils, for example, and food oils nor incorporating this change into domestic law—which is what we're talking about here today—would undermine the original FTA commitment or the treaty-making process itself.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:54): So, just going to the second limb of your answer—and I think we're getting close, and I now understand that this is only about the harmonised codes and mapping them to PSRs—say you change the text of a PSR. PSRs are instructions about a third country that is not a party to an agreement and sends a product to, say, China, who has an FTA with us. There are rules associated with when that product that came from the third country is considered to be a Chinese product for the purposes of the FTA. That's a pretty important definition, and I would have concerns if that weren't subject to some scrutiny. So I'm just wondering about the process associated with a change to a PSR. My question is: does that require a change in regulation that is brought to this parliament and is disallowable?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (09:55): Senator Patrick, in the example that you use, that would be more than a minor change and it would need to go back to JSCOT.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:55): There's a difference between JSCOT examining something and the parliament being presented with a disallowable regulation. I appreciate it does go to JSCOT. My question is: if you change a PSR does the characterisation of what needs to happen before it's considered to be, in this case, a Chinese product coming to Australia under the ChAFTA require a change in regulation, and is that disallowable?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (09:56): I'm just getting some technical advice here, because we're really now drilling down into the technical aspect of the bill. The clarification I've had on that point is that if it were a change of definition, it would go to JSCOT, but if it were a change in the calculation of the methodology, as you were describing, that would still come back to regulation but it would cover all of the FTAs, not one by one. In short, from the technical explanation I've just had, yes, it would come into regulation if it were a change of calculation. I might have to consult with the officials, given the level of granularity of that question, to make sure that's correct, but my understanding is that if it's a change in calculation, yes it is.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:57): Thank you, that is helpful. Again, thank you for the brief. This question flowed from the brief. The department haven't really answered my question; they took it on notice, but it's only been an hour. They did provide an answer, but it wasn't sufficient for me. That's why we're drilling down so deep into the details. I'm not trying to ambush you in any way. The question you didn't answer in your response just then was: you've established that a modification requires a regulation, but is that regulation disallowable?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (09:58): Senator Patrick, so I don't mislead you, if you can indulge me for a minute, given the importance of that particular piece of granularity, we will just get confirmation and I'll get straight back to you. My answer stands, Senator Patrick. If there's any more information I can provide on that issue, we'll come straight back.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (09:59): Minister, the answer's no, isn't it? The answer is no.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (09:59): I have nothing more to add.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:59): You didn't really respond to my question, and it is one of the critical elements. This is important to me because it's about scrutiny of the executive in the stewardship of their execution of the law, so it is an important question that I'd like answered. We're talking about that particular process, but—whilst I want the answer to that—I also need to understand if that part is affected by this bill or if I am talking about something, which I think is an important issue, that is not related to this bill?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:00): As we discussed and as I mentioned several times, this bill is introducing nothing new; it has exactly the same arrangements that we have for our other nine free trade agreements—arrangements which we've taken through this chamber twice now. All of the arrangements for these six FTAs are exactly the same; there is no change to the situation that we currently have. What we are doing with this bill is harmonising them so that we have one system and one approach for all of these FTAs. As I've confirmed, JSCOT's role has not changed at all. What has changed is that we're bringing these six into alignment with our other nine FTAs so that they are simpler to administer, they are cleaner and they are also much easier for our traders. That is really the heart of this. There is no difference in this bill and in the arrangements from what we've already had twice through this chamber.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:01): Minister, I'd ask you to confirm this advice from the Law and Bills DigestSection of the Parliamentary Library:
If the PSR Annexes in these FTAs are to be directly referenced, without the need for a regulation under the Customs Act to prescribe the PSRs, then this would mean that the prescription of PSRs may not be subject to tabling and disallowance.
Is that correct?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:02): I've said many times now in response to questions that the arrangements and procedures for these six FTAs are exactly the same as the other nine. So there is no change. It is exactly the same.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:02): The point of this bill is to remove the power of the Senate to insist upon these regulations being tabled and disallowed—is that not correct?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:02): As I've said, Senator Carr, this does exactly the same as we've done for the other nine, which two years ago you personally described as being non-controversial and purely administrative in nature.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:02): Is it correct that the power of the Senate will be removed if this bill were to be passed?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:03): Senator Carr, you can ask me the same question over and over and the answer will be the same. This is exactly the same as that for the other nine. You can keep asking me the same question but the answer is the same, Senator Carr—through you, Chair.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:03): I put this to you as well: the Australian Border Force submission to the Senate inquiry told us:
…the domestic process includes referring FTA amendments to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) as a Category 3 (minor) treaty action.
What's the consequence of having a 'category 3 (minor) treaty' inquiry through JSCOT?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:03): 'Minor' by definition means there is no public inquiry, which is no change to the current circumstance. As I've already said, if they are not minor in nature then they do trigger a JSCOT inquiry.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:04): The point of that submission was that these would be regarded as minor and not subject to public scrutiny or to disallowance through this chamber. That's correct, isn't it, Minister?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:04): I've given you the answer—the definition of minor and what that triggers. The ones not deemed to be minor trigger a JSCOT inquiry. So again the answer will be the same: this is the same as what we do for nine other free trade agreements. The system is working and, as I understand it, none of these regulations have ever been disallowed, because they are minor and incredibly technical, as you yourself acknowledged two years ago, Senator Carr.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:05): Minister, I understand that you're trying to align this with the previous changes and how we deal with previous trade agreements. I appreciate that. As I indicated, it appears from the Bills Digest that this new issue has been raised. It might be a case where, had we had our time again, we might not have changed the previous legislation, but that's by the bye. I have before me a piece of legislation that I understand is similar or identical to past legislation relating to new treaties. If it got missed last time, that doesn't excuse me, now that it's been drawn to my attention, from examining, perhaps, an otherwise unappreciated consequence. It's in that context that I'm still trying to get an answer as to whether or not the regulation to change the PSR is disallowable and whether or not this bill alters that part of the process. That's fundamental to my question, and it's fundamental to the way in which I will vote.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:06): Thank you, Senator Patrick—through you, Chair. As I've said, this is exactly the same as what we've already implemented for the first nine, and that system is working well. Of course, if there is no regulation—because these changes do not generate a regulation—then that is not disallowable, because there is no regulation, because it's a different process. Again, it's a process that's working very well, and it has worked very well since we passed it in this chamber two years ago. So I really have nothing more to add, because it was very clear when we passed those new FTAs through this chamber and when we brought the 2018 bill in. Again, as Senator Carr said, it was a simple administrative process, and it remains that.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:07): Because it's similar to the previous bill in 2018, that means there is no reduction in Senate power, Senate authority and Senate oversight. I want to respond to Senator Whish-Wilson's comments, because this bill simply makes it easier, as did the 2018 bill, for Australian producers to export. It does not change the Senate's power. The Labor Party amendment duplicates what is already in place, so it's superfluous.
I want to comment, though, that we welcome the Greens' statement and their position on the free trade agreements in general, and I would welcome the opportunity for One Nation to talk with the Greens about future free trade agreements that come into this chamber with regard to coming up with a strategy to stop these agreements going through, because, once we have Labor and Liberal and the Nationals together, it is hard for nine plus two to beat that number. We have to come up with a strategy, because the free trade agreements that Labor and the Liberals push through the Senate are destroying this country. So we are with the Greens party on that. We acknowledge that they've been on that for a while, and so have we, and we want to do something about that, despite the numbers.
Minister, these are the conclusions that we came to as a result of discussions with the crossbenchers and the representatives from the department: if a rule change by the World Customs Organization results in a material change to a free trade agreement, that's a change in our country's commitment, which means that we lose money or opportunities or we lose control as a result of that change, and then the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is required to examine the change and recommend yes or no, and then the parliament can scrutinise their finding, which is presented as a legislative instrument. Is that correct?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:09): Thank you—through you, Chair—to Senator Roberts and to Senator Patrick. Just to clear up any confusion, for each FTA there still will be a regulation that is disallowable. This is an important point and I think it comes to the heart of what Senator Patrick and Senator Roberts were talking about. Each FTA will still have a regulation, but what this does is if it is a minor change, for example a definitional change, then it doesn't go to JSCOT—definitional change, as we discussed, is from one label to another. However, if it is a formula change, so it is a material change, then that will absolutely still go to JSCOT under existing processes, but what it will not do under this is trigger another regulation to the original regulations. So every five years when the World Trade Organization does these recalculations it will not result in a new regulation because—again, my advice is—none of those technical regulations have ever been challenged, so this actually means you will still have a regulation for each of the FTAs but it will not be updated every five years in this way.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:11): Can I urge those senators who are claiming some interest in this matter to actually read the amendment? I know this is a shockingly militant approach to take towards the legislative process, but read the amendment. The amendment that the Labor Party is proposing in the name of Senator Keneally actually refers to the point of the regulations that are under discussion. It actually says, 'We are seeking to retain regulations, retain the power of the Senate.' Again and again and again it is pointed out on the sheet that has been distributed in the chamber.
Labor's concern about this bill is the fact that the level of transparency that the government is now pursuing is to reduce the power of the Senate and to reduce the capacity of the parliament to hold the Public Service accountable. Their argument is: 'Well, you did it in the past, so you should do it now.' The argument is: 'Well, you might've made an error in the past but you should keep on doing it.' The argument seems to be: 'We haven't had cause for corrections in the past and we don't need do it in the future.' It's like a person sitting in the middle of a bushfire zone saying, 'We don't need insurance policies, because we've never actually had our house burn down.' That's the logic that we are being presented with. You've got parliamentary scrutiny. You've got JSCOT—a rubber stamp committee dominated by the government in which these matters will be treated on the evidence presented to the Senate committee as minor matters, not subject to proper capacity for this chamber to say no to, presented as a fait accompli. We are told, 'You should accept that because you've accepted it in the past.' That's the line of logic we've been told is now the standard by which we should accept.
My problem is this: I've been here a long time and, yes, I've sat down the front bench and, yes, I have read out the Labor Party position on these things—freely read it out—and argued a case, as your job is to do, but I've now had the capacity to undertake other work. As a result of the work done through the committee on delegated legislation and scrutiny of bills, and proper Senate inquiry processes gathering research and proper evidence, we do this far too often. Of some 2,000 bills a year now we're passing—tick and flick, unread—up to 50 per cent of those bills contain legislative instruments, which are effectively delegated legislation, where we pass over our responsibilities to someone else, and in one in five of those cases without the capacity of the Senate to say no if the Public Service makes a mistake.
I suppose you're going to tell me the Public Service never made a mistake in this country. I suppose you're going to tell me that, in trade matters, there's never been a definition that the Public Service has got wrong. I suppose you're going to tell me that there's never been a rort pulled when it comes to the transhipment of goods in free trade agreements. I suppose you're going to tell me now that there aren't countries out there that seek to manipulate free trade agreements for their national advantage and to our national disadvantage. And I suppose you're going to tell me there aren't public servants who go along with it. You can tell me all of those fairytales. It's a bit like all the modelling that we've seen time and time again—well, we haven't actually seen it, because we don't get to see it. We get told about it. We are told that this magnificent bonanza is coming our way. We never actually get to see it before the documents are signed. We don't actually get to debate the agreements before they're signed; it's always post facta.
So we're asked to buy this fairytale and not have an insurance policy, which we currently do have. That's what the Senate has with these five agreements; we still have that insurance policy. We're being asked to rip up that insurance policy. That's the point of these amendments—to protect the right of the Senate to actually have a look and to make a judgement on the decisions being made by public servants. And let's be clear: it's not ministers who sit around and write definitions for trade agreements. It's the Public Service that does it. And who are the biggest advocates for delegated legislation? The public servants. They don't want to have the confusion, the administrative burden, and the stresses and strain of having to deal with elected representatives, because they know better than the rest of us. They don't want to be subject to public scrutiny. JSCOT doesn't even have to have a public inquiry. It can all be done in secret. It can all be done under the counter.
If we've learned anything in trade policy, it's that the world consensus on how the trade system works really should be subject to a bit of public debate and public scrutiny, not to mention these technical definitions. You will say to me: 'It's too complicated for you mere mortals as politicians. It should be left to the experts—the unelected, faceless experts'. I have this advantage that I've been here for coming up to 28 years in March, so I've seen it come and go. I've sat on both sides of the chamber. I've played many different roles in this place, and I get presented with the evidence. Fifty per cent of our legislation is now being shovelled out the door to someone else, and in relation to 20 per cent of that, we then say, 'We want to hear no more about it'—until there's a political problem. We hear about it then, because the Public Service doesn't want to know about it then. 'That's the government's problem,' or 'It's the opposition's problem.' The real issue here is that it's the problem of the people who suffer. We fail in our proper duties to protect the interests of Australians and protect the interests of Australian workers and Australian companies because we've handed it over to some expert.
I don't expect much from One Nation, but they've sunk to new depths where they've just become some lapdog for the Liberal Party, just some incredible—
An opposition senator: Lickspittles.
Senator KIM CARR: Well, yes. 'Lickspittle' is the appropriate word here. Their idea of research is pressing a button and getting their instructions from the minister's office. They claim to be representing ordinary Australians, but if only those ordinary Australians knew. They've put up a proposition that is reducing the power of the Senate—their power, their capacity, their insurance policy to say: 'Hang on, you can get this wrong. You have got this wrong in the past, and it is our job to say enough's enough.' That's what these amendments do. They're pretty straightforward. They retain regulations. Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 'retain regulations'. Schedule 1, items 19 to 21, page 10 'retain regulations'. Schedule 1, items 27 and 28, page 15, 'retain regulations'. Schedule 1, items 34 and 35, page 19, 'retain regulations'. Schedule 1, items 41 and 42, page 24 'retain regulations' and so on. That's to retain your capacity as senators to do your job, to fulfil the obligations for which you were elected and not to shove it off to someone else and claim you know nothing about it! (Time expired)
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:21): Can I be very, very clear: if there is a substantive change—that is, a change in the formula or the calculation—it absolutely goes through JSCOT. They will have a hearing and make recommendations about legislative change, which of course comes back to this chamber. So that, Senator Carr, is the fact. No amount of rhetorical flourish, which was very eloquent—very rude about colleagues, but very elegant—will change the fact that if there is a substantive change, one that is not minor in nature, such as a label change, as we've discussed here today, it goes through JSCOT. JSCOT have a hearing and it comes back to the parliament. So we still have the same abilities that we have for the other nine FTAs, as we will for these six that are subject to the bill today.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:22): I have a short question for the minister. Minister, is JSCOT chaired by the government? Is it substantially a government led committee?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:22): Senator Whish-Wilson, I think you and everybody in this chamber knows the composition of all of the committees. Again, as I say, there is no change to JSCOT procedures. Anything major that involves a change of formula, which goes to the heart of what Senator Patrick was asking about today, goes to JSCOT. There is a hearing about it and it comes back to the chambers to amend the bills. There is no change to that. It still comes back to this place.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:23): Sorry, Minister, but you didn't answer my question. Is JSCOT a government controlled committee, and is the government the one negotiating these potential changes to regulations or free trade deals?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:23): Yes.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:23): I've got no problem with JSCOT and the great work they do, Minister—I've been on that committee for many years—but it's a rubber stamp for the government if you want to get these changes through. JSCOT have an inquiry, they collect the evidence, there's potential for senators to dissent, but essentially the recommendation that comes back here, that will be debated in parliament, is a government controlled recommendation. It's essentially you putting up what you want. There's no chance for us to amend that. Is that correct?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:24): I'll take that as a political statement on our current system that we all operate under rather than a question in itself.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:24): Thank you for clarifying that, if there is a substantive change, it goes to JSCOT. They may make recommendations, but, ultimately, any change is effected by way of legislation. Indeed, the department has now provided me with an example of that regulation. The bit that's still not clear to me is whether or not this is disallowable. I have people working in the background trying to find if it's the regulations act or the Customs Act that might give remedy to the mystery.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:24): Just to be clear, if there is a change every five years to the FTA, we discuss that with the relevant nations and we agree on what needs to be updated under the free trade agreement. If it is minor in nature, then we now won't need a regulation. So, as you said in that oil example, it won't—a name change—but for anything more significant than that it does still trigger going to JSCOT for a hearing and then making changes to the bill itself. So, for each FTA, when it comes into effect, there is still a regulation. But what this does is that instead of every five years for these technical amendments we don't have fresh regulations. Again, that is why it is highly technical in nature, which is why previously those amendments have been supported by both sides of the chamber, to actually reduce that regulatory burden for a very technical process. But anything that triggers, as a part of that five-yearly process, a change in formula, in calculation, then that of course goes to JSCOT, and it is treated as major, which triggers the inquiry. It triggers recommendations of changes to legislation, which then come back to both chambers to pass or not to pass as this chamber sees fit on the day.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:26): You're now talking about a change to the legislation, as opposed to a regulation. Legislation comes back and we vote on legislation. Regulations can be brought to this place simply by a tabling from the minister. The example that has been provided to me by the department is in fact a regulation. I still haven't got an answer to the question about whether it's allowable or disallowable. It's not a debating point; it's simply a question of fact. I don't understand what the answer to that is. I'm desperately trying to find that answer, and you could assist me. My default is that if I don't get the answer I'll end up supporting Labor's amendments.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:27): Again, just to be very clear, this doesn't change the processes. When we enter into an FTA there are two bills plus a regulation that comes through this place. So, that's regulation at that time, which, like all regs, is disallowable. But what this does for the other nine FTAs is that when, every five years, they are updated, if it's minor then we don't need go through the reg changes. But if it's major, it goes to JSCOT. They consider it and make recommendations for the bill itself. So, every five years, for these six, we still have to then update the regs. But they have never been challenged, because they are very technical. So, for nine FTAs, we don't have to do that technical regulatory updating. Again, nothing has changed from how we do those other nine. There is still that original reg—which of course is disallowable—but we don't have to update all of them every five years.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:28): In your answer you said that it comes to the chamber and like all local regulations it is disallowable. Minister, that's not actually correct. There are some regulations that are not disallowable. So they do get tabled. They're not disallowable. I'm not accusing you of misleading; I'm just pointing out that that's what you said. So, there are disallowable instruments, and there are instruments that are not disallowable. An example of that is the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which are a legislative instrument and are not disallowable. I'm just trying to get clarity as to whether or not a regulation such as the Customs (Singaporean Rules of Origin) Regulations 2017 made under the Customs Act 1901 is a disallowable instrument or not a disallowable instrument.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:29): To be very clear, when the FTA is enacted and passed through this chamber, that reg is, of course, disallowable. What will not be disallowable are these changes that come through every five years. They're updated in the schedules of the bill instead of actually going through new disallowable instruments, which, of course, will not exist, because they go into the schedules of the Customs Act itself.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:30): In terms of the potential JSCOT process and something coming back to parliament, who gets to decide whether it's a minor or a substantial change? Is the government the one that decides that? Is it a process where DFAT provide advice to you that they don't believe this needs to go through a political or a parliamentary process? Putting aside what you said about changes to the formula, can you step us through some examples of what might be minor or substantial processes? I'd be really interested in this. It sounds very subjective to me, so I'd like to be convinced on this.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:31): I keep coming back to the point that there is no change to any of the processes with JSCOT and it is exactly the same as for the first nine. Just to be clear, instead of going to regulations, those changes go into the annexes of each of the treaties. I don't think I can be any clearer about the process.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:31): I'm actually struggling to follow this, to be honest, Minister, and maybe that's a reflection on me. You did say there was a process and you gave us an example of how a change to the formula on tariff or quota would automatically trigger a JSCOT process. You have given one example of what would be a substantial change that would require this coming back for a parliamentary process and would give some kind of parliamentary oversight or scrutiny. Can you give us an example of what a minor change that doesn't need to go through that process would be? Who decides this? Is it DFAT providing advice to you that it doesn't require a JSCOT or parliamentary process? Is it the government or the ministerial office who decides, or do you discuss this in some other forum or process?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:32): We've discussed this at some length already with Senator Patrick, and so it's in Hansard. An example of a minor would be a name change from 'oil' to 'olive oil'. So it's a nomenclature change, and that is minor. Anything that impacts on the formula itself absolutely is major and goes to JSCOT.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:32): I did hear the oil example, Minister, but, having seen some of the barneys we've had in this country over nomenclature, I'm sure you understand—for example, the naming of areas in the wine industry. We've also had this issue with honey. I have sat through two Senate inquiries that looked at exactly this issue around trade and imports, including the use of names. I would say—and I know Senator Carr touched on this yesterday—some of these things are very big issues for our industry and our business. As to the idea that that might be considered minor and might not go out to a process which could involve consultation with stakeholders, perhaps internally DFAT have their own process where they might be speaking with stakeholders in this country about these kinds of things, but I would have thought it was very important that that also goes through a parliamentary process.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:33): Again, I think that was an observation rather than a question.
The CHAIR: The question is that items 5, 9 to 13, 19 to 21, 27, 28, 34, 35, 41, 42, 47 and 48 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [10:38]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The CHAIR ( 10:45 ): The question is that the bill stand as printed.
The committee divided. [10:45]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Third Reading
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (10:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by the minister that the bill be read a third time be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:50]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:52): The government has taken too long to introduce a Serious Incident Response Scheme that would respond to the cases of assault and abuse in Australia's aged-care system. It has been more than three years since this scheme was first recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission following its landmark report into elder abuse in Australia. The Carnell-Paterson review commissioned by the government following the Oakden nursing home tragedy also recommended the scheme in 2017. How can Australians trust this government to properly respond to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety when it can't even respond to serious incidents of elder abuse? Labor's been calling for the implementation of this scheme since both reports were released in 2017—understand this: 2017. It is almost four years now since the government was warned about outrageous and shocking incidents of abuse, yet it has done nothing.
Australia's aged-care system was broken before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the delay of this scheme is only putting extra stress on the system. Reported assaults in residential aged care go up every year. Four years the government have wasted. Every year incidents of assault are going up. They reached 5,233 in 2018-19, more than 100 a week. The government should hang their heads in shame. Day after day, the evidence of serious neglect in aged care mounts, and all we see from the Morrison government is running away, passing the buck and not accepting responsibility for their own failures. Neglect is not only the title of the aged-care royal commission's interim report, neglect is the legacy, neglect is the practice and neglect is the policy of the Morrison government when it comes to our aged-care system.
The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020 amends the existing Commonwealth act to introduce a much-needed Serious Incident Response Scheme for residential aged care and flexible care delivered in a residential aged-care setting. This scheme will replace the current responsibilities of approved providers in relation to reportable assaults and unexplained absences in the Aged Care Act. It will require approved providers to manage incidents and to take reasonable steps to prevent them in the first place. The bill will require approved providers of residential aged care in a residential aged-care setting to report all serious incidents to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
A wider range of incidents will now be reportable, including unreasonable use of force; unlawful sexual contact or inappropriate sexual contact; psychological or emotional abuse; unexpected death; stealing or financial coercion; neglect; inappropriate physical or chemical restraint; and unexplained absence from care. When you read that list and you think about our parents and grandparents living in aged-care systems for years, this government has neglected to progress this scheme and to put this serious incident response framework in place. They have neglected older Australians. They are not on the side of older Australians and their families.
This scheme is so important in protecting some of our most vulnerable fellow Australians by placing the rigorous safeguards and response processes in place where, until now, they have been deficient under the neglect of the Morrison government. The scheme will remove the existing exemption for reporting assaults where the alleged perpetrator is a residential aged-care recipient with a cognitive or mental impairment and the victim is another care recipient. The bill will strengthen protections for people who disclose incidents of abuse or neglect in aged care and these protections will extend both to existing and former staff members, as well as to current and past residential aged-care recipients. The bill will protect people disclosing such failures against any civil or criminal liability. Again, this is such an important reform. It is beyond time that these changes were made. It is extraordinary how long the government, the Morrison government, has neglected to progress these changes.
We do need to expand the powers of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to enforce the requirements of the new scheme, and this bill does expand those powers. These will include standard regulatory powers which provide the commission with a more graduated suite of powers for ensuring compliance and protecting consumers. An additional information-gathering power will also ensure the commission is able to obtain information and the documents it needs to administer the scheme.
The main concern that Labor brings to this legislation is that it does not include home care. Given that there are about one million older Australians receiving support or care in their own homes there is an equal risk of serious incidents happening in that setting, as well as in a residential aged-care facility. It should be noted that the counsel assisting the royal commission, in its final submission, recommended the government should ensure that a new and expanded serious incident-reporting scheme include all serious incidents, including in home care and regardless of whether the alleged perpetrator has a cognitive or mental impairment.
So it is incumbent upon the government in this debate to explain why millions of Australians, who care deeply about these matters, and over a million Australians who receive residential home care, are not included in this scheme. Don't they matter? Is the Morrison government not on their side? We know the neglect of the Morrison government; it is in the royal commission's report—right there in the title. It is the title of the report and it is the policy of this government. This legislation, unfortunately and tragically, neglects to include those Australians who are receiving home care—aged care in their homes.
Aged care should never be a policy of neglect. If there was one thing that a federal government should get right, it is looking after vulnerable, older Australians—the people who have built this country; the people who have raised families and created businesses, who served in our military and served as volunteers in communities, and who passed on the Australian traditions of a fair go and mateship. We shouldn't neglect them in their older years. Can you really trust the Morrison government to improve the aged-care system at large, given that their legacy, their policy and their practice is neglect? The evidence against them is now condemning in its depth, its breadth and its gravity.
Everyone in this parliament should read the foreword to Neglect, the interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. I've read it. It is disturbing. Reading the first 12 pages of this report is possibly the most rage inducing, heartbreaking reading you will do of a government report. The interim report describes the experiences of aged-care residents with maggots left in open wounds and left to lie in their own urine and excrement for days. It details that up to half of Australia's frailest aged-care residents are malnourished. This is not some report from a Third World country; this is a report of supposedly one of the best healthcare systems in the world, in Australia. Australia has one of the best aged-care systems in the world? Not so. Neglect—that's what the Morrison government has turned to.
The report describes in detail how 60 per cent of residents are on psychotropic medication but that that medication is estimated to only be justified in 10 per cent of cases. It confirms for all who care to pay attention—I don't think that includes the Morrison government—that there were: 4,000 notifications of alleged or suspected sexual abuse reported in one year; 274,409 self-reported cases of substandard care; and 32,715 calls to the My Aged Care consumer hotline that went unanswered in one year alone. In short, the interim report of the aged-care royal commission is horrifying reading. This is all happening in our aged-care facilities on the Morrison government's watch, and it is a national disgrace. According to the latest population trends, 38 per cent of Australian men and 55 per cent of Australian women will end up in permanent residential aged care. However, for the 240,000 Australians currently in residential aged care, including more than 6,000 younger Australians with disability, it is already a brutal reality.
Not only that; if you are a taxpayer, this is your money. Your money is being misused by the Morrison government to pay for this national scandal. Let's understand this: the Morrison government treats taxpayer money like it is Liberal Party money. Australians want a government that acts in their interests, that is on their side. Instead, what do they get from the Morrison government? Sports rorts, dodgy land deals and secret contracts with Liberal mates to do advertising campaigns to tell us what a great job they're doing. Yet there is this national scandal of neglect of our older, vulnerable Australians in our residential aged-care system and in our home-care system. On those statistics I just read out about people being left in their own urine and excrement, having maggots in their mouths and in their open wounds, being malnourished and being chemically restrained: if the Morrison government weren't so busy looking after themselves and their mates, they might find time to get on the side of older, vulnerable Australians and look after them.
The Prime Minister was our nation's Treasurer when the government cut aged-care funding by $1.7 billion, ensuring services were capped and resources were strangled. Since 2013 the government have spent $1 billion on advertising to tell us what a great job they're doing, yet they cut $1.7 billion from aged care. Mr Morrison was in charge when COVID-19 hit, when aged-care homes were denied personal protective equipment and given an instructional video instead of infection and control training. No wonder Australia has one of the worst records in the world when it comes to residential aged-care deaths as a proportion of total COVID-19 fatalities. No wonder the Grattan Institute has described Australia's centrally controlled, heavily rationed aged-care services as a Soviet style system. That is what this Morrison government is overseeing. This government, elected in 2013, only called a royal commission in 2018 after it was shamed and shamed again by media scandals.
There are 1.3 million Australians in aged care and millions more who will need aged care—dare I say some of us in this chamber will. Of course we will. All of us will at some point have to contemplate going into residential aged care. We all need real policies backed up by real funding, from more home-care packages to more workforce development training and more oversight of quality and safety standards. We need to be cynical of any talk about how the so-called industry has learned its lessons and will now put the customer at the centre of everything it does. After all, the Australian government is the only customer the sector cares about, because the Commonwealth provides more than 80 per cent of its revenues and, as we know, the Commonwealth has been cutting that funding.
Finally, the economics of aged care speak to one of the most tragic elements of our experience of the COVID-19 pandemic: 655 people died in Victorian residential aged care during the crisis last year, entirely on the Morrison government's watch. Aged care is a federal responsibility, not a state government one. In fact, their own plan said they would be responsible for the management of COVID in aged-care facilities. Australia has one of the highest rates in the world of deaths in residential aged care as a proportion of the total COVID-19 deaths. A Senate inquiry has noted that deaths in aged-care homes account for nearly 75 per cent of all the deaths from COVID-19 in Australia. When more than 1,500 aged-care homes requested masks, gloves and gowns from the National Medical Stockpile last year, they were refused. Staff in aged-care homes also needed comprehensive infection control training; instead they got a 10-minute video.
The royal commission has found that the federal government did not have a specific pandemic plan for the aged-care sector. Neglect again. Neglect systemically, neglect before COVID-19, neglect during COVID-19. When is the Morrison government ever on the side of vulnerable older Australians? When this evidence from the royal commission was put to the government, what did the minister for aged care say? Minister Colbeck said, 'The government maintains its position that it has a plan in place.'
We have had eight years of despicable neglect—neglect from the point of view of funding, neglect in the priorities, neglect for the care of vulnerable older Australians, neglect of home care and neglect of residential aged care. This bill is important; make no mistake. This bill is necessary; make no mistake. The tragedy is that this bill is so long in coming to this parliament, and the tragedy is that it does not do anything to assist those Australians who receive home care, aged care in their home. We will continue to fight for them because we are on their side.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:07): I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This bill represents a reform by at least establishing a serious incident response scheme that mandates providers to report an alleged, suspected or actual serious incident. The Greens support the bill in principle; however, we have some concerns about the bill, which I will articulate now. I've also circulated amendments to seek to address those serious concerns. I will also articulate that the Greens very strongly believe we need to also have such a scheme for home care, and I will ask some questions in Committee of the Whole around that.
In this bill, a serious incident is defined as:
(a) unreasonable use of force …
(b) unlawful sexual contact, or inappropriate sexual conduct …
(c) psychological or emotional abuse …
(d) unexpected death …
(e) stealing from, or financial coercion of, the residential care recipient by a staff member of the provider;
(f) neglect …
(g) use of physical restraint or chemical restraint … (other than in circumstances set out in the Quality of Care Principles);
(h) unexplained absence … from the residential care services of the provider
Aged care providers are required to not only report incidents but also provide support to residents, conduct investigations, monitor actions taken and use data to drive continuous improvement to prevent similar incidents from occurring. This bill also offers protections to people who disclose serious incidents, including providers, staff, residents, family members, carers and advocates. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will be responsible for regulating the scheme. The commission will assess a provider's compliance with incident management obligations, receive reports on serious incidents and respond to incidents using the full range of regulatory actions available.
This scheme represents a significant departure from the existing reportable assaults scheme. We have all seen the failures in aged care over the years. There's a long list of them, quite clearly showing the current system has not been working appropriately. At the moment, aged-care providers are only required to report incidents involving unlawful sexual contact or unreasonable use of force against a resident, and we know that they haven't even been doing that. There are also exemptions under the current scheme around reporting assaults if they are committed by residents with cognitive impairment. This has been a serious barrier to preventing and dealing with the sexual abuse of older people in residential aged care. Sexual abuse by a person who is cognitively impaired is still, actually, sexual abuse. I am pleased to see that the new scheme will be expanded to include the reporting of assaults by residents with cognitive impairment.
The introduction of the Serious Incident Response Scheme is a welcome change, but I ask the government: why has it taken so long? The new scheme was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission all the way back in May 2017 in its final report Elder abuse—a national legal response. This recommendation was then endorsed by the Carnell-Paterson review of October 2017 following investigation of the terrible failures in Oakden. A committee of this very chamber, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, had an inquiry into Oakden as well and also highlighted the massive failures in the system at the time. And yet it is in 2021, just before the royal commission comes out with its report, that we are now discussing these particular amendments, and they don't go far enough. So the government is still squibbing it. Older Australians and their families have had to wait four years for action. This is just not good enough. The Australian Greens support this bill in principle; however, we have concerns about the bill—that it doesn't go far enough. We've circulated a series of what I think are substantive amendments which would strengthen the proposed scheme.
Falls are missing from the definition of serious incidents. I'm extremely disappointed to see that falls are not included under the definition of serious incidents. In the government's implementation guide, falls are mentioned only once, where they are used as an example of an unexpected death. Aged-care residents are at a high risk of falls that can cause serious injuries, result in a sudden decline in health and, we know, lead even to death. Data from Monash University shows that 15 per cent of all deaths in residential aged-care facilities have preventable causes and, of these, 90 per cent are from falls and choking. An avoidable death rate of 15 per cent would be cause for outrage in other sectors. Why is aged care treated differently? Falls are often the result of systemic failures, such as insufficient staff and inadequate clinical care. Recent data shows that 10.5 per cent of residents were admitted to hospital in 2018-19 because of a fall, which is up from 8.5 per cent in 2014-15. So we know this issue is getting worse. They should be reported and investigated to identify case-specific and systemic issues that can be changed. I'm not saying that we need to wrap people in aged care in cotton wool. I'm not saying that at all. We shouldn't be doing that. But we should be using this scheme to identify falls, investigate them and see what happened.
I was on a community affairs committee delegation a couple of years ago to New Zealand where we looked at aged care. It was part of the reason we were there. I discussed with people in New Zealand this issue around falls. In their processes, although it's not part of a legislative response, they have been reporting and looking into the impact of serious falls and requiring them to be notified of them so that they can actually look at whether they can have the benefit of improving the system. My understanding, from my discussions over there, is that they have in fact been improving the procedures around serious falls. So I ask the minister, and I'll be asking in the Committee of the Whole: why haven't falls been included in the scheme? If the purpose of this scheme is to encourage providers to continuously improve and to reduce the likelihood of incidents reoccurring, surely falls, one of the leading causes of preventable death, should be included in the scheme. I will be moving an amendment to add falls under the definition of 'serious incidents'. To pre-empt the answer 'the royal commission is coming': we know the royal commission is coming, and we know this is an issue. We don't need the royal commission to tell us that falls are an issue.
Related to this, I'll also be moving an amendment that stops the use of physical and chemical restraints from not being reported as a serious incident when they are used in line with the circumstances in the quality-of-care principles. We think all use of restraints should be reported. We have to start treating the use of chemical and physical restraints as a serious incident. As this chamber knows, I've been pursuing this issue for a long time. We shouldn't be using chemical and physical restraints; we should be eliminating the use of chemical and physical restraints. That is why we need to be using this scheme to treat them as serious incidents when they occur and to report all of them. We know the current instrument on the use of chemical and physical restraints falls short of the standards and falls short of moving to eliminate the use of these restraints. If we are serious about phasing out, ending and eliminating the use of these restraints, we need to treat it seriously and get serious about using these mechanisms to ensure that happens. I strongly believe that, if we require providers to report and publish data on restraints, we will see a significant reduction in their use, as has been the case in the United States.
Another serious omission from this scheme is the public reporting of incident data. I understand that the commission will be responsible for the publication of sector trends and key risks to support quality improvement and capacity building in the sector. However, this falls short of the recommendation by counsel assisting the royal commission that the new incident reporting scheme require the quality regulator to publish the number of serious incident reports on a quarterly basis at a global level, a provider level and a service or facility level. This recommendation goes to the heart of this issue. These incidents need to be reported at a provider level and a service or facility level to really drive improvements. You can look at what's just happened in Western Australia, at Regis, to see why we need to be reporting these incidents at a provider and facility level. If there is no public reporting on which providers and facilities are experiencing serious incidents, how can we drive continuous improvements across the sector? How can consumers compare providers and make informed decisions if that information isn't publicly available?
I also strongly believe that consumers and their families should have access to this information so that they can make informed choices about aged-care services. The public has a right to know which facilities are of concern and which are managing quality risks well. Public reporting of information across the aged-care sector is fundamentally missing, and I think we need to address that if we are to build transparency and accountability and improve performance throughout the sector. We need to have public reporting of serious incidents on a quarterly basis at global, provider and facility levels if we are going to achieve improvement in quality care, and I'll be moving amendments to address these issues.
I want to move to the next lot of amendments that we'll be moving and articulate the issue. Under the new Serious Incident Response Scheme, providers are responsible for supporting consumers and families if an incident occurs. They are expected to go further than under the current scheme and work to prevent similar events from occurring. This is, of course, a welcome reform. However, there is no guidance for providers on how they should support older people who have been involved in an incident.
I'll be moving an amendment today that ensures that everyone who has experienced a serious incident will be automatically referred to an independent advisory service, such as the national aged care advisory program. Whether the consumer chooses to take this up is up to them, but at least they'll be required to be provided with that information. Many people will actually want to go to an independent person rather than be supported by the provider, who potentially has been responsible for the incident. This amendment will ensure that older Australians have guaranteed access to that independent support if they experience sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect or any other serious incident defined in the bill.
Despite the merits of this strengthened scheme, serious incidents won't tell us everything. The government must not use this scheme as an excuse to delay reforms in other areas that will prevent serious incidents occurring in the first place—reforms like ensuring that every resident receives four hours and 18 minutes of care, which is the recommended level of care, or ensuring that nurses are on 24/7 and that the right ratio and skills mix is available at all times for residents. If we are really going to reduce the number of falls and incidences of neglect, we need to ensure that we have enough qualified staff to care for residents in the first place.
I hope that the government will seriously consider the amendments that I've circulated in the chamber. I encourage all senators to look at and support those amendments, which will strengthen this scheme. I also hope providers will see that the new scheme is an opportunity to fix issues and provide better care to older Australians and their families. We should not lose sight of the purpose of the Serious Incident Response Scheme, which is to protect the safety and wellbeing of residents and to drive changes in the way care is provided across all these facilities. We no longer want to see the shocking incidents we have been seeing in aged care for years and years. This scheme is well past due. It needs to be in place, it needs to be strengthened and then it needs to be funded and staffed enough to ensure that it has its desired effects.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (11:22): I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This legislation is long overdue. It's implementing some of the key recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's report into elder abuse, which was tabled in 2017, so it's been almost four years before we've seen the Liberal government finally starting to act. In the report the Australian Law Reform Commission said that its 43 recommendations were timely, and its cornerstone recommendation was a national plan to develop and combat elder abuse.
To reinforce the need for a Serious Incident Response Scheme, a separate review—again, commissioned by those sitting opposite—followed the Oakden nursing home tragedy and also recommended introducing the scheme in 2017. How can we trust that this government will act upon the recommendations of their royal commission into aged care, whose report is expected to be handed down this month, if they've taken four long years to respond to elder abuse? That is four long years of abuse of older Australians. The Liberal government then waited two years and commissioned KPMG to undertake a prevalence study of serious incident report schemes, and the findings of that report were handed down by the government in November 2019 but not made public until June 2020. This report revealed that there were more than 50,000 cases of assault and abuse in aged care across the country that were going unreported each year. They sat on this information for months and let tens of thousands of vulnerable people be subject to undue harm before they started to do anything about it. Under this government, reported assaults in residential aged care have gone up every year, reaching 5,233 in 2018-19. That's more than 100 a week—100 of some of the most vulnerable members of our society were assaulted each day and every week.
A research paper from the aged care royal commission has revealed the shocking rates of elder abuse in aged-care homes under the Morrison government. It's estimated that almost 40 per cent of people living in Australian aged-care homes experience elder abuse in the form of neglect, emotional abuse or physical abuse, but this doesn't include financial, social and sexual abuse. It has found that the prevalence of neglect is over 30 per cent. How shameful is that! These are statistics that we should not be comfortable with. They confirm just how broken the aged-care system is under the Morrison government. We have had almost eight years of this government, and that's the shameful neglect of the aged-care system under the watch of Scott Morrison.
Let's go back to the bill. It amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 to introduce a Serious Incident Response Scheme for residential aged care and flexible care delivered in a residential aged-care setting. Labor has been calling for the implementation of this scheme since both reports were released in 2017. We again called out the government's inaction on the development of a scheme on the eve of Elder Abuse Awareness Day last year. We will support this legislation, but we fear it may be insufficient in its current form. The bill will require approved providers to manage incidents and take responsible steps to prevent incidents, including through implementing and maintaining effective organisation-wide governance systems for management and reporting of incidents of abuse and neglect.
The bill will also require approved providers of residential care and flexible care delivered in a residential aged-care setting to report all serious incidents to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. A wider range of incidents will also now be reportable under these amendments. Currently, aged-care facilities only need to report unlawful sexual contact and unreasonable use of force. They don't have to report other types of harm or assaults by elderly residents with dementia or mental illness. Under the amendments, psychological or emotional abuse, unexpected death, stealing or financial coercion by a staff member, neglect, inappropriate physical or chemical restraint, and unexplained absence from care will be reportable. The government's watchdog will also be given additional powers under the amendments to punish providers for failing to keep residents safe. Some aged-care experts are critical of the government's scheme, fearing it will be insufficient in its current form. Counsel assisting's final submissions to the commissioners recommended that the government should, in developing a new and expanded serious incident reporting scheme, ensure that it also includes all serious incidents, including those that occur in in-home care. As more and more Australians are electing to stay home as long as possible, it's important that they too are provided with protection by this scheme. In its current form, they are not. Again, the government is not only failing to deliver home-care packages to older Australians in their own home but also failing to protect them.
Additionally, this scheme does not have the proactive mechanisms to prevent elder abuse. Whilst reacting to elder abuse when it occurs is an important step, this scheme must do more to prevent it from happening in the first place. There needs to be reform relating to the suitability of people working in aged care by enhancing employment screening processes and ensuring that staff are subject to a national code of conduct. I have been calling for that, as has Labor, for such a long time. There should be regulations governing the use of restrictive practices and there should be national guidelines in place for the treatment of care recipients. Not only are older Australians more vulnerable because of their age, but they face other factors, such as increased rates of isolation, disability and cognitive impairment, that make them more vulnerable to abuse.
Elder abuse undermines dignity and autonomy. Abuse and living with fear can inhibit a person's ability to make choices about their own lives to pursue what they value. We must protect older Australians from abuse so that they can support themselves to live good, dignified lives. They should not be subject to abuse. We owe it to them to ensure that they are protected, whether they are still living at home or whether they are residing in residential aged-care homes. Australians have rights which should not diminish with age. We all have a right to a dignified existence, free from exploitation, violence and abuse.
The federal government has a responsibility. They are responsible for the laws and the framework in a legal sense and to ensure that they're put in place to protect older Australians. For far too long older Australians have been left out, and the Morrison government have no excuse, as they have commissioned inquiry after inquiry into the shortcomings of the aged-care sector. We on this side of the Senate chamber have known, just like those opposite—who have been responsible for aged care as ministers—that minister after minister has called for and sought reports into the aged-care sector. They have been well aware of the issues that this sector has faced. They know that there is an issue around abuse in aged care. They know there are issues around the workforce and the lack of workers in this sector. They know that the workers in aged care are underpaid. They know that the majority of workers in this sector do a very, very good job. But they know the failings of this sector and they have failed to act. Then what they have been doing in recent years is putting everything on hold until the royal commission brings down its final report. We never had to wait to have a royal commission to know the failings that are happening on a day-to-day basis in the aged-care sector, but those on the government benches have been very happy to just put their hair down and pretend that they didn't know what was going on.
This bill goes some way to ensuring that older Australians are going to be protected when they live in residential aged care, but the government still haven't protected those who are still living at home. Let's be quite frank about this. It is far cheaper for the government to support people living in their own home for longer rather than going into the residential home sector. But those on the government benches for the last eight years have failed to deliver the quality of care that is needed to ensure that those living at home are going to be safe and can have a dignified life and receive the home care packages that they need—not a level 1 when they've been assessed to have a level 4 package. No more excuses, Mr Morrison. It's time you delivered.
Those opposite have well and truly dropped the ball when it comes to aged care and our vulnerable older Australians, and older Australians have suffered as a result of that. As we know, tens of thousands of older Australians have died waiting for the level of home care that they had been assessed for but that this government failed to deliver. We know the final report into aged-care will be handed down this month, but I want to put on the record once again that we have never had to wait for the royal commission to bring down either its interim report or the final report. We know of the neglect.
I want to concur with the comments of Senator Keneally here today. She went back and again painted the picture of maggots and of the abuse and neglect that older Australians have had to endure with an undignified existence in residential care.
I also concur with many of the comments that Senator Siewert has made today in her speech. Both of us have been on many inquiries. We were on the Oakden inquiry, in particular, and inquiry after inquiry looking into other aged-care issues. We know the neglect. We are embarrassed about the neglect in aged care, just as Australians should be. It is a shame and it is a blight on the Morrison government, and in particular on Mr Morrison himself who, before the last election, said he was going to make aged care a national priority. If this is what he calls a national priority under his watch, God help us if he wasn't interested in aged care! God help us, and God help those older Australians who are being neglected and those families who have lost their loved ones. Minister after minister has neglected older Australians in this country.
I want to put on record my thanks to Julie Collins, the former shadow minister for aged care and the member for Franklin in Tasmania, in my home state, who knew about and understood these issues. She fought, along with myself, Shayne Newman and Mark Butler, to give older Australians the dignified and high-quality care that they deserve. I also want to put on record my appreciation for Clare O'Neil, as the new shadow minister for aged services. I'm looking forward to continuing to work with Labor's team to hold this government to account, to ensure older Australians get the care that they need and they deserve to have a dignified life, whether they're in a residential homecare sector or whether they're living at home with their homecare packages that they deserve. I know that the senators on this side will never ever give up fighting for the dignity that older Australians deserve in this country, each and every day.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:37): I rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020. It must be noted that whilst this bill is welcome, the government has taken far too long to bring this legislation before the parliament. This bill seeks to implement the recommendations for a serious incident response scheme, made by the Australian Law Reform Commission three years ago. The 2017 Carnell-Paterson review, following the terrible abuses at the Oakden aged-care facility in South Australia, also made recommendations for a fit-for-purpose serious incident response scheme.
Oakden was a tragic and disgraceful blight on the aged-care sector in South Australia, and a sad and reprehensible chapter in the state's history. Shocking abuses have occurred and do occur in aged-care homes throughout Australia. Abuse of the elderly, whether a deliberate act or just through gross negligence, is a stain on our society and we must do what we can now to stop it. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety interim report, titled Neglect, underscored how serious the problem is. It is a scathing interim report. The inquiry found the system had failed to care for our older and often very vulnerable citizens. The commissioners wrote:
It does not deliver uniformly safe and quality care for older people. It is unkind and uncaring towards them. In too many instances, it simply neglects them.
The system is very much broken and is in need of a major overhaul.
Since 2018 the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety has uncovered widespread elder abuse and mistreatment. We learnt that an estimated 50 sexual assaults occur each week across Australia's aged-care sector—50 sexual assaults a week!—affecting around 13 to 18 per cent of residents. That is sickening and very much a national shame. The abuse is perpetrated by care workers as well as other residents. This bill ensures providers will have to report incidents of abuse and aggression between care residents, including where the resident who commits the incident has a cognitive or mental impairment. This type of abuse is currently exempted.
A broader range of incidents will now be reported under the provisions, including unreasonable use of force, unlawful or inappropriate sexual contact, psychological or emotional abuse, unexpected death, stealing or financial coercion by a staff member, neglect, inappropriate physical or chemical restraint and unexplained absence of care. This bill will improve oversight and transparency in addition to expanding the powers of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
I note recently circulated amendments from Senator Patrick that deal with the publication of staffing ratios and the implementation of CCTV cameras in aged-care settings. The amendments on sheet 1186 that deal with staffing ratio disclosures mirror similar amendments moved by me previously in this place and a bill introduced in the other place by my colleague the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie. Ms Sharkie introduced a private member's bill calling for transparency on staffing ratios back in August 2018 and again in July 2019. A government led committee that reviewed the bill even recommended that that legislation be passed, but the government still hasn't acted. So we will support that amendment.
However, we will not be supporting at this time the amendments on sheet 1191 that seek to implement a mandatory CCTV requirement in aged-care facilities. Implementing a mandatory CCTV requirement in aged-care homes will not fix the underlying and systemic issues facing the sector—the chronic understaffing and the deskilling of staff in aged-care settings. Installing CCTV cameras simply avoids the problems that lead to abuse. What is needed are dedicated carers who have been given the proper training for their care role and who are supported by sufficient numbers of colleagues. We need mandatory minimum training requirements. We need legally enforceable staffing ratios with the appropriate skill mix and to make it mandatory to have a registered nurse on each shift.
The aged-care royal commission will issue its final report by 26 February. Once it does, we expect the government to introduce legislation that acts decisively on all of its recommendations. No more excuses.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (11:42): Australia's aged-care system is broken. It is a national shame. In too many cases, it is delivering neglect and harm instead of care and compassion. Australia's aged-care system is in crisis. It has been in crisis for years, since well before COVID-19 hit. So what have the government done to take action on this crisis? Where is their response? Where is their plan? The government's inaction on aged care has been absolutely tragic—tragic for aged-care residents, tragic for their families and tragic for the staff that work so hard to care for those residents, because they've all been let down. They've all been let down by the Morrison government, a government that takes far too long on urgent issues and far too long to take life-saving action on issues that the government have known about for years.
This bill is no exception. The Serious Incident Response Scheme is no exception. This is a scheme that we need. It's a scheme that we've known that we've needed for years. The government have taken far too long to implement it. The elder abuse figures in Australia are absolutely shocking. We know that research from the aged care royal commission has shown that almost 40 per cent of those living in Australian aged-care facilities experience elder abuse in the form of neglect, emotional abuse or physical abuse. This is a national shame.
This research was released at the end of last year and this wasn't the first time that elder abuse was raised as an absolutely urgent issue to this government. Three years ago the Australian Law Reform Commission released the findings from their investigation into elder abuse in Australia and they recommended the implementation of a serious incident response scheme then—just like the one included in this bill.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Walsh. The time for this debate has expired and you will be in continuation.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (11:45): On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next sitting day to withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of three legislative instruments set out in the list circulated in the chamber.
Presentation
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), the state's flagship independent medical research institute which recently celebrated its seventh anniversary in its purpose-built building, affectionately known as the cheese-grater;
(b) acknowledges SAHMRI's leadership in bringing proton therapy to Australia, with construction underway of the nation's first proton therapy and research facility which will specialise in targeting brain cancers in children and other difficult tumours; and
(c) recognises the beneficial collaborations SAHMRI has fostered and its impacts on population health and wellbeing, including its:
(i) Aboriginal Health Equity theme which is building the capacity of Indigenous researchers to drive community-led research projects,
(ii) Registry of Senior Australians database which has provided research informing the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety,
(iii) Precision Medicine theme's discovery and validation of novel treatment options for leukaemias, prostate cancer and bowel cancer as well as its role in the Australian Genomics Health Alliance,
(iv) SAHMRI Women and Kids theme's multi-pronged research program to improve perinatal health through nutrition and other interventions, and
(v) Lifelong Health theme's research breakthroughs to treat, prevent or delay chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, depression and dementias.
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 1 April 2021 the Morrison Government will force people looking for work, students, and single parents back to payments of $40 a day, condemning millions in our community to live well below the poverty line, 500,000 of which are children,
(ii) the Government introduced tax cuts for millionaires, but are now refusing to properly support the more than 1.3 million people out of work while the pandemic continues,
(iii) with the big banks ending mortgage holidays and state-based eviction moratoriums lifting, thousands of Australians are at risk of losing the roof over their heads, going without essential medications or food on the table, and
(iv) returning JobSeeker to $40 a day will only further entrench poverty, diminishing people's capacity to participate fully and meaningfully in our community; and
(b) calls on the Government to urgently commit to a permanent and ongoing increase to the Jobseeker Payment and Youth Allowance before the Coronavirus Supplement ends on 31 March 2021 to ensure all Australians can live in dignity and not in poverty.
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that it is still incredibly difficult and expensive for patients to access medicinal cannabis in Australia with many patients having to resort to using the black market;
(b) acknowledges that earlier this year the Senate inquiry into current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia made a series of recommendations to significantly improve the lives of Australian patients; and
(c) calls on the Government to table its response to the Senate inquiry into current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia.
Senators Hanson-Young, Rice, McKim and Whish-Wilson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) native forest logging in Tasmania continues to destroy nature, threatened species, and our climate,
(ii) last year the Bob Brown Foundation (BBF) lodged a challenge against the Commonwealth Government, Tasmanian government, and Sustainable Timber Tasmania in the Federal Court arguing Tasmania's Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) contradicted the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) by not protecting endangered species such as the Swift Parrot, and was therefore invalid,
(iii) on 3 February 2021 the Federal Court ruled against BBF, finding Tasmania's RFA is valid, and
(iv) this ruling vindicates the finding by the independent review of the EPBC Act (the Samuel Review) that 'the EPBC Act is ineffective ... does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation ... [and] is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges'; and
(b) calls on the Morrison Government to urgently overhaul Australia's national environmental laws to adopt the recommendations from the Samuel Review to reform destructive logging laws, enact stronger laws that protect our environment and wildlife and create an independent watchdog to hold those who trash our environment to account.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Commonwealth Government has a responsibility for quarantine,
(ii) international human rights agreements affirm that everyone has the right to return to their country,
(iii) around 39,000 Australians are stranded overseas, unable to return home due to limited quarantine capacity,
(iv) in addition, there have been more than 155,000 travel exemption requests from temporary visa holders seeking to return to Australia, where many have lived for extended periods, with jobs, families, and lives here – of which only around 25,000 have been approved, and
(v) many of those stranded overseas face significant costs and challenges, are often separated from their loved ones, and have experienced significant distress at being unable to return home; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) expand quarantine capacity so that Australians stranded overseas can safely return home, and
(ii) ensure that Australians overseas can access affordable options to fly home.
COMMITTEES
Selection of Bills Committee
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:45): I present the first report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 1 OF 2021
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 3 February 2021 at 7.15 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the COAG Reform Fund Amendment (No Electric Vehicle Taxes) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020 and the Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 April 2021 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Migration and Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Information Provisions) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2021 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(d) the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 March 2021 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020
Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020
Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Air Services Amendment Bill 2018
Constitution Alteration (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press) 2019
Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019
Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020
Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018
Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021
Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2019
Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019
Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020
Interactive Gambling Amendment (Prohibition on Credit Card Use) Bill 2020
Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020
Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021
Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017
Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020
Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019.
(Dean Smith)
Chair
4 February 2021
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: COAG Reform Fund Amendment (No Electric Vehicle Taxes) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Examination of the implications of this bill, which would address barriers to the uptake of electric vehicles in Australia.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
The Australia Institute
Electric Vehicles Council
Australian Electric Vehicles Association
ClimateWorks Australia
State and territory governments
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Committee
Possible hearing date(s): 3 hearings to be held subject to the Committee diary
Possible reporting date: 30 April 2021
(Senator Siewert)
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020; Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To consider legal, ethical and privacy ramifications of the Bill in relation to sharing of Australians' data.
Possible submissions or evidence from: Privacy and data experts including leading tech lawyer Peter Leonard (Data Synergies), Jordan Wilson-Otto (Victorian Director of GovHack)), Dr Thalia Anthony ({Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney), Michele Bahari (Senior privacy professional - International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP)) Tim de Sousa (International Association of Privacy Professionals), Anna Johnston (Principal, Salinger Privacy), James Logan ({Information security professional), Melanie Marks (Principal of e/evenM).
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee.
Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date: 29 April 2021
(Senator Urquhart)
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Data Availability and Transparency B ill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Privacy concerns
Potential engagement of Australian Privacy Principle 6
Timing of bill vis a vis review of the Privacy Act 1988
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Academia and think tanks
Privacy and human rights advocates and experts
Tech sector
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Possible hearing date(s): TBC
Possible reporting date: 23 June 2021
(Senator Siewert)
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Migration and Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Information Provisions) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration :
Transparency and natural justice concerns
Will deny people access to information used against them in visa cancellation decisions made by the Department/Minister when contesting those decisions in court
Disproportionate sentencing provisions
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Academics and think tanks
Public interest, transparency and accountability (inc. FOI), legal, human rights, and refugee advocates and experts
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Possible hearing date(s): TBC
Possible reporting date : 20 May 2021
(Senator Siewert)
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill: Migration and Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Information Provisions) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Allow for stakeholder feedback and investigation of proposed legislation
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Law Council of Australia
Refugee Legal
Other legal bodies
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date: Wednesday 10 March 2021
(Senator Urquhart)
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To consider the impact of a new object clause on decision making in the OPGGS Act.
Possible submissions or evidence from: Foreign owned hydrocarbon companies who deal with NOPTA and NOPSEMA, Greenpeace, Joint Authorities, Minister for Resources, Joint Authorities.
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Standing Committee on Economics – Legislature
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: 25 February 2021
(Senator Hanson)
Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (11:46): I move:
At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 and the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020, the bills not be referred to committees".
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:46): I just wish to speak briefly to the amendment proposed by Senator Duniam on behalf of the government.
Both of the bills that the amendment refers to continue with a cavalcade of legislation that has been presented to this parliament in recent years which significantly expands the powers of Australia's intelligence agencies and security apparatus. I remind colleagues that Australia remains the only liberal democracy on the planet which does not have some form of charter or bill of rights either constitutionally enshrined or as part of our statutes. Without those protections, this government—and it has to be said, with Labor in absolute lockstep most of the time—continues to grant sweeping new powers to our intelligence agencies, often without adequate scrutiny. And here we go again!
Senator Duniam wants to ensure that this Senate is not able to inquire into the details of this legislation. I remind colleagues and the Australian people that this legislation creates last-resort powers for our intelligence agencies—or, at least, one of them in the Australian Signals Directorate—that would allow the ASD to install programs and access, add, restore, copy, alter or delete data, and to alter the functioning of digital hardware or remove digital hardware entirely from a premises.
Many tech companies have expressed significant concern about the powers in this legislation and I want to place it firmly on the record that the Australian Greens share those significant concerns. We are seeing a power hungry government ride roughshod over the rights and freedoms of Australians by giving significant extra powers to our intelligence and security agencies, and they want to do it without even allowing the Senate an opportunity to inquire into the impact of these powers being granted and any unintended consequences to these powers being granted.
So we will oppose this amendment and we want to place firmly on the record that Australia needs a bill of rights or a charter of rights in order to protect the rights and freedoms that so many in the Liberal Party love to talk about but never come in here to defend. In fact, they come in here, time after time, to remove those rights and freedoms from the Australian people. We won't be supporting this amendment because these bills should be referred to a Senate inquiry.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll put the amendment, which I'm assuming has been circulated. The question is that the amendment to the motion for adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator Duniam, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (11:50): I move:
That:
(a) government business orders of the day, as shown on today's order of business, be considered from 12.45 pm today;
(b) government business be called on after the consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered until not later than 2 pm today; and
(c) general business notice of motion No. 972 be considered during general business today.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: A postponement notification has been lodged in respect of the following:
General business notice of motion no. 971 today, postponed to 17 February 2021.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:52): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Thorpe for today, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Western Australia: Bushfires
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (11:52): I, and also on behalf of Senators Brockman, Cash, Dodson, Lines, Pratt, Reynolds, Siewert, Small, Dean Smith, Steele-John and Sterle, move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges:
(i) the ongoing bushfire emergency in Western Australia, which continues to destroy homes and businesses in the Shires of Northam, Chittering, Mundaring and the City of Swan,
(ii) the work of hundreds of Western Australian volunteer and career firefighters who are continuing to work in extremely challenging conditions to save lives and property,
(iii) the support provided to Western Australia by other states, including a New South Wales Rural Fire Service Aerial Tanker,
(iv) the efforts of communities in the region who are coming together to support each other, particularly in the operation of evacuation centres, helping the most vulnerable in their community and those who have lost homes and property,
(v) the huge community effort to relocate and find new homes for animals, particularly horses, for the duration of this emergency, and
(vi) that this bushfire emergency is not over, with challenging conditions and heavy winds forecast to continue impacting the bushfire area; and
(b) extends its support to these communities, residents, and emergency services personnel as they continue to confront this bushfire.
Question agreed to.
Lunar New Year
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:53): At the request of Senators Wong and Griff, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Friday, 12 February 2021 is the Lunar New Year and that 2021 is the year of the Ox, which represents hard work, honesty and positivity;
(b) wishes Happy Lunar New Year and a positive and prosperous year ahead to all Australians and in particular those celebrating Lunar New Year; and
(c) celebrates Australia's diversity, one of our nation's great strengths.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (11:54): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government strongly supports this motion. We extend our best wishes to the many Australians celebrating the arrival of the Year of the Ox—the symbol of strength, resilience and positivity. Australia is one of the most successful multicultural societies in the world and our strength and resilience comes from our unity as Australians, regardless of our faith or cultural background. The government is strongly committed to maintaining social cohesion.
Question agreed to.
Tasmania: Australia Day Awards
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (11:54): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 969 relating to Australia Day honours.
Leave granted.
Senator POLLEY: Before moving general business notice of motion No. 969 I ask that the names of Senators Whish-Wilson, McKim, Brown, Urquhart, Abetz, Duniam, Askew, Colbeck, Chandler and Lambie be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Whish-Wilson, McKim, Brown, Urquhart, Abetz, Duniam, Askew, Colbeck, Chandler and Lambie, move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges and congratulates the 2021 Australian of the year, Grace Tame, a proud Tasmanian who showed unbelievable strength and courage to overcome her own trauma and fight for survivors of child sexual abuse; and
(b) further acknowledges and congratulates the worthy Tasmanians who were recipients of the 2021 Australia Day Honours on 26 January 2021 for their outstanding achievement and services to Tasmania and Australia more broadly, including:
(i) Member of the Order of Australia (AM) recipients: Gregory Raymond Hall, Bernadette Black, Gerald Loughran, Sarah Briana Parry, Christopher Paul Webster, Lindy Hume, Peter Aubrey Cosier and Ross James Burridge,
(ii) Order of Australia Medal (OAM) recipients: the late Margaret Annette Bartkevicius-James, Rosemary Joan Bennett, Terrence Michael Bennett, Maxwell Arthur Burr, John Thomas Burton, Bruce Englefield, Katherine Cameron Macarthur, John Robert McDonald and Sally-Anne Wise,
(iii) Australian Fire Service Medal Recipients: Shane Ian Batt, Robert Bruce Dawes and David Thomas Oakley ESM,
(iv) Ambulance Service Medal Recipient: Matthew James Eastham and Pamela Anne Heiermann, and
(v) Emergency Services Medal Recipients: Cheryl Louise Ames, Jason Alec Lawrence and Jason Kenneth Robins.
(vi) Australian Police Medal (APM) recipients: Senior Sergeant Sally Elizabeth Cottrell and Commander Joanne Louise Stolp.
(vii) Australian Corrections Medal (ACM) recipient: John Ross Pickering
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021
First Reading
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:56): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:57): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I table explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I rise today in favour of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, the Australian Greens' Bill which will implement a moratorium on habitat clearing to save the koala from extinction.
Koalas are a national treasure but land clearing in Australia is becoming far too much for them to bear. Unless clearing of koala habitat stops, our beloved native species will soon be extinct.
That is why the Greens have introduced this bill.
Koalas are culturally significant to First Nations peoples. The word koala comes from 'gula' a Dharug word in the language of the Eora people meaning no water because they weren't seen to come down from trees to drink water often so it was believed that they could survive without drinking. Different clans and nations have the koala as a sacred totem, and some nations in Queensland and Victoria regard the koala as a wise animal and seek its advice.
Off the back of the worst bushfires in history in the summer of 2019/2020, which killed tens of thousands of koalas and millions of other native species, and destroyed millions of hectares of habitat across the country, no approvals for developments on koala land should be given.
The Environment Minister has one job and killing koalas isn't it. If the Morrison Government won't protect them then the Parliament must, because right now our environment laws are failing.
Under the 20-year-old EPBC Act, koalas have already lost one million hectares of critical habitat. Overall, at least 7.7million hectares of critical habitat has been destroyed for mining and development over the last two decades.
The once-in-ten-year review of the EPBC Act was conducted last year, with the independent reviewer Professor Samuel remarking in his interim report, the "community and industry do not trust the EPBC Act and the regulatory system that underpins its implementation". This is a damning indictment on our laws. It's no wonder the Morrison Government sat on the final report for 90 days and has still failed to respond.
At present, the government cannot guarantee and refuses to guarantee, that not one more hectare of critical koala habitat will be lost. Indeed they even put forward new laws last year that would fast-track more destruction. This is despite their own experts telling them that unless habitat clearing is stopped, koalas will soon be extinct.
The Threatened Species Commissioner told me at Senate Estimates in November last year that the biggest threat to koalas was "Habitat loss and degradation and fragmentation".
A New South Wales Inquiry into Koalas also reported in the middle of last year. The Committee found that the ongoing destruction of koala habitat through the clearing of land for agriculture, development, mining and forestry has severely impacted most koala populations in the state over many decades. The committee found that this fragmentation and loss of habitat poses the most serious threat to koala populations.
It went on to find that the future of koalas in the wild in New South Wales cannot be guaranteed unless the NSW Government takes stronger action to prevent further loss of koala habitat and that given the scale of loss to koala populations across New South Wales as a result of the 2019- 2020 bushfires and without urgent government intervention to protect habitat and address all other threats, the koala will become extinct in New South Wales before 2050.
Our national treasure, extinct in NSW in less than thirty years. What a disgrace.
It is no wonder that during a visit to Kangaroo Island in my home state of South Australia late last year a wildlife tourism operator told a senate committee that even before the summer bushfires, eastern-state visitors told him they had never seen a koala in the wild. Surely this is not the Australia we want.
The NSW Parliamentary Committee made a number of key recommendations that stronger action must be taken by government to protect and restore koala habitat on both public and private land. The government finally responded in January but failed to accept two thirds of the recommendations.
The committee also made findings regarding the impact that climate change is having on koala populations. It found the impact to be severe by affecting the quality of their food and habitat, and compounding the severity and impact of other threats, such as drought and bushfires.
The demise of koalas is emblematic of the demise of global biodiversity and the impact of climate change on the future of our species and the planet. Saving koalas and their habitat means saving other wildlife.
We all witnessed the threat of the climate crisis to our native species with the climate fires last summer.
According to the World Wildlife Fund, nearly 3 billion animals – mammals, birds, reptiles and frogs – were in the path of the devastating bushfires. About 143 million mammals, 2.46 billion reptiles, 181 million birds, and 51 million frogs occupied areas hit by the fires. An estimated 50 million native rats and mice; nearly 40 million possums and gliders; more than 36 million antechinuses, dunnarts, and other insectivorous marsupials; 5.5 million bettongs, bandicoots, quokkas, and potoroos; 5 million kangaroos and wallabies; 5 million bats; 1.1 million wombats; 114,000 echidnas; 19,000 quolls and Tasmanian devils; and 5,000 dingoes were in the path of the flames.
And the fires killed more than 61,000 koalas. They impacted more than 41,000 koalas on South Australia's Kangaroo Island, more than 11,000 in Victoria, nearly 8,000 in NSW, and nearly 900 in Queensland. Impacts included death, injury, trauma, smoke inhalation, heat stress, dehydration, loss of habitat, reduced food supply, increased predation risk, and conflict with other animals after fleeing to unburnt forest.
The images went around the world, shocking people in every corner of the globe. None more so than our helpless, burnt, dehydrated and devastated koalas as rescuers tried valiantly to save them. The world responded by sending millions and millions of dollars to charities and funds set up to save the koala and other precious native species showing just how important the koala is to us all.
So it defies logic that not only did the Morrison Government provide a measly amount of funding towards rescue and recovery efforts, not only has it failed to take proper action on the climate crisis and not only is it failing to save the koala, but we have an Environment Minister who is signing their death warrant.
In October the Environment Minister Ms Sussan Ley MP approved the Brandy Hill quarry expansion at Port Stephens which will clear 52 hectares of koala habitat. It defies logic that an Environment Minister would approve the destruction of critical habitat for the koala, a species facing extinction in NSW. The Minister signed a death warrant for the koalas that call this place home.
In late November the Minister announced the government had approved the controversial Narrabri gas project, which will see up to 850 gas wells being drilled in grazing land and forest in northern New South Wales. Not only is this a terrible outcome for climate change but 100 hectares of koala habitat and 300 hectares of potential breeding habitat for the Pilliga mouse will be destroyed. The Pilliga forest is the largest temperate woodland left in eastern Australia. But the Minister couldn't care less about its environmental value or the impact 850 gas wells will have on our warming climate.
Earlier in 2020, the Minister gave approval to the Olive Downs project in Queensland which will clear 5500 hectares of koala and glider habitat. The Queensland state Labor Government ticked it off as well. Memo to Queensland, tourists and residents already have to leave your state to see a koala in the wild!
Many more applications from mining companies and developers sit on the Environment Minister's desk. She cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
After copping an enormous amount of flak for these decisions, Minister Ley came out and announced a koala census. Counting koalas will not save them. It's a poor attempt to appease the public while still kowtowing to corporate influence. And all the while the Morrison Government persisted with their environment-wrecking reforms.
The Senate Inquiry into the Tony-Abbott era legislation heard that koalas and other threatened species will be treated differently across jurisdictions under the proposal. The Department also confirmed it hasn't even modelled the impact of the reforms on preservation of the environment or wildlife.
The threat the Government's EPBC Amendment Bill poses to Australia's wildlife is very real, leading the Humane Society International to urge the government to withdraw the bill and consider important and much needed reforms to the EPBC Act as a package—one that is appropriate to tackle Australia's extinction crisis and actually deliver protection to our most threatened species by protecting critical habitat and the places our wildlife need to survive.
The laws have failed to protect Australia's environment and wildlife for far too long. Things must change. We need stronger protection, not weaker laws. A moratorium on habitat clearing is vital if we are to save the koala from extinction. This is the type of reform the EPBC Act actually needs so our native wildlife is protected rather than increasingly facing extinction.
This shouldn't be a fight.
Australia is a world leader in extinction and without urgent action we will have killed off the koala too and that will be an international shame.
Australians don't want the only koalas we have left to be in zoos. That is why I commend this Bill to the Senate and urge the Parliament to support it.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:58): I, and also on behalf of Senators McGrath, Chandler, McLachlan, Abetz, Davey, O'Sullivan, Scarr, Askew, McDonald and Henderson, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 6 February 2021 marks the 69th anniversary of the accession of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia and Head of the Commonwealth;
(b) extends to Her Majesty its appreciation for the sense of duty and extraordinary grace in which she fulfils her duties as Queen of Australia and Head of the Commonwealth; and
(c) recognises the enduring role that Her Majesty has played as a symbol of peace and stability across the Commonwealth.
Question agreed to.
International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:58): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 968, I ask that the names of Senators Keneally, Wong, Katy Gallagher, Urquhart, O'Neill, Carr, Marielle Smith, Polley, Kitching, Dodson, Bilyk, Ayres, Sterle, Ciccone and Brown be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Keneally, Wong, Katy Gallagher, Urquhart, O'Neill, Carr, Marielle Smith, Polley, Kitching, Dodson, Bilyk, Ayres, Sterle, Ciccone and Brown, move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges 27 January 2021 marked the 76th anniversary since the liberation of Auschwitz and is recognised as the International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust;
(b) pays its respects to the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust, including six million people of Jewish faith;
(c) further acknowledges the Holocaust serves as a reminder not to be indifferent to hate and hate speech, and to show compassion for others;
(d) notes that:
(i) the Director-General of ASIO warned Australians that the extreme right wing threat is growing in Australia with small cells regularly meeting to salute Nazi flags, inspect weapons, train in combat and share their hateful ideology, and
(ii) Australia is the only country inside the Five Eyes Intelligence Network not to proscribe any right-wing extremist group as a terrorist organisation;
(e) further notes that attacks on democracy, such as the insurrection on the United States Capitol Building which featured the presence of anti-Semitic symbols and sentiment, represents an existential threat to our collective safety;
(f) recognises the right to free speech comes with responsibilities; it does not give anyone entitlement to sow division and hate; and
(g) condemns the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Australia and around the globe.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (11:59): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RICE: The Greens wholeheartedly support this motion. We must never forget the six million Jewish people, including 1½ million children, who were murdered during the Holocaust along with the Roma and Sinti peoples, same-sex attracted people and disabled who were specifically targeted by the Nazis and their collaborators for annihilation. Nor must we forget all who have perished since because of anti-Semitism and white supremacism. It's up to all of us in this place to fight the rise of extremist groups that seek to sow division and hate and to do Australians harm. The gathering of neo-Nazi extremists in the Grampians on Gunditjmara country over the 'Invasion Day' weekend, on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, should be a wake-up call to us all. Nazis are not a thing of the past. Our leaders must call them out.
Question agreed to.
National Security
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:00): At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) there has been a significant increase in far-right extremism in Australia,
(ii) far-right extremism is often cultivated through its overlap with various conspiracy theories, which have become a common tool to radicalise individuals through misinformation on social media, and
(iii) far-right extremism tears apart the social fabric of Australia's multicultural community;
(b) condemns:
(i) the Members for Hughes and Dawson for promoting a range of conspiracy theories and misinformation campaigns relating to COVID-19, climate change, voter fraud and 'false flag' operations in the United States,
(ii) the National Socialist Network, an Australian neo-Nazi organisation which caused fear amongst communities in the Grampians on both Australia Day and International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and
(iii) other far-right extremist groups which seek to promote fascism and bigotry in our community;
(c) expresses its support for the many multicultural and First Nations Australians who are vilified by far-right extremists; and
(d) calls on the Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs to take action to combat the spread of far-right extremism within their party and in the broader community.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:00): by leave—I move an amended motion:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia is one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world;
(ii) far-right and far-left extremism is often cultivated through its overlap with various conspiracy theories, which have become a common tool to radicalise individuals, especially through misinformation on social media, and
(iii) extremism in all its forms tears apart the social fabric of Australia, in particular across our multicultural communities;
(b) condemns:
(i) the promotion of a range of conspiracy theories and misinformation campaigns by far-right and far-left extremists,
(ii) the National Socialist Network, an Australian neo-Nazi organisation which caused fear amongst communities in the Grampians on both Australia Day and International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and
(iii) all other extremist groups which seek to promote fascism, communism, anarchism, violence and bigotry in our community;
(c) expresses its support for all Australians—particularly multicultural, ethnic, religious and First Nations Australians—who are vilified by extremists; and
(d) re-affirms that there is no place in the Australian community for any individual or group who seeks to promote disharmony.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:01): I seek leave to make a short statement on the amendment.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: Labor will be opposing the amendment to the motion, because the government is seeking to white-out the advice of ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Home Affairs that right-wing extremism is on the rise in Australia. The Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs confirmed this on Sky News on Tuesday.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:02): I seek leave to make a short statement on the amendment.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator FARUQI: If you needed any more evidence that this government has absolutely no interest in grappling with the existential threat of far-Right extremism, look no further than this amendment and look no further than the debate that it contributed to yesterday. It's more nonsensical false equivalences and more nonsensical downplaying of the deadly seriousness of far Right terror. This is really harmful stuff. This is running interference on the side of fascism and hate. This is the Australian equivalent of Donald Trump commenting on the Charlottesville violence, blaming both sides for what had happened. That's why we will oppose this amendment. You should really be so ashamed of yourselves, but you have no shame. That's the problem.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (12:03): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON: One Nation supports this amendment to the motion being passed because it expresses that we are against all extremism, whether it's from the far Right or the far Left. That is taking a balanced path. I stated yesterday in my speech that it cannot be one sided; you have to be, as leaders of this nation, against all extremism. That's why we support this amendment, and I encourage the Left and the opposition to consider it. Otherwise, if you are quiet on this and you do not support it, you support extreme—
Senator Faruqi: That is absolute rubbish!
Senator HANSON: You do support it. You never actually speak against extremism on the Left side. You do not. It happens in this country on both sides. Take a balanced view of it and look at it objectively—not from a political side, as you are. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Birmingham to notice of motion No. 970 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:11): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I thank the Senate for passing the amendment to this motion that has just been passed. This is an important amendment, because it makes clear that this Senate condemns all forms of extremism, allows for a unifying motion to be put, I trust, in this place, in support of all Australians, and the respect that all Australians ought be to be shown. Our strength and resilience as a nation comes from our unity as Australians, regardless of our faith, cultural or other backgrounds or positions. In this place we often see motions bowled up for wedge purposes that conflate different issues and draw together different points. What is important is that on issues like this we try as hard as possible to speak clearly with one voice. The amended motion provides the opportunity for us to condemn extremism and to show our respect and support for all Australians.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:13): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator KENEALLY: Labor will support the amended motion, but let's make clear that what the government just did was attempt to white out the advice of national security agencies. Mike Pezzullo, Secretary of Home Affairs, this week on Sky News said right-wing extremism is on the rise. ASIO has said it is on the rise. The AFP has said it is on the rise. The Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, said last week: 'Right-wing extremism is on the rise. It is the terrorist threat that we must confront'. This government has tried to downplay and dismiss it. That is what this amendment sought to do. Today Alex Hawke said, 'There is no rise in right-wing extremism.' What the government have done here today is attempt to white it out of this motion. Labor will support the amended motion, because, of course, we support taking action against extremism in all forms. What is embarrassing is that the government denies that it is happening.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:14): The Greens won't call a division, but we would like it noted that given the changes we do oppose it, because the government doesn't even agree that there has been a significant increase in far-Right extremism. They took that out. That's outrageous. The Greens object to the amendments so we object to the motion, but we won't divide.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Greens' position will be noted. The question is that general business notice of motion 970, as amended, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Manufacturing
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:15): Before moving general business notice of motion 973, I ask that the names of Senators Molan and Rennick be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Canavan, Davey, McDonald, McMahon, Molan and Rennick, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes The Nationals' Manufacturing 2035 plan to generate 800,000 jobs by:
(i) leveraging the regions' comparative advantage across strategic industries and their access to natural resources,
(ii) adding further value to regional exports by turning primary products into manufactured goods and complex products,
(iii) ensuring fibre processing is explicitly included as a manufacturing priority,
(iv) increasing trade efforts and growing exports,
(v) providing access to low-cost, long-term finance and tax incentives,
(vi) strengthening Australian Government procurement policies,
(vii) facilitating early exposure to trades and harmonisation of trade qualifications and employment conditions,
(viii) supporting Anti-Dumping Commission investigations and taking countervailing action against overseas subsidies,
(ix) investing in reliable, affordable energy and strategic infrastructure that supports manufacturing, and
(x) investing in oil and gas development including finding new sources of oil supplies; and
(b) supports:
(i) the generation of manufacturing jobs in regional Australia,
(ii) regional development, including decentralisation,
(iii) strategic regionalisation through partnerships with our state, territory, and local government counterparts,
(iv) securing our national sovereignty by reversing the trend of the decline of Australian manufacturing,
(v) development of regional hubs to connect manufacturers with local businesses, education providers, research and development organisations, and governments, and
(vi) investment in reliable and affordable energy and in strategic infrastructure that can support manufacturing.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:16): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator FARUQI: The Greens oppose this motion. The Nationals claim to have a plan for manufacturing, but all this is is a plan for locking in a climate catastrophe and destroying the future of regional communities, for the corporate profits of your mates. What we need is industry powered by renewable energy, not oil and gas, where we make, re-use and remake durable, ecologically sustainable goods. Our manufacturing future is one where manufacturing doesn't just work for the corporate profit but works instead for people, communities and the environment, where workplaces are inclusive, democratic, innovative and ethical, where meaningful, safe, well-paid work isn't rare or at risk but the norm. The future is achievable and it's achievable now. The coalition needs to get with it or get out of the way.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (12:17): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: One Nation supports the general thrust of this motion. We also support the reinsertion to this motion of page 18 of the Nationals' manufacturing policy that was released last week and the reinsertion of all references to coal that the Nationals did not have the courage to include in today's motion and removed from the policy. The largest cost category of manufacturing—and increasingly agriculture, due to electricity prices rising—today is electricity prices. Without including coal, the Nationals' motion is a hollow stunt. Without coal-fired power, the Nationals' policy and motion are pointless.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:18): Labor asks that the question on general business notice of motion 973 be divided so that we can oppose paragraph (a) and support paragraph (b). I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator WATT: Labor will not be supporting paragraph (a) of this motion. Labor supports Australian manufacturing and the jobs it creates. Hence we'll be supporting paragraph (b). Labor does not need rogue National policy ideas that the Liberals don't themselves support, like new publicly funded coal-fired power stations. We have our own ideas, like the National Rail Manufacturing Plan. We agree with the Nationals backbench that they and their coalition partners have neglected the manufacturing industry, having presided over the loss of 90,000 jobs in manufacturing since their election in 2013. Australian manufacturers need meaningful support. They don't need an empty stunt by disgruntled Nationals in the Senate, who have had nearly eight years to speak up. This is a plan which was rejected on day one by senior Liberal Party ministers. This motion is simply an embarrassing demonstration of how ineffective the Nationals are within their government. Every time they put up an idea, the Liberals shoot it down. They get shot down day after day, and here's another example.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:20): I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator PATRICK: I just note that the motion refers to the Nationals' Manufacturing 2035 plan, and I'm a little bit confused as to whether that's the government or whether it's the Nationals or whether it's the Liberals. It might not surprise you that plans of the Nationals are not high on my reading list. If you had come to me with your plan, I might have been more—
Senator McKenzie: It's online.
Senator PATRICK: It might be online, but it's not necessarily high on my reading list. Have the courtesy of perhaps providing the plan to people before you ask them to vote on it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This motion is being split, so I'm putting the first half. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 973 paragraph (a) standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and others be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:25]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:27): The question is that general business notice of motion No. 973 paragraph (b) standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and others be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
COVID-19: Vaccine
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:28): At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that on:
(i) 7 September 2020 Minister Hunt said 'Australians would be among the first in the world to receive a COVID-19 vaccine', and
(ii) 5 November 2020 Prime Minister Morrison assured Australians they would be 'at the front of the queue';
(b) further notes that contrary to these assurances by the Prime Minister and Minister for Health to the Australian people:
(i) more than 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have already been administered across at least 60 countries, and
(ii) the Department of Health provided evidence to the Select Committee on COVID-19 that Prime Minister Morrison's public target of 4 million doses by the end of March 'seems impossible now', and
(iii) the Morrison Government only secured access to 10 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine after 34 other countries had secured 1 billion doses;
(c) calls on Prime Minister Morrison to abandon his spin and be honest and transparent with the Australian people with respect to the COVID-19 vaccination programme; and
(d) expresses its disappointment in Prime Minister Morrison's refusal to condemn Mr Craig Kelly MP's ongoing misinformation and fearmongering, including in relation to the work of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its oversight of the COVID-19 vaccination programme.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:28): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Australia is one of the first countries in the world to complete full safety and medical assessment of the vaccine, and we have one of the highest rates of doses per capita in the world. We're on track to commence rollout in late February, and the Academy of Science has endorsed our vaccine strategy.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion 974 standing in the name of Senator Gallagher be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:33]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Gender and Sexual Orientation
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (12:35): I, and also on behalf of Senator Steele-John, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) studies suggest that at least one in ten LGBTQA+ Australians are vulnerable to religion-based pressures and attempts to change or suppress their sexuality and/or gender identity,
(ii) many people who experience attempts to change or suppress the LGBTQA+ elements of their selves are severely harmed by those attempts,
(iii) today the Victorian Parliament is voting on the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Prohibition Bill, a world class bill that would outlaw sexuality and gender identity conversion practices across the state, and
(iv) a national approach to banning conversion practices is required to ensure the rights, wellbeing and protection of every LGBTQA+ Australian; and
(b) calls on the Government to establish a national inquiry into the prevalence and impact of formal and informal conversion practices in Australia, inclusive of educational, pastoral care and community settings.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government remains committed to addressing the mental and physical health of all Australians including the LGBTI community. However, these matters are well known to be a clear area of state legislative responsibility and accepted as matters for the state and territory governments to consider, as is happening in Victoria.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 975, standing in the name of Senators Steele-John and Rice, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:41]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Donations to Political Parties
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:42): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the total amount of money donated to political parties, as disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission, tripled between the 2016 election and the 2019 election; and
(b) supports:
(i) lowering the disclosure threshold for donations to political parties,
(ii) requiring more timely disclosure of donations to political parties, and
(iii) imposing caps on the amount that donors can donate to political parties.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:43): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: All Australians—including Graeme Wood and Duncan Turpie, who have made considerable donations to the Australian Greens over a number of years—are entitled to participate in the democratic process by financially supporting candidates and political parties. Australia has an appropriately robust system to regulate the disclosure and the reporting of political donations, overseen by the independent Australian Electoral Commission.
In recent years this government has implemented several reforms to improve the integrity and transparency of the electoral system. This includes banning foreign donations, ensuring political campaigners are subject to reporting and disclosure requirements similar to those for political parties, and funding of the modernisation of the AEC's Transparency Register to make it easier to access information. The government is considering the recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, a joint and multipartisan committee that deals with these matters.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: Labor will not be supporting this motion, even though there are elements of it that Labor supports, and I have relayed this to Senator Waters. We don't believe that electoral reform will be delivered through moving formal motions in this place. We think it requires substantive debate and is best dealt with through draft legislation. Labor has legislation in the Senate. We look forward to debating that at the next sitting, and we look forward to the Greens support for our bills. We do believe there needs to be electoral reform to protect democracy, and we'll be proceeding with Senator Farrell's bill at the next sitting.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (12:45): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator LAMBIE: The Jacqui Lambie Network will be supporting this motion because, quite frankly, we just want anything done that's going to do the right thing to make sure these donations are done in real time, whether or not there's a cap and whether or not the threshold is lower—if we could just do something and start making some change to these political donations, because, in our eyes, they are completely out of control. When you're standing up here and it's in your face and you can see what that buys these people and what doors are open because of the amount of money that is paid and how legislation is made, based on how much you get in political donations, it's getting beyond a joke. There is no trust left out there within the Australian community when it comes to political donations, and, quite frankly, it's damning. We want to start being trusted, and the community wants to see people up here earning, instead of buying, their seats, and we have no choice. This needs to stay on the agenda because change needs to happen, and it needs to start straightaway.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 977 standing in the name of Senator Waters be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:47]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:49): It now being beyond 12.45, we will move to government business orders of the day
BILLS
Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:50): The Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Bill 2020 will commence the recommendations from the 2016 Australian government's response to the former Advisory Council on Intellectual Property IP review of the design system.
Senator Urquhart: I'm not sure your mike's on, Carol.
Senator Duniam interjecting—
Senator CAROL BROWN: You heard? That's all that matters, Senator Duniam! The bill will introduce a 12-month grace period to help protect designers from losing their rights if they accidentally publish or use their design before filing an application. There will also be an expanded prior-use-exemption infringement to protect third parties who start using designs during this 12-month window.
The design registration process is being simplified by making registration automatic six months after filing and removing the option to publish a design without registering. The bill extends innocent infringer defence to safeguard those who use designs that have been filed but not published on the Register of Designs. This is in alignment with other IP rights by giving exclusive licensees legal standing to sue for infringement.
The time line for the legislation to reach the parliament is also worthy of note. In 2012 the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property was tasked with the job of investigating the effectiveness of the design system in innovation by Australian users, and its impact on economic growth. A final report was handed down in March 2015 and the government didn't respond to the report until 6 May 2016. The legislation is only now being dealt with years after these recommendations were made.
Whilst Labor supports the bill, we continue to highlight the government's continued non-strategic approach to innovation policy and the failure to deliver timely R&D funding support for Australian manufacturing. Only $50 million of the government's $1.5 billion announcement is being made available to manufacturers this financial year. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:52): I thank senators for their contributions on the Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Bill 2020. I particularly want to note on this that we are here talking about intellectual property, and that covers a whole range of issues. I'm looking at the fact that Senator Brown is a very proud Tasmanian senator and I want to commend her particularly on something that we didn't get to deal with in the last session, and that is her support—along with that of all Labor senators, Senator Lambie and all Liberal senators—for the forestry industry. There are many intellectual property issues in that. I just wanted to put on record how proud I am to work with most of my Tasmanian Senate colleagues on issues like that. Hopefully, we'll get to deal with that motion that we didn't deal with before the next sitting week.
I thank senators for their contributions on this bill and, in commending the bill to the Senate, I also table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. The addendum responds to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (12:53): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:54): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:54): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:54): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Australian Government is a strong supporter of immunisation in that it is a safe and effective way to prevent the spread of many diseases in the community that can cause hospitalisation, serious ongoing health conditions, or even death.
This Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020, supports and builds upon the longstanding action of successive Governments to ensure that Australians have access to safe and effective vaccines and that we maintain world leading immunisation rates.
Currently not all vaccination providers make a record in the Australian Immunisation Register (the AIR) when a vaccine is administered which means that the individual or a health professional may not have access to vaccination history which could be vital information in an emergency, when undertaking medical treatment and in managing health and wellbeing.
The effect of the amendments in the Bill is to make it mandatory for all vaccination providers to report vaccines given, including any COVID-19 vaccine, to the AIR.
These changes will ensure that every Australian can access their vaccine history through this safe and secure register.
While the Government strongly supports immunisation, it is not mandatory, vaccination will remain voluntary and individuals will retain the fundamental choice to choose not to vaccinate.
The amendments in the Bill will support Australians health and wellbeing by improving reporting to the AIR to better inform vaccine projections, purchasing, delivery and program performance, and analyses of vaccine effectiveness and safety, which will be particularly important for the COVID-19 vaccine.
The world is facing an immense, once in a generation, challenge from the COVID-19 pandemic, with over 64 million cases of the virus and over 1.4 million deaths so far globally.
In Australia, while there has been loss and tragedy we have mercifully been spared much of the anguish faced by the rest of the world. We have had zero cases of community transmission in the 24 hours prior to this speech. Agonisingly by comparison the rest of the world saw over 575,000 cases and almost 12,000 lives lost.
These results came about because of a deep national partnership based on our COVID 19 Pandemic Plan. But precisely because of these global figures Australia will not be fully safe until the world is safe.
That's why our next step is to ensure the provision of free COVID-19 vaccines, on a voluntary basis, available to the entire Australian population.
The Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 governs the AIR as a whole of life, national immunisation register which records vaccines given to all people in Australia. This includes vaccines given under the National Immunisation Program (the NIP), through school based programs and privately, such as for seasonal influenza or travel.
AIR data is used:
to monitor the effectiveness of vaccines and vaccination programs, including adverse events;
to identify any parts of Australia at risk during disease outbreaks;
to inform immunisation policy and research;
as proof of vaccination for entry to child care and school, and for employment purposes;
to monitor vaccination coverage across Australia; and
to demonstrate eligibility for Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Subsidy payments.
The Australian Government is committed to providing all Australians with access to free, safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines as soon as available. A safe and effective vaccine, available globally, will dramatically improve health outcomes and societal well-being and facilitate economic recovery.
The Australian Government has acted decisively to secure production and supply agreements to ensure early access to over 134 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine to Australians in 2021-21 and 2021-22 through an investment of $3.3 billion.
Should these vaccines prove to be successful and safe and meet the Therapeutic Goods Administration's (TGA) stringent assessment requirements and approval processes, Australians will have access to:
33.8 million doses of the University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, available from early 2021;
51 million doses of the University of Queensland/CSL vaccine, available from mid-2021;
40 million doses of the Novavax protein subunit vaccine, available from the first half of 2021, with the option to purchase an additional 10 million doses in 2022; and
10 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine, available in the first half of 2021.
It is important to note that all four vaccine candidates are likely to require two doses per person.
In addition to the significant investment in COVID-19 vaccines, the Australian Government invests over $400 million each year though the NIP to protect Australians against 17 vaccine preventable diseases.
The NIP provides free vaccines to eligible people, including children, adolescents, the elderly, pregnant women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people against conditions such as pneumococcal, meningococcal, measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, shingles, human papillomavirus (HPV) and influenza amongst others.
These changes will ensure that every Australian can access their vaccine history through the Australian Immunisation Register.
The need for the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020 arose from the need to provide Australians with information about their immunisation history, to support the roll out of a COVID-19 vaccine and the ongoing administration of the NIP.
The effect of the amendments in the Bill is to make it mandatory for all vaccination providers to report vaccines given, including any COVID-19 vaccine, to the AIR. The details of the reporting obligations, including who is obliged to report and what information is to be reported in what timeframes, will be prescribed in the Australian Immunisation Register Rule 2015.
Combined with the reporting of influenza and NIP vaccines, this will inform the public health response to COVID-19 and other potential vaccine preventable diseases outbreaks.
Currently, vaccination providers are encouraged to report all vaccines administered to the AIR however, as reporting is voluntary, not all vaccines administered are reported.
Australia continues to have a high level of vaccination reporting and AIR data entered is sufficiently reliable for the administration of childhood immunisations due to a number of policy and program settings which encourage reporting.
For example Australia's immunisation coverage rates for children continue to be at a record high, compared to the rest of the world. As at September 2020, 94.90 per cent of all Australian children aged five years and 97.03 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged five years were fully vaccinated.
However, reporting of adolescent and other adult vaccines is lower and less reliable. For example, the reporting of vaccinations against Herpes Zoster and Pneumococcal for older Australians is around 40 per cent and reporting for seasonal influenza is around 50 per cent.
There is currently no statutory mechanism by which the Government can require vaccination providers to report all vaccines administered. Without such a mechanism on which to rely, the Government will be unable to enforce the mandatory reporting of COVID-19 vaccines administered, once a vaccine becomes available for clinical use.
Mandatory reporting to the AIR will enable the monitoring of immunisation coverage and administration, which is key to ensuring vaccination course completion as well as assisting with any adverse event reporting.
While the Government strongly supports immunisation, and will run a strong campaign to encourage COVID-19 vaccination and general vaccinations, it is not mandatory and individuals may choose not to vaccinate.
The AIR provides Australians with an Immunisation History Statement (IHS) which displays all immunisations that an individual has had that are recorded on the AIR. The IHS can be viewed and printed via Medicare Online, myGov or the Express Plus Medicare mobile app. Vaccination providers can print an IHS on behalf of their patient. Immunisation information on My Health Record is updated via a daily feed from AIR data.
The IHS can be used by individuals to prove their immunisation status for child care, school, employment or travel purposes.
The AIR provides an ICT platform incorporating themes of accessibility and usability capable of integrating with the My Health Record system and the Department of Health's Enterprise Data Warehouse, with the ability to be expanded to support further vaccination initiatives in the future. The AIR operates with clinical information systems to enable healthcare providers to provide data to the register easily and receive information back easily to better inform clinical decision-making.
Public consultation seeking stakeholder, and the broader public's, views on the proposed legislative amendment has occurred. It is pleasing to note that key stakeholders, including health peak bodies, are supportive of the proposed changes. The majority of individuals who responded that they did not agree with the proposed legislation amendment provided views regarding mandatory vaccination as opposed to mandatory reporting of vaccinations.
Therefore it is fundamentally important to reiterate again that, while the Government strongly supports immunisation, it is not mandatory, vaccination will remain voluntary and individuals will retain the fundamental ability to choose not to vaccinate.
State and territory jurisdictions support these legislative changes as this supports strategies they have, or are intending to introduce, to achieve increased reporting to the AIR.
The Government is serious about ensuring the AIR maintains a complete and reliable national dataset. Compliance activities will occur for those vaccination providers who do not comply with the new arrangements.
It is conceivable that vaccination providers who have failed to report a single vaccination event and are otherwise compliant with legislation are likely to have experienced isolated issues. In such circumstances education and support will be provided in the first instance.
For those vaccination providers not reporting any vaccines to the AIR and who do not undertake behavioural change even after education and support is provided, more serious compliance action, such as a civil penalty, could be considered.
The Department of Health is working closely with Services Australia and the Australian Digital Health Agency on a range of system enhancements to ensure vaccination providers are able to meet their obligations under the new arrangements.
The feedback from the consultation process has informed the development of the Bill, particularly in regards to compliance measures and the plans for additional provider information and support.
The Government is keenly aware that the AIR holds sensitive information. Existing provisions in the AIR Act state how the AIR can collect, store, use and disclose personal information, and the persons who are able to access the AIR to achieve the purposes of the Register. The types of information to be collected under the reporting obligation are the same as those currently collected on a voluntary basis under the AIR Act. The amendments will expressly authorise or require the collection, use and disclosure of information that will also meet obligations under the Australian Privacy Principles in Schedule 1 to the Privacy Act 1988.
There are existing provisions under the AIR Act that provide individuals with control over how their personal information is used. These provisions allow individuals to opt out from receiving correspondence from the AIR and/or having their information shared with third parties. The existing limitations for purposes for which the information can be disclosed are a reasonable and proportionate use of individual's personal information. Individual privacy is maintained, and not diminished by this Bill.
The new reporting requirements commence on the day after Royal Assent. The intention is that the amendments will be in place for mandatory reporting to commence for influenza vaccinations and any COVID‑19 vaccine (should one or more safe and effective vaccines meet all necessary regulatory requirements for supply in the Australian market) from 1 March 2021.
From 1 July 2021 vaccination providers will be required to report all National Immunisation Program vaccinations to the AIR.
The Bill will serve to benefit the health of Australians through more complete reporting of vaccinations. Over time, it will help increase vaccination coverage rates and the effectiveness of vaccination programs, and support the health system by informing policy for the NIP and service delivery at the local level.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:55): Labor supports the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020 as part of our national response to the COVID crisis. It is crucial that, as the national vaccine rollout happens, the national Immunisation Register represents an accurate record of vaccinations across Australia. Labor will continue to work with the government to build public support for COVID-19 vaccinations, including by emphasising the independence and expertise of the Therapeutic Goods Administration in supporting an effective national Immunisation Register. This will be important to countering messages from a small number of antivaxxers, including within the government's own ranks, and encouraging take-up among a larger group of vaccine-hesitant Australians. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:55): I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (12:56): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:56): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Telecommunications Amendment (Infrastructure in New Developments) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:56): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:57): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Telecommunications Amendment (Infrastructure in New Developments) Bill 2020, which I am introducing today, will improve access to telecommunications in new developments.
Access to telecommunications underpins much of today's economic and social activity. The importance of broadband connectivity has been highlighted by the Covid-19 pandemic, with hundreds of thousands of people staying at home, often continuing their work and study online.
When people move into new homes, or occupy new business premises, they expect ready access to telecommunications. Given that the majority of Internet traffic is carried on fixed-line networks, people expect developers to arrange for this infrastructure to be provided.
Since 2011 the Telecommunications Act 1997 has provided for developers that are constitutional corporations to install what are called fibre-ready facilities – basically pits and pipes that house telecommunications cabling – in proximity to lots or new buildings before selling or leasing them. Unincorporated developers were left to install such fibre-ready facilities as a matter of policy.
Since 2011, the majority of developers, both incorporated and unincorporated, have done the right thing and installed fibre-ready facilities. However, there has been a small but persistent failure by some unincorporated developers to do so. My Department estimates that up to 3,000 premises each year may be sold or leased without pit and pipe as a result.
While the incidence may seem relatively low, the impact on those affected can be significant in terms of restricted access to telecommunications, reduced social and economic participation, retrofitting costs and sheer inconvenience.
The cost to a developer of installing pit and pipe during construction is estimated at $600-$800. By contrast, the cost to a new home buyer of retrofitting pit and pipe is estimated at $2,100, and can be greater if extensive civil works are required.
For example, in 2017 the buyers of three new homes in a development in Balga in Western Australia were presented with a bill of over $10,000 for retrofitting pit and pipe.
The Bill I am introducing today addresses this issue. Fundamentally, it extends the arrangements that currently apply to incorporated developers to unincorporated developers.
It also makes some minor related changes. It clarifies that the facilities to be installed must be 'functional'. A functional facility must be technically capable of being used in connection with an optical fibre line.
This would mean, for example, that if a pit or a pipe is filled with concrete or earth and is not functional it would need to be replaced or remediated by the developer.
The Bill provides a transitional exemption for projects that are already underway.
Existing exemptions under the Telecommunications Act 1997 – for example, where premises are being built outside NBN Co's fixed-line footprint and it is unlikely fixed-line networks will be provided – will continue and apply to both incorporated and unincorporated developers.
The arrangements in the Bill are subject to civil penalty provisions. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, as the industry regulator, will be able to enforce the provisions.
While small changes, the amendments I am bringing forward mean that people who occupy new premises can have more confidence that appropriate pit and pipe has been installed, giving them ready access to modern communications, regardless of whether the developer is incorporated or unincorporated.
I commend the Bill.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:57): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Amendment (Infrastructure in New Developments) Bill 2020. The context of this bill, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, is to address unincorporated developers that have a legally enforceable obligation to install pit and pipe infrastructure in new property developments. This will ensure that Australians who move into new homes can have the confidence that underground ducts and pipes, which are needed to subsequently connect to the NBN and other networks, have been installed as required. In the rare circumstances where they are not, this bill will make it possible to issue penalties and other remedial actions to unincorporated developers.
Labor supports this bill as it addresses a small gap in our existing consumer protection framework. The proposals are sensible, and we do hope that passage of this bill brings us very close to eliminating the number of instances where developers fail to install telecommunications infrastructure. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:58): I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (12:58): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:58): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (12:59): The government's inaction on elder abuse—after years of evidence, after years of review—is absolutely inexcusable. Another review, commissioned by the government into the Oakden nursing home tragedy, also recommended the implementation of a Serious Incident Response Scheme. That review was released back in 2017, over three years ago. And KPMG did a review as well. It was a study into the prevalence of abuse and assault in aged care. What they found was also tragic. They found more than 50,000 cases of abuse and assault every year going unreported.
The KPMG findings were from a government-commissioned study. The Morrison government received this report in November 2019, and then they sat on that report and did not make it public until June 2020. Why? What is the minister doing? What is Minister Colbeck doing? What is the government doing on this absolutely tragic issue? Why is it that the 40 per cent of aged-care residents experiencing elder abuse have not been a top government priority for the last three years at least? Why has it taken so long to implement this absolutely critical scheme?
We're talking about our parents. We're talking about our grandparents. These are the Australians who have worked so hard to make our country what it is. These are the Australians who have worked so hard to give all of us the opportunities that we have today. The very least that they deserve is dignity. They deserve to be protected in our aged-care facilities: They deserve to be supported by their own government. They need better than a government that sits on reviews, reports and recommendations for three years. They need that respect, that support and that dignity now, right now—immediately. But this scheme is just another chapter in a story of eight years of this government's neglect. It doesn't matter how many shocking reports or stories there are, the Morrison government has not delivered the urgent reforms that are needed to address the aged-care crisis. Every report—ignored. Every warning—ignored. Every heartbreaking story—ignored. This is neglect. 'Neglect' sums up the government's eight-year record on aged care.
You just have to listen to the stories of the hardworking aged-care staff to really understand just how hard things have got in aged care under this government. Last year I met with Ross, Delia, Wendy and Tracy. They are proud aged-care workers and proud United Workers Union members. They need our support. They need the support of everyone in this chamber and everyone in this place, because they want to fix the aged-care crisis, and they have a plan to do it.
Ross told me about a 90-year-old woman that he cares for. He described her, movingly, as an elegant and proud woman—a woman who came through World War II in Germany and made her way here; a woman who he has huge respect for; and a woman who, because of the aged-care crisis, he has witnessed being forced to sit in her own mess just because there are not enough staff to give her the dignity and the respect that she deserves.
Ross works 50 hours a week, because his aged-care job is not enough to support himself and his three children. It's not enough pay per week, so he has a second job to make ends meet. He is absolutely passionate about aged care. He wants it to be his career. It's already his vocation, but he has to work a second job to make ends meet, because the jobs in aged care are so poorly paid and insecure. The jobs don't offer workers enough hours to make that commitment to the sector.
So what does that say about the priority that we as a country and that this Morrison government puts on our older Australians? What does it say about that level of priority? What does it say about the respect that we give to the dedicated and caring workforce that is trying so hard, despite the government's failings, to actually deliver quality care to the residents that they are so committed to? We need to do better. This government needs to do better by the aged-care residents, by their families and by the workforce.
Delia and Tracey spoke about being tired all the time, too tired when they're finished their work to enjoy their own lives and too tired, in their own words, to give the quality of care that they know the residents absolutely deserve. They say that they are always running because of the lack of support and the lack of investment from this government into the aged-care system. They say that there are just not enough staff and not enough time in a day to get the work done. But they spoke to me of their commitment to the residents that they serve, to these people who have contributed, these people who have fought so hard for the country that we have today, people who deserve so much more from this government and who deserve better from this minister.
When I met with Wendy, she had actually come to the gallery to listen to Minister Colbeck, to hear the government answer questions about what their plan is for aged care, what their plan is to actually protect the residents in our federally run aged-care system. When I met with Wendy, after being in the gallery here in question time, she was in tears. She was in tears because the minister sitting opposite, Minister Colbeck, could not answer the questions about how he was going to protect residents in aged care. He couldn't answer the questions about how he was going to back up the workforce and give them the tools they need to do their jobs. She came to this place to see if the minister had a plan, and she left in tears because she was convinced that he didn't. As she said to me, what she felt was happening was that the minister was turning his back on her, on the workforce and on the residents in aged care in Australia, and that is a complete disgrace.
So, Ross, Delia, Tracey and Wendy have a plan, even if the government doesn't. They have a plan to deliver the aged-care sector that our elders absolutely deserve. They have a plan to win the decent, secure jobs that have to be the foundation of any reform to aged care in this country, because without a stable, committed and dedicated workforce we are not going to be able to fix the problems and we are not going to be able to give our elders the care that they so absolutely deserve. The workforce need good, secure jobs to care for residents in aged care. They need a decent wage, and they don't have one today. They need enough hours to get by on one job—not two jobs or three jobs but one job—in their vocation to deliver the quality care that they want to deliver to the residents in aged care. We need minimum staffing levels in this country. It is a disgrace that we do not have minimum staffing levels today in aged-care facilities in our country under this government. It is a complete disgrace. We need those minimum staffing levels so that our committed, dedicated aged-care workforce can do their jobs so that our elders have the care that they need and the dignity that they deserve.
We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We can and we must fund aged care properly. We can and we must ensure that the funding goes exactly where it is meant to go. That is to the care of residents. It is to good, secure jobs for the workforce, who are doing their best to look after those residents and provide that care. And we need to make sure that the funding goes to them—to the residents, to the workforce providing the care—and not to the reserves of for-profit providers in the sector. The funding should go to the residents and to the workforce that looks after those residents. Tracey said it best to me when I met with her. She said, 'People in aged care are humans, and under this government they're being treated as if they're on a production line.'
It's time we listened to the dedicated aged-care workers who are speaking up so courageously about the problems. It is time we listened to them. They're not just speaking up for their own jobs, for their own security; they're speaking up for the residents as well. They're speaking up to protect the residents, which this government has failed to do for the past three years, while we have heard tragic, disgraceful story after tragic, disgraceful story about abuse in our aged-care facilities in this country. I stand with those workers who are raising these concerns, who are calling the government out, who are speaking up for the residents, who are standing with the residents and protecting them, which this government refuses to do.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:11): I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Firstly, I'll say that, having listened to a number of speakers before me, I probably don't need to go through all the issues associated with aged care in Australia at the moment, other than to say that it's not in a satisfactory state. Senator Walsh has summarised a number of the issues at hand. The government has been slow in responding to the needs in aged-care facilities.
I might say that sometimes fixes come down to money, so I will raise perhaps my favourite pet issue with the government as I speak on this bill. And I say this as a former submariner, probably the keenest person in the parliament in relation to our submarine capability. I note that the government entered into the future submarine program with a view that the project would cost $50 billion outturned. We know that from evidence before the FADT estimates committee back in 2015. The number is now $89 billion. That's $39,000 million in blowout cost. That equates, over the period of the program—38 years—to $2.8 million per day. So, Australians are paying $2.8 million per day not for the submarines but for the blowout associated with that particular program.
We need to start thinking about what we could do with $2.8 million per day in the aged-care sector. I'm all for defence. But defence money must be spent wisely, and that particular program is in significant trouble, and unfortunately it's having an effect on money that could be spent on other, more-worthy projects, other than waste and blowout. We need to take aged care seriously. We need to fund it properly. I think this bill goes some way to remedying difficulties and problems that we have in the aged-care sector, and for that reason I will be supporting the bill.
I do, however, want to speak on a couple of the amendments that I will move in the committee stage, and I'm doing that now because I note that I was a little bit late in circulating these amendments. I did that yesterday. The first set of amendments that I've circulated relate to staffing ratio disclosure. Senator Walsh mentioned issues of staff ratios. She mentioned issues associated with people having to spread across a couple of jobs. Look, I understand that proprietors of these aged-care facilities can't run at a loss. They've got to provide care, and if they're a private enterprise there would be purpose in making some profit. In what is effectively a market, not all of the information about the product being offered is being disclosed to those who are using the product. People don't know how many staff are employed by a facility. They don't know what the qualifications of those staff members are, and they have a right to know that. It's part of the offering and it's part of the choice-making process. There are some that want to impose patient-to-staff ratios or resident-to-staff ratios, and I understand that there are difficulties associated with that.
This is a step that I think this parliament can accept in that doesn't impose a cost; it simply requires facilities to declare how many staff they have, what the qualifications of those staff members are and what sort of roles they fulfil within the facility. That information can be published and then people can make a choice about whether they want their father, mother or relative to go to a particular facility based on a comparison between three or four facilities in the area, the total costs and what sort of capabilities the aged-care facility has. That's the nature of the first amendment that I will be asking the Senate to support.
There's a second amendment that I've circulated that relates to CCTV in aged-care facilities. I know that when you talk about CCTV in an aged-care facility people immediately get alarmed and think about privacy. I just want to explain the model that is proposed in my amendment. The model is proposed on the basis of the awful events and situations like we had at Oakden in South Australia in 2016 and like we have had just in the last couple of weeks. There have been some problems in South Australia, in Whyalla and Adelaide, in relation to some aged-care facilities.
Putting CCTV cameras into the rooms of aged-care recipients, of residents, in an opt-in manner—so it is not forced upon residents—would allow for remote monitoring. That remote monitoring would not be done by a relative but would be done by professionals. Professional aged-care people would monitor offsite for a few things. Firstly, they would be able to look and see if someone in the aged-care facility had fallen out of bed or tripped over and they're on the floor. They would be able to immediately alert the facility—who won't have a person in every room—that there is a medical problem or an issue in one of the rooms in their facility. That means they can respond more quickly and we won't have residents left on the floor of an aged-care facility and people missing the fact that there's a problem.
The second thing that CCTV can allow for is the recording of activities. There are lots of people that get quite suspicious—and they do it on the basis they care about their mum or their dad—about what's happening or they are not satisfied with the care that is being provided. The CCTV footage could be subpoenaed or referred to police or the aged-care commissioner and could be used to deal with any incidents, or alleged incidents, associated with abuse or poor care. I put it to the chamber that, perhaps more importantly, if staff are aware that there are cameras around, those who perform the services well will be quite comfortable with that but anyone who wants to do something that is untoward will be deterred by the fact that there are cameras installed. These cameras would be installed but only monitored in circumstances where the resident approves that monitoring—or, indeed, where someone with power of attorney approves that monitoring. I ask the chamber to give that some careful consideration.
I will point out that this amendment has been drawn from a bill that is before the South Australian parliament. The South Australian government is actually conducting a trial in relation to this. I think they've botched the trial; it should have been concluded by now. Nonetheless they are conducting a trial, and it is funded by the federal government; the federal government threw in $500,000. So there is some acceptance that this is a useful tool that could assist in raising the standards of aged care and dealing with incidents that might be occurring in aged-care facilities.
I advise the chamber that after I circulated the amendment some concerns were raised that there was a provision for the installation of a camera in common areas. I have been asked to remove that, because there may be people in common areas who don't approve of being recorded. I've now circulated a revised amendment that removes the bit about common area cameras, because I accept that some people may view that as a bridge too far, particularly at this point in time.
The hope is that we get support for this. I think it would be a measure that adds to the quality of care, simply by having professionals monitoring and recording in real-time what is happening in terms of care. I think it is helpful in that it will deal with real-time incidents where there is not 100 per cent monitoring by carers of patients in rooms; it might simply be that there is an incident occurring somewhere else in the facility, that it might be a well-staffed aged-care facility but people are attending to another incident in the facility. It's nice to have a second pair of eyes keeping watch over people.
Not only will it raise standards; I think it will also give relatives comfort as well. Relatives don't get access to the footage; who gets access to the footage would be set by the rules. There is a rule-making power in the amendment. The minister would make rules as to who would have access and under what circumstances; I would envisage that to be quite a tight set of rules. Access to footage would be limited to commissioners, to police, to courts by way of subpoena and so forth. I ask that the chamber give consideration to the two amendments that I will move during the committee stage.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:24): The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020 introduces a serious incident response scheme that will respond to and take steps to prevent incidents of abuse and neglect of older Australians in residential aged care. This includes those receiving flexible care delivered in a residential aged-care setting. The scheme will provide greater protections for older Australians by taking into account broader instances of abuse and neglect and by introducing more robust requirements for residential aged-care providers to respond and report.
From 1 April 2021 this bill introduces legislative requirements that will build provider capacity to identify risk and respond to incidents if and when they occur. By imposing these requirements the scheme is expected to drive learning improvements that will reduce the number of preventable incidents in the future.
The bill will also provide new powers to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to enforce the requirements of the scheme and the aged-care responsibilities of approved providers and related offences more generally. These are standard regulatory powers which will provide the commission with a more graduated suite of powers for ensuring compliance and protecting consumers. Additional information-gathering powers are also provided to ensure the commission is equipped to obtain the information it requires to administer the scheme and the commission's regulatory framework more broadly.
The scheme complements and supports existing regulatory settings, including the integrated expectations of the Aged Care Quality Standards, the Charter of Aged Care Rights and open disclosure requirements. Together these will support residential aged-care providers to engage in risk management and continuous improvement to deliver safe and quality care to older Australians.
I thank colleagues who have contributed to this bill. The health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians is of utmost importance to all of us and the Australian government. Any abuse of a person in a residential care facility is unacceptable. It is important that these incidents are reported, managed and prevented from occurring in the future.
I wish to table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum, which responds to concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. This addendum clarifies how subordinate legislation will operate to support the arrangements in this bill. I thank the committee for their comments.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:27): I would like to ask the minister some questions. I do intend to move my amendments, but I do wish to ask some questions first. I will try and be as quick as I can, but there are some issues that I do want to quickly seek confirmation about. Has the addendum been circulated? I don't seem to be able to find it.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): Minister, can you clarify the situation at the request of—
Senator Colbeck: It was tabled in the House as part of the debate down there, but I will table it now.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: And can a copy be provided to Senator Siewert?
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:28): That would be very helpful if possible, thank you. I'm just checking it's the one that I think it is. Why have falls been left off the definition of a serious incident?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:28): Falls will be reportable under the Serious Incident Response Scheme where they are caused by unreasonable use of force towards a person, result from neglect by the aged-care provider or result in unexpected death. Where the fall is not reportable aged-care providers will still be required to identify, record, manage and resolve the incident; provide support to ensure the health, safety and wellbeing of the person; and assess the incident and take necessary remedial action to prevent future incidents.
The next point I will make goes to the management of the entire aged-care system as a whole. As of 1 July this year, under the national mandatory quality indicator program, residential aged-care services will be required to report all care recipient falls, so when you bring these two things together—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, if you could resume your seat for just a moment. I call Senator Siewert.
Senator Siewert: The mic is not picking up everything, so I missed what you said just then. I apologise for that.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister might speak a little more loudly for the benefit of the senators in the chamber.
Senator COLBECK: I'm happy to repeat it. From 1 July this year, under the national mandatory quality indicator program, providers will be required to report all care recipient falls. So we have two things working in concert: we have the quality indicator program and we also have the Serious Incident Response Scheme. They will be required to report all falls, including those which result in major injury, to Health through My Aged Care. So we have two systems working together. All falls will be reported under the quality indicator program, and that will then flow through to the rating system that providers get under the reporting of the quality indicators, which are also publicly reported.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:31): I thank the minister for his answer. My concern is that it's then up to a provider to determine what neglect is, if the fall has resulted as a matter of neglect, and some of the other issues that you raised are then subject to a provider making that call. I understand the point you've just made about the quality indicators, but this is an extremely important issue. I still don't understand why all falls are not treated as a serious incident, because the nature of a fall, whether it's caused by someone being a little bit adventurous or by neglect, can lead to premature death and other serious implications.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:31): I think I understand the question, but the point we're making is that all falls will be reported as a part of the quality indicator program. The question then becomes how you actually define a serious incident. Our view on that is, as I've explained to you in response to your question a moment ago, in those three circumstances that I've explained, it does require providers to make those assessments because all falls will be reportable under the quality indicator program. So there will have to be a process whereby providers make those assessments to consider those things. Of course, those things are also assessed as a part of the provider's ongoing accreditation process because all of the documentation that's gathered as a part of providing care is assessed as part of the provider's ongoing accreditation process.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:33): But it's not as clearly transparent and accountable as—well, if you accept my other amendments that are about accountability and reporting data, it's not as immediately transparent as the process of reporting serious incidents, is it?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:33): You're right, Senator; it is different, but there also needs to be some balance in the amount of work that goes into the administration of each of the various schemes, and that's why we've made the decisions that we have. All of the falls will be reported. The provider will be required to do an assessment as a part of that, as I've indicated to you, but that's the assessment that's being done through the scoping study, and particularly through the learnings that we've had by assessing other schemes, including the one that operates through the NDIS.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:34): If someone is receiving respite care at a residential aged-care facility and they experience a serious incident, will providers be required to record and investigate that incident under the scheme?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:34): My understanding is that, given they are in the care of the provider, that would fall under the requirements of the providers approved-provider status and therefore would be within the parameters of the Aged Care Act, which then brings in these particular requirements.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:34): Could you take on notice—you said that was your understanding. It would be appreciated if you could—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): Hold on a second—what was the question, Senator?
Senator SIEWERT: Could the minister take on notice to confirm—because it was a little equivocal—that respite care is covered under this scheme?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:35): Respite is included, Senator.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:35): I'll get to my amendments and what our proposals are in a minute, but given that the recording and publication of the data isn't as thorough as it could be, how will this current proposal result in continuous improvement and prevent similar incidents from occurring in residential care facilities? And how will the community, residents and family members know that?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:36): There are two elements to that, and they come to the two elements which we've discussed before. I think the other point I should make is in reference to where we sit in the overall scheme of things with respect to the royal commission and where we go out of the back of that.
Clearly, the requirements for reporting—the requirements which I indicated before for falls in both categories under the mandatory quality indicator program and also under the serious response scheme—are going to require providers to assess the fall and the reasons for the fall. Quite frankly, a good quality system has a continuous improvement element as part of it. So that's one of the objectives of the Serious Incident Response Scheme—the assessment of the fall, the reasons for it and then the corrective actions that are put in place to deal with that. That would be my expectation of what would occur.
With respect to the data: I would agree with you with respect to the amount of data that is available and that exists in the aged-care sector right now. That's something that we clearly need to improve. That will be part of the work that we do post the receipt of the royal commission report in just three weeks time. It is clearly something that we need to do to improve the visibility of this information, not only for consumers and for the community but also for the department and for the quality regulator. This is clearly a direction that we will continue to move in and it is certainly part of our policy discussions at this point in time.
So the operation of a good quality system will do exactly what you've asked it to do because continuous improvement is one of the elements of a good quality system.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:38): Thank you. I might ask you a few more questions on reporting when we get to the amendments. Have you given any consideration to evaluation of the operation of this scheme and, if so, what are you planning?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:39): I'll have to come back to you on any particular cycle of evaluation of the scheme, but, from my perspective, a regular cycle of doing that actually informs continuous improvement. I understand where you're coming from and I agree with the concept that you're discussing.
We are currently doing some additional scoping work on the Serious Incident Response Scheme. A number of colleagues have acknowledged the fact that it doesn't include home care. We're doing the scoping work for home care right now, so that answers the issue that has been raised in relation to home care. But we believe that it was important to get the scheme up, running and operating, particularly in residential care. The bringing forward of the commencement of the scheme was part of our response to the royal commission's COVID report, so we're clearly responding in that sense, but it is something that we will need to continue to monitor, and my view would be that that should form part of our reform process that we'll embark on off the back of the royal commission.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:40): I thank the minister for his answer, and in fact he's touched on my next question, about home care. I am aware of the time. Can I perhaps ask a question on notice: could the minister provide a written update to the chamber on where the feasibility and prevalence study to inform the introduction of the scheme for home and community care is at?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:40): I'm happy to take that on notice and provide that information and perhaps a briefing if you require it.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:40): I thank the minister and I appreciate the offer. I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1187 together.
Leave granted.
Senator SIEWERT: I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1187 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 8 and 9), omit "(other than in circumstances set out in the Quality of Care Principles)".
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 11), at the end of 54‑3(2), add:
; (i) a fall by the residential care recipient.
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 22), omit "or (h)", substitute ", (h) or (i)".
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (after line 17), at the end of section 54‑3, add:
(8) Despite subsections (5), (6) and (7), the Quality of Care Principles must require an approved provider to refer a *residential care recipient involved in a *reportable incident under paragraph (2) to the recipient of an *advocacy grant under section 81‑1.
Note: The referral of a residential care recipient involved in a reportable incident to the recipient of an advocacy grant is for the purpose of the residential care recipient being provided free, independent and confidential advocacy services. Advocacy services may include encouraging understanding of, and knowledge about, the rights of the residential care recipient and enabling the recipient to exercise those rights.
(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 10 (after line 17), after subsection (7), insert:
(8) Without limiting subsection (1), the rules must make provision for:
(a) the publication of information relating to each reportable incident referred to in subsection 54‑3(2) of the Aged Care Act, including but not limited to:
(i) the number of each reportable incident, for all approved providers; and
(ii) the number of each reportable incident, for each approved provider, in all facilities or services operated by the approved provider that provide flexible care or residential care services; and
(iii) the number of each reportable incident in each facility or service that provides flexible care or residential care services; and
(b) the publication of the information referred to in paragraph (a) on a quarterly basis, on the website of the Quality and Safety Commission.
(9) However, the rules must not make provision for the publication of personal information in relation to any reportable incident.
These amendments relate to the comments that I made in my speech in the second reading debate, and that is to include the use of all restraints as reportable incidents, not just those outside the care principles; to deal with falls as reportable incidents under this scheme rather than as the government's current intention is; and also the referral of families and residents to advocacy services. Under the legislation, as I articulated in my second reading contribution, providers are required to provide support to those affected. What we are putting in here is a requirement to ensure that they're referred to advocacy services, because a lot of people want independent support if a serious incident occurs. We're not mandating the services; we're saying they should be referred to some advocacy services. There are some very good services out there.
The amendments also include the publication of reportable incident data, which is why I was asking that previous question. At the moment, they're not being provided in the manner that counsel assisting recommended, which was, as I articulated in my second reading contribution, about making sure there was global-, provider- and facility-level reporting of these instances in a timely manner so there's true transparency and accountability and the community and families have a very good understanding about what's going on. We don't see why this data could not be provided in this manner. I heard what the minister said in answer to my question: he agreed. I thank the minister for acknowledging the need for greater transparency and accountability, but we know this is needed in the serious incident report, so I don't see why that could not be done now. We don't need the royal commission to tell us again that this needs to happen. We know it needs to happen. We know it needs to be at that level. So I don't see why the requirements for the provision and reporting of that data cannot be included in this particular piece of legislation.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:44): The government won't be supporting the amendments moved by the Greens, largely for the reasons that we've already stated through the discussion during the earlier parts of the committee stage. We don't believe that all uses of restraint should be reportable incidents. There is considerable work being done with respect to restraint anyway, and I think the Greens would certainly acknowledge that. There's some more information that I'll be able to provide to the Senate very shortly with respect to some work that I had done last year, so that will be available to the parliament shortly.
I think I've adequately put our position with respect to falls. As I indicated, we're about to embark on a very significant reform process with respect to a number of elements of the aged-care sector, off the back of the royal commission. I would differentiate at this point, not knowing what the royal commission is actually going to report as opposed to what counsel assisting has said. I would acknowledge that that gives us a good direction as to where the commission might go, but, with respect to those elements, the final report is three weeks away. We will then be very intently commencing a significant reform process for the entire sector. Part of that will be the reporting of a range of information and data that could be improved, in providing better public confidence in the aged-care sector.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Siewert, (1) to (5) on sheet 1187, be agreed to.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (13:46): Sorry, Chair; I should have risen earlier. Labor will not be supporting the Greens' amendments, and I have further things to say when the other amendments are moved.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): Thank you, Senator Dodson. I put the question that the amendments on sheet 1187, moved by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:47): You've obviously recorded that we supported it, and, if others want to, they can indicate that they supported it. In the interests of time, I'm not going to call a division.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): Thank you, Senator Siewert. That will be recorded.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:47): I would have supported the amendments, if that can be recorded. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1186 together.
Leave granted.
Senator PATRICK: I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1186 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
4. Schedule 4 |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
(2) Page 25 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 4—Staffing Ratio Disclosure
Aged Care Act 1997
1 After section 9 ‑3B
Insert:
9 ‑3C Obligation to notify Secretary of staff to care recipient ratios
(1) An approved provider must, for each residential care service operated by the approved provider and for each day referred to in subsection (4), notify the Secretary of the ratio of:
(a) care recipients to whom residential care is being provided through that residential care service; to
(b) staff members of the approved provider who provide a service connected with that residential care service.
Note: Approved providers have a responsibility under Part 4.3 to comply with this obligation. Failure to comply with a responsibility can result in a sanction being imposed under Part 7B of the *Quality and Safety Commission Act. Information notified under this section is made publicly available (see section 86‑9).
(2) The ratio must also be broken down into ratios for each category of staff member referred to in subsection (5).
(3) In counting staff members for the purposes of this section, part‑time staff members are to be taken into account as an appropriate fraction of a full‑time equivalent.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), the days are the following:
(a) the 4 days, in each year, specified in the regulations; or
(b) if no days are specified in the regulations for the purposes of paragraph (a)—each 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (2), the categories of staff member are the following:
(a) registered nurses level 1;
(b) registered nurses level 2;
(c) registered nurses level 3;
(d) registered nurses level 4;
(e) registered nurses level 5;
(f) enrolled nurses;
(g) nurses with a certificate IV or an equivalent qualification;
(h) personal care attendants;
(i) allied health staff;
(j) other staff members.
(6) A notification under subsection (1) must be made as soon as practicable and in any event within 28 days after the day to which the notification relates.
(7) The notification must be in the form approved by the Secretary.
(8) The notification may include an explanation by the approved provider in relation to any ratio notified. The explanation must not exceed 250 words in total.
Note: If an explanation is provided, the explanation will be made publicly available: see section 86‑9.
(9) If, between making notifications under subsection (1), there is a change of more than 10% in a ratio notified under that subsection, the approved provider must, within 28 days of that change, notify the Secretary of the change.
(10) The Secretary must cause a review of the operation of this section to be undertaken as soon as possible after the first anniversary of the commencement of this section.
(11) The review must include a review of:
(a) the operation of subsection (4) and whether the ratio referred to in subsection (1) should be reported for both daytime and night time and for Saturdays and Sundays; and
(b) the operation of subsection (9) and whether the requirement to notify changes under that subsection creates an unnecessary reporting burden for smaller residential care services.
(12) The Secretary must give the Minister a written report of the review.
(13) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
(14) In this section:
staff member of an approved provider has the same meaning as in section 63‑1AA.
2 After subsection 86 ‑9(1)
Insert:
(1A) The Secretary must make publicly available:
(a) any information about staff to care recipient ratios of residential care services notified to the Secretary under section 9‑3C; and
(b) for each residential care service for which information is so notified in relation to a day:
(i) any information about the average claim made in relation to that service for that day under the Aged Care Funding Instrument (as in force or existing from time to time); and
(ii) any information about whether, relative to other residential care services, that average claim is low, medium or high.
3 Subsection 86 ‑9(2)
After "(1)", insert "or (1A)".
As I discussed in the second reading debate—I won't talk for too long; I'm just reminding the chamber—this amendment is simply about making staffing ratios, and the qualifications of staff, available to people who may wish to put themselves into an aged-care facility. It may also assist relatives making choices in terms of putting people into facilities. It is a no-cost option, but it is informative to the users of the system. I'm hopeful that the Senate will support it.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (13:48): The government won't be supporting the amendment. I think it's fair to say that this is a subject where the royal commission will have some very specific recommendations to make. We've seen some preliminary advice through counsel assisting, but also some very good evidence from a number of sources. I don't agree, Senator, that it's a no-cost option. It will incur costs. It will incur costs to providers, and that means it incurs a cost to government as the funder of the aged-care system. This will be one of the issues that will receive significant consideration from the government once we receive the report in three weeks time. So we won't support the amendment at this stage.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (13:54): Madam Chair, just for clarification, is Senator Patrick moving both these amendments at this time or just one amendment? Is he moving the amendments on sheet 1186 or is he moving amendments on sheets 1186 and 1191?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): I believe he's just moving items (1) and (2) on sheet 1186 together, so we're just dealing with those particular matters.
Senator DODSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Labor will be opposing this.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1186, moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [13:54]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:58): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1191 revised together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
5. Schedule 5 |
The day after the end of the period of three months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
(2) Page 25 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 5— Audio-visual recording
Aged Care Act 1997
1 After section 63 ‑1C
Insert:
63 ‑1D Responsibilities relating to audio-visual recording equipment
(1) This section sets out the responsibilities of an approved provider of *residential care relating to the installation, monitoring and review of audio-visual equipment.
Audio-visual recording
(2) The approved provider is responsible for ensuring that audio-visual recording equipment that complies with any requirements set out in the rules is installed in the bedroom of each care recipient in a residential facility which provides *residential care.
(3) An approved provider must ensure that:
(a) in the case of audio-visual recording equipment installed in the bedroom of a care recipient:
(i) the audio-visual recording equipment is operating at all times, in accordance with any requirements set out in the rules, when any person is in the bedroom; and
(ii) the audio-visual recording equipment is monitored, in accordance with any requirements set out in the rules, by a person or body independent of the approved provider; and
(iii) the images recorded by the audio-visual equipment are reviewed, in accordance with any requirements set out in the rules, by a person authorised in writing by the approved provider; and
(b) the requirements under paragraph (a) will only be taken to apply to an approved provider of a residential facility if each care recipient in the bedroom in which the audio-visual recording equipment is installed consents in writing, in accordance with any requirements set out in the rules, to the operation of the audio-visual recording equipment, and the monitoring and review of images recorded by the equipment; and
(c) for the purposes of this section, a reference to the consent of a care recipient will be taken to include a reference to the consent of a person who is authorised under a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory to give consent on behalf of the care recipient.
Cost recovery
(4) The approved provider may, in accordance with any requirements set out in the rules, recover from a care recipient the actual costs of:
(a) operating audio-visual recording equipment in the bedroom of the care recipient; and
(b) monitoring and reviewing images recorded by the audio-visual recording equipment in accordance with this section.
(5) To avoid doubt, an approved provider may not recover from a care recipient costs in relation to the installation of audio-visual recording equipment in the bedroom of the care recipient.
Definitions
(6) In this section—
care recipient means a person who is:
(a) receiving *residential care, provided in a residential setting, in respect of which the provider is approved; and
(b) either:
(i) *subsidy is payable for provision of the care to the person; or
(ii) the person is approved under Part 2.3 as the recipient of the care.
Rules
(7) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters:
(a) required or permitted by this section to be prescribed by the rules; and
(b) any other matters necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this section, including, but not limited to:
(i) access to, and the use and retention of, images recorded by audio-visual recording equipment; and
(ii) protecting the privacy of care recipients.
(8) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:
(a) create an offence or civil penalty;
(b) provide powers of:
(i) arrest or detention; or
(ii) entry, search or seizure;
(c) impose a tax;
(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;
(e) directly amend the text of this Act.
I just want to refresh for the chamber that these amendments are in relation to the installation of opt-in CCTV in aged-care facilities. The CCTV would be monitored by professional medical personnel remotely and would be used to detect falls in rooms, so there's an extra set of eyes, but also to deter and deal with any misconduct that might take place inside a facility.
Question negatived.
Progress reported.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
JobKeeper Payment
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Virgin Australia CEO Jayne Hrdlicka has warned that the jobs of 3,000 workers will be at risk when the Morrison government ends JobKeeper in March. Why is the Morrison government turning its back on 3,000 Australians?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:01): The Morrison government has proudly stood by all Australians through the last 12 months of globally unprecedented uncertainty. We have faced the most extraordinary of times in terms of the health threat to our nation and in terms of the economic threat to the livelihoods of many Australians and to the businesses of many Australians. What we have done through that time—and, I acknowledge, often with bipartisan support—is to be able to, in working closely with states and territories and authorities around the country, secure the lives and save the lives of many Australians and to protect the livelihoods of many Australians and many Australian businesses. We've done that by acting at all times according to clearly defined principles that we laid out at the outset of the pandemic to make sure that, when economic support was delivered, it was targeted, it was proportionate and it was temporary. We have responded, as the circumstances have improved through the course of the pandemic, to ensure that we deliver support according to those principles. Indeed, when it came to the creation of JobKeeper, we created it. When it came to the extension of it, we extended it. But also, at the point of extension, we heeded messages, including from the Leader of the Opposition, that there needed to be a tapering of it before it was withdrawn. So we applied a tapering of it. And we will respond, in the lead-up to March, according to all of the evidence and analysis that is available at that time, to look carefully and closely at what types of additional support, if any, are necessary across the Australian economy in addition to those that will continue to deliver significant economic support. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question?
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (14:03): Ms Hrdlicka has also said that Virgin Australia may be forced 'to make tough decisions on how many people we can afford to keep on the books'. When JobKeeper ends, in 52 days, how many more aviation jobs will be lost as a result of Mr Morrison's stubborn refusal to act?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): Thousands of jobs have been saved by actions through this pandemic. Many thousands of jobs have been saved as a result of actions through this pandemic. But we were also honest at the outset. I remember saying this myself. I remember former Senator Cormann saying it. I know that those in the other place did as well. Not every job and not every business would be able to be saved. Indeed, the pandemic is creating structural changes around the world as well. Not all aspects of previous economic activity are going to come back the way they were beforehand. So difficult decisions will be made by different businesses facing those structural challenges. But we will continue to respond with support in the Australian economy when and where it's appropriate—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: A point of order on direct relevance: the question does not go to jobs across the economy, which the minister is referring to, but to how many more aviation jobs will be lost as a result of the government's refusal to act.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, with respect, I think you dropped a word there. The word 'stubborn' was in the second part of the question. I've made a previous ruling that there's a lot more latitude for ministers to address questions broadly when there are pejorative political phrases included in the questions. In this case, I think the minister is being directly relevant to the question. Senator Birmingham.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: As I was saying, we will continue to respond as appropriate to the different circumstances, including in different industries, including the aviation industry, where we have targeted support, and we will continue to look at their unique circumstances. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sheldon, a final supplementary question?
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (14:05): How many Australians will lose JobKeeper in March and then face losing their jobs or having their wages cut under the Morrison government's industrial relations changes?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:06): We've provided some $2.7 billion in support across the aviation sector to date, and, as I said in response to the last question, we will continue to analyse the circumstances and we will continue to respond according to the principles we set out—that support should be targeted where it's necessary and proportionate to those circumstances. It does also need to be temporary, because the Australian economy can't be run off of endless taxpayer money forever. But these are difficult times and that's why we put in place the range of supports that are there.
In terms of the industrial relations reforms that we've brought to this parliament, we bought them to this parliament in good faith to make the industrial relations system in Australia more efficient, more effective in ways to continue to help get more Australians into jobs. What is remarkable is the policy position that's being taken by those opposite, which is to say no to all of it. Even the bits the unions agreed to, they're now saying no to. They're just anti any type of reform that may get Australians back into jobs. (Time expired)
Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:07): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Senator Ruston. Can the minister please update the Senate on yesterday's judgement from the full Federal Court regarding the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, which ruled in favour of the Commonwealth, Sustainable Timber Tasmania and the state of Tasmania?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:07): I thank Senator Askew for her question and for the interest that all Tasmanian senators in this place have in the fantastic Tasmanian forestry sector. I particularly acknowledge the assistant minister responsible for forestry, Senator Duniam, for his fierce advocacy on behalf of this very important sector.
Yesterday was a milestone for Tasmania and a milestone for the Australian timber and forestry sector, when the full court ruled that the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreements were indeed valid. The decision was in response to efforts by Bob Brown's foundation to once again try and use the courts in a litigious attempt to shut down Tasmania's world-class forestry industry. I'd like to echo the words of Assistant Minister Duniam yesterday by saying that this judgement from the full court was a win for our forestry industry. It's a victory for every single forestry worker who now knows that they have a job, not just those in Tasmania but those right across Australia. But it also affirms the Australian government's commitment and belief in forestry agreements as the best way of balancing the environment, economic and social demands of our native forests. It's a milestone victory for forestry and its supporters, and it's an embarrassing loss for Bob Brown—and his merchandise campaign that he put out there.
They created the slogan 'Best chance in a generation to end native forest logging'. Indeed, it was a great forest case yesterday. The case proved to be great for forestry, it proved to be great for the jobs that the forestry industry supports, it was great in securing the jobs and communities that rely on the forestry industry and it was a great case to draw to the attention of the Australian public the vexatious attitude that the Greens and their supporters have, with the green lawfare to stop legitimate business, legitimate industries and legitimate communities across Australia. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:09): Can the minister please outline what this milestone judgement means for the forest industry, particularly when it comes to providing certainty, investment and jobs across Australia?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:10): This decision secures the future of Australia's native forestry industry. That's 52,000 workers that are directly employed that can now get back to what they do best—that is, manage this renewable resource for the benefit of regional communities that rely on this world-class sector.
Our agreements remain the best way of balancing the environmental, social and economic demands of our native forests. This judgement provides certainty. It provides certainty for the workers, for the community and for investment, which means that we will continue to be able to have investment jobs in the future. The irony of the ideological fixation on shutting down our native timber sector is that this will not stop us using appearance grade timber. All it will mean is that people who want appearance grade timber will buy it from countries that do not have the kind of environmental protections that this country has. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a final supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:11): How will the Morrison government continue to build on its support for the many thousands of hardworking men and women in the forestry industry following this judgement?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:11): Our government have an absolutely unwavering commitment to our forestry industry and are unequivocal in our support for regional forestry agreements as the most effective mechanism by which we can manage and protect our forests. Every tree that is harvested is replanted. Native forestry is sustainable, it's highly regulated, it's well managed and the court made the decision yesterday that we were right in that fact.
This government supports and backs many, many families who are supported by our forestry sector and the communities that rely on it. We've delivered nine regional forestry hubs and three national institutes. We're implementing our $20 million national forestry plan. We also understand our responsibility in supporting forestry through bushfires. This is the ultimate renewable resource. It is something that every Australian should be proud of our forestry sector for, instead of continually condemning it and using vexatious litigation to try and shut it down.
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson!
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, take a breath when I call your name. I remind senators of what I said yesterday: when I name you individually, I ask you to at least remain orderly for a short period.
COVID-19: Tourism
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (14:12): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Payne. Is the minister aware of the Tourism Export Council survey revealing that 80 per cent of domestic tour operators will close by September without some kind of government support? Given the devastating impact of COVID-19 on these businesses, will the minister provide additional support to internationally facing businesses and regions like Far North Queensland?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:13): I thank Senator Green for her question. It's an issue which I think we canvassed in some detail in discussions in the chamber on Tuesday this week. The government has provided significant levels of economic support during COVID-19 through a range of programs such as JobKeeper, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate outlined in his earlier response, and small-business cash payments of up to $100,000. What those payments have done is sustain hundreds of thousands of tourism businesses and tourism jobs across Australia.
As part of our plan to support tourism recovery, we're also providing further targeted assistance to help the tourism sector rebound and to save as many jobs as possible. That is in addition, as I said earlier this week, to our record funding for Tourism Australia of over $231 million in the current financial year, which is being used to directly support the tourism industry. Tourism Australia is ramping up domestic marketing campaigns, with phase 2 of the Holiday Here This Year campaign now underway—familiar to many of us from our television screens right now. Tourism Australia are also positioning to commence international marketing campaigns when the time is right.
We outlined in our budget a clear plan for Australia to create jobs and to rebuild our economy, and that includes helping secure the future of Australia's tourism industry. We provided $50 million for a Recovery for Regional Tourism fund, which includes regional areas of Queensland such as those that Senator Green has referred to, to boost tourism in nine regions heavily reliant on international tourism. That's a program that will deliver tailored assistance measures to help tourism businesses pivot to the domestic market. Those applications are currently open, with eligible applicants able to submit requests for funding until 30 September this year. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Green, a supplementary question?
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (14:15): I do have another question. Minister, out of the $659 million that you spruiked on Tuesday, how much of that financial support has actually been received by affected businesses?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:15): I'll take the detail of that question on notice.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator PAYNE: Those opposite may scoff, but I think even they could manage to understand, particularly the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, that I am in a representational portfolio and I will provide accurate detail to Senator Green, if she wishes for that information. Of course, if she wishes to ask in advance for information in question time, as we do with other senators, then we would be perfectly willing to assist where we can.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Green, a final supplementary question?
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (14:16): Why is Mr Morrison cutting JobKeeper and cutting wages but prioritising taxpayer funded government advertising and sports rorts and flying an ex-minister around Europe with a private doctor to get a plum posting politics pay cheque?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:16): Senator Green may wish to advise the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that she's personally withdrawing the opposition's support for former Senator Cormann's candidacy for the OECD. I'm not aware if that is a decision those opposite have taken, but, if they have, they should tell the government. They should tell the government, because that would be the good faith thing to do. I won't hold my breath for good faith from those opposite, and I won't hold my breath for good faith that stops them misrepresenting this government and the support we have provided to the Australian people, Australian businesses and Australian jobs right through this pandemic.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I am reluctant to interrupt ministers, but I will when I can't hear them. I will start to interrupt, and we'll waste time in question time for the opposition and crossbenchers if there's that much noise in the chamber.
COVID-19: Vaccine
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:17): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health in the Senate, Senator Colbeck. The mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna have yielded strong results in clinical trials and are expected to be much easier to reconfigure to fight the new strains of the COVID-19 virus. It's reported that the government is considering investing in mRNA local production. Is this correct? If so, when is the government going to be making an announcement? How much is the government considering investing in building local capacity for the generation of mRNA vaccines?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:18): As the chamber might be aware, the government has today announced the acquisition of an additional 10 thousand—I mean 10 million—doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: I'm very careful not to over promise. The time frame required for us to ramp up production capacity of that is quite a considerable one. Considerations of those things are being undertaken, but, in the interim, what the government has done is ensure that we have adequate doses of available vaccines with a range of different types, so that we can ensure that we have adequate capacity to vaccinate the Australian community and, of course, where possible—I'm aware that Senator Payne and Senator Seselja have been engaged in this—to assist our Pacific neighbours.
At this stage we have 40 million doses, based on the announcement this morning, of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. We have 53.8 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 51 million doses of the Novavax and access to 25.6 million doses from the COVAX Facility. So we have access to considerable volumes of vaccine, over 100 million doses of vaccine. We will continue to ensure that we have the capacity required. I acknowledge that there is capacity, with the mRNA vaccines, to tweak the vaccines. I'm aware that the producers of those have indicated they are inclined to do that, but it will take a considerable period of time to— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a supplementary question.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:20): Through you, Mr President, I ask the minister representing the minister: can you confirm if the government is currently in negotiations with any manufacturers or any experts, as reported, for the development of a facility to manufacture mRNA vaccines in Australia. If so, is it with a view for it to be a publicly owned facility?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:21): Thanks, Senator, for the question. The government has undertaken an audit of the capacity of industry here in Australia to see if there is any capacity that may be able to be developed to produce vaccines using that technology. We have identified some companies in Australia who do have that capacity. We're currently in discussions with them to understand whether or not that capacity can be scaled up in the future so that we do have, onshore, some sovereign capacity. Those conversations are continuing.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a final supplementary.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:21): Could the minister please outline who will be getting the Pfizer vaccines outlined in the strategy? I know there are five phases. Who, out of those five phases, will be getting the Pfizer vaccine?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:22): I thank Senator Siewert for the question. The Pfizer vaccine, based on current supply projections, will be the first vaccine available to Australians. Therefore, the priority residents under our national strategic plan for the rollout of the vaccine will be the first ones to receive that vaccine. We will be offering the vaccine across the country to all Australians through the hubs that will be managing the Pfizer vaccine, which are obviously those with a low-temperature capacity, and we will be rolling out the AstraZeneca vaccine and Moderna as it becomes available across the country. We are not specifying particular vaccine types to any particular cohort in the community. We are offering vaccine across the community— (Time expired)
Tourism Industry
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:23): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Payne. The Morrison government will end JobKeeper in 52 days, and 60 per cent of tourism businesses will go bust unless the Morrison government provides a lifeline. How many tourism jobs across Australia will be lost when the Morrison government turns off JobKeeper in March?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:23): I thank Senator Polley for her question. As I have previously advised the chamber, what the government has done through a very, very difficult period of the COVID-19 pandemic is to provide record levels of economic support through a range of programs—JobKeeper, in particular, and cash payments of up to $100,000 for small businesses. The outcomes of those payments have been to enable and sustain hundreds of thousands of tourism businesses across Australia and the jobs associated with them and as part of our plan to support tourism recovery, as I've also previously advised the chamber.
The PRESIDENT: Order. Senator Polley, a point of order?
Senator Polley: Relevance. The minister is not directly answering the question. She can try to scoot around it or put her own spin on it, but the question was very pointed.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There may be scooting, but I'll make that observation. I do allow opposition senators to occasionally restate questions, but I am going to draw the line at commentary before the restating, if it comes. Senator Polley, I'll ask you to come to your point of order—I got it to direct relevance and scooting.
Senator Polley: It's about relevance. The Morrison government is ending JobKeeper in 52 days, and 60 per cent of tourism businesses are going to go bust. So how many jobs, Minister, are going to be lost—are you going to abandon—with your action by cutting JobKeeper?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, this is not an opportunity to add to the question. I'm listening to the minister carefully. In my view, if the minister is talking about support programs to the same sector very narrowly, as she is, I can't ask her in what terms to address the question, but I think she is talking about both employment and support programs to that sector. I will continue to listen carefully. I have allowed you to reemphasise your question, Senator Polley. Senator Payne.
Senator PAYNE: Thank you very much, Mr President. Before Senator Polley took her point of order I was going to remind the chamber about the government's approach in this vital sector, which we absolutely acknowledge. In fact, my state of New South Wales has dealt consequentially not just with bushfires but with floods and then with pandemic issues which have clearly impacted the tourism industry; I cite the beautiful area of the Blue Mountains in particular. We're very focused on specific programs to support jobs and businesses in those areas and to support the maintenance and retention of those jobs in those areas. So the Recovery for Regional Tourism Fund is about boosting tourism in nine regions which are heavily reliant on international tourism but, of course, which welcome domestic tourism as well. I have even been through the details of the applications for those programs in my previous answers.
I was going to say earlier to Senator Green, but, sadly, ran out of time, that under our Building Better Regions Fund we have earmarked $100 million of specific funding for tourism infrastructure to assist those regions to boost the supply of new, quality tourism infrastructure, to drive visitation and to maintain jobs in the tourism industry in those regions. We are also providing $100 million—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Payne. I have Senator Polley on a point of order.
Senator Polley: I am taking a point of order, Mr President, on relevance. The minister is still not addressing the question about how many jobs are going to be lost when they cut off JobKeeper. It's very simple.
The PRESIDENT: Order. If the minister is talking—yes, Senator Payne?
Senator PAYNE: What I'm actually referring to in my response to Senator Polley's question is maintaining jobs in this sector, in direct relevance and response to her question.
The PRESIDENT: I was about to say something similar. If the minister is talking about employment in the sector and your question was about jobs in the sector, I can't direct the minister in the terms in which to answer the question. You can debate it after question time. The minister is being directly relevant and I think she had five seconds left to answer—or are we going to go to the supplementary question, Senator Polley? The supplementary.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:27): Under the regional tourism recovery package, Tasmania is supposed to receive $13.5 million. Four months after this announcement, how much money has actually been delivered to tourism operators in Tasmania?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:28): I will take on notice the detail of the specific funding delivery to Tasmania, of course. But, in fact, Senator Polley has pointed to exactly one of the examples that I have used consistently this week in my answers to previous questions on this matter—and not just that program but the Building Better Regions Fund and $100 million for the Regional Recovery Partnerships program. That is about coordinating that investment with other levels of government—local and state—to support both growth and recovery, and to protect jobs, including in tourism, in 10 priority regions.
We have also, through the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund, included tourism-specific measures. For example, the Supporting Australia's Exhibiting Zoos and Aquariums Program—$94½ million for that program. There is the Australian Business Events Program, supported with $50 million of Commonwealth funding. And, of course, there are many programs for the arts sector, which I understand to be important in culturally rich Tasmania.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Payne. Senator Polley, a final supplementary question?
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:29): Why is Mr Morrison cutting JobKeeper and cutting wages but prioritising taxpayer funded government advertising, sports rorts and flying his ex-minister around Europe, with a private doctor, to get a plum post-politics pay cheque?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:29): Creativity and ingenuity in the opposition have decreased to such an extent that they are unable to provide a second supplementary question to senators, other than one that repeats the previous supplementary question! Notwithstanding that enormous challenge that those opposite are facing, let me say—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, on a point of order?
Senator Polley: Yet again the minister is not being relevant. She is not being relevant to the question that I put to her.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, I've made this point before. The question contained a number of loaded political phrases. The minister was, I would imagine, making a glancing observation and is entitled to some very wide latitude to address the terms, assertions and imputations in the question. Senator Payne, I call you to continue with the question.
Senator PAYNE: Thanks very much, Mr President, because, of course, I was specifically addressing the wording of Senator Polley's question and specifically pointing out to Senator Polley that what we have identified this week in the chamber is a number of programs with very specific tourism focus which are separate from JobKeeper, which are separate from the political questions they are asking in that context and which are about protecting and maintaining jobs in tourism.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have Senator Wong on a point of order.
Senator Wong: The point of order is relevance The question goes to priorities and why you're cutting JobKeeper and cutting wages but spending money on advertising and a private plane—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I heard Senator Payne say that she had concluded her answer. Indeed, Senator Payne has concluded her answer.
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:31): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Birmingham. I thank the minister for making available the minutes of the last three PFAS Taskforce meetings. The minutes for each of these meetings end with a list of action items which show that, in 2020, the task force's achievements consisted of developing talking points and calling further meetings. Minister, can you point to one tangible achievement of the PFAS Taskforce in 2020 towards remediation, compensation or like-for-like relocation of affected residents living outside defence bases?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you directed your question to Senator Birmingham, but Senator Hume is the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, so I'm going to put the question to Senator Hume.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (14:32): I thank Senator Roberts for his question. Our first priority with managing PFAS contamination has consistently been to ensure the wellbeing of affected communities. The Australian government acknowledges that communities in areas where PFAS contamination has been detected are very concerned about how this may affect them. We have a commitment to break the exposure pathways through treatment of water and soil, ensuring that residents have access to safe drinking water and preventing further contamination. The Defence PFAS program spend to date is approximately $433 million, which includes investigation, remediation and management activities. Defence has also provided $45 million to other agencies in grants and transfers to enable research into health and remediation aspects. We continue to place a strong focus on the issue, with a further $83 million allocated for the financial year 2020-21.
PFAS has been used in hundreds of industrial applications and consumer products, such as carpeting, apparel, upholstery, food paper wrapping, firefighting foams and metal plating. Firefighting foams containing PFAS were a best-in-class product and were used widely by the Department of Defence and other firefighting agencies across the globe. The Department of Defence uses firefighting foam to protect human life and assets from emergency flammable liquid fires. Defence has leaned forward in managing the issue and has commenced detailed environmental investigations at 28 locations, and has finalised 25. Defence is also committed to supporting local communities affected by PFAS contamination and has initiated the following actions: broken PFAS exposure pathways and reduced the migration of PFAS from Defence sites by providing alternative drinking water supplies to 478 properties as well as installing or providing funding for 10 water treatment plants, treating over 5.4 billion litres of water.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:34): Instead of one achievement, I got a list of commitments, pathways, activities, spending, excuses and to-do lists, so let's move on to the second question. Minister, this week a new class-action lawsuit was lodged by the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community over PFAS contamination to their traditional lands in Jervis Bay. Does the minister accept that the time to take action is now, before government inaction forces more everyday Australians who've been caught in this nightmare into courts?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (14:34): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. The Jervis Bay issue is not one that I am familiar with. However, I can tell you that on 5 June 2020 the Federal Court of Australia approved the settlement approval applications for the three class actions relating to the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substance, the PFAS, contamination in communities near the RAAF Base Williamtown in Williamtown, New South Wales; the Army Aviation Centre in Oakley, Queensland; and the RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory. On 16 June last year the court published its reasons. Defence Legal currently has 126 open non-litigated claims and three litigated claims that are not class actions. On 15 April last year a PFAS class action was filed in the Federal Court by Shine Lawyers in relation to property owners in delineated areas around defence bases in Pearce, Richmond—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Hume! Senator Roberts, a final supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:36): When will the government begin offering compensation, remediation and like-for-like relocation for affected residents?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (14:36): Thank you, Senator Roberts. Because the issue is currently being litigated it is inappropriate to comment right now. As I said on 2 February 2021 this new PFAS class action was filed in the Federal Court by Shine Lawyers in relation to persons and entities with an interest in land situated in that delineated area around Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay in New South Wales. The first case management hearing has not yet been scheduled. As this is a matter for a court, we can really comment no further.
Pacific Islands Forum
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, who I note is in particularly good form today. Can the minister inform the Senate on the outcomes of the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Retreat?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:37): I thank Senator Scarr for his question. It was a great pleasure yesterday to join, with Prime Minister Morrison, the Pacific leaders for the special Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Retreat. I particularly want to thank Prime Minister Natano of Tuvalu for his strong leadership as forum chair during a very difficult period with COVID-19. It was the first meeting of Pacific island forum leaders since the pandemic began and the first ever to be held virtually.
Leaders considered two issues of vital performance to our Pacific family: our COVID-19 pandemic response and the appointment of a new forum secretary-general. Firstly, let me acknowledge and warmly welcome my friend Henry Puna, the former Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, as the new PIF secretary-general. Australia looks forward to continuing its very warm and productive relationship with Mr Puna in his new role. I thank and acknowledge the great service of the outgoing secretary-general, Dame Meg Taylor of Papua New Guinea, who led the forum with drive and purpose over the last six years. Let me also acknowledge the other candidates, also friends of Australia, who put themselves forward, and thank them for their willingness to contribute in this role.
Together Pacific leaders have acted decisively to escape the worst health effects of COVID-19. The economic and fiscal effects of the pandemic on the Pacific, however, have been significant. This week leaders committed to working together towards sustainable economic recovery in our region, including restoring vital air and sea connectivity. Underpinning that, they emphasised the need for global cooperation on the critical issue of equitable and affordable access to vaccines. Leaders made clear their objective for full vaccine coverage for all Pacific countries and committed to working together to ensure timely and equitable distribution of vaccines across our region.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, a supplementary question?
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (14:38): Can the minister advise the Senate on how Australia will work in partnership with the Pacific Islands Forum and members to progress those outcomes?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:39): Pacific Islands Forum members will continue to work closely together to safely support the vital Pacific humanitarian pathway on COVID-19, which is ensuring the movement of essential supplies and personnel and will then enable people to move safely as economic recovery grows. It's tourists, it's more Pacific workers, it's students, it's family members. It's essential for our shared economic recovery.
We're working in a partnership with our Pacific friends to support continued operation of the aviation sector in the vast, blue Pacific continent. It's an essential underpinning for economic recovery and to support safe travel. Importantly, I'm pleased to inform the Senate that leaders also endorsed Australia's proposal for a formal annual meeting of Pacific women leaders as part of the PIF program, adding to meetings of foreign ministers, trade ministers, economic ministers and so on. It's added to the formal forum meeting agenda. It will drive even stronger political focus on gender equality— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, a final supplementary question?
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (14:40): Will the minister advise the Senate on forum leaders' consideration of Pacific Island countries' access to a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:40): Of course, leaders were focused on emphasising the critical importance of productive partnerships for the timely and equitable distribution of vaccines, and the government's regional vaccine access and health security initiative will contribute very positively on this objective. We announced formally that Australia will support Pacific island countries to achieve full population coverage with safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. That will contribute strongly to our important regional partnership on vaccines and was very warmly welcomed by leaders. Senator Seselja and I have been discussing Australia's commitments individually with respective leaders across the Pacific over the past month.
It will also build on Australia's contribution to the global COVAX Facility fund for developing countries, facilitating delivery of more than a million doses to Pacific island countries by the middle of this year. Our package is end to end. It includes helping secure doses and technical support for safe and effective vaccine rollout, including supply chain distribution, and assessments of vaccine safety, efficacy and quality and capacity building for health workforces. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:41): My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. The independent Climate Targets Panel recently found that so much of our carbon budget has been spent. Australia would need to double our 2030 targets to at least a 50 per cent reduction by 2030 to do our fair share of limiting global warming to well below two degrees. Is the government still committed to limiting global warming to well below two degrees? And, if so, will you accept the Climate Targets Panel's findings and increase Australia's 2030 targets before President Biden's climate summit on 22 April?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:42): I thank Senator Waters for her question. The government is indeed committed to the objectives of the Paris Agreement, to which we are a signatory, which include targets in relation to limits on global warming. We of course look forward to working cooperatively with other nations in relation to the work towards those targets, doing as Australia has done time and time again, which is to meet and exceed the commitments we have made. In relation to the Paris Agreement we have made 2030 commitments commensurate with that agreement, and all indications and analyses show that we are on track to once again meet and exceed those targets.
As senators may be aware, Prime Minister Morrison and President Biden spoke earlier today in a warm conversation, canvassing a number of different issues, including cooperation in relation to matters of climate change. Indeed, the government looks forward to receiving further details about the Biden administration's summit and to formulating our participation in that summit once we have received those further details.
So our position is certainly one of continuing to invest, as we have, in the technologies and pathways to achieve reductions. It's investment by Australian businesses, Australian households, Australian industry and Australian governments that have put Australia in the position that sees the uptake of renewable energy in this country, leading much of the rest of the world. It has delivered reductions in emissions ahead of the OECD averages over a period of time. Through continued investment, we will achieve the technological breakthroughs that will enable us to move beyond the types of successes being seen in relation to energy generation and into the other spheres of emissions that need to be tackled in order to achieve more-ambitious targets into the future. That's why we've made a $1.9 billion investment into future low-emissions technologies and why we look forward to working with partners like the United States in delivering on that package. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a supplementary question?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:44): Given the views expressed on social media by Mr Craig Kelly, Senator Rennick and other Liberal backbenchers, does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Bureau of Meteorology?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:44): The government, indeed, has confidence in the Bureau of Meteorology, in the CSIRO, in our agencies who provide advice and information to government, and in the agencies whose analysis has demonstrated that not only has Australia met and exceeded the commitments we made under the second Kyoto commitment period but we're on track to meet and exceed the commitments we've made under the Paris Agreement. I realise that these are facts that are 'inconvenient truths' for the Australian Greens, if I can use that phrase, but the evidence is very clear that Australia has achieved what many other nations have not to date, and that is, within our country, through domestic action, be able to meet and exceed the commitments that we have made.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator BIRMINGHAM: The investments that our government is making are about ensuring that we maintain that track record of success and delivery into the future.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! There's a little bit too much background noise. I was struggling to hear the minister. Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:45): Does the Prime Minister accept the evidence given by the Bureau of Meteorology to a recent Senate estimates committee that, under current targets, Australia is on track for up to 4.4 degrees of warming by the end of this century?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:46): I've learnt a lot of things in my time in this place, and one is to make sure that, when questions like that are framed, it's always best to go and check the full context in which such analysis might have been given and such questions may have been answered.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Birmingham! Senator Waters, on a point of order?
Senator Waters: President, I can read the quote from the bureau if the minister requires.
The PRESIDENT: That's not a point of order, Senator Waters. I'll call the minister to continue. Senator Birmingham.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Clearly, it depends upon the types of assumptions that are being talked about. Obviously, in relation to climate science, as I said before, we follow the evidence in relation to the work of the bureau and other agencies in looking at projections of what outcomes may occur. A huge driving part of that relates not just to what Australia does but to what the rest of the world does in terms of their emissions profile as well. That's the driving reason behind our investment in technologies, because how you shift the whole world's emissions profile is how you actually tackle this issue, and you do it by achieving technological breakthroughs that ensure every country embraces lower emissions technology— (Time expired)
Economy
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:47): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Payne. How will cutting the wages of thousands of Australian workers help the economic recovery when wages growth is already at record lows?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:47): I think Senator Birmingham and I, in the broad, have responded to this question today. The government has had in place a very strong system of support for Australian businesses, for Australian employers over the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is support that was absolutely essential during the worst periods of the pandemic. But, importantly, there needs to be a path beyond the worst periods of the pandemic in 2020 and through 2021, so the government, in planning and in reviewing its position, will work very carefully with employers, with industry and with employer organisations, as it has done, in fact, right through the pandemic period, as we make those decisions. Most importantly, though, we'll make them responsibly and thoughtfully and in a considered fashion—not as we might have seen from those opposite.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:49): Can the minister confirm that schedule 3, part 5, clause 19 of the Morrison government's own industrial relations legislation allows for a wage cut?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:49): I thank Senator Ayres for drawing my attention to schedule 3, part 5, clause 19 of the legislation. I don't have that particular part of the legislation with me. But what I can confirm is that those opposite are running a campaign against this bill. They are running a campaign against a bill which is about adapting our successful JobKeeper flexibilities and which is about reforms that will allow employers and employees in sectors to work together and enable employers to have more flexible arrangements. Those decisions are ones which the government has made in broad consultation—many of those consultations were held last year by the Minister for Industrial Relations—but those opposite are completely opposed to any engagement on those grounds. We reject that premise. The government's plan is clear, and the government's plan is founded in a strong confidence in Australia's future—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Payne, I will give you an opportunity to conclude, but I have Senator Ayres on a point of order.
Senator Ayres: The point of order is relevance. The question was very straightforward. I understand the minister doesn't have her own industrial relations legislation in front of her, but the question was: 'Does the provision allow for a wage cut?'
The PRESIDENT: Not having it in front of me either, Senator Ayres, I think the minister, from my hearing of her answer, was talking about that issue and issues that I would consider directly relevant to it. I think the minister had five seconds left in which to continue. I've allowed you to restate the specific nature of your question—oh, the minister has nothing else to add. Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:49): When the Morrison government removes the test that requires enterprise bargaining agreements to be better off overall, doesn't that mean that workers don't have to be better off overall?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:51): It's very clear to us, it's very clear to Australians who hear the mantra of those opposite, that there are a number of false claims being made about the proposed changes to the better off overall test, the BOOT, under the enterprise bargaining framework. For example, the claim that we are removing the BOOT—that's not correct. The industrial relations reform bill does not remove the better off overall test. It continues to apply to each individual employee, current and prospective, to ensure that they are left better off overall under an enterprise agreement, compared to the relevant modern award. Are we allowing each employer to now ignore the better off overall test? No, we are not. One of the proposed changes builds upon the existing public interest exception in the Fair Work Act, which was of course introduced by Labor.
These changes are a temporary measure that allow the Fair Work Commission to approve some agreements that don't pass the BOOT in limited circumstances, to support workplaces that have been negatively impacted by COVID-19—and where their employees and representatives agree to do so. (Time expired)
Mining Industry
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:52): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Senator Ruston. Can the minister update the Senate on the important contribution of the resources sector to our economy, particularly in rural and regional Australia? What risks threaten the sector's continued economic contribution to our country?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:52): I thank Senator Canavan for his question and his very strong interest and advocacy on behalf of our very important resources sector. Like the rest of the Morrison-McCormack government, we understand what a huge role the resources sector plays in creating jobs, especially in rural and regional Australia. It's an absolute pillar of our economic prosperity. It is crucial because it employs more than 264,000 Australians—hardworking Australians. Our coal exports contributed $43.8 billion to the Australian economy last year alone. These export earnings help to pay for the infrastructure that we need—the hospitals, the schools and all of the things that Australians obviously rely on. The sector is absolutely critical for our economic prosperity, and it has been absolutely steadfast in its contribution to our economic recovery from the COVID pandemic.
Yes, Senator Canavan, there are some very significant risks to the sector. In front of us, right now, there are risks from those sitting opposite and their state colleagues in the Queensland government. The recent High Court decision in relation to the New Acland mine, in the Darling Downs region of Queensland, has exposed exactly that—and the Queensland government's failures to support the resources sector in that state. New Hope have been battling for five years to try and resolve the planning approvals for the expansion of that mine. I'll quote New Hope's chief executive, who said:
What we need from the government—
the Queensland government—
is a roadmap for how we get the project up and running because more delays equates to more job losses.
It is absolutely essential that this world-class operator, the kind of operator that we want operating in Australia, is able to get on with the job of making investments and creating jobs for Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, a supplementary question?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:54): I'm glad the minister referred to the New Acland Mine, because there are 500 jobs at risk there, thanks to the twiddling of the thumbs of the Queensland government. Can the minister outline how project delays threaten jobs in regional Queensland?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:55): Indeed, Senator Canavan, it is the kind of lack of support that we've seen from the Queensland government around this mine that has seen New Hope in this position. It's because of a lack of support for our resources sector. New Hope originally lodged their application to expand this mine site in 2007, and it is still waiting for that approval. So you don't need to be Einstein to understand that the Queensland government does not support these sorts of projects in Queensland.
As you said, Senator Canavan, 500 direct jobs will be created by the extension of this particular mine. New Hope, unfortunately, was forced to make 150 workers redundant on the back of the fact that it was not able to get the approval to extend this mine. As Minister Pitt said yesterday, workers trying to plan their lives around the mine's future are now back to square one. How on earth can that be helping the COVID recovery and the people of Queensland, who deserve our help in getting jobs? (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, a final supplementary question?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:56): Can the minister also advise why it is so important to ensure that coal jobs remain in Queensland?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:56): Clearly a secure and stable coal industry is something that's going to support regional Queensland. It supports regional Australia. It is absolutely critical in job creation and economic prosperity, particularly in rural and regional Australia.
Unfortunately, the case of this particular mine site, the New Acland Mine, highlights that Labor is particularly erratic when it comes to any commentary it makes about the resources sector. Those opposite need to stand up for the resources sector, and I thank those of them that do. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. What we need is a united and demonstrated fight for the people who live in our rural and regional areas who need the jobs that are created by projects such as this. They need to stop walking both sides of the street. You can't have one policy for inner-city suburbs and a different policy when you actually get out there in the regions, where these jobs really matter. The livelihoods of individuals really matter.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: Yes, I've been there, Senator Watt.
COVID-19: Western Australia
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:57): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Reynolds. In response to the Western Australian government's decision to protect its citizens against a deadly COVID-19 strain by instituting a five-day lockdown, the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton, attacked Premier McGowan, saying that the decision was 'not a realistic approach', 'politically motivated' and would 'send businesses broke'. Is this the position of the Morrison government?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:58): I really have no additional input. I think Minister Dutton's words speak for themselves.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, a supplementary question?
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:58): I'm nearly speechless. Alright. I do have a supplementary question. Premier McGowan has pointed out that the federal government have abdicated their responsibility for federal quarantine, saying:
… it has fallen to the states to perform the role that Mr Dutton should be performing under the Constitution.
Minister, isn't Premier McGowan right?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:59): I thank Senator Sterle for that question. I think there are some misunderstandings on both sides of the rabbit-proof fence on this issue. The ABF has legislative responsibilities for the Customs Act and the Migration Act to clear people travelling from overseas. From that point, the responsibility for passengers passes to states and territories for quarantine and onward domestic travel as relevant. National cabinet, including Premier McGowan, agreed to create hotel quarantine programs from 27 March. All first ministers, including Premier McGowan, agreed to this. This should come as no surprise given this arrangement has been agreed by the WA state government since 27 March.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, final supplementary question?
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (15:00): Western Australia has taken in more than their fair share of stranded Australians returning home. Why are Mr Morrison's ministers from the eastern states attacking the hard work of West Australians in stepping up when his government has stepped away?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (15:00): I thank Senator Sterle for that question. He couldn't even keep a straight face when he was asking that question, and he's still laughing at the hypocrisy of that question. On 27 March all first ministers agreed to these quarantine hotel arrangements.
Senator Sterle interjecting—
Senator REYNOLDS: Nobody believes you, Senator Sterle. But in all seriousness, the state government agreed to these arrangements in March. The government has looked very seriously at this issue. Hotels remain the best possible place for quarantine, because people have individual rooms, people have their own facilities and that is where the health support and all of the other wraparound support is located, so it is very clearly the right place to be.
Senator Birmingham: I ask that further questions be placed on notice the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Tourism Industry
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:01): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by Senators Birmingham and Payne to the questions asked by myself and Senators Sheldon and Green.
I will say from the outset, from the response from Minister Payne to my question relating to funding and support for the tourism sector in regional Australia, we obviously touched some real nerves there. It's so disappointing when I look at my own home state of Tasmania, with 42,000 Tasmanians either directly or indirectly being employed and supported by the tourism sector, and there are no answers from this government in terms of the support and what's going to happen to these businesses when they turn off JobKeeper in March. It's 52 days away and they still cannot provide any answers as to their plan and their support for these many, many businesses that are under threat.
This sector is in crisis and it's not just us who are making this point. I want to turn to Tom Manwaring, Chair of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, who said, 'The tourism sector is in crisis and will be decimated if there is no further support from the federal government.' It's not just those on this side of the chamber that are seeking support and answers from this government.
Under the Regional Tourism Recovery Package Tasmania was supposed to receive $13.5 million to go to that sector. We couldn't get an answer today, four months after the announcement, four months after the photo opportunity. Yet again there's been no follow-up, no response today as to how much of that money has been rolled out. I have been talking on a regular basis to not only the tourism sector but the hospitality sector in my home state. They are in crisis. People's mental health as well as their businesses are facing this crisis, it seems, without real support from this government. In fact, the only time the minister really got excited, when she was trying to answer some of these questions that we've put to her today, was when we hit a nerve about the priority of this government—that is, they will pay for the ex-minister to fly around Europe with his own private doctor, they will spend money on advertising, but they're not prepared to give security to a very important sector in regional areas around this country.
It is not just in my home state, but I do want to talk about the effect on my home state. I'd like to know what we're going to tell the tourism sector in the regional towns of St Helens, Coles Bay, Strahan and Stanley and at our iconic sites like Cradle Mountain and the Freycinet National Park. What about the Port Arthur Historic Site, the Overland and MONA? These regional areas rely on tourism. They're the hook that gets people to travel to those destinations and to spend money to boost the local economy. It is about time that we saw some real leadership from the Prime Minister.
It was so disappointing today from a minister representing someone from that other place. You would think she would have at least some answers in relation to the regional tourism recovery package. Surely they would expect that, after four months, Tasmanian senators would be interested and would want to know. We have been contacted by the tourism sector, and we're reaching out to them to see what support is still needed. Even larger businesses are affected. The Federal Group, who operate in the hospitality and gaming industry and provide convention facilities, have empty convention centres. They are still having to maintain those businesses and their premises, without any plan for what will happen into the future with further lockdowns. Even the Premier of Tasmania today advised that, over the next 12 months, there will be further lockdowns. So where is the support and why isn't the Premier of Tasmania calling on this weak government to do more for Tasmania? (Time expired)
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:06): I thank Senator Polley for raising an issue that is so vitally important, particularly to regional areas. Tourism and travel are vital to our regions and vital to our economy. They have been for a long time and they continue to be, particularly during these troubling times of COVID. I want to highlight that I truly do understand the impact COVID has had on this sector. Just on New Year's Eve I saw in my home town that every single caravan park was full to the brim until 5 pm, when the Victorian government, with no prior notice, announced that they would be shutting the borders. Every single caravan park in my home town emptied within four hours. In fact, there were reports of traffic jams and near misses, with cars struggling to make the border by the deadline. That is the impact that kneejerk and sudden reactions and sudden, ill-thought-through and unplanned announcements can have on our industries.
I have written to all state premiers and to the Prime Minister imploring a consistent approach to COVID lockdowns and to state border closures. Define what a hotspot is. Deal with hotspots. Manage and contain the crisis so that the rest of Australia can get on with their business. Tourism is one of those vital businesses. I commend our government for today launching a week-long tourism advertising blitz that is encouraging people to 'holiday here this year'. It makes sense. Australia has some of the best holiday locations in the world, as shown in a normal year by the vast number of international tourists who come here to see what we've got to offer. Well, this year I call on every Australian to pack up their car and go for a holiday in the regions.
Our government is spending $5 million marketing this push, and it is going to inspire Australians to holiday. But we've already done a lot to support the tourism and travel sector in this country as well as supporting our aviation sector. We have recently announced the COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program, with $128 million available in grants to tourist and travel agents. We also have the $50 million Recovery for Regional Tourism program and a further $100 million earmarked for tourism related infrastructure through the Building Better Regions Fund, directly benefitting the tourism industry in the regions. This is what Senator Polley claims we have turned our back on. Well, we have not.
Yes, tourism has been impacted negatively by COVID, but there are green shoots. Already we are seeing improvement in domestic tourism, with Queensland up 10 per cent. Western Australia was up five per cent prior to the latest lockdown. Tasmania, Senator Polley's own state, was recording a 47 per cent increase. This is all good news for domestic tourism. It is my genuine hope that domestic tourism continues to be embraced post COVID and once the international borders open again. As I said before, we have so much to offer people, and our regional areas welcome people with open arms. Our regional areas have actually fared better than some of the capital cities through COVID, and the tourism businesses in those areas have welcomed that. Not only are the regions less reliant on interstate travel but we have benefited from people in those capital city population centres looking to escape and take a break in their home states. It has been great.
Of the $128 million targeted grant program I previously mentioned, we have already got $54 million out the door to travel agents. We stand united with our domestic tourist industry. We are still working with our travel agents to find more ways we can support them so that they can continue to do what they do best: to get people out the door and on holiday and, particularly through this crisis, doing so in our regions, in our glorious country.
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (15:11): On Tuesday the minister spruiked a number of programs that this government is supposedly using to support tourism and regional tourism. My question to the minister today was simply asking how much of that money has been received by affected businesses. We know that this government is known for making announcements and not delivering, for sending out press releases but not being there to support people in times of need.
The only thing this government has done to save jobs that will be lost when JobKeeper ends is send out press releases about things they are going to do in the future. The minister even talked about earmarking future spending. Those words will be hollow to people who are in Cairns right now and are losing their jobs. We know that 3,600 businesses in Cairns are relying on JobKeeper. Those are thousands of jobs that will be lost in 52 days, when JobKeeper ends. Fifty-two days might seem like a long time to this government, but it is not a long time for a business or a worker who is looking at the prospect of losing their job. In fact, we know there are many businesses in Cairns and around the country that are making decisions right now about making workers redundant. They need to make that decision now; they will not be making that decision in 52 days time. Sadly, today a major operator in Cairns announced that 90 jobs will be lost today. They are considering a further 200 jobs being cut when JobKeeper ends. That's almost 300 jobs in a two-month period that will be lost because this government is withdrawing support.
I've said this before in the Senate and I make the case again: Cairns is a unique region and it is uniquely reliant on international tourism. Seventy per cent of the tourism spend is from international tourists in Cairns. When you speak to tourism operators, as I have done on many occasions over the last few months, they insist that the domestic market will not make up this shortfall in any way, shape or form. They are reliant on international tourists. This idea that they can pivot is nonsense. They will not recover until international tourism recovers, so they're asking for some help. They're asking the government for help.
It should be noted that members of the government have alluded to possible support or even extending JobKeeper. The member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, said extending JobKeeper was 'a no-brainer'. That's what he told people in Cairns, but that is not what this government is prepared to do. The member for Dawson, George Christensen, called for an extension and also for additional support for the Whitsundays, another area that is incredibly reliant on international tourism. The member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien, has also called for an extension and for further support for tourism. I say this because what we know is that not only is this government not listening to workers and businesses in Cairns and other places in Queensland but they're not even listening to their own local members.
If you are a Queenslander and you come into this place and say that you represent Queenslanders but you don't stand up for these workers and call for more support for extending JobKeeper in a targeted way that supports these businesses, then you are on the wrong side. You are not on the side of these workers. These workers are in an incredibly desperate situation. We know that many of these jobs will be lost in the next couple of weeks. It's a sad time to be in Cairns. We know the minister for tourism is planning to go to Cairns on Monday next week to make a speech and to talk about all the consultation that they've been doing. My message to this government, the senators opposite and the minister for tourism is: do no not come to Cairns empty-handed. These are jobs that rely on international tourism and these workers are relying on you. So do not come with excuses. Do not come empty-handed. (Time expired)
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (15:17): It's great to be back here in 2021 with my first speech on a motion to take note of answers. What a time to be alive. The distinction between this side of the chamber and that side has never been more stark, because this side of the chamber believes in progress. This side of the chamber wants to take Australia forward. What does that side of the chamber want? All they want is to continue on JobKeeper and JobSeeker. There are plenty of ways to keep people in work, like by building infrastructure, which is something that state governments need to be doing. On Tuesday, the RBA came out and issued another $100 billion in bonds. Let's build infrastructure. Stop tearing dams down in Queensland. If you want to get jobs out there in the regions, let's get them into coalmining, farming, logging and fishing.
It's interesting that Senator Sheldon raised the Chairman of Virgin Australia in his first question. I actually remember what she said last week in the Senate inquiry as well. She wanted a coordinated framework between the states to—guess what?—keep the borders open. This is the thing about the state governments; there's been a real contrast. The Liberal government of New South Wales and the Premier of New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, have kept the borders open the whole time, with the one exception of Victoria when it did blow up out of control. But the state Labor premiers keep locking down over—wait for it, wait for it—one. One case. Now, what kind of confidence do these people have in their own health systems when they panic over one case? What are their contact tracing and testing systems like and, more to the point, what are their quarantine systems like when they have to panic? The Queensland CMO couldn't understand how the virus could possibly spread in a hotel with ducted air conditioning. Seriously, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out. Did that do daily testing? Did the state premiers do daily testing—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, could you resume your seat? I have listened really carefully. The motion to take note was on questions from Senators Polley and Green to Ministers Birmingham and Payne. Whilst they did go to JobKeeper and JobSeeker, they were largely focused on tourism. You've mentioned JobSeeker and JobKeeper once, but you're really getting way off the topic now.
Senator RENNICK: Madam Deputy President, I apologise: I will be more specific. Just last week, when the borders reopened, tourism jumped by 100 per cent in Queensland. The southerners wanted to come back to Queensland, which I must say I was quite surprised about. I talked to a cabbie here on my way down during the week and he was very angry with Queensland. He said that, given what the Premier had done in locking them out previously, he wasn't going to go back to Queensland for holidays. The whole reason why I'm talking about keeping borders open is so that we can get the tourists who would normally go overseas and have a holiday somewhere in the Caribbean to come to our beautiful city of Cairns, North Queensland, outback Queensland, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast and, of course, my homeland of the Darling Downs.
We want to see the southerners come up to Queensland because we love tourism. When I grew up, tourism was the fastest-growing industry in Queensland. The late, great Premier Sir Jo Bjelke-Petersen turned Queensland into the tourist capital of the world. We had World Expo 88 and we even had George Harrison of the Beatles buy an island up there; everyone was flocking to the islands. Unfortunately, under Labor, tourism in the regions was destroyed.
They destroyed maternity wards in the regions. That would be another way to create jobs in the regions. You don't always have to go back to the industry you've been in. Maybe you could think about restoring some health services and reopening those 30 maternity wards that Labor have closed for the last 30 years. But can I just point out that the federal government has spent $28 billion in direct economic support for homes and businesses in Queensland—more than three times the $8 billion spent by the Premier of Queensland, Anna Palaszczuk.
You cannot continue to do lockdowns on short notice. As you can tell, I got my hair cut on the weekend. I was talking to my barber, and he lost 1,500 bucks on the weekend that we did that three-day lockdown—$1,500! Industries cannot survive if we don't have a clear and coordinated framework between the states. The states are the ones which perform health—that is in the Constitution. Or, should I say, that's not in the Constitution, and this is the thing that Labor keeps forgetting to mention. They like to say that we have to do quarantine, but, guess what? We don't have to do health, but we give $60 billion every year in block payments to state governments. So, if state governments want to give back the $60 billion, we'll take quarantine and health, because they go hand-in-hand. (Time expired)
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (15:22): Well, what interesting comments on taking note! If we look at the response from Minister Birmingham, representing the Prime Minister, clearly we have the situation in Australia where there is no aviation plan. Not at any stage, nor in question time, has the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister answered with a plan to make sure that we keep people connected with jobs in the aviation industry. This is a critical industry for our economic future and a critical industry right now.
We have heard comments from many sides of this parliament and this Senate about the necessity of ensuring that we keep the tourism industry well serviced. That includes the universities, and I include business generally, and I include the mining industry. Servicing the bloodlines and the veins of those industries is the aviation industry. We have to make sure that we have a plan to keep people connected with those critical jobs that require experience and capacity.
The government says, 'Well, that's okay. Just trust us. We've done such a good job so far.' But go to the million casual workers who were excluded from JobKeeper and go to the 30,000 university professionals who have been lost—the brains of our future and the capacity to build strength. They train engineers in aviation and skill people in the very important industries that make this country tick. We clearly have a government which makes so much about making an announcement but is so little about substance. It hasn't thought about who is going to staff the planes, who is going to clean the planes, who is going to pack the planes, who is going to maintain the planes, who is going to direct those planes and who is going to book the planes. Quite clearly, from comments made by industry, unions and commentators, this industry is in dire straits, yet this government puts its head in the sand.
James Goodwin of the Australian Airports Association said, at an aviation hearing last week:
… it's clear that the government needs to formulate a plan for Australia's aviation industry over the next six to 12 months and beyond, both domestically and internationally. Our sector has doubled down at every turn and executed everything asked of them, but this is coming at significant and unsustainable costs.
He went on to say:
I would use this opportunity to make is that this is in an important time for the government to reconsider extending its support for the aviation sector. This is a whole-of-government situation. Airports and aviation affect the entire community and the entire economy. There are so many flow-on benefits from having a viable aviation network. …But I would certainly call for JobKeeper to be extended, certainly for another six months, for people within the aviation sector.
That is from industry, the people who know. Common sense tells you that when you have an industry that doesn't keep connected, experienced and knowledgeable workers, there is a consequence. There's a consequence for all Australians, and of course a consequence for those many thousands of workers in the aviation industry. In this aviation industry, the hundreds of hours that have already been lost come at a great cost of experience and knowledge. And that cost has come as a result of direct decisions by this government in its failure to turn around and act.
But let's not say that they haven't acted everywhere. They've certainly picked their favourites. They've turned around and made decisions for companies like Rex. They've certainly given special treatment to that company, who received $54 million—untied grants to a foreign airline. If you were to make the same contributions, untied, to Virgin—or Qantas, but Virgin in this case—it would be over a billion dollars. But did they? No. This industry is critical to the survival of our economy and the prosperity of our country. It's important that we turn around and have the right answers. And I'm sorry to say that for all those aviation workers to become fishermen and farmers is just not sensible.
Question agreed to.
COVID-19: Vaccine
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:27): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Health in the Senate (Senator Colbeck) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to COVID-19 vaccines.
Well, here we have the government acknowledging that mRNA vaccines are so important that they've gone out and bought another 10 million doses. Given that you need two doses to make it effective, that's enough for another five million people. But beyond the fact that yes, they're having a few discussions with some people around whether they will invest in manufacturing mRNA vaccine here in this country, they can't give me an answer. They can't tell me.
We're still in the pandemic. We know what's happening in Western Australia. We've just seen another case come up in Victoria. So, we know we have a long way to go before this pandemic is over and its impacts are no longer felt in this country. That's going to be a long time. Not only are mRNA vaccines proving to be highly effective, and certainly more effective than the AstraZeneca vaccine, but also they're going to be really important and will revolutionise drug manufacturing, so we're being told. So, it's in Australia's interests to manufacture those vaccines and develop the capacity here, because we are going to need those vaccines into the future. We also have a responsibility to make sure that our neighbours are getting the best vaccines they can get. A manufacturing capacity here would also assist our Pacific neighbours, whom the government say they are committed to assisting.
We need to establish this facility as soon as possible so that we have that capacity, and it needs to be publicly owned. We as a community need to be assured that this facility is publicly owned so that the government has the capacity to ensure that these vaccines will be manufactured here in Australia and available to Australians and as part of our global contribution.
I asked the minister particularly about the Pfizer vaccine and who will be able to get that, because all the government will say is that it's going to be available for the first phase of the rollout strategy, phase 1a, which is around 680,000 people or 1.4 million doses. They will get the Pfizer vaccine. That is, of course, essential, because they are the most vulnerable community members. But the government won't say who then gets the Pfizer vaccine, which is the most efficient and effective vaccine and the first vaccine that's going to be available in this country, when it eventually becomes available if they manage to meet their time lines and deal with export controls in Europe. Why won't the government say who else gets the Pfizer vaccine? We then have phase 1b, phase 2a et cetera—the five phases. Who gets this vaccine?
They're also saying the AstraZeneca vaccine is the one that will go out to remote communities. Since when has it been beyond the wit of Australia to be able to get important supplies out to Aboriginal communities? It should not be beyond our wit to get the Pfizer vaccine out to remote Aboriginal communities. We know our First Nations communities are some of the most vulnerable communities. They're very high up on the list in our phased approach to rolling out our vaccines. We should be committing to rolling out Pfizer vaccines to vulnerable First Nations communities, because we can do it. Australians pride themselves on their ingenuity. Why are we not rolling out the most effective vaccine to First Nations communities? I want to know—and so do other Australians—where the remainder of the first 10 million doses are going and then where the new allocation is going.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee
Delegated Legislation Monitor
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:32): I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 2 of 2021 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
In particular, I would like to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's comments regarding five legislative instruments made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. These instruments address a range of subject matters within ASIC's portfolio by providing for exemptions from and modifications to certain provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 and other acts of parliament. While they alter the operation of primary legislation made by this parliament, these instruments appear to be intended to remain in force for substantial periods of time ranging from five to 10 years. This contravenes the committee's longstanding expectation that instruments which modify or exempt persons or entities from the operation of primary legislation should cease to operate no more than three years after they commence. The committee considers that a shorter sunsetting period is essential to ensure that there is a minimum degree of regular parliamentary oversight of such instruments. Since October last year the committee has been corresponding with both the Treasurer and the then Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology to resolve its scrutiny concerns regarding each of these instruments.
The committee has also lodged notices of motion to disallow each of the instruments in order to provide it with additional time to resolve its scrutiny concerns. The committee considers that these instruments raise broader systemic concerns about the application of ASIC's exemption and modification powers. Accordingly, in December the committee drew the systemic concerns to the attention of the Treasurer. Since then, the Treasurer has continued to engage constructively with the committee in recognition of the importance of parliamentary oversight of such a measure. Most recently, the Treasurer formulated a list of principles which he considers should be taken into account by ASIC when determining the duration of instruments which provide for exemptions or modifications to primary legislation.
On behalf of the committee, can I thank the Treasurer for his ongoing and considered engagement with the committee in relation to this systemic issue. However, this chamber has tasked the committee to ensure that all disallowable delegated legislation is subject to rigorous and consistent scrutiny against the principles set out in standing order 23. These are the parameters that have long underpinned the work of our committee. To scrutinise ASIC instruments in the manner proposed by the Treasurer would represent a significant departure from the committee's longstanding practice in interpreting these scrutiny principles. This has resulted in a consistent and clear approach. Indeed, it would open up the prospect of other proposals from other ministers in other departments for their own sets of principles. It would also mean that the committee holds instruments made by ASIC to a different standard to all other disallowable delegated legislation. The committee will not do this. The committee has, therefore, requested that each of the five ASIC instruments be amended to limit their duration. This is to ensure that the parliament is given a regular opportunity to review and scrutinise modifications or exemptions to primary legislation that it has enacted. The committee has resolved not to withdraw the notices of motion to disallow the instruments to highlight the significance of its scrutiny concerns.
The Treasurer's response to the committee's request will inform the committee's consideration of whether to withdraw its notices of motion to disallow these instruments. These scrutiny concerns go beyond these five instruments, and the committee takes this opportunity to ask all ministers and all lawmakers to keep these systemic concerns in mind in the future. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 2 of 2021 to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Report
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the issues facing diaspora communities in Australia, together with a Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:38): I rise as chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to speak on the report for the committee's inquiry into issues facing diaspora communities in Australia. This has been a wide-ranging inquiry. Our terms of reference covered support for diaspora community organisations, safety concerns for diaspora communities, barriers to the full participation of diaspora communities in Australia's democratic and social institutions, and opportunities to strengthen communication and partnerships between government and diaspora communities. We wanted to hear the voices of those in our diaspora communities and to give a voice to those who don't always have one. We received rich evidence on all of these aspects and more. We heard of challenges, but also the varied and substantial contributions made by diaspora communities, as well as the importance of recognising and celebrating these contributions.
The committee received 90 written submissions. It held six public hearings via teleconference from 29 September to 6 November 2020. We heard from a variety of stakeholders, with perspectives ranging from the community to the national level. The committee is incredibly grateful to the groups and individuals who took the time to provide written submissions and appear before the committee. The strong response from community organisations in particular is a testament to their deep dedication to advocating for the needs of their communities. In total, the committee has made 18 recommendations for the government's consideration.
The committee recognises that the diversity of Australia's diaspora community is one of its key strengths. Almost half of Australia's population either was born overseas or has at least one parent who was born overseas. Diaspora communities make valuable contributions to Australia's society and are also able to positively impact on Australia's relationship with their home countries. The committee agrees that an inclusive and celebratory approach to multicultural affairs is appropriate. This celebration can take a variety of forms and deserves further consideration at all levels of government.
The importance of diaspora community organisations was evident to the committee. These groups provide crucial support to individuals, families and communities and often act as a bridge to government. The committee heard that many of these organisations rely on financial support from the Commonwealth to deliver their services. Many groups perceived a shift from a more community based funding model to the funding of a small number of large organisations as intermediaries, which presents certain challenges. This includes a lack of flexibility to enable smaller organisations to use funding for their community-specific needs. The committee understands that there can be efficiencies in using large organisations but is concerned by evidence that this may inadvertently disadvantage grassroots community organisations. The committee therefore recommended that the relevant departments take steps to ensure that they do not inadvertently disadvantage or exclude smaller and emerging community organisations.
Related to this, the committee thought it notable that many witnesses described the need for capacity building for community organisations wishing to access government funding. Some appeared to be unaware of the support already available. The committee welcomed the support available as a component of the Settlement Engagement and Transition Support Program. It recommended that Home Affairs ensure that this support is appropriately targeted and publicised.
Turning to safety concerns, the committee was disturbed by evidence concerning reports of foreign interference targeting diaspora communities, individuals and some media organisations. Despite not forming an explicit part of the terms of reference, foreign interference and its impact upon diaspora communities in Australia proved to be a key issue for the inquiry. Unfortunately, some witnesses did not feel safe enough to give evidence in public. We heard in camera evidence from some because either they were frightened from past experiences with the regimes in their countries of origin or they feared for their families, whether those families be here or in their country of origin. I don't think we can avoid naming the country from which witnesses felt threatened and that they had to give evidence in camera. The regime there is the Chinese Communist Party. In the last day, we have seen further documentation and authentication of sickening treatment and torture of the Uighur people in the forced labour camps in Xinjiang.
The committee recognises that many diaspora groups come to Australia to seek safety from risks and threats in their home countries. It is vital to protect the free and open society Australians enjoys. Reports of surveillance, monitoring, harassment and intimidation, including threats against family members overseas, are extremely troubling. We cannot tolerate these activities. They threaten the peace of our country. Home Affairs and ASIO are actively countering these attempts. The committee welcomed the establishment of the office of the National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator and of the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce in 2018 and 2019 respectively. I would like to thank those who work in our law enforcement and security agencies for the work that they do to keep us all safe.
The committee notes the challenge of ensuring government agencies have the language and cultural understanding and capabilities necessary to counter foreign interference and the roles diaspora communities may play in enhancing those essential attributes. The National Security Hotline is an essential tool for community members wishing to report potential acts of foreign interference. The committee recommended that the government consider running a multilingual information campaign on the hotline and on its role in the battle against foreign interference as well as promoting awareness through peak groups. Several witnesses expressed strong support for the adoption by Australia of Magnitsky-style legislation, including as a deterrent to foreign interference. The committee supports the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on this subject and its recommendation that the government enacts targeted sanctions legislation to address human rights violations and corruption.
Despite the success of multiculturalism in Australia, the scourges of racism and discrimination persist. Sadly, the committee heard testimony to this effect. In line with the global movement to tackle racism, not only between human beings but also at a systemic level, the committee heard calls for a national antiracism strategy and a suggestion that an antiracism strategy and framework be developed.
Let us not use unclear language. Racism and xenophobia are evil. We must reject and combat these evils wherever they may lurk, for history teaches us where racism ends. It ends in pogroms. It ends in the gas chambers. It ends in the ethnic cleansing of Tibet and the ongoing obscenity of the treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang. It ends in the massacres of Rwanda, in armed attacks on mosques and synagogues live streamed on social media as entertainment. In Australia, Indigenous young people, in abject despair, hang themselves by the neck alone in jail cells.
Our silence about these things and the views of some that trade is more important than decency are something young people are confronting and denouncing with ever louder voice. I say this in a literal sense: we should thank God they are. I pray they get louder and louder and louder. We must have zero tolerance for racism everywhere. We are so lucky in this country and so we must hold ourselves to the highest standard, to be the best people. We have no excuse.
Australia's existing antiracism strategy was developed in 2012. It appears to have lost some momentum since that time. Noting that the development of a comprehensive new national antiracism framework will take time, and recommending this includes a comprehensive consultation process with a focus on diaspora communities, the committee further recommended consideration be given to reinvigorate the existing national antiracism strategy and campaign, particularly in light of the apparent increase in incidents of racism during the present pandemic.
The committee also looked at a lack of cultural diversity in a variety of sectors, including politics, business and the public service. The committee also looked at ways of strengthening partnerships and looked at those partnerships that exist between government and Australia's diaspora communities. Except for First Nations people, Australia's story is one of immigration. This is why I undertook to establish this inquiry and hear from these voices. I am very proud to be a strong advocate and defender for Australian values: for democracy and its pillars, the rule of law, a free press and free and fair elections. That is what makes Australia such an attractive destination for those seeking a new life. But this doesn't mean that we cannot do better.
I hope the inquiry's report helps the government to develop better strategies to engage with migrant and diaspora communities—the matters which we consider to go to the very issue of our security and sovereignty as a nation. This was an important aspect of the inquiry. I believe all members of the committee, despite a variety of views, take this seriously and solemnly. I know I do.
In closing, I would like to thank the deputy chair, Senator Abetz, as well as other members of the committee for their cooperative efforts with the inquiry. I commend the report to the Senate.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (15:48): We need to continue to celebrate and acknowledge the wonderful contribution that our various ethnic diasporas have made in the creation of the modern nation Australia and what she is today—economically strong, democratic, freedom-loving, engaged in world affairs on the side of liberty and opposed to totalitarianism. The diaspora have enriched our culture.
It stands to reason that as the various ethnic groups have come to Australia there have been misunderstandings as to language and cultural norms and expectations. There has been ugliness, but that is where English language skills are so vitally important in giving our various new arrivals a full entry into our society and protecting them from exploitation. Overall, I believe Australia has done exceptionally well, and the benchmark has to be the other countries in the world. The report which is being considered by the Senate has been an excellent exercise. I appreciate the chair's and the secretariat's substantial contributions to its preparation, along with those of my colleagues and the providers of evidence to the committee. I'll also take the opportunity to associate myself with the remarks of the chair.
It is a matter of regret that some submitters found it necessary to submit in confidence because of fear of retaliation from some within their own diaspora grouping doing the bidding of a foreign country and because of reprisals in their country of origin towards their extended families. During the hearing, some inappropriate allegations were made suggesting that witnesses appearing as experts, thought leaders or think tank contributors on China and its impact on the Chinese diaspora shouldn't be asked if they condemn the CCP dictatorship, which is brutalising its citizens. Let's be very clear: one million of their own people in concentration camps; forced sterilisations; rape; forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience; imprisonment of home Christians, imprisonment of Falun Gong practitioners; imprisonment of pro-democracy activists—not to mention the Tibetans, the Mongolians and that country's illegal land acquisitions. To not condemn such a heinous regime is in itself heinous.
We now have the BBC doing a full expose of the plight of the Uighurs at the hands of this barbaric regime. We have had the China Tribunal, headed by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, finding beyond reasonable doubt that forced organ harvesting occurs. We've had the findings of the US Congress and of the Canadian parliament—and the list goes on. Professor Clive Hamilton, in his books Silent Invasion and Hidden Hand, has outlined the barbarism of this regime. ASPI, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, has done a report, Uyghurs for sale, outlining the slavery to which these people are submitted.
Despite this overwhelming list of substantiated reports, books and inquiries by exceptionally eminent persons, the apologists seek disingenuously to dismiss these sorts of damning findings. There's a professor from the University of Adelaide who, incredibly, asserts there is no evidence. Really? Professor Hamilton's got it wrong, ASPI's got it wrong, the BBC's got it wrong, Sir Geoffrey Nice has got it wrong—or is this professor simply an apologist for an evil regime? Then, somewhat coincidentally, one of the submitters to our committee, a Mr Osmond Chiu, ignorantly dismissed Professor Clive Hamilton's seminal work, which contained over 50 pages of evidentiary footnotes, as unsubstantiated. What more evidence could be gathered than was contained in that seminal document and book by Professor Clive Hamilton—who, might I add, was a former Greens candidate at an election, so hardly somebody from my side of politics, but is somebody who has the integrity and willingness to call out an evil regime for what it is: namely, evil? The apologists cannot bring themselves to condemn the evil Chinese dictatorship.
I've unhesitatingly sought to stand in solidarity with those who have been oppressed by the Chinese dictatorship. Within my own party, I recall being the only one in the party room to stand against a proposal put forward by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs for an extradition treaty with China. I know there were some others, like Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who would have liked to have joined me, but she was on the frontbench at the time. I had previously been politically assassinated by that group, so I was free to speak. But I have had a longstanding interest in this area and have stood firmly and strongly with the oppressed, and I'm happy the extradition treaty never came into being and is now completely off the agenda. Indeed, we have now suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong because of this dictatorship's behaviour.
You ask thought leaders and self-described experts to condemn the brutal dictatorship, and what do apologists do? As Professor Clive Hamilton predicted in his book, they immediately condemn you as racist and then offer sufficient criticism of the regime to retain credibility, but they will never condemn it. That might be one of the reasons why I invited some people to actually condemn the regime, and they failed to do so. I know what the Uighurs would have wanted them to do. I know what the Falun Gong practitioners would have wanted them to do. I know what the house Christians would have wanted them to do. The women that are being forcibly sterilised and raped as we speak would be wanting us in Australia to stand in solidarity with them.
But no. We had our national broadcaster, only a couple of days ago, again seeking to condemn me for my questioning but not being able to bring themselves to do what at least the BBC has been able to do, and that is expose this evil regime, this barbarism—the Uighurs that are being raped, sterilised, put into concentration camps. The Chinese diaspora in Australia fear for their relatives and fear for themselves as to the consequences if they speak out.
Despite the attacks that came from certain quarters, I have been heartened by overwhelming support, including from a local Australian Chinese newspaper that has a circulation of tens of thousands in this country. It had a front-page heading 'Chinese Aussies support Tassie senator's push to distinguish Chinese regime from Chinese people'. They were fully in support. We had letters and emails flooding into the office and we had a YouTube channel with 100,000 followers offering support. A former Chinese diplomat, a defector from China who knew exactly what was going on, tweeted:
Don't let patriotic @SenatorAbetz feel ashamed for his courage against the CCP influence! The Australian Values Alliance—
which is a Chinese organisation in Australia—
stood up to support him.
China Uncensored, a YouTube program from the United States, with hundreds of thousands of viewers, is overwhelmingly supporting me. Our diaspora need protection from the malignant forces in Australia and from overseas that seek to intimidate and silence their fellow diaspora into noncriticism of the evilness of their regimes.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (15:58): I also wish to speak to this important report on the experience of diaspora communities in Australia. I was very pleased to be able to be part of the committee inquiry and attend the hearings and hear from witnesses about their experiences as members of a diaspora community. The report and the evidence that was given to us outline three key areas which need attention. One is the various communities' ability to access services, access grants programs and access the services that they need. The barriers in the way of them being able to do that are the fact that they are very complex systems, it's not clear where to go to access support and help, and the fact that often small, under-resourced community organisations don't have the resources to be able to fill out very complicated grant applications, for example. So there was a lot of importance placed on trying to reform those systems, streamline those systems so that the various diaspora communities are able to access services and opportunities that the rest of Australia are able to.
For the other two areas, I think it's important to look at them in an interlinked way. One was the experience of racism of many of our diaspora communities, and the second, of course, was from people in Australia who are diaspora communities—refugees or asylum seekers or people fleeing authoritarian, totalitarian regimes. Clearly one of the strong threads of this inquiry and the report was outlining the experiences of people that continue to be intimidated here in Australia by those authoritarian regimes, as previous senators have outlined, China being the prime one amongst them—the actions of the Chinese government in pursuing people of Chinese origin here in Australia. It is worth noting that China isn't the only one; we received evidence from people from a range of countries who had their home country not wanting them to speak out about conditions in their home country and applying pressure on them and on their families and friends and colleagues back in their home country to try and silence them. So it is an important thread of this report to be supporting people, to be removing that level of foreign interference so that people here in Australia can speak out freely, do have freedom of speech and are able to speak out about the appalling human rights violations going on in their home countries.
As a member of the Greens, my approach to foreign relations and foreign affairs comes from a human rights' framework. We put human rights absolutely first. It is important that we do everything we can to support people around the world, whether in China, whether in Cambodia, whether in some African countries, so that people in those countries have human rights and don't have their human rights abused. It's also important we do everything we can for people to be able to speak out here in Australia and support freedom of speech, democracy and people's overall rights in their home countries.
Let's go to the point which has been debated in this chamber while we've been discussing this report: when it comes to the actions of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese totalitarian government, it is incredibly important to recognise that speaking out about the actions of the Chinese government does have an impact on people of Chinese background here in Australia. It does impact on Australians of Asian heritage. We've got to be incredibly careful that, in very rightly criticising the actions of the Chinese Communist Party, there aren't then flow-on impacts on people of Asian heritage here in Australia. Too often some of the discussion and some of those criticisms get conflated into xenophobia, they get conflated into an overall attack on anyone of Chinese heritage and they inflame racism against people of Chinese background here in Australia. We heard plenty of evidence in our inquiry about what impact that has had, about the rise of racism against people of Asian background that's occurring in Australia. China is in our headlines, and the China-Australia relationship is very contentious at the moment, so there is a lot of genuine and appropriate criticism of the Chinese government. But that flows over into people being victimised and having their human rights impacted here in Australia. They are being impacted; they are being attacked in the street. They are being called names. They don't feel that they are being valued as citizens, just because of their heritage.
What I think is also important is that it's not appropriate—to follow on from Senator Abetz's contribution just now—to ask every Australian of Chinese background where they stand and whether they condemn the actions of the Chinese Communist Party. Many will want to speak out but many others feel they can't, and it is not appropriate to do that. It is also not appropriate to single out people of Chinese background and ask them how they feel about the actions of the Chinese Communist Party and not ask everybody else. Senator Abetz wasn't asking the questions that he asked in that committee hearing of people not of Chinese background; he specifically just asked the people of Chinese background. When they weren't willing to condemn the actions of the Chinese totalitarian state he then went to town on them and made a perfect point of what, in fact, those witnesses were pointing out: it makes it very difficult for people of Chinese origin to stick their heads up above the parapet and to contribute and be involved in political and community life here in Australia because of those sorts of pressures. These are the factors that we really need to be very careful and very sensitive about. We need to be very clear that when and if we are pointing out, quite justifiably, human rights abuses and actions—whether by China, or by Cambodia or by other states—that the criticism is not then having a bearing or an impact on people of those backgrounds here in Australia.
To that end, I think we need to have a lot more focus on what we need to do here in Australia in order to address rising racism in this country. Of course, that then goes to another suite of the recommendations of this report about the need to have a comprehensive, well-resourced and effective antiracism strategy. There are too many people in this country who are happy to say: 'I'm not racist. We're a thriving multicultural country. We're not a racist country,' who are basically living in ignorance. They're not aware of the rising levels of racism and the need for us to take serious action about it. If any of the recommendations in this report are going to have notice taken of them, I really hope that it is the one about the need to really thoroughly and comprehensively address the rise in racism, and that we need a comprehensive antiracism strategy. That's so we can make sure that people of all backgrounds in Australia feel they can have their human rights upheld here in Australia, just like having human rights upheld all around the world.
I think that the report is a very important contribution to the debate here in Australia and I look forward to seeing some of the recommendations implemented.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (16:08): As somebody who has lived her life across the diversity that is contemporary Australia today and who has been very actively engaged in our cultural diversity, I was very pleased to participate in this inquiry. Having also been a former minister in this space, I thought this was a very timely inquiry and report. I too associate myself with the comments of the chair—that's you, Acting Deputy President Kitching!—of the deputy chair, Senator Abetz, and with some of the comments that Senator Rice made as well.
I'd like to focus on a number of the recommendations. Of course, the first recommendation is about the need to further recognise the contributions of our diaspora communities in Australia. Let's face it: one half of us were either born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas.
One of the important recommendations is No. 5, which recommends that the government consider increasing, by way of a multilingual media or information campaign, awareness of the National Security Hotline as a means of reporting foreign interference. The evidence that came before us very much pointed to where this foreign interference is. As other senators have said, whilst a number of totalitarian regimes were identified in the inquiry, nevertheless the country that attracted the most attention was definitely China. As somebody who has been very outspoken against the Communist regime—indeed, when I was minister, I made some comments which resulted in an international debate about China's activities, most especially in the Pacific—I felt as I was speaking out on that issue that there weren't too many people who were interested in listening to the warnings that I was making in relation to the regime. I believe my comments were prescient and have been fully vindicated as more and more has become obvious about what the Communist regime is doing internationally and most especially here in Australia. We saw in this inquiry the face of what that foreign interference really is. Ordinary Australians, particularly those of Chinese heritage—there are 1.2 million of them—are the human face of this interference. Therefore, I think that that is really the most important take-out.
One of the other recommendations was about Magnitsky and encouraging the government to enact Magnitsky legislation. If we are going to enact Magnitsky legislation, we have to make sure that the agencies with the powers to enforce that legislation are adequately resourced. I have to say that over the Christmas vacation period I was very disappointed by what happened with AUSTRAC on the issue in relation to the transfer of Vatican funds. If that's the sort of basic error that an organisation like AUSTRAC is making, I think that we have to take a very serious look to ensure that our agencies are up to speed to be able to undertake the necessary work to enforce Magnitsky laws here in Australia.
I will go specifically to some of the evidence in the inquiry, particularly in relation to the Communist regime. We saw firsthand the work that the United Front Work Department of the Central Committee of the CCP is doing here in Australia. We had seen the work that Professor Clive Hamilton did and the books that he's written and also the work of Dr Alex Joske, and I commend both of them for the contribution that they have made to the body politic, most especially in relation to this issue. We saw firsthand the insidious practices of Beijing loyalists in Australia. These insidious practices here in Australia by people loyal to Beijing have caused alarm to our Chinese Australian community. Many who have escaped persecution and want to live freely in a democratic Australia feel intimidated. They have made an important contribution to the fabric of our community and they have been strong advocates for democracy and for our multicultural society. Therefore, I underline the comment that was made earlier. The criticisms that I and others have made have been against the Communist regime; they have not been against the Chinese people and certainly not against the 1.2 million Australians of Chinese heritage who have warmly embraced our way of life but whose way of life now feels very threatened as a consequence of Beijing's bellicose activities.
We know that the Communist regime has a history of illegal and bellicose activities. We see it daily in the South China Sea. Therefore, from that perspective, Australia, if we honestly say that we want a values based foreign policy then we have to stand by that, and we have to stand up when countries like China and other totalitarian regimes do not act as good international citizens, and that means calling them out when they do not act in accordance with international norms. If we say that our foreign policy is a projection of our values and beliefs, therefore, it is important that we support the international rules-based order. We need to stand up for those values, even when there are commercial consequences, when we see the egregious abuse of human rights by some of these totalitarian regimes—and we are seeing it. As Senator Abetz said, at the moment, there it is on the BBC: we're seeing what is happening to the Uighurs. It's also important that countries like Australia join with other nations. It would be really good to see Muslim countries also standing up for their Muslim brothers and sisters who are now facing persecution in China. It's not only incumbent on democratic countries like Australia to call that out but also important for us to encourage other countries, particularly countries in the Muslim world, to also speak out in this way.
We have to understand that China is not a democracy. It is a totalitarian regime, and therefore we need to treat it as such, rather than thinking that we can continue business as usual. We cannot continue business as usual with the Communist regime. It's not going to work anymore. Quite frankly, the Australian public is not going to stand for business as usual with the Communist regime any more.
In particular, before I conclude, I also want to touch on the effect of the Hong Kong security law. This is a very bad law and I know that so many people in Australia fear its application, not just if they go back to Hong Kong but also because so many people in the diasporas have connections in these countries—in China, in Vietnam and in other countries—where they fear repercussions for their citizens.
I will conclude on a couple of recommendations. Recommendations 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 effectively go to communication with diaspora communities. When I became Minister for International Development and the Pacific one of the things I asked was: did we have an ethnic media listing in the department of foreign affairs? I was so disappointed that there was not an up-to-date list of ethnic media. Let's not forget that the ethnic media in the country is 500 to 600 strong and growing every day, because our diasporas get their news from around the world in different ways. Therefore, it is vitally important that we utilise the diaspora communities and utilise that media to more effectively communicate with government.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Education and Employment References Committee—Report—The people behind 000: mental health of our first responders—Order of 4 December 2019—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business (Senator Cash) responding to the order, and attachment. Motion of Senator McCarthy to take note of documents agreed to.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020—Answer to question—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians (Senator Colbeck) providing information concerning a question asked by Senator Siewert on 14 May 2020 during debate on the bill. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
JobKeeper recipient data—Order of 11 June 2020—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann), responding to the order, and attachment. Motion of Senator McCarthy to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
President's report to the Senate on the status of government responses to parliamentary committee reports as at 30 June 2020. Motion of Senator McCarthy to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Aged Care Quality and Safety—Royal Commission—Aged care and COVID-19: A special report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Final budget outcome 2019-20—Report by the Treasurer (Mr Frydenberg) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann). Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post)—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Climate Change Authority—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
NBN Co Limited—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
MV Al Kuwait—Order of 31 August 2020 (758)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston), responding to the order, and attachments. Motion of Senator Faruqi to take note of documents called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Aged Care Pricing Commissioner—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC)—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Australian Institute of Family Studies—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Department of Social Services—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
National Mental Health Commission—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Airservices Australia—Report for 2019-20, including report of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. Motion of Senator Rice to take note of document agreed to.
Australian industry and manufacturing—Ministerial statement by the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology (Mrs K. L. Andrews). Motion of Senator Faruqi to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 2019-20 and State of Wet Tropics 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of documents agreed to.
Aged Care Act 1997—Report on the operation of the Act for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
Central Land Council—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
National Registration and Accreditation Scheme—Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
National Health Practitioner Ombudsman—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—Reports for 2018-19 and 2019-20—New South Wales Crime Commission and Northern Territory Police. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of documents agreed to.
Productivity Commission—Report no. 95—Mental health. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability—Royal Commission—Public hearing 5: Experiences of people with disability during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic—Report. Motion of Senator Steele-John to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Department of Home Affairs—Protection visas—Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 14 November 2019—October 2020. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Government implementation progress report on the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety report: Aged care and COVID-19: a special report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003—Operation of the Government co-contribution scheme—Quarterly reports for the period 1 July to 30 September 2020—Subsections 12G(1) and 54(1). Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of documents agreed to.
Inland Rail Interface Improvement Program—Order of 10 November 2020—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development (Senator Cash) responding to the order, and attachments. Motion of Senator Roberts to take note of documents agreed to.
High Court of Australia—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Waters to take note of document agreed to.
Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—Review—Order of 2 December 2020—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) responding to the order, and attachment. Motion of Senator Watt to take note of documents agreed to.
PFAS Taskforce—Order of 8 December 2020—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham), responding to the order, and attachments. Motion of Senator Roberts to take note of documents agreed to.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation—Election coverage—Order of 9 December 2020 (934)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Defence (Senator Reynolds) responding to the order, and attachments. Motion of Senator McGrath to take note of documents agreed to.
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)—Federal election 2019—Funding and disclosure report. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—Independent review—Final report by Professor Graeme Samuel AC. Motion of Senator Hanson-Young to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Workplace Gender Equality Agency—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
COMMITTEES
Consideration
The following committee reports and government responses were considered:
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Examination of the annual report for 2016-17 of the Integrity Commissioner—Government response. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Examination of the annual report for 2017-18 of the Integrity Commissioner—Government response. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—Litigation funding and the regulation of the class action industry—Report. Motion of Senator O'Neill to take note of report agreed to.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Policy, regulatory, taxation, administrative and funding priorities for Australian shipping—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Sterle) to take note of report agreed to.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—NDIS workforce—Interim report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of report agreed to.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—General issues—Report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of report agreed to.
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Conduct of the 2019 Federal Election and matters related thereto—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator McGrath) to take note of report agreed to.
COVID-19—Select Committee—First interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Gallagher) to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Northern Australia—Joint Standing Committee—Never again: Inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia—Interim report. Motion of Senator Davey to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Inquiry into the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for Australia's foreign affairs, defence and trade—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Fawcett) to take note of report agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the Global Magnitsky movement? – An inquiry into targeted sanctions to address human rights abuses—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Fawcett) to take note of report agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—484th report—The administration of government grants: Inquiry into Auditor General's reports 5, 12 and 23 (2019-20). Motion of Senator McGrath to take note of report agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—483rd report—Inquiry into the 2018-19 Defence major projects report and the Future Submarine Project – Transition to design: Auditor-General's reports 19 and 22 (2019-20). Motion of Senator McGrath to take note of report agreed to.
Australia's Family Law System—Joint Select Committee—Interim report—Improvements in family law proceedings—Corrigendum. Motion of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) to take note of document agreed to.
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020—Report. Motion of Senator Davey to take note of report agreed to.
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—Inquiry into the Working Holiday Maker Program—Final report. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of report agreed to.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—NDIS planning—Final report. Motion of Senator Brown to take note of report agreed to.
Administration of Sports Grants—Select Committee—Interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Chisholm) to take note of report agreed to.
Economics References Committee—Inquiry into the indicators of, and impact of, regional inequality in Australia—Final report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Gallacher) to take note of report agreed to.
Effectiveness of the Australian Government's Northern Australia agenda—Select Committee—Report. Motion of Senator Watt to take note of report agreed to.
Road Safety—Joint Select Committee—Improving road safety in Australia—Report. Motion of Senator Rice to take note of report agreed to.
Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Support for Australia's thalidomide survivors—Government response. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document agreed to.
Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century—Select Committee—Report—Government response. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—24 June 2020 public hearing on the Australian Institute of Criminology's National Deaths in Custody Program—Summary report. Motion of Senator Thorpe to take note of report agreed to.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Identification of leading practices in ensuring evidence-based regulation of farm practices that impact water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef—Report. Motion of Senator Ayres to take note of report agreed to.
Community Affairs References Committee—Centrelink's compliance program—Third interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Siewert) to take note of report agreed to.
Community Affairs References Committee—Centrelink's compliance program—Second interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Siewert) to take note of report agreed to.
Education and Employment References Committee—Report—Jobactive: failing those it is intended to serve—Government response. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document agreed to.
Jobs for the Future in Regional Areas—Select Committee—Report. Motion of Senator McDonald to take note of report agreed to.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Consideration
The following Auditor-General's reports were considered:
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 23 of 2019-20—Performance audit—Award of funding under the Community Sport Infrastructure Program: Australian Sports Commission. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 11 of 2020-21—Performance audit—Indigenous Advancement Strategy – Children and Schooling Program and Safety and Wellbeing Program: National Indigenous Australians Agency. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 20 of 2020-21—Performance audit—Management of the Australian Public Service's workforce response to COVID-19: Australian Public Service Commission; Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Legislative Review
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:22): I table a response to the question asked by Senator Griff and taken on notice during question time on 3 February 2021, relating to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission Legislative Review. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Dear Mr President
I write with regard to a question I took on notice from Senator Griff during Question Time, Wednesday 3 February 2021, on the matter of the Australian Charities and Not-forprofits Commission (ACNC) Legislative Review.
I am advised that all charities registered with the ACNC, regardless of their size, have reporting obligations, and will continue to have reporting obligations. The ACNC requires all registered charities to submit an Annual Information Statement which includes information about the charity, its governance and activities, and basic financial information (revenue, expenses, assets and liabilities).
In addition to Annual Information Statements, medium charities must also submit reviewed annual financial reports, and large charities must also submit audited annual financial reports. This information is available on the ACNC Charity register (www.acnc.gov.au/charity) and enables the ACNC to ensure that charities remain appropriately governed and are focused on their charitable purpose.
The 2018 review of the ACNC legislation recommended raising the revenue thresholds for financial reporting purposes to reduce the compliance burden on charities. The Government supports the recommendation and recognises the need to balance red tape reduction for charities with the need for transparency. The Government is currently consulting with States and Territories on the appropriate level of revenue thresholds.
I have copied this letter to Minister Sukkar and Senator Griff.
Yours sincerely
Simon Birmingham
Minister for Finance
4 February 2021
BILLS
National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:22): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:23): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse (the Scheme), with the aim of making ongoing improvements to the operation of this important Scheme.
The Scheme commenced on 1 July 2018 and will run for 10 years, in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The Scheme was established by the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (the Act).
The implementation of the Scheme was an acknowledgement by the Australian Government and state and territory governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institutional settings was wrong, a betrayal of trust, and should never have happened.
Over the past two years, the Scheme has secured the participation of all states and territories, and as of 18 September 2020, 272 non-government institutions are participating in the Scheme. This means the Scheme now covers over 52,000 sites across Australia. In addition, over 3,600 payments totalling approximately $298 million dollars have been paid to survivors to date.
Improvements have been made to the Scheme during the initial two years of operation operationally. But more can, and should, be done to make sure the Scheme is operating as well as it can be. Implementing further improvements requires updating of the Act.
This Bill will increase the efficiency of the Scheme for its remaining eight years of operation and assist in finalising outstanding applications. The amendments address minor and technical issues with the current operation of the Act and will address unintended consequences or oversights in the initial drafting of the primary legislation underpinning the Scheme. In line with the Scheme's governance arrangements, all states and territories have agreed to the amendments in the Bill.
In short, the beneficial minor, technical amendments will provide clarity and improve Scheme operations, but will not have any financial impacts on Scheme participants and will not change an institution's liability or obligations under the Scheme.
A legislated second anniversary review of the Scheme is also currently underway and it is intended that the review will help drive further improvements to the Scheme.
This Bill will achieve its intended outcomes through progressing the following amendments to the Act.
Listing of associate institutions
Under the Scheme, an associate is an institution that is a member of a participating group. Individually listing associates of institutions who are found responsible for abuse in the letter of offer to the applicant is not practical or trauma informed, especially for groups with thousands of participating institutions. This measure will clarify that associate institutions are able to be determined and listed in a letter of offer by way of a class description. Importantly, this measure will not affect the release from civil liability of the associate institutions.
Two or more Funders of Last Resort in one application
Being the Funder of Last Resort in relation to an institution is where a government funds redress costs in very specific and limited circumstances for non-government institutions that have ceased to exist, known as defunct institutions.
Currently, the Act only specifies a single government institution being the Funder of Last Resort for a defunct institution, including when calculating the funding contribution payable by the Funder of Last Resort. However, more than one Commonwealth, state or territory government institution may have equal responsibility for abuse with a defunct non-government institution, meaning each could be a Funder of Last Resort.
The amendment will clarify that where there is more than one Funder of Last Resort, the defunct institution's share of the redress cost is to be divided equally between the government institutions.
Engaging persons to be Independent Decision Makers
Under the Act, the Minister for Families and Social Services must approve each appointment of Independent Decision Makers and consult the appropriate Ministers from participating States and Territories. This process has made it difficult to efficiently respond to the demands of the Scheme.
In order to engage Independent Decision Makers more efficiently, this measure will remove the need for Ministerial level approval before engaging an Independent Decision Maker and will replace the need for consultation with the State and Territory Ministers with a requirement that the Scheme Operator consult with the jurisdictions via their respective responsible departments.
Protecting the name of the Scheme
This measure will include a statutory protection for the use of the Scheme name and logo and will impose pecuniary penalties for breach of the provisions. This measure will ensure that other parties do not misuse the Scheme name and logo to the potential detriment of an already vulnerable cohort. Importantly, this measure will not affect state and territory governments and non-government institutions when referring to the Scheme's name or logo in the course of their natural dealings with the Scheme.
Bank account for payment of redress payment
Currently, if a person accepts a redress payment or a Counselling and Psychological Care payment, the Scheme Operator must pay this to an account that the person holds with a financial institution and that the person has nominated in writing.
In not allowing payment to be made to third parties, unintended consequences have been observed, especially where an applicant has limited capacity to manage their financial affairs or where relevant court or tribunal orders exist.
This measure will enable the Scheme to pay an applicant's redress payment to a Public Trustee, or similar body, with financial management powers made under relevant jurisdictional laws. This will provide a beneficial mechanism to ensure the Scheme can make a redress payment for an applicant, whilst also ensuring that their interests remain protected in a way that is consistent with the legal arrangements in place.
When funding contribution is due for payment
Currently, the Commonwealth makes the Redress Payment to an applicant, and a responsible institution's funding contribution for the payment is then to be made by a date specified in a notice given by the Scheme Operator. There is currently no flexibility under the scheme to alter the payment date where funds are due to be paid to the Commonwealth. This measure will enable the due date for payment of a funding contribution to be extended and provide that no late payment penalties will be incurred.
Importantly, allowing a due date extension for institutions will not delay the redress payment to the applicant, which is made by the Scheme and then later invoiced to the responsible institution.
Protected information
The Act includes provisions for how the Scheme deals with protected information. Information about a person or an institution that was provided to or obtained by an officer of the Scheme, for the purposes of administering the Scheme, constitutes protected information.
The limitations that apply in relation to disclosure of protected information about institutions can make it difficult to efficiently and meaningfully consult with organisations for the purposes of encouraging institutions to join the Scheme.
Maximising the participation of institutions is critical to the success of the Scheme and survivor access to redress, and sharing information to enable governments to collectively target and encourage institutions to join is essential for this purpose. This measure will allow for a more practical process to disclose protected information about institutions and will enable the Scheme to quickly and efficiently disclose the names of non-participating institutions that have been named in applications, to support coordinated efforts to encourage the institution to make amends for past wrongdoings and join the Scheme.
In summary, this Bill will address minor and technical issues with the current operation of the Act and will address unintended consequences or oversights in the initial drafting of the legislation. The amendments will increase the efficiency of the Scheme, assist in finalising outstanding applications, strengthen legislative assurance, and will help mitigate against issues or confusion arising over the remaining eight years of the Scheme.
This will ensure survivor experience is improved, Scheme integrity is maintained, and the public is assured that all Australian Governments are committed to continuous improvement for this important Scheme.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of Ms Hammond to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
MOTIONS
Economy
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (16:24): At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) under the Morrison Government the Australian economy entered the coronavirus pandemic from a position of weakness not strength,
(ii) Australia has experienced the deepest recession in almost a century and the decisions the Morrison Government is taking are making things worse for hardworking Australians,
(iii) the Morrison Government intends to terminate JobKeeper at the end of March despite having no jobs plan to replace it and with 1.6 million Australians continuing to rely on the payment,
(iv) 2 million more Australians remain out of work or are working less hours than they need to support their families,
(v) unemployment is forecast to remain above pre-pandemic levels over the next three years,
(vi) wages growth, already at records lows under the Morrison Government, is expected to remain stagnant, and
(vii) Prime Minister Morrison deliberately excluded 928,000 people aged 35 and over from hiring subsidies; and
(b) expresses its disappointment that after racking up more than $1 trillion in debt and with no plan for jobs, the Morrison Government plans to cut wages, cut super and wind back consumer protections in the banking system that risks weakening the recovery and will leave too many Australians behind.
I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to speak in relation to this matter. We are in a position today where the Australian economy is in a very fragile state indeed. The Australian economy is in a very fragile state in part because of the coronavirus pandemic and because the public health response and the response of economies around the world has plunged the Australian economy into the deepest recession in nearly 100 years. But it's also in a fragile state because the underlying fundamentals of the Australian economy were very weak indeed in 2019, and they were very weak during the years leading up to 2019.
The Australian economy was characterised by low wages, low productivity growth and a government that had walked away from its responsibilities to the economy, pursuing a pretty shallow, pretty weak, visionless approach to economic management, abrogating its responsibilities as a government. That is in no small part due to the fact that what underlines the Liberal Party's obsessions with the economy is a deep antipathy towards cooperation, a deep antipathy towards Australians working together to make the country stronger and a commitment to the low road—low wages, low growth, low productivity and not much in the area of achievement. Because they have set their objectives so low, the outcome has been so poor. That is going to make it impossible for this government to summon up what's required in what should be a year of reconstruction, a year of growth and a year where we rebuild the Australian economy. It is impossible for this government to effectively conceive of a plan, beyond a marketing plan, to rebuild the economy.
I note that there has been a bit of a difference this week. Obviously, the focus group people have been hard at work. Many of them have been enriched by the rivers of gold that flow from the Prime Minister's office and from ministers' offices around the place to consultants who are mates of theirs who provide research and advertising to the government. They will, as they did every other time, turn up at election time with very deep pockets, enriched by the largesse from Mr Morrison's department and from the finance minister's department, ready to provide advertising material for the Liberal Party. I've noticed that their work must have said something, because, in the last two weeks of the year, what I saw when I walked into the supermarket in Holder in the ACT was an enormous billboard that said 'Our comeback'. It had all this green and gold stuff and a series of slogans encouraging Australians who were going about their shopping that Sunday night to think that the government was doing something for them, and all we heard in question time after question time after question time were weak replies from ministers to questions on the other side, supplemented by the refrain over and again 'our comeback'. It went on over and over again. It started being boring, and it became sickening. It was sickening because we on this side knew that it was supported by Liberal Party research and Liberal Party focus groups.
This week it has all disappeared. It's all gone. We're not hearing any more about 'our comeback'. We're seeing some other focus group tested phrases entering. I suppose a marketer has to market because they don't know how to do anything else. A marketer has got to market. A marketer has no capacity to lead, no capacity for vision and no capacity for policy depth, but he can market. We've seen that develop over the course of the past few weeks, and I know that this government, with depressing monotony, will be using press release, announcement, marketing campaign and focus group tested phrases. They will do everything but their job. They will do everything but look after the interests of ordinary Australians.
Well, at the end of last year, 912,000 Australians were unemployed, and it peaked at over a million in July. And 197,900 are long-term unemployed. They've been unemployed for 12 months or more. We have not seen a cohort of long-term unemployed Australians that large since the early 1990s. There was a 20 per cent rise from July 2016. That is 33,000 more Australians who are long-term unemployed. And 301,200 young Australians are unemployed. They are entering the labour market at a perilous moment, when the only jobs that are available for them—and we hear ministers opposite and the Prime Minister talking about jobs growth—the jobs that are emerging in the economy, are low-wage jobs. The jobs that are emerging in the economy are casual jobs. Many of the jobs that are emerging in the economy are at the low-rent end of labour hire employment, where labour hire employers rip off Australians, rip off companies and, indeed, get rivers of gold from this government through labour hire contracts in the Australian public sector. The other jobs that are available for them are gig jobs. The only jobs that are available for young Australians when they can get them are poor-quality jobs. And no amount of focus group tested JobMaker nonsense will change the experience of Australian families, who know that when their kids leave school, when their kids leave university, when their kids leave what's left of the vocational training system in this country, there is very little out there that they can look forward to in terms of a decent job.
So, 1,474,300 Australians receive either JobKeeper or youth allowance, and they are about to return to $40 a day. I know it's impossible for those opposite to conceive of what living on $40 a day is like. If you live in Sydney's eastern suburbs you don't meet too many people living on $40 a day; you would never have conceived of meeting somebody living on $40 a day.
Senator Bragg interjecting—
Senator AYRES: I'm about to come to Narrandera or Deniliquin or wherever it is that Senator Davey comes from—
Senator Bragg interjecting—
Senator AYRES: She's from Deniliquin. Well, you've spent a lot of time in the eastern suburbs, Senator Bragg. You find it difficult to leave, I know, and you find it very difficult to conceive of the experience of somebody who can't pay their rent, who can't pay for the basics, who struggles day to day. You couldn't struggle your way out of a wet paper bag, Senator Bragg. What you need to do is get some real life experience and get out there and talk to ordinary people. Senator Davey may well have met people in Deniliquin who've had to live on $40 a day. But perhaps, Senator Bragg, you could actually think deeply about the experience of their lives and try to understand that what your government is about to do is about to plunge them back into desperate poverty.
There are 1.3 million people out there who are either unemployed or looking for more work because the jobs they've ended up with are not sufficient to pay their rent, to pay their mortgage, to put shoes on their kids' feet and to pay their utility bills. They are out there looking for more work—1.3 million people. There are just 129,000 jobs out there. For every job, there are 10 jobseekers. But this government wants to plunge those people who are looking for work into abject poverty.
What will happen when JobKeeper ends? Wage growth is at historic lows—well below two per cent, year after year. There's been no lift in the living standards of ordinary Australians. Bills keep going up. Costs keep going up. Rents keep going up. House prices keep rising. But what ordinary Australians are expected to cop from this government is no wages policy that's going to lift wages and the only new jobs are casual-gig labour hire. Indeed, instead of a plan to lift wages, a wages policy to work with business, unions and firms to lift wages in the economy, the government's introduced an industrial relations bill which will make it easier for employers to cut wages. That's the only recipe it's got for the modern economy in this shallow, sterile vision. No wonder the wages share of the economy is at record lows. No wonder it is.
Year after year, Australian workers are lifting productivity, increasing their work rates and working harder than many of their colleagues in countries around the world, yet their share of income has continued to decline. It has not been this low since the war ended in the Pacific. It has not been this low since our greatest national emergency. Yet the profit share of income is at a record high. These jokers over here have only one recipe—'The wage share's low and the profit share's high; we're going to cut your wages and we're going to cut your super too.' A wage cut and a super cut is a cut to people's income now and a cut to people's retirement income later.
Poor old Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, thinks that forcing companies to pay back JobKeeper that they didn't need is class war. There is no vision, no understanding, no empathy, no plan and no capacity to conceive of what life is like for ordinary Australians. What does this amount to for ordinary Australian families? It's Australians who have fought the coronavirus. The Prime Minister doesn't hold a hose in this area. There's been a complete absence of national leadership. It's been Australians, not Scott Morrison, fighting the coronavirus. It's a credit to them. On public health work, we know the Prime Minister doesn't hold a hose there. The states have led the pandemic response in every state—nothing from Scott Morrison. There's a national cabinet that scarcely meets and is really about announcements for the Prime Minister. A wage subsidy proposed by Labor—not Scott Morrison, not the Liberal Party and not the National Party—is the only thing that has prevented a full collapse in the economy. An increase in unemployment benefits proposed by Labor, supported by the Labor Party through both houses, is what this government proposes to cut.
There's the entire absence of a plan and the entire absence of a capacity to develop a plan. If you're going to develop a plan to solve the problems facing the Australian economy, you need heart and you need guts. This show is entirely incapable of summoning the heart and the guts that are required. The end of JobKeeper and the return of JobSeeker to $40 a day should fill all Australians with dread. There's no plan for any industry sector. We heard today in question time glib responses from the minister responsible. The tourism industry is about to collapse. There's no plan from the Australian government for tourism and no plan for any industry sector. This is a government that's abrogated its responsibilities and has become too content with just sitting on the treasury bench and not doing its job.
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (16:39): That last contribution, from Senator Ayres, was very telling. I think that to run through that 10- or 15-minute summary without a single policy is the most telling component of that 15-minute address.
We won't be taking any lectures from the Labor Party on economic management. The last time Labor was on the Treasury benches it was a disaster. The only way to generate more jobs is to have more private investment. Labor's policy was to increase taxes. They failed to do things like trade deals because the bosses of the unions said that they weren't allowed to do them, and they left office with unemployment at about six per cent. Coming into the pandemic, unemployment was closer to five per cent, so we came into this pandemic in a much stronger position than the country would have if Labor were in office.
Just before the significant economic shock, we—this country—had landed our first balanced budget for almost 10 years and so we were able to come into this pandemic with the cupboard full of bullets and artillery, and those are exactly what have been fired over the course of this last 12 months. The government has been prepared to do whatever has been necessary to keep the economy together.
Recognising that we live in a society, not an economy, we knew it was very important that the wage subsidy maintained the fabric of large and small businesses. Of course, the foundation of a fair society is that economy. That's because it pays the bills. The wage subsidy, at more than $100 billion, is the most expensive economic policy in Australian history and it has been instrumental in ensuring that we can track through this pandemic in the strongest possible manner. Relative to almost every other OECD country, we have performed very, very strongly. Our policy during the coronavirus pandemic was not only to simply deploy a wage subsidy but also to deploy special packages, where they could be justified—in relation to tourism, for example, or in relation to hospitality. We have opened the nation's chequebook and we have managed to get Australia through this pandemic. It's not over until people are vaccinated, but we'd have to say that it's been a very strong performance thus far.
I guess that the real question is: what are we going to walk away with from this pandemic? Yes, there has been a lot of money expended, and for good reason. But what are the reforms or the changes that we can put forward now which are going to guarantee that we can again grow as a country? That will be because, of course, before this recession we had achieved a record-breaking run of economic growth—almost 30 consecutive years. So that is really the question. We can have a debate about who hasn't got policies and who has, but that's going to be the question for the next 12 months as we get deeper into this parliamentary term.
Some of our policies are already on the table. I think they are quite significant and quite structural. We have decided that we will try to improve Australia's labour laws. When we look at the question of whether or not a private business is going to invest money in our country, two of the biggest factors that come up repeatedly are the labour laws of Australia and the tax policies. Those are big determinants of whether or not an organisation—a person with capital or an organisation with capital—is going to invest capital in this country. So we've already decided that we will try to make some improvements to our labour laws. We've already decided that we will try to improve bankruptcy laws and we've already decided that we will try to improve the flow of credit by reforming the lending laws. And we've already flagged in the budget that we would be prepared to try to improve the disastrous superannuation scheme, which has $3 trillion sitting in it which does virtually nothing for the Australian economy. So we have already set these things out on the table at this juncture and I think these are going to be very important changes.
The question is: what is the opposition going to put forward as its policy? The former opposition leader has been saying in the last few weeks that Labor has a tiny policy agenda, and I think that is true. I guess at the last election they had an agenda to try and impose almost $400 billion in new taxes, which the President of the Labor Party, Mr Swan, has described as a record to be proud of and not resile from. Then, of course, you've got Mr Keating, who's very defensive about his dinosaur of a superannuation scheme. He set up one of the worst public policies. After the last election he said:
If you're talking about the Labor Party and why it lost the election, it failed to understand the middle-class economy …
That's what Paul Keating said about you lot.
You're sticking to all of these policies that the unions have written for you. You're sticking to all of these policies that your friends at the super funds have written for you. You are a policy-free zone. All the policies the Labor Party have are written by the vested interests down here, the lobbyists and the rent-seekers and the bloodsuckers. That is the truth. All of your policies are designed to funnel more money to the unions and the super funds. That is your plan for recovery. That goodness you're not in office.
At the end of the day, we came into this a very strong position, relative to the position we would have been in if Labor were in office. Unemployment was lower and the budget was back in balance. We were prepared to be flexible and nimble during this crisis. We were prepared to spend $100 billion on a wage subsidy which is a very significant policy, the most significant economic policy in Australian history, which has ensured that businesses have been able to stay together, people have stayed in jobs and we can now look at the opportunities to pursue reform. We have already put forward significant reforms on labour laws, bankruptcy, credit laws and superannuation because we think that these schemes, these economic policies, should drive a better deal for Australian workers and for the Australian people. We're not here to create schemes for rent-seekers and bloodsuckers. That is our agenda so far.
The question is: what else can we do? I think that is a good debate to have. I look forward to the Labor Party coming up with some economic policies; I think that would be good. Mr Shorten said you've got a tiny agenda. Maybe you, through the Chair, could have one policy which could actually be designed to promote private investment. Imagine that: one policy to drive private investment, recognising that it's not the government that creates jobs; it is actually the private economy that creates jobs. We look forward to the Labor Party coming up with some policies over the next 12 months or so.
The unemployment rate is now at about 6½ per cent and, of course, our plan will be to try to get that down. The best way to get the unemployment rate down is to find ways to promote private investment, so we will pursue policies which cut taxes, cut regulation and ensure that Australia is an attractive place to do business. That will be our agenda.
I have to say that we are coming out of this pandemic better than almost any other jurisdiction on earth. We are in a very, very good position to capitalise upon our strong performance during the pandemic. We should be looking afar, beyond the navel, because at the end of the day, with the geopolitical events in places like Hong Kong—which is basically going to be destroyed as a finance and technology centre—we should be doing all we can to try and attract jobs and investment from jurisdictions like Hong Kong. Frankly, why would you want to live there if you had to live in danger of the national security law? We are in a good position, and I think we can be optimistic about the future. I look forward to Labor coming out with one policy before the next election—just one—which will promote private investment. It's a tiny agenda at the moment; maybe it will grow over the next little while.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:49): I can't let Senator Bragg's contribution go without responding to it briefly, particularly his claim that we were in a strong position going into the pandemic. Senator Bragg, the planet is actually cooking. The climate that sustains all life on this planet, including human life, is breaking down around us. We're living through the sixth mass extinction event in the history of our planet. Your policies and those of your neoliberal colleagues in the Labor Party have priced an entire generation of young Australians out of the Australian dream of home ownership. What the pandemic has done is expose the fault lines that already existed in our economy and in our society.
We also hear about this idea that we have had sustained economic growth for 30 years, as if somehow we can keep on growing infinitely even though we live in a finite ecosystem. Then we get the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' mantra. We're used to hearing that from the Liberals, and we're clearly going to hear a lot more of that from the Australian Labor Party given what we've heard from them this week. Well, if you're going to set yourself a test of providing full employment for the people of Australia, you've both failed it abjectly over the last few decades, since Bob Hawke and Paul Keating turbocharged neoliberalism in this country. No matter what stripe of government has been in place since then, they haven't been able to get the unemployment rate below five per cent for any significant length of time. This means, of course, that one in every 20 Australians who is looking for and wants work can't find any. If we actually calculated the unemployment rate properly and fairly, the real unemployment rate would be in double figures in this country, well over 10 per cent of people because, at the moment, if you work one hour a week you are not classified as unemployed. What all of this has led to—environmental and ecosystem collapse; neoliberalism and trickle-down economics, much beloved of both major parties in this place—is mass economic inequality in this country, intergenerational inequality where young people are watching their wages flatline while property prices go through the roof. We are at record highs in the property market in this country, and that is one of the things that is leading to crushing inequality in Australia.
The policies of this government, the Liberal-National government, are designed specifically to make the crushing effects of economic inequality even worse. This government is doing everything it thinks it can get away with to increase economic inequality, to inflate the housing market and to put downward pressure on wage growth. Massive tax cuts which flow overwhelmingly to the top end of town, with more to come—supported, I might add, by the Australian Labor Party; negative gearing for property investors; capital gains tax discounts for property investors; HomeBuilder, which hands out public money for kitchen renos; the RBA printing money hand over fist, as fast as it can, and pumping it into the banks so that they can write yet bigger mortgages; deliberate suppression of public sector wages; regressive IR policies that constrain working people from organising to take effective action to support wage rises; and, of course, keeping income support, JobSeeker so far below the poverty line that people are basically starving in this country, having to choose being paying the rent and putting food on the table. The Liberal Party decided long, long ago that economic inequality was something that it wanted to continue to see grow in this country.
As far as property prices are going, the Liberals decided the line must go up no matter what. Now, that might be okay if you own your own home, and if you're very wealthy—the super rich, the elites of this country—so much the better, because the government will slash your taxes. But if you are in the one-third of people in this country who don't own a home, who don't own property, the Liberals have cut you loose. They've basically said you're on your own, because not only will this government do all they can to drive your rent up; they're doing nothing to increase your wages. In fact, they want to give your bosses more power to cut your wages.
The Liberals are doing nothing to help people who are out of work or who don't have enough work hours to pay the bills. Australia is at the bottom of the pile in the OECD in terms of income support. We are below countries that are much less wealthy than we are in terms of GDP. This is a policy choice. It's a policy choice by the Liberal government to condemn Australians who can't find work or can't find enough work—not because of anything they did but simply because there are not enough jobs to go round—to poverty, starvation and homelessness.
At this time, when people, understandably, have a feeling of precariousness about the future, what is the government trying to do? It's trying to unleash the very worst practices from the banking sector. The kind of dodgy lending that helped cause the global financial crisis and was revealed during the Hayne royal commission is something that this government wants us to go back to. Despite the primary recommendation of the Hayne royal commission being not to change our responsible lending laws in Australia, that is exactly what this government is trying to do.
Why would the government be looking after a banking sector that was exposed by a royal commission as being criminal, having a toxic culture and being driven by greed? Why would the Liberals want to let the predatory banks back off the leash? Well, I'll tell you: because the major banks pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Liberal Party's pockets every year. And, of course, in the very definition of hedging, they do the same for the Australian Labor Party. These donations are nothing more than legalised bribery. But I'll tell you what: the banks are getting a damn fine return on investment. A couple of hundred thousand bucks a year into the pockets of the Liberal Party and the government moves to abolish responsible lending laws in Australia.
The way that this parliament came together in response to the pandemic—by supporting increases in things like JobSeeker and by putting in place programs like JobKeeper—showed how possible it is to alleviate poverty in Australia. It's actually really easy. It's not rocket science; you just give people enough money to have a dignified life. That's all you have to do, and don't tell us you can't afford to do it. It's very simple. It's very simple to raise enough money to give people in poverty what they need to lead a dignified life. The way you do it is to tax the superwealthy and the big corporations. A third of the hundred highest-earning corporations in Australia pay zero tax. We don't even have a wealth tax in this country. We should be taxing billionaires out of existence. There is no excuse for having billionaires while other Australians are homeless or can't afford to put enough food on the table to sustain themselves.
We've got to tax the big corporates, particularly the big polluting corporates; we've got to tax the superwealthy. We've got to make them pay their fair share of tax so we can fund the public services that Australian people expect and so we can give people a dignified life in this country, no matter whether they've got a job or not and no matter what their level of ability is. We know we've got enough money to do those things, but, tragically for Australians who are doing it tough, alleviating poverty doesn't appease the Liberals' big donors. I'll tell you what does appease the Liberal big donors: handing over cash to the big corporates and the super wealthy. That's exactly what we are seeing happen in Australia. It is those who are living below the poverty line, those who have no work or not enough work or whose work is too low paid and those who don't own their own property who are paying the price while the billionaires and big corporates are making off like bandits. We are a better country than this, and we can do better. It's all about the choices that we make.
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (17:00): I too would like to make a contribution in this debate on the Australian economy. It's always interesting to follow Senator Bragg, because he usually gives you enough ammunition or material for a couple of contributions. But I don't want to get sidetracked into his ramble about rent-seekers and bloodsuckers, because those sorts of people are mainly on his side.
We are 12 months into this pandemic. I think all Australians need to take a bow and say: 'We've done the best we possibly could as Australian citizens.' We've been led by a government that, despite having its flaws, has made some very impressive moves, and JobKeeper is amongst them. But then you look at JobKeeper and do the analysis over 12 months.
The airline industry has had people unload and load planes since around 1959. In 1976 I was one of those people. Here we are in 2021, where a company like Qantas got JobKeeper. It sustained employment. Then it got done in the Federal Court for not quite following the rules, so to speak. Then they went to appeal, and it's now in the High Court. There's an old adage: business and Liberal governments will never waste a crisis. What has Qantas done? Qantas has abolished those jobs. They no longer exist as direct hire of the airlines. I worked for TAA, Australian Airlines and Qantas, but that job now no longer exists. There is a crisis, and they saw an opportunity to spend their ground-handling functions. They will come back at vastly lower, inferior rates—that's how it will work.
Today Senator Sheldon asked a question about Virgin. They're getting JobKeeper, but they're already planning to get rid of 2,000 jobs. They're planning to get rid of those jobs because they know they're jobs that are hard to crack. They know they're full of unionists who have agreements, who have willpower, strength and the ability to organise, and who will resist attacks upon them. With the IR bill that's coming our way after 12 months of the pandemic, we can see very clearly what's going to happen into the future.
There's another tranche of change in superannuation. That tranche of change in superannuation is going to impact most significantly—I think this is a point that needs to be stressed every day in this chamber—on working women. They work fewer hours to get less money, they live longer in retirement and their superannuation balances are lower. Any diminution in their ability to get decent superannuation prior to retirement condemns them to eking out an existence in retirement on the pension and struggling.
The impact is not felt by highly organised union members; they just go and belt it out of the employer. There are plenty of transport employers now paying more than 12 per cent because it's been negotiated in agreements. As always, these changes impact on those who are least able to defend themselves, those who are least able to be organised and those who are more frequently out of the workforce and who, more often than not, get lower outcomes in respect of wages. These are the people that these changes will impact on. When Senator Bragg rails against that monster of superannuation, he's actually railing against the 50 per cent of the Australian community who are going to struggle to even get close to a respectable retirement income—and that is the women working in Australia.
I'd like to have a look, and I might even ask in estimates if there's any assessment of how many women took money out of their superannuation accounts. How many women availed themselves of the $20,000 and potentially put themselves well down the path to poverty in retirement? That's what this government facilitated. It all sounded very good: 'Take 20 grand out and look after yourself.' But you really took your future away. It will always impact on those least able to defend themselves: migrant workers, unorganised workers and women workers.
If we go into the IR changes, Senator Bragg says we have to get taxes down and make it easier for people to employ in Australia. Well, it's easy to employ in Australia; there's thousands and millions of hardworking Australians who will give you 120 per cent a day. All they ask for is the legal outcome with respect to an award or an enterprise agreement. But it's been falling away for decades now. I spoke to a young woman the other day. She is at university, had three months off, got a job and was getting quite respectable pay. Her complaint was twofold. One is that she never got paid on the same day of the week at any time. If Monday was payday, it came on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Her other complaint was that her superannuation appeared on her payslip but it didn't appear in her account. This is going on every day of the week. No-one is policing this stuff.
We had a company fold in Adelaide the other day despite the enormous injection of capital works into Adelaide. There has been an enormous injection of capital works into steel fabrication, concrete road building and the like. A company fell over with $200 million worth of debt, leaving a parade of small businesses in its wake and leaving hundreds of workers unpaid. One of the telling things that I noticed was that one of the workers said, 'I knew the company was in trouble when my super stopped going into my account 12 months ago.' It came on his payslip but it wasn't going into his account.
There is enormous avoidance of legal responsibilities right now, but Senator Bragg's position is: 'We need to make it easier. It's all too complex. Superannuation—what's that? 12 per cent? What's that?' It's simple: it's a part of the employment agreement. It's a legislated component of the laws of Australia. It's not tough. It's not hard to understand, and neither is wages. People who have 42,000 items in their grocery stores and who, with an algorithm, can check out their profitability in an eye blink claim that IR and wages are too expensive or too hard to understand. It's not too hard to understand. It's simple to understand. There are laws in Australia that need to be maintained, safeguarded and policed, and they're not at the moment. The solution is not to dumb them down. The solution is not to give people a bigger and wider avenue to rort and take money off workers, because, at the end of the day, that's going to make the economy smaller, and we need to make the economy bigger.
Those with position, power and privilege—which the Liberals are well versed in dealing with—don't need a hand. The Commonwealth Bank doesn't need a hand. They're working out how big a dividend they want to pay. They don't need a hand on commercial lending or weakening of standards. One in two Australians are with the Commonwealth Bank. Why would you give the bank a hand? They should be in there getting competition enforced upon them. The regulations should be saying, 'Make sure you're doing the right thing here.' That's what the royal commission found.
Senator Bragg has a jihad against the superannuation industry, but there's no evidence that the $3 trillion superannuation industry hasn't contributed to Australia's continued economic growth. We have one of the largest saving pools of any country in the world. The other day I heard Senator Hume say '$30 billion worth of fees--more than the electricity spend in the country'. If it's $3 trillion and $30 billion, is that one per cent? My maths is not really good, but it's probably around one per cent, which in terms of investment fee outcomes is not all that high. I accept there can always be efficiencies. As a superannuation participant in industry super, I look at those fees quite often, but I don't find any reason to be calling people rent seekers and blood suckers, like Senator Bragg does.
Here we are, 12 months into the pandemic, and now crunch time is coming. I think parts of the economy are going really well. The housing industry is overheating. I look at some of the prices paid in suburbs around me and wonder. I bought a house 15 years ago for probably 20 per cent of what they're selling for now. The housing economy is overheating. I've just built a house. I've just completed a house. There was a bit of delay because people were very busy. We went very quickly from an era where builders were going broke to now, where builders can't get the work done on time. There is a bubble going on and it will come off the boil. We want to make sure that we don't collapse in a heap in certain segments of the economy in the next six to 12 months.
I think, importantly, we need to provide ongoing, secure, well-paid, permanent jobs. We can't exist on this plethora of: 'Okay, I have a job as a security guard. I'm now going to go and work for Ola, Uber, Menulog and someone else to try and cobble together 45 hours a week.' We can't exist on that basis forever. I accept that there will always be people who will do two jobs, and even three jobs, and that's fine. They're hardworking people and they're entitled to do that. If we can get back to a bit more permanent employment, a bit more ongoing employment and a bit more certainty, it will steady and underpin a recovery in the economy.
I want to finish on some of the ideology. You can bring this industrial legislation into the parliament and you can pass it. I have spent most of my working life in the industrial relations environment. You will target Mr John Setka, or Mr Transport Worker, or Mr Building Worker, or Mr Meat Worker, or whatever, but the actual effect of what will happen is you will punish the most vulnerable in the community. You will punish the least organised, the least educated and the lowest paid. If your plan is to have an Australia where you push down people who need a hand up, you're not going to be successful.
There is the history of the 12 years of the Howard government. I was a union secretary in all of those 12 years. I got smarter every day. I got sharper every day. Our finances got better every day. We survived those 12 years and came out much stronger. We didn't lose wages and conditions. We bargained hard with employers and got deals. You can change the laws, but the effect of those laws changes. They won't change where you think they're going to change. They will change and decimate people least able to defend themselves—those who have done nothing to you: women in the workforce, cleaners in the workforce, low-paid migrant workers in the workforce.
If the employer has the ability to say, 'I'm going to do this agreement and you lot are all going to vote for it,' and they say, 'Okay; yes, Boss,' that's what will happen. It won't happen in an organised workplace. It won't happen in many transport yards—it'll happen in some. I think the old adage is to never waste a crisis—you're going to be able to point to a mountain of debt and say, 'If we don't do this, you are going to get that.' I've got to tell you: organised labour will defend itself. Organised labour has always defended itself. The effect will primarily be felt by the women in the workforce, particularly with respect to superannuation—I think that is an empirical fact—lower wages, fewer hours, less time in the workforce, reduction in super entitlements, longer in retirement, lower return. They live longer. So it's really one-way traffic there. And, if we look at the industrial relations effect, it will be predominantly amongst unorganised migrant workers who are least able to understand the system. They're not organised and they're going to suffer exponentially.
I'm sure that there are those in the Liberal Party who have a penchant for attacking on the industrial relations front, and I'm sure that there are plenty of other people on that side who have a bit more compassion and understanding of how this system works. Let's hope that Australia doesn't go into this period of creating a mass underclass of underprivileged, underpaid, poorly researched and underfunded-in-retirement workers. I really do hope those opposite take some notice, particularly in respect of women and the outcomes for women in super and in attacking IR.
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (17:15): As I rise today, I'm reminded of a verse in the Bible, which translates as, 'There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.' This is a criticism of those who won't allow themselves to accept the uncomfortable reality placed right in front of them. The Bible also says that you shouldn't point out the splinter in your friend's eye when you have a plank in your own. Both these parables can be applied to the Australian Labor Party, a party that loves to criticise the coalition's economic credentials despite its own woeful record of tax-and-spend disasters. The Labor Party likes to paint itself as the arbiter of what constitutes good economic management, but their economic record reads like a bad steward's report of a horse race: stumbled at the start, failed to respond, rider told to use more vigour, unable to clear running, pulled up lame and an inquiry into performance—
A government senator: Overuse of the whip!
Senator McDONALD: Overuse of the whip! In contrast, the coalition government has proven itself to be the Winx of world economic management. Just on Wednesday this week, The Australian reported that the Reserve Bank forecast the economy will return to its pre-pandemic size by the middle of this year, six months earlier than expected. RBA Governor Philip Lowe was quoted as saying that the economic recovery was well underway and had been stronger than was earlier expected. The central bank also found that unemployment would fall to 5.5 per cent by the end of 2022, better than the expected six per cent it forecast in December.
If we look back, the only reason the Morrison government could respond so effectively to COVID was the coalition's commendable economic management leading up to it. In 2019 the unemployment rate was 5.1 per cent, down from 5.7 per cent when Labor left office. Workforce participation was at a record high and welfare dependency was at its lowest level in 30 years. But back to today: Australia's economic outlook is more favourable than those of almost all of the world's major advanced economies and we are forecast to grow faster than those advanced economies, while our AAA credit rating has been affirmed by all three major ratings agencies.
The job vacancy rate in regional Australia means that businesses, the small businesses that provide over 60 per cent of jobs, are desperate to fill jobs. Senator Ayres suggested that there are not well-paid jobs available, particularly for the young. This is just wrong. There are over 300 apprenticeship jobs available in Mount Isa today. There are jobs available all over regional Queensland, and yet we continue to hear this bizarre story that there are no jobs available to young people. The Labor Party saying something which is untrue over and over again will not make it correct, and so I seek to introduce a bit of reality to Labor.
I'm not sure how many people opposite have ever run a business—have ever actually employed somebody or have ever worried about what the economy is doing and how they maintain their commitment to their staff. I can assure you: every employer I know worries about that more than about themselves. How many of those opposite have just sat at the teat of someone else's hardworking tax dollar? The states—and, in particular, I talk about Queensland—have shut down airline jobs and shut down tourism jobs. They have done it over and over again, and I can tell you that the small-business owners who are employing those people are not sleeping at night. They're wondering how to pay their mortgages and they're wondering why Palaszczuk doesn't give a damn about them, their families or their futures.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ): Senator, I would ask you to use the appropriate title for the Premier of Queensland.
Senator McDONALD: Thank you for that correction. They wonder why the Premier of Queensland doesn't give a damn about their future, their families, their mortgages or their employees. I also need to correct Senator Gallacher, who is well out of touch. He believes that nobody is monitoring business payments. I can tell him that Single Touch Payroll was introduced some time ago, and I can give him a tutorial in other business practices that he's obviously not aware of in this modern world. Although Senator Gallacher is often a great advocate for regional South Australia, I'm afraid he has no idea of what's happening with the businesses there.
Business confidence is now above prepandemic levels according to two bank run surveys. All I can say is that the Australian people and businesses must be hugely relieved that the coalition has held the country's financial reins during this shock. In fact, Australians would be thanking their lucky stars that Labor hasn't had a chance to get its hands on the Treasury for some time. Studies show that, without the groundbreaking JobKeeper subsidy, unemployment would have skyrocketed to 12 per cent and stayed there until at least 2022. The Labor Party loves to paint the coalition as holding back wage growth, but, if we look at the facts, Labor's record on wages was a cut to the real minimum wage in three out of six years, whereas it has grown every year under the coalition. Average earnings adjusted for hours as measured in the National Accounts increased 3.3 per cent through the year to the December quarter, above the 10-year average of around 2.3 per cent, and that compares to just 1.3 per cent in the June quarter of 2013. Even though we are facing a once-in-a-century pandemic, the coalition's strong economic management resulted in solid household income growth of 3.4 per cent in the September quarter and 8.1 per cent compared to a year ago.
The key to lifting wages is lifting productivity growth, and that's why we are focused on lowering taxes, investing in infrastructure, equipping our workers with better skills and improving our industrial relations framework. In my home region of northern Australia, the Morrison government has injected more billions of dollars in assistance, infrastructure and support, whereas the state government has been one of the lowest-spending state governments across the land. In the most recent budget, the north received the following allocations, just to name a few: $655 million in additional road infrastructure across the north; $3 million for the North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority to accelerate water infrastructure planning and agricultural opportunities; $17 million for a regional tourism recovery package to help the industry bounce back from COVID; more than $3 billion in defence funding for facilities in northern Australia; and $1 billion allocated to flow through local councils. So I have to thank the Labor Party. I have to thank them for once again giving us an opportunity to highlight the positive outlook Australians have been given thanks to a coalition government.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:23): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to note that it's certainly true that the Australian economy was not as strong as it should have been in December 2019 just before the government's restrictions on COVID hit. GDP in the December quarter recorded a very poor 0.4 per cent and inventory growth was negative 0.1 per cent, reflecting the low confidence in the manufacturing and retail sectors. Median wages were not growing in real terms, and unemployment had stalled at 5.1 per cent. The only thing holding up the Australian economy was surging mineral exports. It's here that One Nation parts company with Labor. One Nation believes that the weak economy was a result of policies that Labor introduced or supported. At the heart of an economy is electricity. Labor and the Greens cheerlead unreliable energy. If only steal smelters could run on rainbows, Australia would be an economic powerhouse!
According to economist Dr Alan Moran, Australia's excessively high electricity prices are undermining our economic resilience and competitiveness and cutting our standard of living. Since 2002 successive Liberal, National, Labor and Greens governments, in a misguided quest to reduce carbon dioxide, have introduced climate policies at the expense of cheap coal and gas power. As we try vainly and stupidly to cut carbon dioxide, nature's trace atmospheric gas, essential for life on the planet, our electricity prices, once the lowest in the world, have become one of the most expensive. With carbon dioxide at just 0.04 per cent—four one-hundredths of one per cent of our air—this is futility and stupidity. The data shows we cannot even affect the level of carbon dioxide in air.
Dr Moran goes on to state that the financial impact of climate policies and their renewable subsidies are as follows. Higher electricity costs through the supply chain are forcing up retail prices and costing households at least $13 billion annually extra, or around $1,300 per household per annum. Climate policies account for 39 per cent of household electricity bills, not the 6½ per cent the government typically quotes, and it causes a net loss of jobs in the economy. For every green job subsidised, 2.2 jobs are lost in the real economy. State and federal governments' own data reveal the cost of these climate policies to household electricity bills is an extra $536 per annum, significantly more than the government's touted $90 per household per annum. In effect, the government imposed climate policies and renewable subsidies account for 39 per cent of household electricity costs. Labor cannot blame the government for an economy that policies Labor themselves advocate have decimated. To get the economy going and to create breadwinner jobs, baseload coal power is needed desperately.
On Tuesday I moved that the Senate support a new HELE coal fired power station in the Hunter, and Labor voted against this. Last year One Nation supported the government's call for a new HELE coal plant in Collinsville, and Labor voted against that. In a previous sitting One Nation proposed a hydro power station be constructed behind Townsville in northern Queensland. The Bradfield Scheme's first stage would create 2,000 megawatts of clean, green baseload power and thousands of high-quality jobs. Labor voted against it. Labor just doesn't understand energy and its vital core important, nor does Labor give a moment's thought to the energy workers who will be thrown out of work as a result of Labor's policy of closing coal fired power stations. Beleaguered Labor member for the Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, is stranded in a party that doesn't give a damn about coal or the three in every five households that coal provides in the Hunter. Mr Fitzgibbon admits that labour—the real labour—is no longer part of Labor, and the Labor Party is no longer the party of labour. One Nation is the party of labour.
I need to mention the National Party, who this week walked from their support for coal despite only just releasing their glossy manufacturing 2035 policy a few weeks ago. After One Nation moved a motion calling on the Nationals to vote in favour of their own policy, a motion that took the words of Senator Canavan and applied them directly, the Nationals backflipped and chucked out a policy they'd only just released. Two days ago, our motion, as I said, copied and pasted the public shoutings of Senator Canavan, the Nationals' deputy leader in the Senate, and that same day they slapped him down. What a joke! The Nationals have a credibility problem, a hypocrisy problem, a duplicity problem.
To be fair to this motion, the Morrison government voted as a whole to oppose HELE coal. That's the Morrison government. And what a sight there was on the opposition benches with the Liberals, the Nationals, Labor, the Greens and the crossbench all crowded together, united in their desire to take jobs and a future away from the Hunter—not so much TheBrady Bunch but F Troop. Of course, the troubles in the Australian economy are to do with more than just power. The last 40 years have seen the largest transfer of wealth in the history of this country, from working Australians into the pockets of the elites. Behind this transfer of wealth is globalism. Australia has exported more than one million manufacturing jobs over the last 30 years, mostly to China.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The time for the debate has expired.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
COVID-19: Vaccine
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (17:30): I've been advised that, in question time today, in answering a question from Senator Siewert, I indicated that we had 40 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. That number is not correct. It is incumbent on me to correct the record. The actual number of doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that we have available to us at this point in time is 20 million doses. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to correct the record and I thank Senator Wong for bringing that matter to my attention.
ADJOURNMENT
The PRESIDENT (17:30): It being after 5.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
COVID-19: Vaccine
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (17:30): Another day and another humiliation for this incompetent, bumbling minister—an incompetent, bumbling minister who has a history of not being able to get his numbers right. The whole country saw his inability to answer questions about the number of Australians who had died in aged-care facilities when he appeared before Senator Gallagher's committee. Now he can't get his numbers right in the Senate. Then he comes in here and he says, 'I thank Senator Wong for bringing it to my attention.' Don't you check that what you tell the parliament and, through them, the Australian people is correct? That is ministerial accountability. You are accountable to the Australian people through the parliament. It is your job to check. You shouldn't require the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or shadow ministers representing here to let you know you got your number wrong. If you were serious about your ministerial responsibility, you would have made sure you took the time to check the record and come down here before we wrote a letter to you asking you to come down. I say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the minister: it's pretty pathetic to come down and make sure he speaks just before the adjournment so we can't take note of the minister's statement and have a proper debate. It's pretty pathetic, frankly, of the government to do that, to try and protect an incompetent, bumbling minister who has already been previously censured by the Senate.
But really what this underlines is not only this minister's incompetence but the government's failures on the vaccine, the government's failings on the vaccinations. This is the most important task facing this government if they're serious about keeping Australians safe. It is the most important thing this government have to get right. But instead of a clear, honest, open plan that even this minister could explain, they're caught up and entangled in their own spin. Perhaps you should focus on keeping Australians safe and actually rolling out the vaccinations that are required rather than holding press conferences before question time so Mr Morrison can wriggle out of the fact that, to this date, we have not seen a vaccination delivered in Australia.
One of the pieces of hype and spin that this Prime Minister has sought to wriggle away from is his promise that four million doses would be delivered by the end of March. He wants people to forget that he said that. We saw him in his press conference doing the soft-shoe shuffle, trying to get away from it. Now it's April. Then it's going to be the end of April. Then it's going to be May. There's a bit of a trend here. But he said it. He told Australians, as the leader of the country, that his government would deliver four million doses by the end of March. We'll wait and see, because so far all we've seen is announcements and him trying to slide away from that commitment in subsequent press conferences.
Of course, as Senator Keneally reminds me, he also told people we'd be at the front of the queue. 'Australians will be at the front of the queue,' he said. It's a good line. You can see them workshopping that in the PMO. 'Australians will be at the front of the queue. Don't you worry. I've got your back.' Well, there have been about 108 million shots given across 76 countries to date. That's 108 million doses across 76 countries to date. How many have there been delivered in Australia? Zero. A big fat zero. Can someone please explain to me now—perhaps I'll give leave to the government to stand up and explain to me now—how 108 million shots across 76 countries versus zero equals front of the queue. As Senator Gallagher said, 'Which queue?' I think the evidence to her was, 'We're at the front of the queue in front of New Zealand.' So are we at the front of a queue of two? That's a pretty good result, isn't it? That's not what the Prime Minister said. That's not what the Prime Minister told us.
Around the world over four million doses—that is, 4.25 million doses—are being administered every day. How many doses are administered every day at the moment in Australia? Zero. This minister, yet again, has not been able to get this number right, but the real number that matters to Australians is how many doses have actually been delivered. Again, that number is zero. Whether the promise is 40 million or 20 million, the number they've actually delivered is zero.
What I'd say to this government and to this minister is: maybe one of the reasons you can't get your numbers right is because you're so focused on the hype and the spin that you don't even know what you're doing. Let's come back to what really has to happen. This is the most important task facing this government to keep Australians safe, and it's about time you got it right.
Australia Day
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (17:36): I'm delighted to rise in the chamber this afternoon and speak about the list of activities I undertook on Australia Day. What a great Australia Day it was that we had on 26 January. I started my day at the Fiji Senior Citizens Association Of Queensland Inc. hub at Annerley in Brisbane for a citizenship ceremony. This place is more than a hub; it's a symbol of how good Australia can be when people from different backgrounds come together to celebrate our newest Australians. It was my honour, in the ceremony, to be the presiding officer and greet 25 new citizens to our Australian family.
I'd like to pay tribute to Mr Surendra Prasad OAM. He is the driving force behind Fiji Senior Citizens Association Of Queensland Inc. I'd like to thank Aunty Peggy Tidyman, who gave the very moving welcome to country and acknowledgement of the traditional owners. I would also like to pay tribute to Ms Agnes Whiten OAM, president of the federation of diverse cultural communities of Queensland. I could not have imagined a better person to accompany me as we raised the Australian flag that morning.
From that citizenship ceremony, I went to an Australia Day pool party put on by my good friend Councillor Sarah Hutton at the Jindalee swimming pool. I hadn't been to the Jindalee swimming pool since primary school, so it was good to go to this event and see the activities and those people having great fun while eating lamingtons, engaging in barbecues and doing everything that Australians do on Australia Day. It was especially an honour to sponsor the thong-throwing competition. It was even better to see our local police participate in the competition. It made me reflect on how great it is that we live in a country where our police can actively participate in those sorts of activities on Australia Day as police are respected and seen as protectors of the community rather than as people who pose a threat.
From there, I went to the citizenship ceremony which was put on by the Lions Club of Brisbane MacGregor. I'll give a call-out to all the great 'lions' associated with Macgregor Lions. I particularly acknowledge Mr Michael Cosgrove, Mr Ross Gibbins and the District Governor Elect, Narelle Parkins. MacGregor Lions have been putting on this citizenship ceremony for many, many years, and, on this day, 99 new citizens were welcomed to the Australian family. I'd also like to thank Aunty Norma and Aunty Cynthia for their moving welcome to country at that event.
I should say that at the first citizenship ceremony I attended, at the Fiji Senior Citizens Association of Queensland Inc., the pre-ceremony entertainment was provided by Mr Michael Po Saw, who is the President of the Australian Myanmar Friendship Association of Queensland. Michael, I acknowledge that this has been a very difficult week for the people of Myanmar and for the Myanmar diaspora in Australia, but you performed admirably, as you always do.
Finally, I concluded the day with a joint celebration, representing the Prime Minister at the Australia Day and Indian Republic Day celebration, a dinner on 26 January. Again, this was a fantastic event and a time to reflect on the ever-increasing closeness of the relationship between Australia and India and, in particular, our common democratic values which bring us together. I'd like to pay tribute to Mr Shyam Das, the President of the Federation of Indian Communities of Queensland. I'd also like to pay tribute to all of the performers on the day: the Nadananjali School of Dance; the Tapori Squad; the Yatra Music group; the Sargam Music Academy; the Taal Dance Group; and Ms Taleatha Wright-Morgan, who is an absolutely outstanding young Australian. She's an outstanding young contemporary dancer, and she's also commencing university this year. I wish her all the best. It was an honour to be in the company of your performance.
COVID-19: Vaccine
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (17:41): I'm going to tell you a story of two Australian citizens, and I'll confess right upfront that I'm related to both of them. One is my mother; one is my mother-in-law. My mother, an Australian citizen, had her COVID vaccine—she's had it. My mother-in-law, also an Australian citizen, has not had her COVID vaccine, and she doesn't know when she's going to get it. You know why my mother, who is an Australian citizen, has had her COVID vaccine? Because she lives in the United States of America, and the United States of America has managed to roll out vaccines to 26 million of its citizens.
Senator Lines interjecting—
Senator Urquhart interjecting—
Senator KENEALLY: Twenty-six million, Senator Lines and Senator Urquhart. That is more than the population of Australia. The number of vaccines the United States, since the election of Joe Biden, has managed to roll out to vaccinate its citizens is greater than the entire population of Australia. Australia, how many have they had? Zero.
My mother-in-law, the Australian citizen who lives here in Australia, doesn't know when she's going to get the vaccine. There's no plan. We have no idea about the online booking system—we have no idea. The GPs don't have any idea of how they're supposed to administer it. The pharmacists are waiting for the information about how they're supposed to administer it. We have had the Prime Minister stand in front of the country and do what he loves doing most: making an announcement. And what was the big announcement he made? He said, 'Our vaccine plan will put Australians at the front of the queue—the front of the queue.' I don't know how the Prime Minister defines 'queue', but right now there are 100 million people around the globe who have received a COVID vaccine. Are there any Australians in Australia who are part of that group? No. We are way up the back of the queue, and we have been at the back of the queue since countries and companies started negotiating vaccine deals. The Australian government did not even approach some of these pharmaceutical companies. In the COVID committee, chaired by Senator Gallagher, we heard that, in fact, it was the pharmaceutical companies that were approaching the Morrison government, in June—in June!—when other countries had already struck deals. By the time Scott Morrison got around to striking a vaccine deal in September, there were already 34 countries that had deals and already a billion doses accounted for. We are at the end of a very long queue. We are a billion doses behind. We were 34 countries behind and now we are 100 million people behind.
The Morrison government are not on the side of the Australian people. If they were on the side of the Australian people, they would have stronger vaccine deals. They would have had earlier vaccine deals. I've heard some people say, 'You don't want to run down the vaccine.' I'm not running down the vaccine; I'm talking up the vaccine. I want the bloody vaccine. Let's get the vaccine. Where is it? I don't know if 'bloody' is unparliamentary, but where the bloody hell is the vaccine, Scott Morrison? Honestly. Senator McGrath over there looks a little disappointed in my unparliamentary language, and I will withdraw it for him. But what I won't withdraw is my criticism of this Morrison government that lacks a plan.
I kind of, almost, maybe can find a little bit of sympathy in my heart for Minister Colbeck. We know the minister doesn't have a great facility for numbers. That was demonstrated in the COVID committee inquiry by Senator Gallagher's very simple question of how many people had died, which he didn't know the answer to. He didn't know the answer to how many people had died in residential aged care when he is the minister for residential aged care. He is only the minister representing the health minister, an interesting appointment and decision by the Morrison government to give him that responsibility. But you can almost feel sorry for him not knowing the number of Pfizer vaccine doses that the government's secured because the government don't have a clear plan. It's clear they haven't discussed it in cabinet. It's clear they haven't actually briefed their ministers. All the Australian people want is some certainty. That's all they want. There's one more thing they want: they want the vaccine.
Climate Change
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:47): After the challenges of 2020, with the pandemic and the disasters across our country, you would have thought that governments would have woken up to the massive threat that climate change poses to our future, to the future of the planet and to its habitants. Federal and state governments continue to support, invest in and encourage the fossil fuel industry. They want a gas led recovery, they keep on approving fossil fuel developments and they are not even enforcing the weak environmental conditions on projects.
The immediate risks that climate change poses to our health and wellbeing are getting worse every year. As global temperatures rise, extreme weather events like bushfires, droughts, cyclones and floods are becoming more frequent and severe. As Professor Will Steffen said:
No developed country has more to lose from climate change-fuelled extreme weather, or more to gain as the world transforms to a zero-carbon economy, than Australia does.
My home state of Western Australia, particularly the South West, was always predicted to be severely affected by climate change and, unfortunately, so it turns out to be. Tragically, right now, we are seeing bushfires in the Perth metropolitan area and in the hills, posing risks to lives, and the loss of homes. My heart goes out to all of those affected by these fires and to the emergency services providers that are battling these fires.
A report by a new group called the Climate Targets Panel, a group of some of the most senior climate scientists in the country and, in fact, John Hewson, found the Morrison government should be setting a 2030 emissions reduction target of between 50 and 74 per cent if Australia is to comply with a goal of limiting global heating to two degrees or 1.5 degrees. But we can do better than just going for two degrees. We must aim for 1.5 degrees, which means a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030.
The biggest contributor to emissions here in Australia are fossil fuels and the companies that produce them. This week we have heard about those companies' political donations. Nationally, over the last three years, the Liberals have accepted $2,365,250, Labor have accepted $1,108,528 and the Nationals have accepted $221,787 from fossil fuel companies. That's almost $3.7 million of dirty money that influences politicians' judgement when debating critical issues like the climate crisis and clean energy. The greatest tragedy of the climate crisis is that 7½ billion people must pay the price, and the price is a degraded planet where their future is in jeopardy so that a couple of dozen polluting interests can continue to make record profits, and can continue to pump dirty fossil fuel emissions and carbon emissions into the atmosphere. It is a great moral failing of our political system that this is allowed to continue to happen.
In my home state of Western Australia, a state that had a budget surplus in 2020, the big polluters also jumped on the opportunity bandwagon to buy political influence. Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals took in $283,340 from Woodside, which is currently seeking approval from the WA Labor government for a gas project in the state's north-west. If approved, it will become the nation's biggest polluter. Oil and gas giant Chevron, which operates two of the biggest polluting facilities in WA, donated $124,685 to Labor, the Libs and the Nationals. Our system enables individuals and corporations with greater wealth to have an undue influence on elections. These companies and their products are substantially responsible for the climate emergency we face, and have collectively delayed national and global action for decades. We need caps on emissions, we need caps on election expenditure and donations, and we need real-time disclosure laws—and we need them now. The Australian public deserves to know who's putting money into political parties. It will bring transparency and integrity back into decision-making and policies, especially when it comes to this climate emergency. (Time expired)
Manufacturing Industry
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (17:51): This is an important time in Australian history as we emerge out of the coronavirus pandemic. I know it's sometimes tough in modern times to unify the country, but there has been a level of unity in the nation in response to the pandemic. I think there's also a level of unity around what we need to do in the future. One of the most common refrains I have heard over the past year is the need to restore Australia's manufacturing strength, that we need to get back to making things in this country so that we can respond better to crises like those we've seen over the past year, and also respond to new crises that may emerge, particularly as the security challenges in our region increase.
We also must face the fact that over the past generation our manufacturing strength has fallen considerably, and this fall has only accelerated in the past decade. Indeed, late last year a new record low was set for the number of Australians who work in manufacturing. Just 840,000 Australians are now employed in manufacturing, down from almost 1.2 million 30 years ago. So 300,000 manufacturing jobs have gone in the space of a generation. More worryingly, the last decade has been the first decade on record where our manufacturing output has fallen. So we produced fewer manufactured goods in 2020 than we did in 2010.
To reverse that trend is going to be tough, it's going to be challenging. I think the causes of our manufacturing decline aren't that controversial. We've seen a massive increase in energy prices over the past 10 to 15 years. Electricity prices for manufacturing businesses in Australia have gone up 91 per cent over the past decade. That doesn't help matters; it's harder to make things when our energy costs are higher. And over the last 20 years we've seen an explosion of measures to protect industries in other countries, especially given the emergence of China since it joined the WTO. China has massively subsidised its industries, which have taken jobs from other countries, especially industrial economies, around the world. One estimate, which was produced by the American steel institute a few years ago, was that Chinese steel firms have 80 per cent of their profit subsidised by the central government.
To reverse this trend, over the past year I and my Nationals colleagues have been working on policies and ideas to bring manufacturing jobs back to Australia. We have a proud history in the Nationals Party of supporting manufacturing and we think that as a nation we must return to support that great sector again. We should deal with these two issues that have emerged to reduce our manufacturing strength. I firmly believe that we have to reinvest back in cheaper energy; we have walked away from using the natural resources that we have—especially in coal in which we used to have, and gas. We should not just simply be exporting these products to the rest of the world so that we can buy back the manufactured goods made with them from Coles, Big W and Kmart.
Instead, we should be using our coal. There is no reason why we shouldn't be building some coal-fired power stations in this country. We learned today that in 2020 China brought on 30 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity. That's more than all of the coal-fired power stations in this country. Why aren't we building some ourselves? And we should be trying to get cheaper gas, but the way to do that is to find oil. We need to find oil if we want cheap gas, and our oil self-sufficiency has crashed from almost self-sufficiency 20 years ago to less than 50 per cent today.
We should also protect our jobs. We shouldn't allow our jobs to be stolen by other countries through unfair competition. We recommend investing back into the Anti-Dumping Commission so that we have the evidence under international trade rules to take countervailing action to protect Australian jobs in manufacturing.
I don't have time this evening to go through many of the other policy ideas that the Nationals have put together, but our policies are available on my website and links are available through social media. We want to see investments in skills. We think that tax incentives and low-cost finance should be provided, especially in regional areas, to attract investment in manufacturing. And we think we should strengthen procurement rules as well so that government funded contracts use more Australian content.
We believe that the Australian people are united in wanting to see a strong manufacturing industry, but we have to take action to protect that great industry and to make sure jobs come back to Australia.
Economy
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:56): As I said before in ending my previous speech on the economy motion: behind this transfer of wealth that's going on in this country from workers to the elites, Australia has exported more than one million manufacturing jobs over the last 30 years—mostly to China. Why? Because electricity prices have skyrocketed. That's due to Liberal-Labor-Nationals-Greens policies—F Troop.
At the same time we have imported 10 million new Australians to compete for jobs that no longer exist. Both the Morrison government and the Labor Party champion excessive and increasing immigration. But there are other reasons. Only today Labor advanced an amendment to the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019 which sought to defend the free trade agreements which lie at the heart of the economic gutting of our country. The government recently signed a free trade agreement with Indonesia that Labor supported. This agreement actually includes a clause that says we have to send vocational skills trainers to Indonesia to train Indonesians to our standard so that these workers can come to Australia and compete with Australian workers to see who will work the cheapest. Free trade agreements turn our labour market into a version of The Hunger Games, with the cheapest worker getting the job. So now we have F Troop meeting The Hunger Games.
Reducing Australian wages to the level of our cheapest trading partner is a designed feature of free trade agreements. Labor are supporting a direct and quantifiable attack on the wages and entitlements of Australian workers, so we won't be blaming just the Morrison government: they're all doing it. F Troop! The effect of this race to the bottom can be easily seen in Australia's median wage, which is the point which half the people of Australia earn less than and half earn more than. In Australia over the last 30 years, our median wage has remained constant after adjustment for inflation. Everyday Australian workers have not had a wage increase in 30 years—that's after inflation. No increase in 30 years! This does not even take into account that in this period real estate, education and health care have increased by as much as 300 per cent. If everyday Australians feel like they are working harder and have less money it is because that is exactly what is happening. That too is on the tired, old parties, not just the Morrison government: Labor, Liberal and Nationals. F Troop!
I've worked overseas. I've worked as a miner underground in this country, in several states. Australian workers are among the world's best. Australian workers are innovative and use their initiative. I've been in many countries overseas and I know that we have the best workers in the world; we just need honest government to help them get along.
Senate adjourned at 18 : 00