The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
CONDOLENCES
His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
The PRESIDENT (12:01): It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 9 April 2021 of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:01): by leave—I move:
That the following address to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second be agreed to—
"YOUR MAJESTY:
We, the President and Members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, received with great sorrow the news of the death of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. On behalf of the Australian people, we express deep sympathy to Your Majesty and other members of the Royal Family, and give thanks for a remarkable life dedicated to service, duty, support and his family."
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, earned the admiration of generations through a life committed to selfless public service that stretched across the better part of a century. He lived a long and full life, only retiring from public duties in 2017 at the age of 96. When asked to reflect upon his contribution to public life, Prince Philip responded with trademark honesty:
I've just done what I think is my best. Some people think it's all right. Some don't. What can you do? I can't change my way of doing things. It's part of my style. It's just too bad, they'll have to lump it.
It was the authenticity of Prince Philip that captured the attention and left an impression upon many. As the Prime Minister has remarked, he was part of a generation that we will never see again: a generation that defied tyranny and worked to build a liberal world order, holding up and protecting the freedoms we enjoy today. Prince Philip is remembered for his distinguished naval service in the Second World War as well as his unwavering support for the Queen as the longest-serving consort in history.
Prince Philip's life was nothing short of extraordinary, from the earliest days of his disrupted and at times challenging childhood through to when, upon finishing his schooling in Scotland in 1938—in the run-up to the start of the Second World War, where young Philip began his naval career—he was accepted into the Britannia Royal Naval College at the age of 17. Prince Philip thrived at the naval college, finishing top of his class. It was here that a young Princess Elizabeth fell in love with him when he escorted her and her sister, Princess Margaret, during a tour of the college in 1939.
Prince Philip rose through the ranks, becoming one of the youngest officers in the Navy to be made first lieutenant and second in command of a ship, HMS Wallace, at the age of just 21. It was in 1941, serving on HMS Valiant based in Alexandria, that Prince Philip was mentioned in dispatches for his actions during the Battle of Cape Matapan after spotting an unexpected enemy vessel in the searchlights. He continued to serve his country for the rest of his life, maintaining a keen interest in the military and furthering his own training, even earning his flying wings. After the war, a 1946 letter from Prince Philip to then Princess Elizabeth revealed an ardent young man with a new sense of purpose. It said:
To have been spared in the war and seen victory, to have been given the chance to rest and to re-adjust myself, to have fallen in love completely and unreservedly, makes all one's personal and even the world's troubles seem small and petty.
His words embodied the tone of what would become a life of unswerving devotion.
On return to the UK in 1946, Prince Philip went to ask King George VI for Princess Elizabeth's hand in marriage. In 1947, the then Lieutenant Mountbatten married Princess Elizabeth, who became Queen just five years later. At her coronation in June 1953, Prince Philip swore to be Her Majesty's 'liege man of life and limb,' as he gave up his active military career to be the Queen's consort. Prince Philip was in fact the first subject to pay homage to his newly crowned Queen. The story goes that he would later, following the coronation, ask his wife in private whilst she was still weighed down by her regalia, 'Where did you get that hat?' He was a man with good humour and an unmistakably authentic approach about him.
He took on the role of consort in a posture of humility, always putting the needs of his spouse above his own, allowing her to shine, always one pace behind. In describing her husband on the occasion of their golden wedding anniversary, Her Majesty described the Duke of Edinburgh as her 'strength and stay'—a simple statement that captured the essence and significance of his role as her consort.
Their marriage would span an extraordinary 73 years. In 1956, Prince Philip launched the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, a youth awards program inspiring teenagers to challenge themselves physically and mentally and build their confidence through non-academic activities. The award was introduced to Australia in 1959 and has since developed and grown internationally, now reaching young people in more than 130 countries, with over eight million young people having participated worldwide on the last count. This includes over 775,000 young Australians who have participated in and benefited from the opportunities created by the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards.
Prince Philip led a life of strong advocacy for scientific and technical innovation and for wildlife protection and conservation. He was the patron or president of more than 750 organisations. Sixty years ago, in 1961, the Duke of Edinburgh helped found the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, and two years later in 1963 on a visit to Australia he floated the idea of a local branch of the World Wildlife Fund. In fact it was from this suggestion by Prince Philip that led to the foundation of the Australian Conservation Foundation in 1965. Prince Philip was the foundation's president, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature's president, from 1971 to 1976 and was very passionate about environmental issues, including in Australia. He spoke to a number of issues, from endangered species to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef.
True to form, Prince Philip also acted in typical blunt style to urge the federal government in 1973 to act on protecting Kakadu by declaring it a special reserve. In a letter to former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam about environmental issues, he described the issue as 'probably the hottest of the potatoes'. He was a friend to Australia and passionate about protecting Australia's unique natural beauty and wildlife. But, more than that, he had a genuine interest in and compassion for the people of Australia.
Prince Philip made 22 tours to Australia. He was the royal representative who opened the Melbourne Olympics in 1956. From his first visit to Australia as a young sailor aboard the battleship HMS Ramillies to his final tour in 2011, Prince Philip had an informality that endeared him to Australia. In December 1945 he spoke of his love for our country, the people and the food, reflecting then that, on his visit to Australia, he enjoyed the week in Tasmania best. It was reported that one of the many things Prince Philip had in common with Australians was a love of beer.
It was fitting that, on his 1967 visit, when Prince Philip toured the bushfire ravaged Tasmania, he visited the Longley Hotel to enjoy a beer with the locals. He met some of those who were badly affected in the township of Snug, south of Hobart, where 11 people had, tragically, lost their lives in the fires. He also on that occasion visited Taroona, Kingston and Margate. Prince Philip was mobbed every time he stepped out of his car during his tour of fire affected areas of southern Tasmania, notwithstanding the tragedy and devastation those communities had endured. His informality and natural disposition towards the people of Tasmania placed him well as a comforter in a time of need, as it did in many other circumstances across the Commonwealth of Nations. He cared deeply for Australia—its natural beauty, wildlife, welfare and people—and Australians cared deeply for and respected Prince Philip.
Prince Philip will be missed by all who knew him, met him or respected him from afar, but of course none more so than Her Majesty and their family. Today we give thanks for the sacrifices he made and the good that he did in the service of our nation and of free peoples across the world. We place on record our sincere gratitude for the service Prince Philip gave to the Commonwealth and extend our sincerest condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and to Prince Philip's family in their time of grief. I thank the Senate.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:11): In 1959 Prince Philip visited Kota Kinabalu, my home town, in what is now known as Malaysia but was then part of British North Borneo. Large numbers of local schoolchildren lined up ready to see him pass by. I know that because amongst them was my father, Francis Wong. Following the death of Prince Philip, Dad, who's now 80, shared details of this event with me. He told me that he was one of the La Salle students lining up at Tanjung Aru Beach, a beach I played on. This location was later named Prince Philip Park, and a playground was built where Toby, my brother, and I would play on Sundays. Over 60 years later, Dad still remembers this visit.
In the course of his long life, Prince Philip would have made thousands upon thousands of such visits, thrust into the spotlight following the ascension of his wife to the throne after the premature death of King George VI. At the time of his retirement from official duties, his official engagements numbered over 22,000, and those don't include the ones in which he participated with Her Majesty the Queen. So there would be countless numbers of people in the same position as my father, who vividly recall the time they saw Prince Philip on such an occasion. This is just a small glimpse of the way so many individuals felt a personal connection with Prince Philip through his life and work as a public figure.
Prince Philip first visited Australia in 1940 as a midshipman in naval service, but he eventually became a regular visitor to our shores, visiting us on more than 30 occasions. At least half of these trips were in his own capacity, when he was not accompanying the Queen. Royal visits have maintained an enduring popularity in Australia, but they will probably never again reach the heights of the 1954 tour. This visit, with the Queen, marked the first occasion a reigning monarch had visited Australia, and together they were greeted by unsurpassed crowds. Our population was then around nine million people, and it is estimated some 75 per cent turned out to see the royal couple.
Over these many visits, Prince Philip has been to all Australian states and territories and ventured well beyond capital cities to many regional and country locations. He was present at events through our history, such as the Olympic Games in Melbourne, as my colleague mentioned; the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games in Perth; and the 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane, and he was part of the official opening in all three of these international sporting festivals.
We see reminders of his visits and his life across Australia. His name is recorded as opening such monuments as the Tasman Bridge in Hobart; the Gateway bridges in Brisbane; the Royal Australian Mint, here in Canberra, one of the power stations that form part of the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Scheme; and, amongst others, the Prince Philip Theatre at Prince Alfred College in Adelaide, recognising his 1992 visit to the school—named for his predecessor as Duke of Edinburgh—on the 125th anniversary of the laying of its foundation stone.
Of particular resonance to many Australians was his support following times of natural disaster, such as in the aftermath of the Hobart bushfires in 1967 and the visit to Darwin with the Queen in 1977, just a few years after the devastation wreaked by Cyclone Tracy. He made his final royal tour to Australia with the Queen in 2011.
One of the most enduring legacies left by Prince Philip is through the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, a scheme that will continue as a living monument to his commitment to personal growth and development as well as to service. Since first being instituted some six decades ago, it has enhanced and expanded the lives of nearly 800,000 young Australians, and counting. More than 130 countries have adopted the program, with over eight million young people having participated worldwide. Prince Philip rightly regarded the award scheme as his greatest achievement.
Although some associate him with the gilded life of a royal, Prince Philip's life was not always so comfortable or glamourous. As a baby he was smuggled out of his native Corfu and into exile, concealed in an orange crate. He was abandoned by his father. His mother went into an asylum, his dear sister was killed in a plane crash and he was shuffled between countries and schools and languages. It was a life that demanded courage and fortitude. But he went on to become an eyewitness to many of the most significant events of the 20th century. He knew war and peace, empire and commonwealth, turbulence and tranquillity. His life spanned a time that encompassed such great change.
As a child in Malaysia, I saw the legacy of British administration all around me, in the names of places and buildings and streets, in the system of government and in the stories told of that time. As you would expect, there were stories of mixed experience and emotion, of progress but also of limitation, of civil laws but also of injustice. My grandmother worked as a servant to a British family, and I'm a republican. But, regardless of this history or of our views, we respect and honour service, and this was a life of service. During the many decades devoted to his Queen, his nation and the Commonwealth, Prince Philip also became an enduring part of the story of our nation. His visits on many occasions enabled him to form many connections with Australia. And of course his death brings to a close an extraordinary partnership. On many occasions the Queen has spoken of how central and irreplaceable Prince Philip was to her. The Queen once said she owed her husband 'a debt greater than he would ever claim or we shall ever know'. Like so many others, I was deeply moved by the image of the Queen sitting alone on a pew at her husband's funeral, the depth of her loss so vivid.
We in the opposition join with the government and all senators across the chamber in making this address to Her Majesty the Queen and in conveying our sorrow and sympathy to her. We extend our condolences to the royal family and to those throughout the country and across the world who mourn the loss of a unique figure in the history of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (12:18): As Nationals leader in the Senate, I would like to associate the Nationals senators with the comments from both the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I think the depth of feeling, the respectful tone and the breadth of topics covered by both of those speeches really speak to the impact that Prince Philip had on all of us, republicans and monarchists alike. We extend our sincere condolences to Her Majesty, our Queen, following the death of her consort, Prince Philip, and our deepest sympathy to her family and the broader Commonwealth.
On 9 April Buckingham Palace announced the passing of Prince Philip at the age of 99, and I think a lot of us were surprised by the depth of feeling and the reaction right across Australia, from young people to old, from all walks of life, who seemed a little rattled that someone who had been such a part of our life, our history and our future was gone.
Prince Philip loved Australia. He first sailed into Sydney Harbour on a navy ship at the age of 18, and he'd then go on to visit us another 20 times. He shared a lot of our values, and we've touched on his larrikinism, his hard-work ethic and his Christian values. The royal tour of 1954 was huge for country residents here; 75 per cent of Australians turned out to see Her Majesty and Prince Philip. Like Senator Wong's father, my mum, as a young girl from a little country town called Alex, was one of them, waving her flag proudly as they drove past. They travelled to 70 cities and towns in that visit, and Australia fell in love with them as a couple and as our monarchs at that time.
Lots of Country Party leaders were privileged to meet Prince Philip. Mark Vaile said that he remembers having a great lunch with the Queen and Prince Philip and Edward. He remembers Prince Philip at that lunch having very strong opinions and supporting the maintenance of the rights of the individual, which is core to our beliefs in Australia. It was not only this belief that Prince Philip shared with National Party senators and MPs in regional Australia; he was a great outdoors man. He loved horseriding, shooting, fishing, gardening and even, in later years, decided to turn his hand to farming and sold his produce at the local store, just down the road from what I'm sure was bigger than a four-bedroom fibro.
There's a great story on the ABC about when the Prince opened the Olympic Games in Melbourne back in 1956. He reportedly went up to the Northern Territory, Senator McMahon, and shot a crocodile at night before inspecting the uranium-processing plant at Rum Jungle. They are very National Party things to do, and he was doing them not in 2021 but right back in 1956. Very retro are we! In his time hunting, he's known to have shot a range of wildlife, but, in typical Fleet Street style, according to the UK Express, Prince Philip is believed to have had one of the highest kill rates of the royals—I don't know how that got in there, but that's something they're known passionately for.
It's safe to say that Philip was well known for cooking up a barbecue or two in summer. He also developed a passion for horse-carriage driving later on, taking up the sport at 50. He was made a ranger for Windsor Castle, which essentially meant he was in charge of running the farm, and he would often supply shops in the nearby village with local produce. The BBC revealed that he even tried to use cow manure from the farm at Windsor to generate gas, but that wasn't successful—it blew up! That wasn't the only attempt at influencing energy policy. Senator Canavan, helpfully, has given me a quote from Prince Philip: 'Wind farms are absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace. They never work, as they need backup capacity.' As we're rolling out batteries, we know that is absolutely the truth.
Prince Philip's life was a testament to hard work, grit and duty, and that is an attribute that all regional Australians can relate to. It wasn't all state dinners and fancy pants. Apparently, Prince Philip was shovelling coal into a boiler room for so long that his blistered hands, according to him, couldn't hold a fork. This was on his way back to England, during the war, whilst he was in the Royal Navy. This was a man who knew what it was like to work hard, who understood service and duty.
He was a bit of a larrikin. Whilst conducting royal duties he often displayed a great sense of humour, something that people who knew him commented they will very much miss. He was always able to put a smile on people's faces. Who can forget when he declared he was 'the world's most experienced plaque unveiler'? Yes, he was a great hunter. That is something he deeply cared about. But he also deeply cared about the environment, as Senator Birmingham has spoken about. He once said, 'If nature doesn't survive, neither will man.' We commit to do all we can as selflessly and restlessly as the prince always did to fix up our relationship with nature that is threatening our food, fresh water and health supplies. Those of us who live and work out in the regions understand that we need to be very good stewards of our land and water resources.
He was also a man of deep Christian faith and he was very generous. He was patron and president of more than 800 organisations and charities, and demonstrated kindness and selflessness, showing loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen over seven decades. The Prince was the longest-serving consort in royal history, a demonstration of reliability. We can only imagine how much this constant in Her Majesty's life will be sorely missed.
The Dean of Windsor, the Right Reverend David Conner, recently said about Prince Philip, 'He's a bit controversial, certainly lively, but anything but boring.' We need a bit more of that, I think. Prince Philip also had a deep passion for helping young Australians and was committed to better outcomes. We've spoken about the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, an award which is across 130 countries and territories. In Australia, more than 328,000 young people have gone through the award, which focuses on volunteerism, a holistic approach to personal development and, importantly, the importance of duty and service. The Duke of Edinburgh exemplified courage, generosity and determination. Some would say they're old fashioned values, but I would say that, in an era of a pandemic, they're values that more of us need to exemplify and take on board. He was an outstanding role model for us all.
On behalf of the National Party in the Senate, we thank him deeply for leading by example, for being a very good man behind the woman, and for giving her the love, support and structure that she needed to be our Queen and, indeed, to provide the leadership she has for the Commonwealth over a very long time. We offer our sympathies and prayers to Her Majesty the Queen and her family.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:26): I move:
That as a mark of respect for the memory of His Royal Highness, the sitting of the Senate be suspended until 2 pm.
Question agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 12:26 to 14:00
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order 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:
Autism—Select Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 1 pm.
Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Wednesday, 12 May 2021, from 11 am.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—
Private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Wednesday, 12 May 2021, from 12.30 pm.
Private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by a private briefing on Thursday, 13 May 2021, from 9.45 am.
Public meeting on Thursday, 13 May 2021, from 11 am.
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by public hearings—
Today, from 4 pm.
Thursday, 13 May 2021, from 3.30 pm.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Thursday, 13 May and 17 and 24 June 2021, from 3.30 pm.
The PRESIDENT (14:00): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): I table, for the information of the Senate, a revised ministry list. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Title |
Minister |
Other Chamber |
Prime Minister |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for the Public Service |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Women |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Minister for Indigenous Australians |
The Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet |
The Hon Ben Morton MP |
|
Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service |
The Hon Ben Morton MP |
|
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention |
The Hon David Coleman MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Women |
Senator the Hon Amanda Stoker |
|
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development |
The Hon Michael McCormack MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Senator the Hon Jane Hume |
Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government |
The Hon Mark Coulton MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education |
The Hon Andrew Gee MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport |
The Hon Scott Buchholz MP |
|
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister |
The Hon Kevin Hogan MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories |
The Hon Nola Marino MP |
|
Treasurer |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Assistant Treasurer |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Housing |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy |
Senator the Hon Jane Hume |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
Minister for Women's Economic Security |
Senator the Hon Jane Hume |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Minister for Finance |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
(Vice-President of the Executive Council) |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
|
(Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
|
Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters |
The Hon Ben Morton MP |
|
Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management |
The Hon David Littleproud MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for the Environment |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Senator the Hon Jane Hume |
Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia |
The Hon Keith Pitt MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management |
The Hon Trevor Evans MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries |
Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam |
|
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
The Hon Dan Tehan MP |
Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment |
The Hon Dan Tehan MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
Senator the Hon Zed Seselja |
The Hon Dan Tehan MP |
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment |
The Hon Andrew Gee MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for Defence |
The Hon Peter Dutton MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
(Leader of the House) |
The Hon Peter Dutton MP |
|
Minister for Defence Industry |
The Hon Melissa Price MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for Veterans' Affairs |
The Hon Darren Chester MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for Defence Personnel |
The Hon Darren Chester MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
(Deputy Leader of the House) |
The Hon Darren Chester MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Defence |
The Hon Andrew Hastie MP |
|
Attorney-General |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Minister for Industrial Relations |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
(Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
|
Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General |
Senator the Hon Amanda Stoker |
|
Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations |
Senator the Hon Amanda Stoker |
|
Minister for Health & Aged Care |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
Minister for Senior Australians, Aged Care Services |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Sport |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government |
The Hon Mark Coulton MP |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
Minister for Families and Social Services |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Minister for Women's Safety |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
(Manager of Government Business in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
|
Minister for Government Services |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister for Children and Families |
The Hon Michelle Landry MP |
|
Minister for Home Affairs |
The Hon Karen Andrews MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management |
The Hon David Littleproud MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon Alex Hawke MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon Jason Wood MP |
|
Minister for Industry, Science and Technology |
The Hon Christian Porter MP |
Senator the Hon Zed Seselja |
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction |
The Hon Angus Taylor MP |
Senator the Hon Zed Seselja |
Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia |
The Hon Keith Pitt MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister for Northern Australia |
The Hon Michelle Landry MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Industry Development |
Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam |
|
Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Education & Youth |
The Hon Alan Tudge MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education |
The Hon Andrew Gee MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Assistant Minister for Youth & Employment Services |
The Hon Luke Howarth MP |
|
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
Senator CASH: by leave—I advise the Senate that the updated ministry list reflects the updated ministry announced by the Prime Minister on 30 March 2021. Updated representing arrangements are outlined in the ministry list. I seek leave to make a statement regarding ministerial absences.
Leave granted.
Senator CASH: I advise the Senate that Senator Birmingham will be absent from question time today, Tuesday 11 May 2021, due to budget arrangements. In Senator Birmingham's absence, I will represent the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for the Public Service, the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer. Senator Payne will also be absent from question time this week, Tuesday 11 May to Thursday 13 May 2021, due to ministerial business overseas. In Senator Payne's absence today, I will represent the Minister for Foreign Affairs; the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment; the Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment; the Minister for Defence; the Minister for Defence Industry; the Minister for Veterans' Affairs; and the Minister for Defence Personnel. Senator Ruston will represent the Minister for Women. In Senator Payne's absence from Wednesday 12 May to Thursday 13 May 2021, Senator Birmingham will represent the Minister for Foreign Affairs; the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment; the Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment; the Minister for Defence; the Minister for Defence Industry; the Minister for Veterans' Affairs; and the Minister for Defence Personnel. Senator Ruston will represent the Minister for Women.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: International Travel
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:02): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cash. Coalition senator Matt Canavan has said that the Morrison government's decision to threaten stranded Australians in India with hefty fines and jail time is wrong and, 'We have an obligation to help Australians.' Does the minister agree with Senator Canavan?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:02): I thank Senator Ciccone for his question. Senators in this chamber will be aware that we are in the middle of a global pandemic. As such, decisions are being made by the government, in particular to ensure that Australians are kept safe from the effects of COVID-19. Senator Ciccone, you will also be aware that, as has been stated on many an occasion, the decisions that the Morrison government makes in relation to COVID-19 are based on health advice. On 22 April 2021, you will also be aware, India was designated a high-risk country, by agreement of the national cabinet. You would also have seen that, on 27 April 2021, cabinet's National Security Committee did agree to pause direct passenger flights from India. Senator Ciccone, again as you would be aware, this decision was reinforced by the decision made by the Minister for Health and Aged Care, as he is entitled to do, under section 477(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015. This decision was made on the basis of health advice.
The Morrison government, the Prime Minister and the minister for health have been very, very clear. Our first priority as a government must be to keep Australians safe, and, in doing that, we will make decisions such as the one that the minister for health has made. But what we have also been very, very clear on is this: the government will continue to review these measures, as we've said, including the resumption of flights—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Ciccone, a supplementary question?
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:05): My first question was also reinforced by fellow Victorian Senator James Paterson, who has said, 'Criminalising Australians returning to their home country is a step too far.' Does the minister agree with Senator Paterson?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:05): Again, I think, colleagues, you would understand that, as members of the coalition government, we are allowed to have our own opinions. Those opinions don't necessarily reflect the position of the government. The government have made it very, very clear: we will continue to make decisions in the best interests of Australians—keeping Australians safe—and those decisions will be made on the basis of health advice.
In terms of our position on India, the Prime Minister has made it very, very clear. The determination made by the minister for health will end on Friday, and, from that point in time, the government intends to continue to repatriate those in India to Australia.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ciccone, a final supplementary question?
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:06): My last question is to the minister. Senator Canavan has also stated:
We should be helping Aussies in India return not jailing them. Let's fix our quarantine system rather than leave our fellow Australians stranded.
That is what Senator Canavan has said. Even members of your own government are calling for the Prime Minister to deliver safe national quarantine to bring Aussies home.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator McKenzie interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie.
Senator CICCONE: Why won't Mr Morrison do so?
The PRESIDENT: Order. Before I call Senator Cash, there were interjections across the chamber.
Senator McKenzie interjecting—
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie! Senator Wong! I'm going to insist on silence during questions so that I and the minister may hear them. Senator Cash.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:07): Senator Ciccone, you would be aware that the Morrison government's top priority is supporting Australians to return in the midst of what is a global pandemic, but, at the same time, whilst ensuring the safety of the Australian community. We make no excuses—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. I've Senator Wong on a point of order.
Senator Wong: A point of order on direct relevance: we've had two questions where the minister did not respond to the quote, and we've respected your ruling previously, but this is a question—
An honourable senator interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator Wong: This is a question which goes to safe national—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator Wong: I understand why you're a bit grumpy this week—
The PRESIDENT: I'll hear the point of order in silence.
Senator Wong: This is a question which goes to Senator Canavan's demand that the Prime Minister fix safe national quarantine. I'd ask the minister to return to that question.
The PRESIDENT: The minister has been speaking for 22 seconds. I—as I made the point earlier—struggled to hear all of the question myself, with interjections across the chamber. I'll listen to the minister carefully and I'll call the minister to continue.
Senator CASH: And the chamber will be aware that, in March 2020, national cabinet determined that all travellers arriving in Australia will be required to undertake their mandatory, 14-day isolation at a designated facility. Those requirements, as Australians are well aware, were agreed through the national cabinet process, to be implemented under state and territory—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Wong on a point of order.
Senator Wong: A point of order: 'Why won't Mr Morrison fix safe national quarantine?' That is the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, with respect, I appreciate you restating that part of the question, because that was part of it I didn't hear earlier. I think Senator Cash was speaking to the issue directly. There's a time to debate the merit of answers after question time.
Senator CASH: Senator Wong would be aware that hotel quarantine itself has actually been tremendously successful at preventing outbreaks in the broader community, preventing breaches at a rate of 99.9 per cent— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Economy
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (14:09): My question is also to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cash. The Morrison government's economic plan has helped Australia lead the world in recovering from the COVID-19 recession. How is the government securing Australia's recovery and supporting economic growth and jobs creation going forward?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): I thank Senator Smith for the question. The Australian economy has well and truly demonstrated remarked resilience in the face of COVID-19. On any analysis, and as will be outlined tonight by the Treasurer when he delivers his next budget, the outlook is positive, in particular in relation to employment in Australia. The Morrison government is committed to getting more Australians into jobs, and what we have seen in relation to employment levels is that they have recovered since the sharp fall associated with the initial impacts of COVID-19. In fact, what we are seeing as the Treasurer will hand down his budget tonight, is more Australians are employed today than there were prior to COVID-19.
In particular, labour market conditions have substantially improved over the last six months. Employment increased: in October last year, 176,800 persons; in November, 86,200 persons; in December, 46,300 persons; in January this year, 29,500 persons; in February, 88,700 persons; and, colleagues, in March, the most recent labour force figures, by 70,700 persons. What we have seen is employment has risen by 947,100 persons from May 2020 to March 2021. What we have seen in relation to the unemployment rate is it declined to 5.6 per cent in March 2021, from a peak of 7.5 per cent, if you recall, colleagues, in July 2020, but it is also considerably lower than what Treasury first estimated, which was 15 per cent. So, in relation to employment, the jobs are returning to the labour market.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (14:11): How will the government continue to support our economy to recover from the once-in-a-century economic shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): The Morrison government's economic plan is working. But, as the Prime Minister and the Treasurer remind Australians, we are not yet out of the pandemic. We are better placed than most other countries in the world to meet the challenges that lie ahead. The budget that the Treasurer will set out tonight will set out the next stage of the Morrison government's economic plan to secure Australia's recovery. What we will be focused on in our budget is further measures to create jobs, guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on but also building a more resilient and secure Australia. We have already announced, as part of the budget, a $1.7 billion investment in child care. That is all about boosting workforce participation. In terms of women's health, $353 million will be invested to support women's health and, of course, $1.2 billion will be invested as part of our digital economy strategy.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (14:13): How has the government supported businesses to retain apprentices and help deliver more skilled workers for Australian businesses?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:13): Mr President, as you know, in terms of an economic downturn due to a pandemic, the first people to be let go are apprentices and trainees, and that's why the Morrison government put in place policies to ensure that businesses that had employee apprentices and trainees were able to keep them on at the beginning of the pandemic. What we have seen, as a result of our Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy, is 123,000 apprentices have been kept on since the beginning of COVID-19. But we've gone further than that and we have put in place our Boosting Apprenticeships Commencements wage subsidy. We wanted to bring on 100,000 new apprentices in a 12-month period. I'm pleased to inform the chamber that we did that in less than five months. We have now extended that wage subsidy and, to date, colleagues, over 140,000 new commencements, new apprentices and trainees, have been brought on.
Danher, Mr Liam
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:14): My question is for the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Reynolds. I refer to reports of the tragic death of 23-year-old Liam Danher, who died waiting for a seizure mat. The NDIS repeatedly rejected Liam's request for a seizure mat over the course of an 18-month long AAT battle. His family say a $445 seizure mat would have saved his life. Why was Liam's seizure mat rejected? How many thousands of taxpayer dollars did the Morrison government spend on legal advice and lawyers to deny Liam his $445 seizure mat?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:15): I thank the senator for that question. That is a very tragic case, and I have been in contact with Liam's father, who I will be meeting at his convenience. I am still seeking further information on his case. It is complex. The trustee is also involved. So I'm in the process of getting further information. In the first instance I can discuss the matter with his father and then provide more information, as it is appropriate to do in individual cases.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:16): Could you answer the question about what you spent in legal costs? The seizure mat Liam Danher died waiting for was recommended by three different allied health professionals, a neurologist and an independent assessor, as I'm sure you're aware if you've spoken with Liam's father. Why then did the National Disability Insurance Agency still deny Liam the support he needed?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:16): I'll have to take on notice the legal costs, but I will get back to you as soon as I can. If I could, can I reiterate my condolences to Mr Danher's family. Any death of a child is always tragic. As I've said, I've offered to meet, and I've been in touch with, his father, and I'm seeking some more information for him, which I will meet in person to pass on to him. I understand that Liam did receive support from the NDIS from 9 May 2019 until 5 February 2021, but at this stage I'm unable to provide any further advice.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question?
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:17): As you say, Minister, the death of any child is tragic. This was an avoidable death if he had received the support. Why did the National Disability Insurance Agency contact the grieving Danher family requesting urgent quotes for the very seizure mat that would have saved their son Liam's life a week after his death? You've contacted the father, Mr Danher. Did you apologise when you contacted him? If yes, when did you do that—in that phone call? If not, why haven't you apologised?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:18): I did just apologise. Just to be clear, my office has contacted—of course, absolutely I apologised. Any death of any child is—
Senator Kitching interjecting—
Senator REYNOLDS: If you let me finish, I'd be happy to answer the question.
The PRESIDENT: I've got to take the point of order, Senator Reynolds. Senator Kitching, on a point of order.
Senator Kitching: I'd like to know, because it was unclear, whether Senator Reynolds is apologising now to the Danher family or, as my question stated, was it in the phone call with Mr—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, the minister's been speaking for 10 seconds. I can't allow you to re-ask part of the question. You can raise a point of order on direct relevance. At this point I think the minister was being directly relevant. There's an opportunity to debate it after question time. Senator Reynolds.
Senator REYNOLDS: As I said, I'm not able to discuss the details of this case any further. The NDIA chief legal counsel is currently reviewing the case and will be providing a report on that. My office has been in touch with Mr Danher, who is currently relocating, and I will be meeting with him at his convenience.
COVID-19: World Trade Organization
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (14:19): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Cash. Globally, thousands are dying from COVID-19 each day because they don't have treatment or vaccines. At the same time, majority-white Western countries like ours are hoarding vaccines and ordering more than they will ever need. The TRIPS waiver proposal to the World Trade Organization would temporarily lift intellectual property restrictions so poorer countries can manufacture vital vaccines, medicines, masks and ventilators. But, since October, the Liberal-National government has ignored the pleas of more than 100 countries for our support. Australia has stonewalled and advocated against the waiver, putting profit ahead of the lives of people who look like me in countries that you don't give a damn about. Why won't the government give its unequivocal support to the TRIPS waiver?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:20): I thank Senator Faruqi for her question. Whilst I understand the sentiment of your question, I am actually going to disagree with the comments you've made in relation to the government. In relation to the position on the waiver, I will take that on notice and seek further information for you from the relevant minister. What I would say is that, when it comes to countries like India—and I've met with the Indian community in terms of what they've raised on the waiver—and countries in the Pacific, Australia is working with them to ensure that they do have access to the vaccinations that they need.
As you would know, India itself has shown great leadership not just to Australia but globally, through its generosity throughout the pandemic. In fact, it has exported over 66 million vaccines globally, as you would know. You can look at the number of vaccines that India has also donated in the Pacific to countries like Nauru and Fiji. The government's position, as has been articulated by the Prime Minister, is that it is now time for the world to repay that generosity. Australia, working with India in this case, is well and truly going to play its part.
As you know, we have made a commitment to India in relation to essential medical supplies as part of the Australian government's initial package to assist India as it battles COVID-19. Part of that includes over 1,000 ventilators and 43 oxygen concentrators. At this point in time, we are doing what we can, identifying with the Indian government— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question?
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (14:22): The Morrison government is increasingly isolated in its morally indefensible opposition to the TRIPS waiver. Now that the US, New Zealand and French governments—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I need to be able to hear the question. Senator Faruqi, I'll ask you to start again because there were interjections across the chamber, and I couldn't hear it.
Senator FARUQI: The Morrison government is increasingly isolated in its morally indefensible opposition to the TRIPS waiver. Now that the US, New Zealand and French governments have given clear support, Australia is one of the few remaining blockers to a proposal that would be hugely helpful in alleviating the global shortage of COVID-19 vaccines. Why does the Liberal-National government care more about safeguarding corporate profits than they do about saving lives?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): Senator Faruqi, I don't think it's going to come as any surprise to you that I disagree with what you have now stated on the record. On the TRIPS waiver, the Prime Minister has said that the US announcement was tremendous news. That is what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister has also made it clear that we will continue to work with the United States and others at the WTO to find solutions that boost the global rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations. But the Prime Minister has also made it clear that Australia remains focused on working with our regional partners. I commend the work that Senator Payne, Mr Tehan and Mr Hunt, as well as vaccine developers, are doing to support equitable, widespread access to COVID-19 vaccines—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question?
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (14:24): The government should be leading support for the TRIPS waiver and broader measures to ensure that everyone, everywhere, has access to treatment and vaccines. Instead, you've left people stranded, threatened them with jail should they try and come home and still you persist in denying countries like India the chance to manufacture vaccines that could save lives. So my question is: Where is your humanity? Have you no shame at all?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:25): Again, Senator Faruqi, it will come as no surprise to you that I fundamentally disagree with what you have said, in particular what you have insinuated in relation to the government. Australia, as I have said, as the Prime Minister has said, as Senator Payne continues to work on, remains focused on working with our regional partners and vaccine developers to support equitable widespread access to COVID-19 vaccines. In particular, the development of COVID-19 vaccines through voluntary mechanisms in partnership with vaccine developers is our best chance of delivering widespread equitable access. As you know, we are working with our Pacific neighbours to ensure their access to vaccines. The government is working with our partners to ensure the Pacific and Timor-Leste—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Henderson.
Housing Affordability
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (14:26) My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Ruston. Could the minister please advise the Senate how the Morrison government is securing Australia's recovery by supporting homebuyers and construction jobs in the housing sector, including through the Family Home Guarantee, which will allow single parents to enter or re-enter the housing market?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:26): I thank Senator Henderson for her question. This is an absolutely fantastic new initiative. It's an initiative that is included as part of a suite of measures that are in the budget, because we are all about supporting Australians. We know that single-parent households have lower ownership rates than dual owners or dual occupants. We want to make sure that we support them to jump the biggest hurdle to homeownership—that is, saving for the deposit. So the Morrison government is putting in place the Family Home Guarantee so that single parents are able to secure finance with only up to two per cent of their deposit. The government will act as the guarantor for the other 18 per cent and, in doing so, we tell single-parent Australians that we stand side by side with them supporting them in their commitment and their aspirations to realise their dream of homeownership. This will allow single eligible parents seeking to enter or re-enter the housing market to provide a secure home environment for themselves and for their children. In 2021-22, we believe that around 125,000 single-parent homes will be eligible to access the Family Home Guarantee. I would encourage every single person in the chamber, whether it be this side, that side or down the other end, to tell your constituents about the benefit that this can deliver for your constituents.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Seselja interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Watt and Senator Seselja.
Senator RUSTON: I also want to acknowledge the huge amount of work done by the Minister for Women's Economic Security, Senator Hume, because we know the overwhelming majority that this particular initiative will support will be women. We know that of the 125,000 households that will be eligible for this, 105,000 of them will have women as the sole parent in the household. We also know that 47 per cent of single-parent families rent from a private landlord as opposed to— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, a supplementary question?
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (14:28) How will the new home guarantee continue to support Australians along with measures like HomeBuilder?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:29): The measure is going to help Australians, particularly young Australians, to invest in their future by extending the new home guarantee. The extension will provide an additional 10,000 guarantees in the 2021-22 year, allowing first home owners to build a new home or move into a newly built home with a deposit of as little as five per cent. The other 15 per cent will be underwritten by the government. The new home guarantee has proved extraordinarily popular and particularly popular in enabling young Australians to be able to get into their first home much earlier. Fifty-one per cent of the guarantees that we've put in place today have gone to people under the age of 30. This is a hugely positive program. It works alongside the HomeBuilder program, which equally has been very successful not only in being able to provide access to homeownership but also in stimulating the construction industry.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question.
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (14:30): What other programs has the government announced which will continue to support Australians to purchase their first home?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:30): This government is absolutely committed to supporting Australians in their dream to own their own home. To do so, we have made sure we have a suite of measures, because not everybody is going to want to have the same measure. An example is the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Previously we only allowed $30,000 to be paid into it, and we have increased that to $50,000, again making that deposit just that much more realisable for young Australians who want to get into their own home. It will also make sure we can assist them in saving that deposit more quickly. The First Home Super Saver Scheme has been accessed by about 18½ thousand new home buyers since 1 July 2018. We are absolutely committed to making sure that Australians who want to own their own home are given the easiest possible pathway to realise that, because it is the Australian dream.
Attorney-General
Minister for Industrial Relations
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:31): My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Cash. Within weeks of being appointed to the new portfolios of Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations, the minister appointed Ms Alana Matheson, a former Liberal Party deputy mayor of Campbelltown, to a 26-year long, $10 million post to the Fair Work Commission. Can the minister confirm that Ms Matheson is one of 13 former Liberal MPs and political staffers who have been appointed to the plum federal government jobs since the start of this year?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:32): I thank Senator Keneally for the question. Senator Keneally, what I can confirm is this: all appointments made by the Morrison government—in fact, all appointments made by the coalition government since we were elected in 2013—have been based on merit, so I completely, totally and utterly reject the accusations that you are making. Whether it is a Federal Court appointment, whether it is a Fair Work Commission appointment, whether it is an AAT appointment or any other appointment, we carefully and methodically look through candidates to ensure that the most suitable candidate is actually appointed to the role.
Colleagues, you see, this is where the Labor Party want to have their cake and eat it as well. What I am now saying is this: at times we have appointed those from a different political persuasion because our government believed, clearly unlike Labor, that they were the best people for the role. For example, let's hear the comments they have on Anna Burke, the former Labor member and Speaker, who was appointed to the AAT in 2017. Was she not the best person the role? What about Linda Kirk, former Labor senator for South Australia—AAT, 2017? Or John Black, former Labor senator for Queensland—AAT, 2017? Or David Cox, former Labor member for Kingston, appointed to the AAT in 2019? All because we just don't appoint like you opposite do. John Rau, Amanda Mendes Da Costa—I bet you used to work with this next gentleman—Philip Dalidakis, Gary Gray. On any analysis, Gary Gray was an outstanding representative, and that is why we appointed him as the ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See. We thought he was the best person for the role.
The PRESIDENT: I'm going to ask all senators to try to exercise some self-restraint on the first day back in their new seats. Senator Keneally, a supplementary question.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:34): As the deputy director of workplace relations at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Ms Matheson opposed domestic violence leave, arguing that victims-survivors get enough support already. Was this position one of the reasons the minister appointed Ms Matheson to the commission—to help prevent the expansion of support for victims and survivors of domestic violence?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:35): Again, I could continue with the list of former Labor members. But we on this side of the chamber have appointed, whether it be to the AAT et cetera or the Fair Work Commission or as ambassador for Ireland—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. I have Senator Keneally on a point of order.
Senator Keneally: On relevance: the question was specifically about Ms Matheson's views on domestic violence and whether or not the minister supported them and that was why she appointed her.
The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister just said that she was turning to something. I will listen carefully to the answer. The minister can speak about any aspect of this appointment, in my view, and be directly relevant. Senator Cash.
Senator CASH: Those on the other side don't understand that the employment relationship includes both employers and employees, and that is why you need to ensure that employers are represented on the Fair Work Commission, as well as employees. In relation to Alana Matheson, she is qualified for this role.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: Mr President, I possibly should have jumped when you gave as wide a ruling as you did in response to my colleague, where you said, 'I think that anything related to the appointment is relevant to the supplementary.' With respect, I ask you to reconsider that. I don't believe that's consistent with the standing orders nor your previous rulings. This question relates to Ms Matheson's views on domestic violence leave, and I ask that the minister respond and be directly relevant to that point.
The PRESIDENT: I take the point, Senator Wong. I could have worded what I said more carefully. However, I will say that the final part of the question, my notes reflect, is: 'Was this position one of the reasons that referred to the appointment?' I think, in answering that question, the minister is allowed to talk about the specific appointment without necessarily specifically outlining a particular issue. That may be debated after question time. Senator Cash.
Senator CASH: In terms of Ms Matheson, she is well and truly appointed on merit. She has 15 years experience in workplace relations, including recent roles as director of workplace relations advisory at KPMG Australia, and deputy director of workplace relations at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. She has also played a prominent role on the international stage, at the International Labour Organization— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:37): How can Australians have faith in this minister's judgement and integrity when she refused to cooperate fully with the AFP in its investigation into possible criminal conduct by her own staff but she prioritises appointing yet another Liberal mate for life?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:37): I completely reject what Senator Keneally has said, and Senator Keneally would know that that is not what is certainly outlined in the evidence. Again, what I would say is this: in relation to the appointments that this government makes, appointments are made on merit. As I've said, we have also appointed, over a period of time, a number of persons of a different political persuasion—in other words, from the Labor Party—because we believed they were the best person for the role. In particular, I go back to Mr Gary Gray. He was an outstanding member for Brand back in Western Australia. When he left the parliament, I think those from Western Australia would say we worked incredibly well with Mr Gray in relation to representing our great state. And, as a result of that, the government appointed him as the Australian Ambassador to Ireland. I confirm he was not a member of the Liberal Party.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator McKenzie.
Rural and Regional Health Services
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:39): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal and National government is securing Australia's recovery, which means we can deliver better health outcomes for regional Australia, like our plans for an increased bulk-billing incentive for GPs?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:39): I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. We all understand that Senator McKenzie is passionate about rural and regional Australia, like those of us who live in the regions. Senator McKenzie, I know you will be pleased that the coalition government is committed to improving the affordability of health care in remote areas.
As a part of tonight's budget, we will be investing $65.8 million to boost bulk-billing rebates from 1 January 2022 through an increase in the rural bulk-billing incentive. Bulk-billing doctors outside of metropolitan areas currently receive 150 per cent of the base bulk-billing incentive payment. This will be increased based on how remote the practice is, as determined by the Modified Monash Model of assessment. The more remote the area, the greater the incentive payment the GP will receive. Large and medium rural locations, MM 3 to MM 4, will receive an incentive of 160 per cent; rural locations MM 5 will receive an incentive of 170 per cent; rural locations MM 6 will receive an incentive of 180 per cent; and very remote locations, MM 7, will receive an incentive of 190 per cent. This means that, from 1 January 2022, doctors practising in rural and remote areas will be able to receive an incentive payment of up to $12.35 per consultation. These changes recognise the ongoing need to provide the right incentives for the health workforce in rural and remote areas of Australia.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:41): Can the minister inform the Senate how GPs in rural and remote areas face greater complexities and challenges and what measures the government are putting in place to assist GPs and their patients?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:41): Thank you, Senator McKenzie, for the supplementary question. Doctors in the bush face greater burden of responsibility, more complex care situations and higher rates of chronic disease compared with doctors in the cities, who can rely on support from other medical services and facilities. The coalition government understands that GPs face greater health complexities and challenges in rural and remote areas, which is why more than 10,000 rural and remote GPs will be eligible for the higher bulk-billing incentive. Bulk-billing is an important component of the Medicare system, and outside metropolitan areas many doctors rely on the additional incentive for each consultation to help make ends meet for their clinics. The new rural bulk-billing model will encourage more doctors to consider a career in rural practice.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:42): Can the minister advise the Senate on the government's 10-year Stronger Rural Health Strategy?
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:42): It's a pity that the opposition seems to be so glib about an important issue. The Stronger Rural Health Strategy aims to build sustainable, high-quality health workforce access across our country according to community need, particularly in rural and remote areas. The new rural incentive rates are another key reform that we have delivered to attract more doctors to the bush and are a key investment in the coalition's 10-year Stronger Rural Health Strategy. We know there isn't a single solution to solving rural doctor shortages, and that's why the government continues to work on a range of practical workforce training and primary care reforms with the aim to create more sustainable healthcare services in rural and remote communities. The strategy also enables a stronger role for nurses and allied health professionals in the delivery of more multidisciplinary health team based models.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck.
Defence
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:44): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. My question is asked in the context of the call on Saturday by the editor-in-chief of the Chinese state controlled news outlet the Global Times for the Chinese military to develop plans for:
… long-range strikes on the military facilities and relevant key facilities on Australian soil …
Can the minister confirm that all of Australia's major cities are within the known range of China's growing DF-31, DF-31A and JL-2 ballistic missile forces? Is it not the case that northern Australia is now well within the missile strike range of Chinese long-range Xian H-6 cruise-missile-armed bombers? How significant does the government consider these new strategic circumstances to be?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:44): I thank Senator Patrick for the question. Senator Patrick, I can provide you with the following information. The government, as you would be aware, has recognised Australia's more complex and dynamic strategic environment through the 2020 Defence Strategic Update. The proliferation of ballistic missiles and other long-range weapons is one element of this evolution, but it is not the only change to our nation's strategic circumstances. You would be aware that the reality is that Australia has lived under the possible threat of intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles now for many, many decades. A key element of Australia's strategy to counter this threat is the alliance with the United States, which incorporates extended deterrence but also actually marks its 70th anniversary this year.
In terms of the 2020 Defence Strategic Update, you may be aware it also notes that the nature of current and future threats requires Defence to develop a different set of capabilities for the future. Defence is preparing for these threats through adjustments to force structure that will ensure the Defence Force can shape Australia's strategic environment, deliver credible deterrence and respond to challenges against our interests. Defence is investing in more potent capabilities and will hold adversary forces and infrastructure at risk further from Australia, including autonomous systems, missile defence and advanced strike capabilities, including hypersonics.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a supplementary question?
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:46): Can the minister representing advise what capabilities the Australian Defence Force has in its current inventory that, in the event of major hostilities in the western Pacific region, protect Australian cities from missile strikes from China? Does Australia currently possess any antiballistic missile systems capable of intercepting long-range ballistic missiles such as the DF-31, the DF-31A or the JL-2?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:47): Again, Senator Patrick, I can provide you with the following information. The Australian government is investing more than $270 billion to upgrade the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force. We are also engaging our allies and partners to ensure the peaceful development of our region. We are working in forums including the Missile Technology Control Regime and other measures to prevent the proliferation of ballistic missile technologies, but it is the case that advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles are very difficult to defend against.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question?
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:48): Can the minister representing advise what the government's plans are, if any, for the acquisition of antiballistic missile capabilities capable of defending Australia's major cities from long-range missile attack? When will any such capability be operational?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:48): Senator Patrick, I can advise the 2020 Force Structure Plan outlines government's plans for investment in integrated air and missile defence systems. Funding is planned mid decade, seeking capability by the end of the decade.
Members of Parliament: Staff
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services, Senator Reynolds. The minister has said she is assisting the AFP with their inquiry into the alleged rape of Ms Higgins in her office by one of her other staff members. Given the minister's colleague and now acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cash, refused to submit to an interview by the AFP, will the minister commit to fully cooperating with the Australian Federal Police in their investigation, including submitting herself to an interview if requested?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:49): I thank the senator for the question. In short, the answer is yes. I've always said in this chamber that I stand ready to assist Ms Higgins and the current AFP investigation. I have been careful at all times not to prejudice the investigation, and I can confirm that I am in touch with the AFP investigators. I'm preparing a statement, and, if asked, I will certainly be interviewed by them.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:50): Can the minister tell the Senate why she called her former staff member Ms Higgins 'a lying cow'?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:50): Thank you very much for that question again. I think that question has been asked and answered many times. I have come to some arrangement with Ms Higgins, and I don't intend to say anything further.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:50): Did the minister offer her resignation to the Prime Minister for calling Ms Higgins 'a lying cow' and for mishandling the response to the alleged rape?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:50): I really have nothing further to add than what I have said previously in this chamber. I said back then I will do nothing to prejudice the AFP investigation, and, in fact, I'll be assisting it, and that I'll continue to do. Any—
The PRESIDENT: I have Senator McAllister on a point of order.
Senator McAllister: My point of order is relevance. The minister has been asked whether or not she offered her resignation to the Prime Minister on one of two grounds, and I am seeking a straightforward answer to that question of fact.
The PRESIDENT: I remind the minister of the question, noting that she has 41 seconds remaining to answer.
Senator REYNOLDS: What I can tell you about my conversations with the Prime Minister is when I became extremely unwell and ended up in hospital the Prime Minister was absolutely superb. I had a number of conversations with him on a regular basis about a range of issues, including my health, and the nature of those discussions between myself and the Prime Minister will remain between the Prime Minister and myself.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Reynolds. How is the Morrison government securing Australia's recovery, which means we can guarantee the NDIS and ensure it is fully funded now and into the future?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:52): I thank Senator Askew for her question. On behalf of the 10,270 Tasmanians who now have a package on this scheme, I am incredibly proud to now be the minister with stewardship of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in what is a very pivotal time in the scheme's history. Today, this scheme has been replicated by no other country in the world. We have delivered the scheme. There are now 450,000 Australians with plans.
The intent of the NDIS was to shift funding to individuals directly and away from block funding to organisations—
Senator Watt interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, order!
Senator REYNOLDS: thereby giving participants with significant and permanent disability more choice and control over their own lives, which are fundamental values of those on this side of the chamber. But we are now at a point in history where we must work together, and we have to work together across the chamber, across the aisle, to ensure that we can implement a range of strategies that will ensure this scheme endures.
Reasonable and necessary supports must come with some boundaries to not only ensure the scheme is affordable but, most importantly—what I have heard from participants so far—the scheme is transparent, respectful and fair to all participants. Despite the interjections from those opposite, this government is fully funding this scheme, and we are fully committed to it enduring for many generations, well beyond our own lifetimes.
Last week, the Prime Minister announced an additional $13.2 billion out to 2023-24, which he will be announcing formally in the budget tonight. This reflects an absolute unwavering commitment by this side of the chamber to this scheme.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:54): Why is it important to secure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:54): I again thank Senator Askew for the question. While the NDIS has been life-changing for 450,000 Australians, we also need to realise a scheme that can financially endure, as I've said, for many generations to come. Participants entering from the state and territory schemes are today receiving 50 per cent more support, on average, than they were when they transferred into the scheme, and, at the moment, the costs of the NDIS are increasing far more quickly than we ever anticipated. For example, the average payment per participant has increased by 48 per cent, on average, over the last three years, from 2017 to 2020, and the average plan budget has increased by 22 per cent over the same three years. For example, 450 participants receive support packages of over a million dollars a year, and the numbers are far greater today than the 2011 Productivity Commission—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Reynolds. Senator Askew, a final supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:55): Minister, what is the government doing to—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Askew has the call.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator Ayres!
Senator ASKEW: Minister what is the government doing to ensure the NDIS is the best it can be for generations to come?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:56): Again, thank you, Senator Askew. Since becoming the minister for the NDIS just over a month ago, I have been extensively consulting with the disability sector: with participants, providers, those with lived experience and, of course, my state and territory counterparts, and including a number of people in this chamber—and I thank you very much for that support. I've made it clear I'll consult on the proposed reforms, wait for the conclusion of the independent assessment trial and discuss the way forward in late July with my state and territory counterparts, who, unlike those opposite, have been incredibly supportive and bipartisan in their approach to the future of this scheme. We have a window of opportunity now to introduce important reforms and to work collaboratively, not only together but also with the disability sector, so that we can make sure the NDIS endures.
I'll finish, if I've got time—very quickly—on Julia Gillard back in 2011.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Reynolds. Time for the answer—
Senator REYNOLDS: I'll leave that for next time. Thank you, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT: has expired.
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:57): I can't wait. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, whom I believe is Minister Ruston. We are in a climate emergency, yet this government is reportedly once again pouring billions of dollars into propping up fossil fuels, including gas—threatening our country's economy, people and nature. Why does your government remain in the pocket of the fossil fuel corporations and the mining billionaires?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:57): I thank Senator Waters for her question; however, I'm going to have difficulty in answering it because it actually isn't correct in the assumptions and statements she has just made. The Australian government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that we have a system in Australia where Australians are able to access affordable and reliable energy, but at the same time we're making sure we meet our obligations—as at every instance, as Australia, we have always met our international obligations—when it comes to the issue of carbon emissions. It will make no difference, I'm sure. Whatever I say in this place will not be accepted by the other end of the chamber. But we are absolutely committed to being completely agnostic around how we deal with this issue. What we are absolutely focused on is that we know the application of technology, and not taxes, is the way that we can ensure a secure future for Australia—for Australian businesses, for Australian taxpayers, for Australian households, for all Australians.
I think everybody on this side of the chamber would be as committed as anybody else in Australia to making sure that we play our role in making sure that, on carbon emissions, the future of our planet is secure. But we are not going to do it just on a whim, on the kind of proposition that gets put forward by the Greens. We will do it systematically, based on the science that's provided to us. We will do it in a way in which we can apply technology, because we are the most innovative country in the world, and the fact that we are able to apply that innovation in such a way means we are the envy of the rest of the world. We will continue to do that, because we believe that the most important thing we can do as a government is to be responsible. We need to be responsible to make sure affordable and reliable power is available because our economic recovery will not be successful unless Australian businesses and Australian consumers are able to get access to the energy that they need for the recovery. But I can absolutely assure you that this government is committed to doing so within the responsibility we have for global climate emissions.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a supplementary question?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:00): Minister, can you confirm Australia Institute figures that fossil fuel subsidies from the federal government cost Australians a staggering $9.13 billion in the current financial year, which means that, for every minute of every day, $17,378 of public money was given to coal, oil and gas companies and major users of fossil fuels?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:00): What I can tell Senator Waters is that this government is absolutely committed to investing in the technologies of the future. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we provide the appropriate frameworks so that the investment that is being made by our modern technology sector can meet the requirements of the Australian economy and Australian households whilst at the same time we can secure the future that we want for our children. So I can absolutely commit that both Minister Taylor, the minister for energy, and Minister Pitt, the minister for resources, are absolutely committed to working to—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ruston. I have Senator Waters on a point of order.
Senator Waters: Thank you, President. It is on relevance. The question went to the quantum of fossil fuel subsidies, and the answer bears no resemblance to that question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, I take your point. I can't instruct the minister to address a specific part of the question, but the question was about a report with respect to claimed subsidies to fossil fuels. I remind the minister of that part of the question.
Senator RUSTON: In response to the primary component of the question that Senator Waters just drew my attention to, there are any amount of numbers that you could extract from any amount of data analysis if you chose to do so. The Greens actually have quite an astounding track record of being able to extract the most unbelievable statistics out of the information that's provided to them—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:02): Does this ideological attachment to fossil fuels explain why Resources Minister Keith Pitt recently vetoed federal funding for a wind farm proposal in my home state of Queensland and why he couldn't bring himself to utter the word 'battery' and answer yes to the simple question of whether batteries can back up wind farms? Minister, can you now confirm whether batteries can back up wind farms?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:02): What I can say is that Minister Pitt takes very, very seriously his responsibility and obligations, as the minister who is responsible for the NAIF, to make sure that, when he gives approval to particular projects, he is entirely satisfied that those projects can deliver the outcome that they're seeking. Minister Pitt has already committed—I think even this morning—that he is going to provide his statement of reasons why he chose not to approve the particular project that you are referring to. As you would also know, firming capacity is a subject of some dissension, in the sense that it is a bit like asking, 'How long is a piece of string?' But what I absolutely can commit to this chamber is that we are absolutely committed to affordable and reliable power, but we are also committed to dispatchable electricity, absolutely committed to making sure that, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, we've still got power supplying households and businesses.
Senator Cash: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Danher, Mr Liam
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:04): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Senator Reynolds) to a question without notice asked by Senator Kitching today relating to the death of Mr Liam Danher and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Firstly, I'd like to say thank God we've got Minister Reynolds, because the former minister, Stuart Robert, the member for Fadden, had about as much compassion as a typical member of the Gold Coast white shoe brigade and should never have been in this portfolio.
Let's talk about Liam Danher. On 5 February this year Liam Danher, a 23-year-old man with a severe intellectual disability, autism and epilepsy, died of a seizure in his sleep while his parents were sleeping in the next room. Stop and imagine that for a moment: your beloved son, 23 years old, sleeping in the room next door, dies overnight. Why did he die? Because the National Disability Insurance Agency had given him the run-around for 18 months at the AAT and would not buy him a seizure mat, which would have indicated, by giving an alarm, when Liam Danher was suffering a fit. Liam's parents have said that their son's death could have been avoided if he had been provided with this seizure mat. This Cairns couple said that for two years they felt increasingly cut out of the care of their son as he moved from a state run service to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Last July, with the Danhers increasingly worried their son might be having rare night-time seizures, his neurologist recommended purchase of the $445 mat which would detect a seizure and sound an alarm. The seizure mat was recommended by three of Liam's own treating professionals, including a neurologist, as well as his independent assessor and the agency itself—the same agency used to try to deny his appeal at the AAT.
Over the course of the 18-month appeal, the NDIA should have amended Liam's plan to include assistive technology funding so he could access the life-saving seizure mat. That's the point: it would have been life saving; it would have saved his life. This was an entirely avoidable death. What did the NDIA do instead of purchasing a $445 seizure mat? They used taxpayers' money to engage lawyers and barristers to assist in the trial, which went for 18 months, while Liam was unable to access legal aid, and the NDIA—wait for this—stopped his parents from representing him. It is disgraceful. The NDIA also flew an independent assessor to the family in Cairns to assess Liam as part of the AAT process. As if the trauma of losing a child to a preventable cause were not enough, the NDIA then contacted the family support coordinator, a week after Liam's death, requesting quotes for the seizure mat. You can imagine how upset the family was. Liam's mum, Tracy Danher, in her letter, which I'll seek to table, has said: 'It was just so distressing to receive that email. We had been waiting every day for that mat to be delivered.'
Pause for a moment and imagine that, just for a minute. How do the people at the NDIA sleep at night? I think that would be beyond most people's ken. To add insult to injury, the NDIA has still not contacted the family to offer an apology or even an acknowledgement of their son's passing, a fact which obviously Liam's parents find upsetting and cold. The minister has said in this chamber that she has apologised, but it seems unclear as to whether she was doing that in the chamber or had apologised when she had contact with Liam's father. I do hope those responsible at the NDIA and the minister are able to accept that a grave injustice has been perpetrated here and then find it within themselves to apologise to that grieving family in person—not only in the chamber but to the family—for the loss of that family's son due to an entirely avoidable bureaucratic nightmare.
Liam is of course the fourth NDIS participant who has recently died due to NDIS neglect and delay. I'm going to run through the other deaths quickly. Tim Rubenach died waiting for the NDIS to provide him with a safe wheelchair. Ann Marie Smith, who suffered septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy, died sitting in her own faeces. David Harris died after his mental health supports were cut off by the NDIA. He was found dead in his Parramatta unit two months later by the police. I would ask the minister: what have the NDIA, the NDIS and the Quality and Safeguards Commission done? (Time expired)
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (15:09): I rise to speak to the motion moved by Senator Kitching to take note of answers to questions on the NDIS. As has been said by Senator Kitching and Senator Reynolds, the death of anyone and the death of any child is a great tragedy and not something that we want to see—particularly if it could have been avoided. We're all touched by this; we're all affected by this—none more so, of course, than his family and friends. I think we just have to acknowledge that it's not something we want; it's not something we'd ever seek; it's something that we're all incredibly saddened by and sorry for.
Having said that, talking down the NDIS is something that Labor does very often, very frequently, and very well. They're very, very happy to go on the attack—over what is, fundamentally, a scheme that this government should be incredibly proud of and a scheme that Australia should be incredibly proud of. There are not many countries around the world that have schemes equivalent to this. It's a very, very good safety net. It provides very, very good care for a lot of Australians.
Yes, it is tragic when someone on the NDIS passes away. It is very tragic and it's something that we want to avoid and not see occur. But I would ask those on the other side: how many lives has this scheme saved? How many lives has it improved the quality of—the lives of not just the people on the scheme but of their families? How much good has it contributed to Australian society? They can't bring themselves to acknowledge that, because it is not their scheme; it is our scheme. They can't bring themselves to acknowledge how well we administer this scheme. Yes, occasionally, something goes wrong—as, occasionally, something can go wrong in anything at all. Occasionally, things go wrong in medicine. Occasionally, things go wrong in aviation. Occasionally, things go wrong on our roads. Sometimes, these things are avoidable; sometimes, they may not be avoidable. But those sitting over there are knocking this whole scheme, for one tragedy. This is a tragedy—an absolute tragedy. But just sitting there and knocking a whole scheme that, overall, this government administers for the benefit of Australians, and, generally, for the great benefit of Australians, is just counterproductive.
Look at how much money this government spends on this scheme, and ask: how much money would they be spending on the scheme? They would be spending unlimited amounts, because they know how to spend; they don't know how to stop spending. So, yes, it would be great: give every person on the NDIS $10 million—fantastic! Who's going to pay for it? They don't have anything that's costed. They have no idea what things actually cost to provide. Well, we on this side do. We actually take all Australian taxpayers and all Australians into account, and we recognise that we have to be fiscally responsible, and we provide a scheme that we can actually afford. We provide a scheme that we can have a budget for. We know what it's going to cost and we recognise this.
And, by the way, we have a budget—not that anyone on the other side would know that we're actually handing down a budget tonight. Do you even realise that we're handing down a budget tonight that Australians are concerned about and which is going to affect Australians? You've not asked one question regarding the budget that we will be handing down—a good budget that we will be handing down, that's going to benefit all Australians—because you don't care. You don't care about Australians. You just care about yourselves. You just care about big-noting yourselves and making claims that you cannot live up to—because that's what Labor does. That's all Labor is capable of. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm just going to go back to Senator Kitching who was going to seek leave to table a document.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:14): I seek leave to table a letter written by Kevin and Tracey Danher to Minister Reynolds regarding their son Liam.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?
Senator Cash: I would like to seek advice and come back to you, if it's alright.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sure. Thanks, Minister. Senator Brown.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:15): I'm really sad to say that that last contribution made no sense. Senator McMahon has obviously not been listening to the rhetoric coming from her own government. She certainly did not listen to the minister's response here today when the minister said it was fully funded. The scheme is fully funded. The very last thing—and it's very important that these matters be put straight—that the Labor Party would ever do is to talk down the NDIS. The Labor Party were the ones who created the NDIS, which is about people with a disability, about participants having reasonable and necessary support and services. That's what the NDIS is about. That's what the ALP created, and what this government has been doing is to create a bureaucratic nightmare where those supports and services are caught up in a convoluted process where either people are being denied those services or they are being delayed.
With the tragic case of the death of Liam Danher, that family had to jump through hoops. They had not one treating professional, not two treating professionals but three treating professionals who all said he needed it. Having said that, the NDIA sent an independent assessor, and what did they say? Yes, he needs it. But unfortunately Liam passed away.
The other thing Senator McMahon said was that we should be listening to the community. Well, she should take some of her own advice. With these new independent assessments that the government is rolling out to save costs, this is what is being said about them: roboplans and tick-a-box assessments. The minister said she's listening. Twenty disability organisations have launched a petition and a campaign against independent assessments. That's what's actually happening out there. Professor Bonyhady called them roboplans. We've had comment after comment from participants calling the process dehumanising. Is that really what you want your legacy to be? Is that really what this government wants its legacy on the NDIS to be?
There was a bit of a sigh of relief when the new minister was announced: maybe there would be a reset. Maybe she really would reset. She called a pause to look at the information and the consultation after the trials are completed. But there's no consultation. The trials are going ahead as they were already envisaged. There's been no change whatsoever. If the minister is listening to this debate, she really needs to go back to the drawing board, because what we have seen is that nearly every witness giving evidence to the NDIS joint standing committee has asked for the independent assessment trials to be scrapped and for the government to go back to the drawing board and have a proper look at any of the issues.
We know this government has been talking down the NDIS and talking about sustainability. When they first came out with the independent assessments, they talked about fairness. That wasn't washing with the participants nor the advocates nor the organisations in the disability sector, so now they talk about sustainability. But, of course, we know that the forecast on the cost of the NDIS was forecast four years ago. But here they are now coming out to say that somehow it's not sustainable. Well, four years ago— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand the leave Senator Kitching was seeking to table a letter has been agreed to.
Senator VAN (Victoria) (15:20): I rise to take note of answers to questions on the NDIS as well. Of course, the death of any individual is tragic, and our sympathies go to the family of this young man.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator VAN: Rather than being interjected against by those opposite, I would rather express the sympathies of this government to that family—but feel free to interject into those sympathies your own if you would like, Senator. Out of respect for that family, I don't think we should trawl through that individual case here in this place because all that seeks to do is politicise it. If you like, I can bring up plenty of ways to politicise some of the comments of your ex-leader. As the newspapers showed on the weekend, he allegedly called people who worked for the NDIS 'Oompa Loompas'. What sort of disrespect is that? That is awful. If that is the way one of your leaders talks about the NDIS and its workers, you should be disgusted. On this side, we are disgusted by any talk like that; it is awful. We're justifiably proud of the NDIS and the work we have put into it. That is why we—
Senator Keneally interjecting—
Senator VAN: Would you like to call them a name too?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Thank you, Senator Keneally. I remind you, Senator Van, to make your comments to the chair.
Senator VAN: Thank you, Deputy President. We are justifiably proud of the NDIS and that is why we have committed an additional $13.2 billion until 2023-24 for disability support under the NDIS. This is in addition to the extra $3.9 billion included in the 2020-21 budget and bringing the total extra federal government NDIS funding up to $17.1 billion. Need I remind those opposite that tonight the Treasurer will hand down the budget, and I am sure he will have more to say on that.
It is fair to say that the NDIS has grown at a rate well beyond any initial projections. In its 2011 report, the Productivity Commission estimated that the NDIS would support 411,000 Australians and it would have a gross cost of $13.6 billion. We know 450,000 participants are now receiving NDIS support and it is projected that 530,000 Australians will access the scheme, with costs estimated to exceed $26 billion in 2021-22.
The Australian government is committed to delivering on the promise of the NDIS—that is, to provide people with a permanent and significant disability with true choice and control over flexible support packages to achieve their goals. The government is very serious about listening to the concerns raised by people with disability, their families and organisations around the country that support them before making any decision on proposed reforms in the shape of any draft legislation. It is fair to say that, since becoming the minister for the NDIS, Senator Reynolds has been consulting extensively with the disability sector, its participants and providers and state and territory disability ministers and will continue to do so. Those proposed reforms for the NDIS build on the Productivity Commission's original design for the NDIS as well as recommendations of other reviews and inquiries, particularly the 2019 independent review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013—what was known as the Tune review.
The key aspect of the proposed reforms is the introduction of independent assessments to inform access and planning decisions, including the setting of a personalised budget. In April 2021 all governments discussed the shape of these reforms and key concerns that have been raised by the sector. This meeting, just last month, affirmed all governments have a shared vision and commitment to the promise of the NDIS. All governments have also agreed on the importance of further consultation occurring and having further conversations in July 2021, before any decisions are made. The government appreciates that participants and the disability community have concerns about these proposed improvements, and it is a lot of change. It is necessary to set up the NDIS for the future, so decisions on the reforms will be finalised following further consultation with the sector and evaluation of the current independent assessment trials. Thank you.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (15:25): I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Ruston on the NDIS. As we know from the debate in this place this afternoon, Liam Danher died of a seizure due to a lack of a seizure mat that would have alerted his parents to the fact that he was having a seizure so that they could intervene, as they had done in many instances in the past when he had had previous seizures. I want to place on record today my personal condolences to Liam's parents. Kevin and Tracy, I want to thank you in particular for your advocacy around this issue. At a time of grief and anger, you have been able to turn this into advocacy so that other people, I hope, do not have to suffer these injustices and traumas through the NDIS. For that I am deeply grateful.
I am also very concerned by this government's continuing use of so-called respect for privacy as a cover-all for every instance where people want to take their issues up in parliament and have their parliamentarians raise them. Time after time, this government simply hides out of respect for privacy or respect for the people concerned. The simple fact is that the parents of Liam want to be able to highlight how the system has failed their son. We know, as we dig deeper into the issue, that there might be deeper reasons as to why the government might want to gloss over these issues. The National Disability Insurance Agency's Martin Hoffman said at estimates that Liam's death was 'a complicated and terrible situation'. What is that designed to mask over?
We know that this young man died for want of a seizure mat that would have alerted his parents so that they could have rolled him into the correct position during a seizure so that he would not have needlessly suffocated. What we also know about this indeed complicated case is that the NDIA was fighting Liam's parents with regard to other elements of his care. In the past, under the previous system, they had been his primary carers and they had been paid as carers under that previous scheme. I would hate to think that a bureaucratic debate over the care arrangements and who under the scheme should be caring for Liam—I would have hoped that the scheme could adequately recognise that Liam was best cared for by his parents, as was evidently the case but for want of this mat—wasn't the issue being complicated in amongst this request for a simple mat. It had been advocated for and requested by a number of other specialists and professionals that had sought for Liam to have access to that mat so that his parents could be alerted during a seizure.
We know one of the key failings in the current assessment scheme and one of the concerns with this bureaucratic recasting of how disability is assessed is the fact that people's needs change. Their disabilities change. Liam's parents were evidently concerned that their son might be having more seizures. How were they supposed to find that out if these seizures happened at night when everyone was asleep? They were debating with the NDIA: 'How many seizures is he having? Do we really know? Do we really think he needs this mat?'
These are evidently very difficult issues, but they are also simple issues. We need a system that can respond to individual needs, as the NDIA is supposed to. We don't want to get bogged down by bureaucracy and legal fees when it comes to meeting the immediate and, as evidenced in this case, urgent needs of participants in the scheme.
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:30): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to the fossil fuel sector.
I don't know if people know, but in the current financial year the federal government has spent $9.13 billion of taxpayer money subsidising the fossil fuel sector for things like cheap diesel for the likes of Gina Rinehart and other big mining billionaires. The Australia Institute crunched those figures and they worked out that that means that, for every minute of every day, $17,378 of taxpayer money—of your money—is given to those big mining companies and other fossil fuel companies to support them to make the climate crisis worse.
I asked the minister representing about this very issue and I did not get a single scintilla of a response. There was no acknowledgement of the sheer and undisputed quantum of subsidies that go to the fossil fuel sector. There was no acknowledgement of how deeply inappropriate and frankly dangerous it is that, in a climate emergency, not only would the government be terrible at acting on climate; it would be actively funding the industries that are making the problem worse. It's like they're in a parallel universe. There was simply no acknowledgement of the reality of the situation that we're in. I asked: Why the ideological attachment to fossil fuels? Why do they get so much public money when they are wrecking the planet and making all of our lives more difficult? After the summer of bushfires that we endured, when the Prime Minister was in Hawaii—I'm sure no-one has forgotten that—why would they get such a big budget spend of taxpayer dollars? I got no response from this government.
People might be interested to know that the fossil fuel sector is a very large donor to this government and, frankly, also to the other side of politics. I've done the figures. It's $8.2 million in donations to both sides of politics since 2012. When you work that out, compared with the amount of fossil fuel subsidies that the industry gets, for every dollar that they donate they get $10,000 of taxpayer money in return—in cheap diesel, in accelerated depreciation and in a range of other infrastructure supports. What a return on investment! Nobody else gets those sorts of numbers. I must say that the fossil fuel industries and companies and the mining billionaires have got it sewn up very nicely with this government. There are budget leaks that they'll get even more out of this budget. There's an unspecified amount of money to go to Snowy Hydro for them to produce not renewable energy but a gas-fired power plant. There's half a billion dollars for carbon capture and storage, and a little bit for hydrogen. There's $58 million for a so-called gas-fired recovery—almost $40 million of that is for critical gas infrastructure projects. There's the continuation of that cheap petrol for Gina that I mentioned before. There are all sorts of other subsidies: coal-fired power subsidies, coal railway subsidies, ports. How very convenient for these fossil fuel donors, who are clearly running this government. It's a plutocracy if I ever saw one. This government just could not answer my question.
It's interesting that Minister Pitt couldn't answer a question either about why he vetoed a wind farm plus battery proposal from getting federal funding through the NAIF—the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. There was a very hilarious interview, if I can be so frank, where he refused to acknowledge that of course wind farms can be backed up by batteries, that of course that can make them dispatchable power. So I asked Minister Ruston whether she could confirm that simple and undisputed reality that, yes, batteries can back up wind farms, and she wouldn't say the word 'battery' either. The 'big B' is clearly very scary for this government. They can't acknowledge that batteries are the way of the future because it interferes with their nonsense ideology that somehow renewables can't power our cities and homes and be a massive growth export industry for us. Let's hope that they discover the utility of batteries and maybe even give some taxpayer support to that clean industry and to that actual technology that works, rather than once again propping up their fossil fuel mates who happen to be political donors, who often go off and work for some of these ministers and cycle through those industry rep bodies back through to work for parliamentarians, and the revolving door of lobbyists just carries on.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Dodson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to move 15 sitting days after today:
That the Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements - class of persons) Instrument 2021, made under the Social Security Act 1991, be disallowed [F2021L00064].
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Biosecurity Act 2015, and for related purposes. Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill 2021. (general business notice of motion no. 1091)
Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting days after today—
That the ASIC Corporations (Amendment) Instrument 2020/1064, made under the Corporations Act 2001, be disallowed [F2020L01571].
That the ASIC Corporations (Amendment) Instrument 2020/1065, made under the Corporations Act 2001, be disallowed [F2020L01572].
That the ASIC Corporations (Design and Distribution Obligations—Exchange Traded Products) Instrument 2020/1090, made under the Corporations Act 2001, be disallowed [F2020L01600].
That the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Rules 2020, made under the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020, be disallowed [F2020L01569].
That the Competition and Consumer Amendment (AER Functions) Regulations 2020, made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, be disallowed [F2020L01606].
That the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines 2020, made under the Higher Education Support Act 2003, be disallowed [F2020L01609].
That the Competition and Consumer (Consumer Data Right) Amendment Rules (No. 3) 2020, made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, be disallowed [F2020L01688].
That the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Regulations 2020, made under the Corporations Act 2001 and Corporations (Fees) Act 2001, be disallowed [F2020L01654].
That the Corporations (Stay on Enforcing Certain Rights) Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Declaration 2020, made under the Corporations Act 2001, be disallowed [F2020L01682].
That the Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Regulations 2020, made under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, be disallowed [F2020L01568].
That the National Health (Data-matching) Principles 2020, made under the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed [F2021L00006].
Senator Duniam to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the decision of the full Federal Court of Australia to unanimously uphold the appeal from VicForests against the action taken by the Friends of Leadbeater's Possum that sought to undermine the forestry industry;
(b) further notes the judgement is a big win for Victoria and Australia's native forest industry. and supports the long-held position of this Government and the industry that Regional Forest Agreements provide a framework that achieves environmental, economic and social outcomes for our native forests;
(c) acknowledges that the Australian forest industry uses world-class sustainable forest management practices and supports the employment of more than 52,000 hardworking Australians making it an industry that deserves to be celebrated; and
(d) condemns the green groups that continue to use the courts to try to decimate the livelihoods of working Australians. (general business notice of motion no. 1092)
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021 be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June 2021.
Senator Ruston to move on the next day of sitting:
That the order of 13 February 2020, allocating departments and agencies to committees, be amended as follows:
(1) Under Economics, omit "and Small Business".
(2) Under Education and Employment, omit "Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, excluding Industry, Science, Energy and Resources but including Small Business".
Senator Ruston to move on the next day of sitting:
That the order of the Senate of 2 December 2020 relating to estimates hearings for 2021 be amended so that cross-portfolio hearings on Indigenous matters and on Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters be held on Friday, 28 May instead of Friday, 18 June 2021.
Senator Thorpe to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) across the country governments are implementing extremely punitive youth justice legislation that will further criminalise and target young people, particularly First Nations young people,
(ii) on an average night in the June quarter of 2020, about half of all imprisoned children were First Nations, despite making up approximately 5% of the overall youth population,
(iii) often this legislation has been enacted without proper consultation and engagement with Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, medical professionals and human rights and youth justice organisations,
(iv) particularly in the Northern Territory, the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Detention and Protection of Children in the Northern Territory have not been fully implemented, and
(v) it is time to take a new evidence-based approach to youth justice, by redirecting money away from prisons into stronger, caring, self-determined communities; and
(b) calls on the Commonwealth to work with governments across the country to:
(i) abandon regressive approaches to criminal justice and instead implement justice reinvestment interventions to youth offending, including culturally safe diversion, restorative justice programs, family and community support and culturally safe health, education, and youth support services, and
(ii) consult widely, particularly First Nations people, to implement culturally responsive systems that keep communities safe and families together. (general business notice of motion no. 1093)
Senators Siewert and Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the Federal Government's travel ban on citizens and visa holders returning home from India as racist and punitive;
(b) recognises that people who call Australia home in India and the Indian community in Australia felt abandoned by their Government when it criminalised their return home from COVID-ravaged India;
(c) acknowledges that there are 9,500 citizens and permanent visa holders in India who would like to return home to Australia, including 950 vulnerable people and 173 unaccompanied minors;
(d) notes that the Government is not bringing people home fast enough, as planned repatriation flights are estimated to bring 1,000 people home, at most, by the end of June; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to immediately revoke this racist travel ban, invest in additional quarantine facilities, and announce its plans to bring the 9,500 Australians home from India quickly and safely. (general business notice of motion no. 1094)
Senator Roberts to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the 2014 review by Donnelly and Wiltshire into our National Curriculum recommended more emphasis on our Judeo-Christian heritage and the role of Western civilisation in contributing to our society, and
(ii) the 2021 review of our National Curriculum recommends a de-emphasis on our Judeo-Christian heritage; and
(b) further notes:
(i) that our customs and laws are based on our Judeo-Christian heritage, and
(ii) that an Australian curriculum should include the origin of our customs and laws; and
(c) resolves to include in our National Curriculum our Judeo-Christian heritage as the basis for our customs and laws. (general business notice of motion no. 1095)
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Catherine House is the only service specifically to support women in crisis and experiencing or facing homelessness in South Australia,
(ii) the Liberal State Government has cut $1.2 million from Catherine House, effectively one third of its operating budget,
(iii) Catherine House Crisis Accommodation Program supports hundreds of women each year; these women often present with histories of domestic and family violence, mental health issues and poverty, as well as facing a critical lack of safe and affordable housing,
(iv) this program now stands to lose its 20 beds and staff face losing their jobs,
(v) women now represent 44% of all people experiencing homelessness and women over the age of 55 are the fastest growing homelessness cohort, and
(vi) other homelessness services including the Hutt St Centre and St Vincent de Paul Society, which offer 47 crisis accommodation beds, have also lost their funding; and
(b) calls on the South Australian Liberal Government to restore direct funding to Catherine House and other homelessness services and increase funding to the sector overall. (general business notice of motion no. 1096)
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Dry Creek Saltfield is South Australia's (SA) second most important shorebird habitat and is protected under the Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as a matter of national environmental significance,
(ii) the Adelaide International Bird Sanctuary National Park is of international significance for migratory shorebirds,
(iii) salt mining ceased in Dry Creek in 2013, a proposal to close the mine triggered a controlled action under the EPBC Act - before any action was approved the site was sold but the application was not transferred to the new owner and the site has remained dormant since,
(iv) the SA Government is failing to mitigate environmental damage caused from decommissioned ponds at the site leaking into the surrounding wetlands, and
(v) significant dieback has occurred in the St Kilda mangrove forest with approximately 10 hectares of mangrove and 35 hectares of saltmarsh impacted; and
(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment to intervene immediately to minimise the damage done to the environment and urgently put in place a best practice remediation plan. (general business notice of motion no. 1097)
Senators Dean Smith, Abetz, Hughes, McLachlan, Griff and Kitching to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 7 to 8 April 2021 marked Yom HaShoah for Jewish communities across Australia and around the world, a solemn event held to honour and remember the victims of the Holocaust,
(ii) commemorations focused on the Holocaust in the former Soviet Union to coincide with the 80th anniversary of the Babi Yar massacre later this year, and
(iii) Babi Yar was the first and most documented 'open-air shooting', where 33,771 Jews were executed by the Einsatzgruppen on the northern outskirts of Kiev, Ukraine between 29 and 30 September 1941; and
(b) acknowledges Alex Ryvchin, co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's commentary:
'[T]his year's Yom HaShoah event on the Holocaust in the former Soviet Union will mean a great deal to every Australian Jew of Soviet descent. More than that, it will mean that through these acts of remembrance and education, in some small way, we have thwarted the killers who sought to obliterate not only Jewish life but any memory that our people ever lived and died'; and
(c) reaffirms Australia's commitment to never forget those who perished in the Holocaust and to ensure that it is never repeated. (general business notice of motion no. 1098)
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) over the past 20 years, Tasmania's gross state product per capita has been on average one-quarter less than Australia's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita,
(ii) Tasmania consistently has one of the highest underemployment rates and the lowest participation rates in the country,
(iii) whilst structural factors do contribute to these circumstances, with Tasmania having the oldest and most rapidly ageing population in Australia, there is slack in the system,
(iv) the loss of manufacturing jobs in Tasmania, and the subsequent rise of employment in tourism and health services has contributed to a trend of workforce polarisation and a skills mismatch,
(v) a shortage of apprenticeships and skills is costing the Tasmanian economy and is one of the largest constraints to growing business and industry, and
(vi) increasing year 12 attainment, vocational education and the number of Tasmanians obtaining university degrees will work towards improving participation rates and re-skilling the workforce, dramatically improving GDP, industry composition and overall wellbeing; and
(b) urges the Federal Government to promote manufacturing in Tasmania and to also direct resources to improving education attainment and improving the skills of Tasmanians by investing in TAFE. (general business notice of motion no. 1099)
Senators Wong and Keneally to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Australian Government is responsible for borders, quarantine, and assisting Australians in jeopardy and stranded overseas,
(ii) since the Prime Minister capped international passenger arrivals on 13 July 2020, the crisis faced by Australians stranded overseas has worsened,
(iii) the Senate has previously called on the Government to:
(A) increase quarantine capacity and put all options on the table to return stranded Australians, especially from India,
(B) bring stranded Australians home by Christmas 2020, as the Prime Minister promised he would do, and
(C) expand safe and effective federal quarantine capacity and ensure everyone is welcomed home with care and compassion,
(iv) the Morrison Government still has no comprehensive plan to help every stranded Australian return home, and
(v) on 30 April 2021, the Government announced 'a temporary pause on travellers from India entering Australian territory' and that 'Failure to comply with an emergency determination under the Biosecurity Act 2015 may incur a civil penalty of 300 penalty units, five years' imprisonment, or both'; and
(b) calls on the Government to help Australians in India return, rather than jailing them, and fix our quarantine system rather than leaving our fellow Australians stranded. (general business notice of motion no. 1100)
Senators Canavan, McKenzie, Davey, McDonald, McMahon, Stoker, McGrath and Rennick to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the triennial Beef Week, organised by Beef Australia, was recently held in Rockhampton to showcase our world-leading beef industry,
(ii) the event promotes and advances a sustainable industry and involves producers, scientists, chefs, students, exhibitors, businesspeople, and families,
(iii) the historical role of Beef Week is to exhibit our produce to international industry leaders and the facilitation of new trade and export opportunities,
(iv) the Liberals and Nationals in government contributed $3.9 million to the 2021 event which will inject more than $100 million into the Capricorn region's economy, and
(v) the Australian beef industry is worth more than $15 billion to the Australian economy, involving over 45,000 producers, and exports the second highest quantity of beef in the world; and
(b) commends Beef Australia for:
(i) running a COVID-safe event that still attracted more than 100,000 visitors from across Australia, and
(ii) its role in promoting the Australian beef industry internationally; and
(c) congratulates all producers and exhibitors at Beef Australia 2021. (general business notice of motion no. 1101)
PETITIONS
The Clerk: A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:
Immigration Detention
To the Hon Tony Smith, MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Senator Scott Ryan, the President of the Senate
We, the undersigned people of the Bendigo region, ask you to take action to ensure the Australian Government and Parliament is fair to all people.
IMMEDIATELY:
Release all refugees from detention.
Allow the Biloela family to return to their Queensland home permanently.
Thank you for taking action to achieve the above requests.
by Senator Ryan (from 78 citizens).
Petition received.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:36): I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 11 to 13 May 2021:
(a) Senators Griff and Scarr, for personal reasons;
(b) Senator Molan, for medical reasons; and
(c) Senator Payne, on account of ministerial business.
Question agreed to.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:36): I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
(a) Senators Green and Gallacher, from 11 to 13 May 2021, for personal reasons;
(b) Senator Bilyk, from 11 May to 24 June 2021, for personal reasons; and
(c) Senator O'Neill, from 12 to 13 May 2021, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional estimates 2020-21—from 20 April to 17 May 2021.
Economics Legislation Committee—Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020—from 6 May to 30 June 2021.
Economics References Committee—
Australia's oil and gas reserves—from 30 June to 2 December 2021.
Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability—from 30 June to 2 December 2021.
Unlawful underpayment of employees' remuneration—from 24 June to 2 December 2021.
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Additional estimates 2020-21—from 20 April to 25 May 2021.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020—from 11 May to 20 October 2021.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020—from 11 to 13 May 2021.
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Australia Post—from 30 April to 17 May 2021.
Impact of feral deer, pigs and goats in Australia—from 28 April to 19 May 2021.
Press freedom—from 28 April to 19 May 2021.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Operation and management of the Department of Parliamentary Services—from 19 May to 30 June 2021.
The PRESIDENT: I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, I shall proceed to the discovery of formal business.
MOTIONS
Banking and Financial Services
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:37): At the request of Senator Bilyk and also Senator Griff, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1082 be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is an objection.
Women's Economic Security
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:37): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on International Women's Day 2021, more than 30 prominent women wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for the upcoming Federal Budget to 'make the lives of Australian women easier, not harder',
(ii) the Workplace Gender Equality Agency data shows the gender pay gap in Australia is currently 13.4%,
(iii) KPMG estimates that halving the gender pay gap would increase annual GDP by $60 billion over the next two decades,
(iv) the cost, quality and availability of early childhood education and childcare remains a significant barrier to women's workforce participation, and
(v) domestic, family and sexual violence disproportionately impacts women and children; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) reintroduce the Women's Budget Impact Statement to assess the gendered impacts of budget decisions and inform the Government's reform agenda,
(ii) adequately fund frontline domestic, family and sexual violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women and children can access services when and where they need them,
(iii) deliver affordable, accessible early childhood education and childcare,
(iv) introduce more equitable parental leave arrangements to encourage shared care, and
(v) properly fund measures to address the gender pay gap, value the care economy, and support women's workforce participation.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:38): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The 2021-22 budget will build on the 2018 and 2020 women's economic security statements demonstrating the government's comprehensive and sustained commitment to continue improving opportunities and outcomes for Australian women and girls while ensuring that their safety, economic security and health and wellbeing remain paramount. The budget will build upon the already record commitment of this government of over $1 billion for women's safety.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (15:38): I, and also on behalf of Senator Kitching, move:
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes that on 8 December 2020 the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade tabled its report titled Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the Global Magnitsky movement?, and recommended that the 'Australian Government enact stand alone targeted sanctions legislation to address human rights violations and corruption, similar to the United States' Magnitsky Act 2012'; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to respond to that report's recommendations as soon as possible, and introduce an Australian Magnitsky Act.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Foreign Minister, by no later than 2 pm on 13 May 2021, a response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Economy
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:39): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, during 2020:
(i) gross domestic product fell by 1.1%,
(ii) household spending fell by 2.7%,
(iii) business investment fell by 5.0%, and
(iv) hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and many remain unemployed and underemployed, yet the Australian Financial Review rich list shows that, on average, Australian billionaires increased their wealth by an obscene 34%; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to restructure the Australian tax system to ensure that:
(i) billionaires are not able to accumulate such extreme wealth, and
(ii) billionaires are required to pay their fair share of tax to fund the provision of high-quality public services for the benefit of all Australia.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:39): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government is committed to delivering a simpler tax system that remains progressive, fosters aspiration and rewards effort. We should all be encouraged that the economic recovery is on track and ahead of schedule. Unemployment in March, at 5.6 per cent, is below the most optimistic Treasury forecast and well below the forecast of 7.5 per cent in the March quarter predicted in the 2020-21 MYEFO. Consumer confidence has recovered beyond its pre-pandemic level and sits at an 11-year high, and business conditions are at their highest on record.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator WATT: Labor supports tax relief for low- and middle-income earners, who should be the priority, yet it looks like, under this government, these will be temporary tax cuts while high-income earners get permanent tax cuts. We've expressed our concerns about committing to big tax cuts for high-income earners years down the track that are the least responsible, least fair and least likely to be effective in the economy.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1090 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:44]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Banking and Financial Services
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:47): At the request of Senator Bilyk, I seek leave to move general business notice of motion No. 1082 and that it be determined without amendment or debate.
Leave not granted.
Senator WATT: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent general business notice of motion No. 1082 being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Watt to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:52]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:54): At the request of Senator Bilyk, I move general business notice of motion No. 1082:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, in 2009, the then Labor Government introduced responsible lending obligations (RLOs), legislation protecting the interests of consumers by placing an obligation on lenders that they not enter into a credit contract or lease that is unsuitable for the consumer;
(b) recognises that some small amount credit contracts (SACCs) lenders are preying on vulnerable low income Australians by entering into payday loans and consumer leases with crippling interest rates; the Stop the Debt Trap Alliance's The debt trap report found that many SACCs were going to financially stressed and distressed households, leading to an ongoing cycle of debt from which it was difficult to escape;
(c) expresses its support for laws which protect consumers from unsafe lending practices;
(d) condemns the Federal Government for:
(i) introducing legislation which scraps RLOs,
(ii) taking more than four years to introduce the SACC reforms they promised, and
(iii) introducing weak protections for SACC consumers; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to make a genuine commitment to protecting consumers from unsafe and predatory lending practices.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:55): I table the government's statement relating to this motion.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1082 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:59]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MATTERS OF URGENCY
COVID-19: Quarantine
The PRESIDENT (16:01): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 today, 23 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate the following letter has been received from Senator McCarthy:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
Helping Aussies in India return, not jailing them; and fixing our quarantine system rather than leaving our fellow Australians stranded.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The PRESIDENT: I understand informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. Senator Keneally.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:02): At the request of Senator McCarthy, I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
Helping Aussies in India return, not jailing them; and fixing our quarantine system rather than leaving our fellow Australians stranded.
Having an Australian passport used to mean something. It used to mean that your government looked after you when you were in a crisis, when you were stranded, when you were in trouble. It used to mean safety, protection and security. But, as we've seen in recent weeks, with Australians stranded in India it seems to mean that the Morrison government is going to leave you behind. Nine thousand five hundred Aussies in India, 950 of them considered vulnerable, and, tragically, 173 unaccompanied children—all left behind by Scott Morrison.
Last week, in the COVID committee, we heard the moving story of a Sydney parent, Dilin. Dilin told the committee that he and his wife had not seen their young daughter for almost 17 months, despite constant efforts to get her home from India. Dilin said: 'We have not seen our daughter grow. When her grandma says she has grown, I feel sad. We have not been able to see her grow taller. It's time we have lost and we can never get back.' I cannot imagine how difficult it is for this family. How could any parent be separated from their child for that long during their child's young, formative years and not feel that loss deeply? We still don't know when Dilin and his wife will be reunited with their precious child.
I asked DFAT officials in the COVID committee hearings whether they had considered sending a special mercy flight to India specifically to bring home children who were separated from their parents in the middle of this global pandemic, and the officials confirmed that the government had not. Let's be clear: banning Australian citizens from trying to return home from India and threatening them with jail and with fines is unprecedented. It did not have to be this way.
The Morrison government has failed in its responsibility for quarantine. If there had been a national quarantine facility, as Jane Halton recommended to the Prime Minister, more stranded Australians would have been able to get home to safety. These stranded Australians—our fellow citizens, our mates—would already be home if the Prime Minister had just done his job and ensured that the federal government had been responsible for quarantine, something it's been responsible for now for over a hundred years. Instead, he has left these Australians behind, trapped overseas and exposed to the coronavirus.
The Chief Medical Officer, Paul Kelly, said last week that the India travel ban is a direct result of a lack of quarantine facilities. So let's just be clear: Scott Morrison ignored Jane Halton's recommendation to set up national quarantine facilities with surge capacity to get stranded Australians home. If Scott Morrison had taken that advice from his hand-picked expert, Jane Halton—if he had listened one of the three times she briefed him on her report and if he had acted—the Australians in India would already be home. They would not have been left behind by this Prime Minister. Of course we need to follow medical advice. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Of course we need to keep the virus out of Australia. No-one is suggesting otherwise. But the best way of protecting Australians is through a proper national quarantine system and getting on with the vaccine rollout. Quarantine and vaccination: the two jobs that the federal government, the Morrison government, had during this pandemic, and they are failing at both.
The truth is that our current quarantine arrangements are unable to deal with a surge in demand during a crisis—the exact circumstances that were referred to in the Halton report. Inadequate quarantine facilities mean we are unable to deal with the 40,000 Australians who are still stranded overseas and can't get home to Australia, and this failure sits squarely with the Prime Minister. Quarantine has been a federal responsibility for 120 years. The Prime Minister used to know this. He used to hold the job of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. He commissioned for himself a big trophy. 'I stopped the boats,' he said. He used to be responsible for the borders. I'll tell you what: he is stopping Australian citizens from getting back to their home country, because he is washing his hands of quarantine. He is ducking responsibility. He failed to act. He shoved it all onto the states. This is the 'I don't hold a hose, mate' attitude of Scott Morrison. 'I don't run quarantine,' he says. 'I'm not responsible for aged care'—except he is. The vaccine rollout: 'Not my fault'. Australians are getting sick and tired of a Prime Minister who fails to take responsibility, who ducks and weaves, who does not act.
Scott Morrison is all about the re-election of Scott Morrison. Everything he does is designed to ensure that he is never responsible for any problem but he's always around to take credit when things go well. When Gladys Berejiklian and Dan Andrews acted during the pandemic, at the height of the pandemic, they saved Australia. Australian citizens responded to the leadership of Dan Andrews and Gladys Berejiklian, but where was Scott Morrison? The Australian people are to be credited for following the advice and leadership of the state premiers and chief ministers. Where was Scott Morrison? All he did was stand around after national cabinet and announce what the premiers had told him they were going to do. That's not leadership.
Scott Morrison is all about Scott Morrison. He is not about the Australian people, and he is not on the side of the Australian people. If Scott Morrison were on Australians' side, he would have rolled out the vaccine; he would have secured enough vaccine deals; he would have ensured we didn't put all our eggs in one basket, the AstraZeneca basket; and he would have implemented a national quarantine system, as his own hand-picked expert, Jane Halton, told him to do. Let's remember that the Prime Minister said, 'We're at the front of the queue, Australia, when it comes to vaccines.' We're nowhere near the front of the queue. We're 100th in the world. We're at the back of the class. This is a Prime Minister who loves an announcement but doesn't pay attention to the details of delivery. This is a Prime Minister who promised we'd have four million Australians vaccinated by the end of March. We'll be getting to the end of May soon. We're nowhere near that. He is now promising six million are going to be vaccinated by—I think his deadline is the end of May. We're not going to hit that.
This is a government that always loves an announcement but doesn't pay attention to the delivery. Understand where we're at. The Prime Minister says we're at the front of the queue. We are lagging behind countries like Mongolia, El Salvador and Panama. Mongolia, El Salvador and Panama are doing a better job of vaccinating their citizens than the Morrison government is doing at vaccinating Australians. Scott Morrison announced that we were supposed to have every adult in the country vaccinated by the end of October. It's laughable and it's tragic. The failure is tragic. The people who are paying for it most acutely right now are Australian citizens and permanent residents who are stranded in India. As Senator Matt Canavan said, we shouldn't be jailing our fellow citizens; we should be fixing quarantine to help get these people home. As Senator Paterson said, this is a step too far—threatening to jail our fellow citizens who want to come home in the middle of a tragic humanitarian crisis. More than 22 million people in India have the virus. More than 246,000 people have lost their lives. They have a shortage of oxygen in hospitals. This is a difficult time for India. My heart goes out to our friends in India. The help we give them is right, but we need to get our fellow Australians home. (Time expired)
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (16:12): I really felt, after we'd been out of this place for six weeks, that it was like to coming back to school almost—new year, new teacher, you weren't quite sure what room you were supposed to be in. But clearly those opposite missed out on that. They haven't quite got the same fresh approach, coming back after six weeks, because they are still spouting the same old negative energy. Nothing is right. Nothing is ever good enough. It wouldn't matter which way we looked, which way we went; those opposite would find a way to complain.
But what I think is incredibly interesting is that it's not everyone in Labor who has looked at the situation in India and constantly flip-flopped, changed their position and taken a politically expedient position just because it's the opposite of what the Morrison government has done. In fact, there are many in Labor who have actually embraced the decisions that the Morrison government has made, based on health advice, making sure that Australians are safe. I just thought I would take this opportunity to remind those opposite of what some of their colleagues have said, and perhaps they might like to take this on board and, with regard to their objections, raise it with them, because it might get a little bit awkward at some of those federal council convention things you all get together with.
Admittedly I am not a big fan of Mark McGowan, the Premier of the one-party state. He said he could do it all, and then, as soon as he got one case, he shut the borders again, shut everybody down, closed the businesses, panicked, overreacted—the knee-jerk McGowan that we always tend to see. But even Mark McGowan here decided to support Prime Minister Morrison and the coalition government. I quote:
With more and more arrivals coming from India, we need to seriously look at temporarily restricting travel of people who have been in or through India. … They are trying to put a stop to the third wave—
That would be us, the Morrison government, trying to stop that third wave—
however in Australia we need to do everything we can to keep this double mutant variant away.
So it was, in fact, the Western Australian Premier, Mark McGowan, who came out urging—in fact, normally when it's Mr McGowan, it's demanding—the federal government to suspend flights out of India. 'There needs to be a suspension,' Mr McGowan told reporters. But it wasn't just Mr McGowan in the one state of WA; it was also 'Princess Palaszczuk' up in Queensland, the woman who likes to claim—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ): Senator Urquhart?
Senator Urquhart: I would ask that the senator opposite use appropriate names.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, you need to use the appropriate titles.
Senator HUGHES: Annastacia Palaszczuk, the Premier of Queensland—the other state known for slamming those borders shut, ruining its tourism industry at every opportunity but then sticking its hand out for the federal government to bail out its industries yet again—even came to the table on this one. She welcomed the federal government's decision to increase aid to India. But, while she acknowledged the decision to suspend flights was difficult for families, Premier Palaszczuk said, 'It's the right decision at this time.' When Premier Palaszczuk gets that COVID is unprecedented and we need to take different responses at different times, I think it says something to those opposite that they need to pay a little more attention to their colleagues. But it's not just the state premiers—no, no, no—it's quite a few that sit over in the other chamber. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition himself said: 'It's understandable these border closures have happened, given what's occurred in India. The health officials recommended a reduction, and I think that's appropriate.' But, of course, while Mr Albanese likes to have a bet each way—and I won't use the term that he's colloquially known as, out of respect for those opposite—it was his predecessor, Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, you do need to use the appropriate titles.
Senator HUGHES: I sometimes forget the name of their seats; my apologies. 'Senator' is a much easier term to remember. The member for Maribyrnong came out claiming that it was well past time to shut our borders to flights from India. The man who told Arnie Schwarzenegger he was going to be Prime Minister, the next PM of Australia—he wanted to let us all know—the former Leader of the Opposition, said, 'Let's be clear: as a general principle, let's just close the borders for traffic from India and then we can send them some supplies.' Whilst we have acted on the health advice, whilst we have looked to keep Australians safe, whilst we have acted to ensure that a third wave of COVID does not occur in Australia, we were actually supported in this, remarkably, by a number of people on the opposite side. Unfortunately, in their party room or caucus meeting, that message didn't get through to the senators putting forward an MPI today.
But, of course, when it comes to the vaccine rollout, we get the same 'boohoo, isn't it terrible' story. There was no recognition that last week saw the largest number of vaccines delivered across the country. The vaccines are being rolled out, and, as every country's experienced when they've started their vaccine rollout, it's had to be done in a safe and measured way. Now we're seeing those numbers increasing exponentially. I hate to think how upset you'll be when you do start to see increased numbers of people vaccinated. In fact, the fantastic work of Gladys Berejiklian means that those in the 40 to 49 age bracket—an age group I only just slip into—have been able to register for a vaccine. I registered for the Pfizer vaccine yesterday on the New South Wales government website. If only every state were as effective as New South Wales, I'm sure you'd all be in a much happier place. I don't know what Senator Keneally has against Mongolia, El Salvador or Panama, but I am not sure she will be getting an invitation to visit any of them soon.
There are a couple of things that India has done that we might like to recognise now that the world is looking to support it in response to the generosity it showed prior to the crisis that is now enveloping that country. Prior to experiencing this COVID wave, India had actually exported 66 million doses of a vaccine globally—in our region, 10,000 to Nauru and 100,000 to Fiji—and manufactured over 130,000 vaccines for Papua New Guinea and 24,000 for the Solomon islands. A chartered flight left Sydney on Wednesday, just last week, carrying essential medical supplies which included over 1,000 ventilators and 43 oxygen concentrators as part of the Australian government's initial package to assist. This is the initial part of the package. This assistance will continue as India is being supported globally, particularly in recognition of the generosity it showed prior to its COVID crisis.
India has 9,000 Australians waiting to come home, of which 900 have been marked as being high-risk. From 15 May, we will start to see repatriation flights. A couple of states have decided that they will participate in the quarantine of the repatriation, and the federal government along with the ACT, in running the Howard Springs quarantine facility, will be there to bring those Indian Australians or Australian Indians—I'm probably getting it mixed around—home through repatriation flights commencing 15 May, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good scare campaign over there!
These Australians will be coming home in a way that's not only safe for them, not only safe for the frontline workers who will work with them through the quarantine period but safe for the whole Australian community. That's the way the Morrison government has approached all of COVID. Our decisions are based on health advice; our decisions are based on how to best keep all Australians safe. Since February into March, we've seen the number of Australians coming home increase and it will continue to increase. It's not helped when states decide to shut down everything over one case of COVID. Again, I would urge the state premiers to look to the Berejiklian government for leadership on how to manage this crisis. Rather than scaremongering, we should look to the solutions, appreciate the support that the Indians are getting and know that they will start coming home from 15 May.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:23): My heart goes out to the people of India, who are basically experiencing immeasurable suffering at this moment. We are thinking of you. We are trying to do everything we can to support you and are pushing the Australian government to meet its moral obligations. The government's disregard for the lives and the health of people overseas has become striking over the past couple of weeks. The Morrison government's threat of jail time for stranded Australians trying to return home from India is absolutely horrific, it's discriminatory and it is racist. The move was a reminder for non-white migrants to this country that our citizenship will always be conditional. For migrants of colour, terms and conditions will always apply to our citizenship. In the fine print, you discover that, for you, being Australian means greater scrutiny, harsher policy responses and fewer protections. You find out pretty quickly that 'we are all in this together' is a false slogan. Some of us will always be excluded.
Health care is a human right. Your visa, citizenship or COVID status shouldn't change that. People whose homes and lives are here must be brought back immediately. Australia should also be flying back any sick citizens, permanent residents and partners home for treatment, and the cost of quarantine and flights should be covered by the government. Quarantine facilities should be humane, comfortable and safe. These should be places where people can stay with dignity. It is beyond unacceptable that Prime Minister Scott Morrison thinks it's the right thing to leave sick people in India, with no access to local vaccines or work rights, little access to health care and no prospect of coming home with partners or family members when they're allowed to return.
The Subcontinent diaspora that I've been speaking to are telling me that they are feeling like second-rate citizens. They are telling me again and again that their hearts are heavy thinking about loved ones suffering the consequences of the pandemic. They are telling me that they dread phone calls from India because they will inevitably bear bad news. We must do everything we can to also provide healthcare aid and resources to India and make sure that they're delivered to those in need. I urge the government to immediately return Australian citizens, permanent residents and their partners in India back home to Australia.
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:25): I also rise today to support the motion put forward by Senator McCarthy. I have risen in this place on a number of previous occasions to speak on the government's failure to secure safe passage home for vulnerable Australians abroad amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Since this issue first arose I've been immensely disappointed by the lack of action from those opposite to assist our fellow citizens. My office, like many others in this place, has been inundated with requests, with appeals for help, for assistance, by their government, the Australian government. They are so desperate to come home, home to a safe place, and not because they decided to just pack up and leave Australia and go on a holiday but because they have been trying for months to come back to Australia—months.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, Australian governments understood their responsibility to assist Australians in need who are overseas. Once upon a time, Australian governments would have sought to actively facilitate those in strife returning home to safety. But, sadly, this understanding has been lost by this coalition government. Their responsibility has been lost.
There are in the order of 9½ thousand Australians currently stranded in India. Almost a thousand of them are considered vulnerable. Almost 200 of them are unaccompanied children. These are Australians that have been abandoned, abandoned by their government, and there's no other way to characterise it. These are Australians that the government have made clear they aren't in the mood to help. Up until recently the message to these people was, for all intents and purposes, 'You got yourself into this place; you get yourself out'. We have heard the stories of many Australians who have tried to organise flights, who have tried to organise ways to get home, to fund and facilitate their own return to Australia, independent of this government. But, as if on a mission to compound their misery, the government has decided to up the ante, to threaten these people, these fellow Australians, with imprisonment upon their return. At no point were such measures required when the global hotspots were in China or Italy or the United Kingdom.
So why do this now? The answer seems plain and clear: this government's complete inability to manage our quarantine system appropriately has led us to this point. If we had a proper quarantine system in place, we wouldn't be here today. These Australians would already be home with their families. Instead, what we have is this hot mess, this abandonment of responsibilities by those opposite, this abandonment of responsibilities for their constitutional obligations. We should always follow the health advice—there is no doubt about that—but we also need to do what we can to make sure that advice like this never becomes necessary. One is left to wonder how little confidence the medical authorities have in the government's quarantine arrangements that would lead them to providing advice like this.
We had members of the coalition, Senator Paterson and Senator Canavan, as I asked the minister questions in question time today, give their view that this government needs to do a better job of making sure that stranded Aussies have a right to come home and that they should be assisted in doing so. But the answer was very clear: this government is focused on making sure that it will do whatever it can to make it very hard for those who are currently in India, that they don't get a chance to come home safely and that they have to wait for the government to sort out the mess here. The government should have looked after this mess some months ago and not just relied on the state governments to pick up the tab and manage our quarantine system; quarantine is the federal government's responsibility. The way ahead is clear, that this government needs to admit that it got it wrong and it needs to work hard to fix it. As members of the government themselves have said, they should be helping stranded Aussies in India to get home, not locking them up for making their own way here. The time for blaming others is over, and the finger pointing at the states must end. Quarantine is a federal responsibility and has been since federation.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (16:31): I would like to start by expressing my deepest support for and solidarity with India as it continues to respond to this ongoing crisis. Australia is both a close friend and a comprehensive strategic partner of India, and we stand with the people of India as they continue to confront this surge in COVID-19 cases. We have a vibrant almost 70,000-strong Indian diaspora in Western Australia who make up some of the 700,000 Indians who live in places across Australia. All of them form an important and integral part of our local communities. We have all seen that in our own communities, and no doubt every single senator in this place knows what a valuable contribution those that have decided to move here and raise their families here are making in this great country of ours. So our thoughts, of course, are with the thousands of Australians who are still living in India. It remains an extremely difficult time for our friends in India. Australians in India and those with loved ones there are no doubt experiencing significant stress. We continue to stand with them and we remain committed to doing everything we can to support India through this time.
India has shown both leadership and generosity during the COVID-19 pandemic. They've exported over 66 million vaccines globally, including to our neighbours in the Pacific, so now it's our turn to repay that amazing generosity and show our support for India. Just last week a chartered flight to India delivered essential medical supplies as part of the Australian government's package to assist India to combat COVID-19. This shipment included 1,056 ventilators and 43 oxygen concentrators. We've also helped the Indian Air Force collect four privately sourced oxygen tanks from my home state of Western Australia. The government is continuing to work with both state and territory governments as well as the private sector to assist with the urgent deployment of further support. Helping Australians return home remains a key priority of this government. We made the call to pause flights from India to ensure that we prevent the virus from coming back and starting a third wave here in Australia. Temporary restrictions on arrivals into Australia help to balance the interests of Australians who are seeking to return home while also managing the risks to the wider community and, of course, public health. Restrictions like this are critical to the integrity of Australia's quarantine system as well as the safety of the Australian community as a whole, and we have used this method before.
Closing our borders and utilising quarantine for returning Australians is not something new. Australia was one of the first countries to close our international borders when the pandemic first began. It has proven to be the best strategy to protect the health of all Australians during the pandemic, and it has helped us maintain a way of life which is, of course, the envy of the world. There has been nationally widespread support for the temporary pause on travel from India. WA's premier, Mark McGowan, went on the record multiple times last month proposing a temporary ban on arrivals from India. He even went so far as to urge the federal government to suspend flights out of India, describing India as the epicentre of death and destruction. Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, also backed our choice to suspend flights into Australia saying:
Other countries have done a temporary suspension. I don't think it would be out of kilter for Queensland and Australia to also do the same.
The shadow health spokesman, Mr Butler, the member for Hindmarsh, also supported the pause for flights and stated, 'Given the scale of the crisis in India right now, the proper thing to do is to pause travel from India to Australia.' The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, the member for Grayndler, also noted, 'It's understandable, these border closures, given what has occurred in India.' Yet all of a sudden he's saying that the Commonwealth has a duty to not abandon Australians stuck in India. So which is it, Mr Albanese? Are the temporary restrictions understandable or not?
It's pretty simple: India is currently identified as a high-risk country due to the significant increase in positive case numbers in returned travellers from India. Of the recent cases of COVID-19 detected in hotel quarantine in Australia, over 50 per cent of overseas acquired cases since mid-April 2021 reported acquired their infection in India. What the government has done is respond to the current situation, ensuring that we protect Australians both overseas and in India. And we're seeing positive signs from this latest temporary pause of flights, which has reduced the number of positive cases within the quarantine system to a level that is manageable and has reduced the risk of COVID entering the community. The number of confirmed cases in Howard Springs is also starting to fall.
The government remain committed to continuing to bring people back safely from India, but we have to make sure that we do it in a way that won't subject the rest of Australia to a third wave of COVID-19. The Biosecurity Act was deliberately drafted broadly to protect Australians from health risks. These tools will always be used responsibly and proportionately. These measures have been in place for 14 months, and in that time they've been used very judiciously to protect Australia, so it's not fair to suggest that these penalties in their most extreme forms will likely be imposed anywhere.
When you go into Western Australia—and this has been the case for, I suspect, decades—you have restrictions on the importing of fresh fruit and vegetables and nuts and various things, and there are penalties if you do that. There are very strong penalties that could go in the extreme if one does that. Just because there might be an upper limit of a penalty doesn't mean that we need to scaremonger around this particular issue. Australians in India right now that are trying to get back into Australia are under immense stress and pressure, and we don't need scaremongering. We need to obviously work as judiciously as we possibly can to see flights returned, to see as many flights come back in and to ensure that our quarantine system is able to deal with it.
Since the start of the pandemic, the Australian government has helped over 45,200 Australians return home, including 18,500 people on 125 government facilitated flights. Of these, 38 flights have departed from India, so far assisting around 6,300 Australians. Over 20,000 Australians who have registered with DFAT in India have safely returned since the pandemic began. There are still 9,000 Australians in India who are all keen to return home, of which 900 are considered vulnerable. As of 15 May, government charter repatriation flights to the Centre for National Resilience at Howard Springs for returning Aussies from India will resume. An estimated 1,000 Australians will be able to return home by the end of June, with one repatriation flight into Howard Springs every seven to nine days. We have put in place new measures for all flights resuming from India to the Northern Territory, requiring all returning Aussies to provide both a negative polymerase chain reaction test and a negative rapid antigen test prior to boarding. These new measures will help protect those returning home and the Australian community at large as well. So we are helping Aussies who are in India return to Australia. We are not leaving them stranded. We have done the tough job of making sure our quarantine facility has the capacity to handle those coming in from overseas, and it has helped ensure that we protect Australian communities and prevent any further outbreak of COVID-19.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:40): The fact that Australians have not been able to return home at a time of international emergency is a clear indication of how this government has failed when it comes to meeting its responsibilities to keep all Australians safe—all Australians, not just those lucky enough to be within our borders when the COVID pandemic hit. Quarantine is clearly a responsibility of the federal government but one this government has shirked from the beginning of this pandemic. The Northern Territory government stepped up to the challenge when the pandemic hit. A dormant workers camp on the outskirts of Darwin at Howard Springs was offered up as a place where Australians returning from countries where the virus was raging could quarantine before returning to their homes. The first Australian coronavirus evacuees from Wuhan arrived at Howard Springs in February last year. Since then it has developed into what health experts have called a gold standard purpose-built infection control facility, safely quarantining thousands of arrivals, including domestic travellers, overseas fruit pickers, international students and repatriated Australians.
Throughout the pandemic NT Health has been managing the domestic section of the facility, where no cases of coronavirus have been recorded in people arriving in the NT from interstate. I take this opportunity to speak directly to our frontline workers in the Northern Territory and in particular at Howard Springs and the AUSMAT team under the guidance of the Chief Health Officer, Dr Huge Heggie, and now acting Chief Health Officer, Dr Charles Payne: a deep and sincere thankyou from not only this side of the Senate but indeed the Australian parliament, because it is you who are working at the front line and have been consistently since February 2020 to take care of vulnerable Australians and indeed those Australians who now just wish to travel across the country and who know that that is a place they can go to quarantine.
But there are still Australians, so many thousands of Australians, still stuck overseas who so desperately want to come home without having the threat of a jail sentence on top of them. The Commonwealth has been managing international arrivals, and management is now being handed over to the Northern Territory. Throughout the pandemic NT Health has been managing the domestic section of the facility, where no cases, as I said, of coronavirus have been recorded in people arriving in the NT from interstate. So, under the federal agreement, capacity at Howard Springs will increase to 2,000 individuals per fortnight; 2,000 extra Australians are able to come in to Darwin and feel safe.
I have no doubt the Northern Territory and all of those frontline workers, not just in health but also in emergency services, our retail sector, the transport sector—the bus drivers—who need to be so much a part of this safety mechanism to protect Australians from coronavirus, will continue to do an excellent job. I have no doubt the Northern Territory will continue to do an excellent job in running a gold-standard quarantine service, giving a place to quarantine, and, just as importantly, protecting the Territorians who so generously welcome all Australians to that facility.
The federal government would have been better served using Howard Springs as a model for quarantine facilities elsewhere in the country. We would, perhaps, not be facing the situation where not only have Australians in India been banned from coming home; they have been threatened with jail time and huge fines if they do so. How horrific is that on top of an already desperate and depressing situation for those families wanting their loved ones back in this country? If the Morrison government had not so comprehensively failed to deliver our vaccination program, we would not have to be banning Australians from coming home.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:46): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on helping Aussies in India return, not jailing them, and fixing our quarantine system rather than leaving our fellow Australians stranded.
Here in Australia and around the world, people were disgusted when our government announced the travel ban and then, further, threatened to jail and fine Australian citizens and permanent residents if they dared try and return home from India. India is suffering a terrible humanitarian crisis, with COVID cases continuing to spike. Right now, people need help. Australian citizens and permanent residents in India need help. The Morrison government has abandoned our citizens and residents who are trying to escape and come home from a desperate situation. There are 9½ thousand Australians in India right now who would like to come home. They include 950 vulnerable people and 173 unaccompanied minors, whom the government didn't even know about until there were questions asked in the COVID committee last week.
The government introduced this racist ban—that's what it is—because our hotel quarantine system is not up to scratch. It cannot handle positive cases with a guarantee that COVID will not escape. We've had examples of that. The whole point of quarantine is to be able to handle positive cases. That's the whole point. What's happened over the last 12 months is that the Commonwealth has offloaded onto the states the responsibility it has for quarantine under our laws. It is continuing to refuse to fix a system that is clearly broken, to show the leadership to make sure that we have quarantine facilities around this country that are the best they can possibly be. We do have Howard Springs and that's being expanded, but not quickly enough to deal with the most immediate crisis in India.
People may think that the government is acting, but all it has done is announce three guaranteed flights once the ban ends—and that should end now; those should be leaving to bring people home. The first three flights will bring home only 450 people. There are 950 vulnerable people, let alone the other 9,000 that still need to come home. The government has no time line to bring them home. It can only guarantee that it will get 450 home at the moment with the possibility of another three flights that may get some of the vulnerable home. (Time expired)
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:49): Here is my question to Labor: is it okay to shut borders to protect citizens and ensure internal health services are not overwhelmed, or is it not? It's a simple question. If you don't think it is appropriate, then why don't you ring Premier Mark McGowan, who shut his border on 5 April last year right through to December—nine months. It was a nine-month ban on travel. I had a member of staff who was born and raised in Perth. She could not go home to visit her family for nine months. You might want to call on Premier Dan Andrews, who slammed his border shut with less than four hours notice on New Year's Eve, preventing families from getting together to ring in the new year. You might want to ring Premier Palaszczuk, whose border was shut for eight months last year.
I am on the record speaking about those border closures. I am on the record speaking about the negative impact of families stuck on opposite sides of the border, supporting boarding school students and university students who couldn't get home for holidays and families who were split by a divide. I am on the record calling for common sense. But I never once questioned the right of the state premiers to listen to health advice and impose restrictions they thought necessary to protect their citizens.
Let's put it in context. Nine months in Western Australia. You, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, were restricted from travelling beyond your state borders other than the fact that you're an essential worker in this place. That was nine months. Our government announced this Indian travel ban on 27 April to come into effect on 3 May, so there was no four-hour notice like Premier Andrews; we gave them a week's notice. It is now being lifted on 15 May—12 days. Twelve days to buy us time to ensure that when we reopen and accept people returning to Australia from India we have the capacity to care for them.
In the middle of April, 50 per cent of all our quarantine COVID cases were returning travellers from India. Fifty per cent. At that rate, we would have been overwhelmed. Twelve days is what we asked for so that we can put in place systems to make sure we can care for our citizens. In the words of Premier McGowan, we need to do everything we can to keep this double mutant variant away, talking about the disease that has occurred in India. When we reopen our borders on 15 May, we will be focusing on prioritising the most vulnerable and getting them home, and we will have the confidence that our systems won't be overwhelmed and that we can look after them.
I agree it is heartbreaking for families and citizens who've found themselves on the wrong side of this border ban temporarily. I share their concerns, but I also stand with the premiers from around this country—from both parties; Labor and Liberal alike—who have themselves taken measures to protect their citizens. I stand with them to say we need confidence. We need to make sure that we have capacity, that our health systems are not overwhelmed and that we don't inadvertently do things that would make us vulnerable, because we don't want to be the next India. We don't want that level of COVID in this nation. We want to keep our citizens safe.
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (16:54): The last contribution demonstrates that the coalition government doesn't grasp the situation that it is in. It doesn't grasp its responsibilities. The government doesn't understand that, as Senator Patrick just said, with 12 months to prepare it's the federal government's responsibility to deliver quarantine services and vaccine services and a vaccine rollout that would keep Australians safe. You see, in the middle of last year the Prime Minister said that all Australians overseas who wanted to come home would be home by Christmas. There are still 40,000 people waiting. Late last year the Prime Minister said Australia would be at the front of the queue for vaccines. Now, we're last in the queue—100th in the queue for vaccine delivery. This government's abjectly failed. The Prime Minister said four million Australians would be vaccinated by the end of March. There are still less than three million Australians vaccinated now, and we're in May! The Prime Minister thinks this isn't a race. Of course it's a race. It's a race for our economy; it's a race for our public health.
The real human consequences of the government's failure to appreciate the urgency of the situation, to appreciate its responsibilities and to act, is the India ban last week—lock them out, and then threaten to lock them up. That's all that's left to this miserable excuse for a government. Its failure has real-world consequences for ordinary Australians. Ziva Narang is just 19 months old and staying with her grandmother. They couldn't get her and her family on a flight back last year. They are trapped. Here's what her parents told the committee, 'Every time I see her on the video cam I feel like crying, but I can't cry in front of my own parents—it makes them so disheartened.' This miserable excuse for a government is confounded completely. I remember having them all out there, all through last year, bellowing out, 'Open the borders!' 'Open the borders,' they said, confounded by the fact that Australians in the states and territories were rewarding the performance of state premiers who took a tough line on the pandemic. You know what the difference was? The difference is that the state premiers have done their jobs. They have carefully examined their responsibilities, done their jobs and delivered. The economic figures that ministers over there crow about are a result of the delivery of the state governments, not the performance of this joke of a government. (Time expired)
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:57): It is the responsibility of the Australian government to assist Australians who are in difficulty overseas, not to criminalise them for coming home. I'm going to say that again: it is the responsibility of the Australian government to assist Australians who are in difficulty overseas, not to criminalise them for coming home. And, certainly, any such decision to do so should properly be the decision of the parliament, not some faceless official drafting an instrument and getting the minister to sign it into law. A single minister should never have the authority to outcast an Australian from coming home. It's improper, and it's immoral. There are powers available to the minister to deal with Australians that return home, to put them in quarantine, to make the Australian citizenry safe. The government has, of course, failed in its setup of quarantine. We know from the COVID committee that it's a capacity restriction that has caused this instrument to be brought into effect.
I'd just indicate to the Senate, noting this on the Notice Paper now, I will be introducing a bill tomorrow in the Senate, a 'Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill', which will seek to firstly remove or repeal the instrument but also to make sure that doesn't happen again. It will certainly allow the continuation of powers for a minister to deal with people who are here, but never should we criminalise an Australian for wanting to return home.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (16:59): Australia is very fortunate to share many things with our friends in India. We are both democracies. In fact India is the largest democracy in the world. We obviously share a love of cricket, we share cuisine, we share the rule of law, we share many other legal and bureaucratic systems and of course in this day and age we share with India a growing Indian-Australian population. In fact I saw some figures on the weekend which showed that the Indian-Australian community is now the fastest-growing migrant community in Australia. I think we now have over 700,000 Indian Australians living with us in this country and from whom we benefit. Indian Australians have made an enormous contribution to our country, whether that be in academic fields, in business fields, in community areas or in sport. In so many ways our own country has been enriched by the contribution of Indian Australians.
So you can well understand why Indian Australians feel so desperately abandoned by their government at this time. India, the world's largest democracy, we all know is going through an absolute crisis in terms of COVID infection rates at the moment, and it is extremely distressing that several thousand Indian-Australian citizens are stranded in India at the moment. The important point there is that no matter where these citizens may have been born—it may well have been in India—these are Australian citizens who have been let down by their government. I had the great honour of hosting a forum this weekend just passed with leaders of Brisbane and Gold Coast's Indian communities, which was joined by Senator Wong as shadow foreign minister and two of my other federal Labor colleagues, and it was entirely obvious the level of distress that people in the Indian-Australian community are experiencing right now. This government tried to make this an argument about whether Australia's borders should be closed at this moment in time, and that is not what this is about. There is no-one arguing that we should bring back all several thousand Indian-Australian citizens now, but what this government should have done is put in place quarantine facilities so that we could bring back people safely rather than leaving them stranded overseas.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the urgency motion be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:06]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
Motion to take note of documents nos 6 and 15 moved by Senator McCarthy. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of document no. 14 moved by Senator Steele-John. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of document no. 17 moved by Senator Thorpe. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of document no. 18 moved by Senator Rice and agreed to.
Consideration
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (17:09): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I wish to take note of document 18 on page 6, which was the response from the Premier of South Australia to a resolution of the Senate about not imposing discriminatory taxes upon electric vehicles. I really do want to note my disappointment in the response from the South Australian Premier, who outlined their intent to continue the South Australian government's proposal to impose a discriminatory tax on electric vehicles. That letter continued to repeat the insinuation that such taxes are appropriate because electric vehicles supposedly don't pay their fair share and don't contribute to tax revenue.
Fortunately, in the time since we sent this letter to the premiers, we have had a Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry. In fact, today there is a report from the Economics Legislation Committee on my private senator's bill, which is aiming to neutralise the potential impact of these discriminatory taxes on EVs. I'm not able to speak to that legislation committee's report this afternoon, so it's worth bringing out some of the evidence presented to that committee in this time slot now.
With regard to this furphy that electric vehicles don't pay their way, the committee heard so much evidence that showed in fact the benefit to society and the benefit to governments in tax revenue from electric vehicles would be overwhelming. Recent analysis from EY commissioned by the Electric Vehicle Council quantified the net benefit of electric vehicles in Australia. The average net benefit to government and society of an electric vehicle replacing an internal combustion engine vehicle is $8,763.40. This includes higher tax revenue from electric vehicle sales due to their comparatively higher upfront costs. In other words, even though electric vehicles are not paying fuel excise because they're not burning dirty, polluting petrol, they are paying more than that in extra revenue because electric vehicles are more expensive to buy than internal combustion engines.
This whole furphy that electric vehicles are not paying their way, which is continued in this response from the South Australian Premier, is completely that—a furphy. We should be doing everything we can to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. In fact, there was so much evidence put to the economics committee hearings that the committee report says:
The committee notes the consistent support for EVs through most of the submissions received … there is a general consensus in those submissions that more could be done to encourage Australian consumers to purchase EVs. The idea of imposing a tax specifically on EVs has met with significant opposition.
One of the other strong findings from the evidence presented to our committee of why the state governments are going it alone is that there needs to be a consistent national approach. We cannot have a hotchpotch of different taxing regimes and different approaches to electric vehicles across the states. The logistics industry told us they didn't want to see a range of different approaches because that would be an extra regulatory burden on them. What these responses from the state premiers are showing is we need that consistent national approach. We need leadership from this government and it is leadership that is so lacking.
This is important because transport makes up 20 per cent of our carbon pollution. If we are going to do what Australia needs to do to slash our carbon pollution and to play our role in tackling the climate crisis then we need to slash the pollution from transport. We need to be rapidly increasing the uptake of electric vehicles, but, of course, this government are climate deniers. They are not showing leadership on electric vehicles because they don't think that it's important. They are happy to keep subsidising coal, gas and oil and, in fact, keeping on internal combustion vehicles for as long as they can keep driving along the road. Meanwhile, electric vehicles are not in the slow lane; they are broken down at the side of the road, and there's no emergency response crew in sight. We are being total laggards here in Australia; we're being left behind. The types of policies that the state governments are implementing in imposing selective discriminatory taxes have been described as the worst in the world. We absolutely have to do better.
Question agreed to.
Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability
Consideration
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (17:15): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
In contributing to the consideration of this document, I am taken back vividly to those very frightening times not so long ago when the pandemic first reached our shores and it became very clear to us as disabled people, as it became clear to many members of many at-risk communities in our country, that our government did not have a proper plan. Whether it was Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, older Australians or disabled people, it very, very quickly became clear that we had been forgotten, that the systems and processes that were spinning up and coming into place were leaving us out. It was a quite terrifying time, as disabled people all over the country dropped the vital work that we were doing—primarily, work in preparation for the royal commission into disability abuse—to scramble together an attempt to call upon our government to take action and to take necessary steps.
It felt at the time that there was not a single person within the health department whose dedicated job it was to ensure that the pandemic response met the needs of disabled people. That royal commission heard our concerns and shared them and called on the UN rapporteur to intervene to make statements. A hearing was held into the government's response and its treatment of disabled people during the pandemic, and it vindicated those very concerns as it found that there was not a single person in the entire Australian Department of Health with the dedicated responsibility for disabled people—4.4 million Australians with a historically disadvantaged access to the healthcare system at the best of times. Need I remind the chamber that the life expectancy of an intellectually disabled Australian is 24 years less than that of the rest of the population. This community at risk did not have a single person on the job. Those were the findings of the commission. That is the evidence it took.
Today we have a response from the government to that interim report, and I note with deep concern that the critical recommendation 16—to ensure that the quality and safeguards commission's policies, procedures and practices reflect its powers and responsibilities to actively protect and preserve the safety, health and wellbeing of disabled people and national disability insurance participants—has merely been noted. Sometimes it does feel as though there is a central lack of humanity at the heart of this government, particularly on days when I come into this place and hear senators on the other side of the chamber speak about the death of a disabled child waiting for vital equipment and make the observation that, 'Occasionally some things go wrong.' I ask you whether that reflects the humanity that the Australian people expect of their government.
Has the government learned? I fear not. This very Monday, the royal commission shall reconvene, to hold yet another special hearing into the treatment of disabled people in relation to the vaccine rollout, from which we have, at various times, been excluded and forgotten once again. Again and again, disabled people request that this government, our government, listen to us, engage with us and support us to live a good life, and again and again this government fails. We die. We struggle. We suffer. This Monday, we will see another opportunity to get to the truth. The truth must be heard and acted upon.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Northern Territory: Juvenile Crime
Consideration
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (17:20): I seek leave to move a motion in relation to document No. 17, a letter received from the Northern Territory Attorney-General.
Leave granted.
Senator THORPE: I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I'm frustrated, sad and angry and absolutely over the oppressive regimes in this country acting against this country's First Peoples. The Labor Territory government's oppressive and, I would say, racist, knee-jerk actions will see more of our kids and babies sucked into the colonial criminal system. Let's be honest here: what the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory is talking about in this letter is not community safety; it's building an even bigger school-to-prison pipeline.
The Territory government has backed off its commitment to implement the Northern Territory royal commission's recommendations. In fact, the co-commissioner, Mick Gooda, says the government learnt nothing. What's the point of having a royal commission? We've seen that with deaths in custody. Now we see it with black kids in custody. Sorry, but if that ain't racist, then what is?
This knee-jerk reaction will expand youth remand centres and give police unprecedented powers. It will restrict bail and diversion options for young people. And this is in direct contradiction to the Northern Territory royal commission recommendations. In fact, this is really the 21st-century sophistication of genocide in this country. That's what it is. It's today's genocide. They couldn't wipe us out, so lock us up. What kind of government wants to be honoured for increasing their population of kids behind bars? Who's proud of that? Which minister or MP can stand up and say: 'Yep, I locked up another black kid'? It's disgusting. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
We know who will be most affected by these changes: black kids. We know that these systems are full of our kids. And a lot of those kids have got disabilities. They shouldn't even be in there in the first place. There was an open letter sent to the Northern Territory government, just last week, by a group of experts from organisations working in child and adolescent health. I do hope the Attorney-General—given he probably didn't read the royal commission recommendations—listens to these experts. Hopefully, they're white—and, you know, white is right in this place! They pointed out that young people in the criminal legal system have complex needs. There are a huge number of kids in the system with FASD, for example. These kids should not be locked up; they need diversionary programs and support services, and those need to be self-determined by their local communities. We know that the NT prison system doesn't have the supports or services these young people need when they have complex health needs and disabilities. Even Medicare doesn't cover these kids in this system, so how can they get help? How can they get support? They're not criminals; these kids are not criminals. Having a bite of a stolen chocolate bar is not a reason to lock a kid up.
How many times do governments need to hear that punitive responses do not change the behaviour pattern? These responses don't rehabilitate people and don't keep communities safe. The Attorney-General and the Labor chief minister aren't serious about doing the things that work because they're more interested in racing the Country Libs to the bottom. A government that wanted to prevent youth offending becoming devastating tragedies would keep kids out of the endless cycle of criminalisation in the first place. Throwing kids in watch houses will not do this. The Territory should be making sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service have the resources they need to keep our kids out of the criminal legal system. They should be providing stable, culturally appropriate housing, mental health and family support services. A government with a spine would be raising the age of legal responsibility to at least 14 and implementing strong, culturally safe diversionary programs. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Additional Information
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:26): On behalf of the chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Askew, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021.
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Report
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:26): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present an interim report of the committee on Australia's skilled migration program, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:27): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I make a report by way of a statement relating to the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2021-22. I table the statement.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:27): by leave—This is a very interesting little report and it's frankly a little known committee, with my humble apologies to those that populate the committee. It's made a very interesting recommendation. It's essentially said the PBO and ANAO, two of our important accountability mechanisms in our structures of government, are underfunded and deserve to have more funding. That's a very encouraging report, given that, sadly, for many, many years these organisations have been running on the smell of an oily rag and their capacity and output have been projected to diminish should they not receive additional top-up funding in the budget. We'll all find out in two and a bit hours whether or not this government is going to fund the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Australian National Audit Office to do the valuable work that they do. But it's encouraging that this report is suggesting that they do just that, so it would be a very brave government that ignores the recommendations of its own committee.
I'm an eternal optimist and I look for positive signs. One hopes that that's what we'll see tonight because we have a very impoverished transparency structure at the federal level of government. We don't have a federal corruption watchdog. We have the Australian National Audit Office, or ANAO as they're known, who do amazing work, but who are really worked to the bone. Sadly, because of the massive amount of dodginess that this government keeps coming up with, they've got a lot to do and they don't have a lot of funding to do it with. Likewise, the PBO, an initiative that the Greens are really proud to have been a part of establishing when we were in minority government with then Prime Minister Gillard, is essentially a budget honesty mechanism that allows parties to seek independent costing of their election promises. Once an election is called, parties are required to do that so there's a level of transparency and accountability to the public so that the public know whether costings of promises either add up or don't. In the Greens, of course, they always add up. So these are two really important bodies that are all the more important precisely because we don't have a federal corruption watchdog.
That's another interesting point. In last year's budget there was funding for a federal corruption watchdog, but we still don't have a copy of the bill. In the most recent Senate estimates, I asked the minister who was representing at the time. Turns out they're going to do a third round of consultation on the shape of a federal corruption watchdog. I suspect the third round of consultation will tell you exactly what the first and second rounds told you: we need one, it should have teeth, it needs to be independent, it needs decent funding to do its job and it needs all the powers of a royal commission and various other really good suggestions. That is a delay mechanism if I ever saw one! It's as plain as day. In the absence of a watchdog with teeth to actually do the job that is so desperately needed, we really need the PBO and the ANAO to get the funding that they are asking for to do their jobs.
On the ANAO, they've got a very proud history of scrutinising government expenditure and government actions, and it's led to some rather embarrassing reports, I might point out—embarrassing for the government, that is. The ANAO has exposed incidences of dodgy conduct sometimes to a level that I would consider to be corruption. Again, this is exactly why we need a corruption watchdog. But one wonders if that's why the ANAO has fallen out of favour with this government: precisely because the ANAO is holding this government to account.
The fact is the ANAO have a target of undertaking 48 audits a year, but, because of other obligations that they're also legislatively required to undertake, their resources are diminished. Without an additional top-up of funding, their capacity to undertake audits of government dodginess is going to reduce by 20 per cent. The ANAO investigations led to the sports reports revealed, and it had a hand in revealing sports reports No. 2. There's a list of documents just in today's red where the ANAO has investigated other conduct that's unseemly at best and often downright dodgy at worst. Again, this is exactly why we need a strong and independent federal corruption watchdog and a well-resourced ANAO. Standards need to improve. Even in my time here, nigh on 10 years, the level of accountability and conduct that's deemed acceptable has reached an all-time low. We need these bodies to be strong. To do a good job they need appropriate funding. The standard of behaviour here, the standard of decision-making, the callousness with which public money is allocated and the flagrant electioneering and pork-barrelling that goes on is worse than it's ever been.
I'm really pleased that this Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit have noted the requests for additional funding made by the ANAO and by the PBO. We endorse the requests. The government will be judged tonight on whether or not it has increased the funding of those two integral integrity bodies and it will certainly be judged on its continued failure to deliver on a corruption watchdog—and on all the other elements of the budget. With that, I commend this report to the Senate, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (17:34): Anyone who has read this report would be amazed to find that there are so many weaknesses in what this government is proposing. It is not about the skilled migration program; it's about how to unskill Australians and it's about how to exploit those workers brought in from overseas. There are several deeply disappointing aspects to this document. The recommendations the government members have made are quite simply outrageous. They say they are streamlining—or, more accurately, trashing—labour market testing. They want to make it easier for employers to bypass the current requirement to look for local workers. More employers will go straight to temporary visa workers instead. And the government also wants to reserve quarantine spots and flights for temporary migrants. How many more ways can you whack the Australian community?
This government have no idea what they're doing—on second thoughts, they do: they want to suppress wages. They've very successfully done that. Over the past eight years under this government wages have never been lower, and now we see stagnant wages. This is the first government that has actually caused a decline in the middle class in this country. Being a care worker was a middle-class job. Being a cleaner was a middle-class job. Being a transport worker was a middle-class job. This government has turned around and ripped the heart out of those jobs that brought the middle class into this country.
For the family members of 40,000 Australian citizens who are still stuck overseas and desperate to come home, the government's decision to reserve quarantine flights for temporary migrants is absolutely heartbreaking. In the past 12 months our immigration system has come to a total pause. This year, the first year since 1946, more people left Australia than entered it. This government has delivered the worst vaccine rollout. There has been an abject failure to invest in quarantine facilities. It's no wonder we're looking at limited immigration for months to come, because the government has spent eight, going into nine, long years underspending on education and training. Our nation's workforce is facing a disastrous shortage of skills. At this government's feet, young Australians, older Australians, all Australians are second class in their own country.
We all know that immigration is incredibly important for this country. Immigrants provide our country with drive and imagination, and a rich multicultural society. In the past, migrant labourers on projects like the Snowy Hydro scheme were given a path to permanent residency and citizenship. The government used to support apprenticeships and TAFEs. Employers would provide on-the-job training. All that has changed. Now what the government is proposing is not to put any money into training. It's cheaper to bring in people from overseas to come and do this work, not to skill Australians and give opportunity to future generations—let alone the reskilling of Australia that we need with the challenges with the future of work. TAFE funding is going down, not up. According to the Independent Education Union, TAFE funding is now lower than it was a decade ago. Seventy per cent of courses have had funding cuts. Instead, our skill gaps are filled with endless temporary workers with few or little rights. Very few of these people ultimately have the opportunity to become permanent residents.
If the coronavirus pandemic has shown us anything, it has shown us the utter failure of the system this government has put into place. According to the OECD, Australia is now home to the second largest temporary migrant population in the developed world, right behind the United States of America. We're No. 2. In the hospitality industry, around one in five chefs, one in four cooks and one in five waiters hold temporary visas. We aren't training people for the future. We aren't training hardworking Australians for an opportunity to be in our important industries. Of course, our fourth largest export is international education. But it should be a national embarrassment that we can educate the world while facing skill shortages in our own backyard.
This budget's current reliance on temporary visa workers is bad for everybody. It's bad for those visa holders who are dependent on an employer to keep their job, who can get exploited by unscrupulous operators preying on their vulnerability. A study this year by Unions NSW showed that over 80 per cent of Sydney's international students were illegally and shamefully underpaid. This is an unacceptable level of exploitation right here in Australia. It puts unfair pressure on other employers who try to do the right thing, and it locks out Australians who want to be employed in a fairly paid job.
Many visa holders come to this country because they want to become Australians. Our system provides far too few opportunities to become permanent Australians or citizens. But, most of all, this strategy, this policy and this government is bad for wages. It's bad for a wages-based enterprise bargaining system. How, as a visa holder, do you enter into bargaining negotiations with your employer? How do two million temporary worker visa holders in this country turn around and bargain under the enterprise bargaining system? The government's answer to that was: 'It will make it easier. We'll give them even less rights.' They can't exercise even the rights they've got now without retribution and potentially being deported at the employers' whim. And, of course, we've seen this in the aged-care sector, where the government has been suggesting, consistently now for a number of months, that aged-care workers should be workers that are on temporary visas. They have the hide to sit here and tell us what they're doing for the Australian community in the skill areas and in aged care, yet they're not making those jobs the middle-class jobs they should be—jobs that have middle-class responsibilities but not middle-class wages. This government is directly responsible for that strategy because of the policies they put in place in regard to temporary visas and because they have a clear responsibility about making sure that decent wages are delivered in an area they substantially fund. There are no procurement requirements, no responsibility, no training, and the answer is, 'Let's bring somebody in we can exploit.' It's that simple.
Currently these workers are exploited ruthlessly by bad operators. They undercut those employers who are trying to do the right thing, as I said. It's an outrageous situation. What the government is saying now is not that they will decide who comes into this country but that employers will decide who comes into this country—employers that exploit, rip off and won't employ Australians. And, not only will they do that and allow them to do it, they are actually making it cheaper for them to do it. That's a government working against this community and Australia's future in work and skills.
There's a role for temporary visas of course, and there's a genuine visa shortage in certain skills. The skills are rare and hard to find, and that needs to be considered. But there have been a number of important reports, which this government has also put in place. John Azarias wrote a recent report, the National Agricultural Workforce Strategy in March this year, and previous reports by the same author and various panels under this government called for the opportunity to employ and engage more Australians and to have an appropriate system that actually has balances and checks. I'm one of those silly people; I remember when all the chefs were trained here as apprentices. But, when it's cheaper to do it overseas, I don't blame the employers for doing that, because you've made the opportunity for them to do it. But I do blame those employers that exploit, and you allow them to do it and you encourage it by your policy. There are those decent employers who stand up for hardworking Australians by giving them jobs and opportunities and fair wages.
In April, the Guardian reported a story about a German woman named Nina, who took it for granted that she would work for three months for as little as $35 for a full day's work just to fulfil her visa requirements. She knew that she was being ripped off, but she had no choice but to carry on. Of course it's not just in the hospitality industry; the same thing is happening in the meat industry in the abattoirs, where a lot of the jobs that were good, well-paid, local jobs for hardworking Australians are now being given to short-term temporary visa holders who, again, have no say and no real rights because they are temporary and they can be easily disposed of by the employer—that's why they're employed. It's quite clear that we are stuck with this policy of this government, which doesn't have any real vision—only a plan for how to demolish skilled Australia.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:44): I also want to speak briefly on the same report. Senator Sheldon has quite eloquently articulated some very good points around the reliance and overreliance, I think, on temporary migration in this country. In light of the last 12 or 18 months, this country does need to have a good, hard look at itself about where it is heading in terms of temporary migration. I'm a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The interim report that's been tabled here today in the Senate is on Australia's skilled migration—or our lack of skills and, as Senator Sheldon also mentioned, deskilling Australians. Ultimately this is what this is about.
Recommendations were put forward by government senators and government members of the committee in what can only be described as a very hasty, short, rushed process. Three days for an inquiry—three days that we had to jam-pack with witnesses. It was quite obvious, having been to some of those hearings—I couldn't go to all the hearings over those three days, because it was all set up and rushed very quickly—even the department secretaries and representatives that appeared before the inquiry weren't in a position to answer questions they were asked by Labor senators and members on the day. They had to take quite a few answers on notice because they weren't prepared. It just shows that this government already had, in my opinion, predetermined outcomes that they wanted to see as part of this report in time for budget week. I guess we will have to wait and see what comes out of the budget later tonight.
I've been a member of that committee since I was initially appointed and then elected into this place. There's always been goodwill and bipartisanship on that committee. Unfortunately, that bipartisan nature has been thrown out the door. Certainly we've cooperated with the government on a lot of matters, but that last report really did put a bad taste in our mouths. Given how important migration is to this country—migrants have built this nation. My parents came here back in the late 1960s. There would be a lot of stories in this place about migrants and the great success story of what makes Australia such a great nation: our multicultural and diverse community. We should be very proud of our migration history. Sadly the government has chosen to play politics with this. I would just hope that once the final report is tabled in this place later in the year we can actually say some more complimentary things, but this was a hasty and rushed process just to satisfy the government's budget response later tonight.
Labor senators and members were left with no choice but to write a dissenting report. It was probably one of the strongest dissenting reports I've seen in my time in this place, and rightly so. There was no doubt. We should make no mistake about this: the recommendations in this report constitute an attack on working people, whether they're Australians or migrants, but particularly locals in Australia. Should the recommendations be adopted by the government, they will deliver poorer outcomes for Australia and Australian workers. As I've said, Australia is a migration nation, and proudly so.
Labor does oppose some of the recommendations, and I want to go through some of these now. The recommendations in the report would see us undermining labour market testing, which will make it harder for Australians to find a job. Right now unemployment is still high, though there is a lot of work out there. A lot of witnesses that appeared, including the Business Council of Australia, openly said that they would rather have migrants come into Australia than look for locals to fill those jobs. There are just so many roles right now.
We also oppose the effective scrapping of the Skilling Australians Fund, which would make it harder for young Australians to get the skills that they need. This touches on the point that Senator Sheldon made: we're effectively deskilling not just current Australians but future Australians as well.
We are also opposed to the immediate expansion of the skills shortage list, which will put the jobs of Australian hospitality workers, tradespeople, people working in manufacturing and seafarers at risk. Why? Why would we want to do that right now? Given the geopolitical environment that we're in and given the experience that we've all experienced in the last 12, 18 months with COVID, why on earth would we want to start to de-skill and put the jobs of many people at risk in manufacturing, seafaring, transport, retail, hospitality, tourism, all these industries?
An honourable senator: Hairdressing.
Senator CICCONE: Hairdressing. We even have cooks on the list. Apparently we don't have enough cooks. Why aren't we training people? We have TAFEs; we have universities—excellent institutions. Let's put the money into those bodies, into those organisations that are skilling people up. Now is the time to do so. At a time when Australians are doing their best to get back on their feet or simply to get by, this is the 'support' that this government has promised to offer them. These recommendations are not appropriate and, if anything, are counterproductive, it is clear from the way in which this inquiry has been conducted—the pace and the lack of appropriate consideration of evidence provided.
I know those opposite might take issue with this but, if we are to have an inquiry and it is to hear all sides of the story, let's not just have witnesses on the employer side. There was not one trade union movement representative. There was not one body that represented the workers or the migrants or the settler services that offer support to migrants in this nation—not one. Yet we had the department and we had plenty of employer associations. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's have a fair and balanced approach, fair and balanced evidence, before any inquiry in this place. It was so one-sided and that made it laughable, quite frankly. It is clear, sadly, how this inquiry was conducted. In some ways I guess it represented a wish list from those opposite on migration reform.
I want to make it abundantly clear that Labor does not support the recommendations in the report and that is why we submitted a dissenting report. We oppose each and every one of these recommendations and we will continue to oppose them. I really do hope that the government and members of the committee take note of what I and others have said about this report, not just here in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives, because we do want to work with government to make sure that we have a strong migration system, one that does have benefits for our economy, that does benefit Australian workers, but we can't do so when the government starts ripping the guts out of our industrial relations system, starts ripping the guts out of the pay and conditions of Australian workers.
We are in very dangerous times at the moment, very interesting times where we don't know where we could end up in the next 12, 18 months with COVID yet we need to provide that confidence to Australian workers right now, not the other way around. Again, we oppose the recommendations and we will continue to do so, I'm sad to say. We are trying to offer the government an opportunity to work with us. Come and work with us, and I guess we will see where that goes over the coming months once we do submit a final report.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Report
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (17:53): I rise to take note of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's report on the Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Ciccone and Senator Sheldon made about the previous report. It is a strongly worded dissenting report from the Labor senators. I would encourage everybody on the other side to read it and have a careful think about what approach this government is going to take on temporary migration. If used properly, data sharing and data matching can of course create rich datasets that can be used to deliver government services better.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marielle Smith ): Order, Senator Ayres. Apologies, my understanding is, because the report that you wish to speak to is a legislation report, the opportunity to speak to it is when the bill comes on in the Senate.
Senator AYRES: I was going to spend a bit of time congratulating Senator Duniam on his outing on the weekend.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ayres. I'm sure there will be a time of day for you to have that conversation another time.
Finance and Public Administration References Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (17:54): In respect of the government's response to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee's interim report Lessons to be learned in relation to the Australian bushfire season 2019-20, I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
There were 13 very reasonable, sensible recommendations that our committee put together in this interim report, and the government has seen fit to support only three of them. There was one that was supported in principle and the rest were merely noted. There are some critical ones that the government has only noted, and I wish to speak to them, but firstly I will talk about one of the three the government does support—that is, the need to streamline application processes for disaster recovery funding arrangements, the need to harmonise eligibility criteria and the need to remove impediments to applying for betterment and mitigation initiatives. I'm glad that the government saw fit to support this one, because it is the bottom line. Our committee is still receiving evidence of the difficulty people have in getting support, of the multiple layers of bureaucracy that they still need to go through to get support. It is a complete maze that people find so difficult to navigate through. We have to do better to support communities.
Last week I had the privilege of travelling through East Gippsland, which, of course, was drastically, dramatically and tragically affected by the 2019-20 Black Summer fires. Over 80 per cent of the forests of East Gippsland were burnt. All my adult life I've visited areas of southern Australia that have been affected by bushfires. If you're used to travelling through bushfire affected areas you know you drive along the highway through an area that has been burnt and then you move into areas that haven't been burnt. The experience I had last week was very different to that. I just kept on driving through burnt areas; everywhere I went the forest was burnt. There were only tiny bits of forest that weren't burnt. I think we really need to take note of the scale of the impact of these fires and to be aware that these fires will become more intense, more frequent and more extreme as time goes on, due to the climate crisis. We are facing hotter and dryer conditions. We've got to get really serious and really clever about how we respond to these fires.
First of all, of course, we need to tackle the climate crisis. We need to reduce our carbon pollution. We need to get out of burning coal, gas and oil. I urge the government to take that on board. I know they're not going to do it in the budget tonight, but they need to; otherwise, they are climate deniers, and they are putting our community at risk.
Last week I saw the impacts of the climate crisis. I saw that the fires that had swept through were hotter, more intense and more extensive. I met with representatives from MADRA, the Mallacoota and District Recovery Association, which is working across the Mallacoota community to work out what needs to happen in terms of recovery—what they can learn, what they can pass on to other communities. There are a couple of key things that are needed if we're going to genuinely make it easier for people to recover from bushfires. The core thing is to have a community led response, to empower communities, to resource communities, to build community connectedness and community resilience. Having experienced the fires, of course, the Mallacoota community are really aware of what needs to happen.
MADRA has been set up as an elected committee from right across the Mallacoota area. They had an election that was overseen by the Victorian Electoral Commission. Eighty-seven per cent of eligible residents in the Mallacoota area voted for their representative on the committee, so you've got a committee which has now been set up in Mallacoota which is very representative of the local community. The key thing that they are doing is bringing the community together. It's educating the community. It's supporting the community. This is the sort of work that needs to be done right across the country—not just in communities that have just been affected by fire but, basically, way beforehand. The Mallacoota residents knew that, if there had been work to build that community resilience before the fires, they would have been in a much better place after the fires.
Essentially, a model of what's needed—what this government needs to take on board and what we as Australians need to take on board—is building that community led response, bringing together community members and bringing together Indigenous members of our community, the First Nations, with their knowledge about fire. It's bringing together the ecological knowledge of the impact of fire, how fires are changing under climate change and how fires are specific to particular different ecological forest types across the country. It's bringing together answers to these questions: What are the assets that we need to be protecting? How are we going to be protecting them? What is the value of doing planned burns? It was also very evident from my trip last week that just going out and burning more forest won't make people safe. People are fearful. People want to be told that they are going be safe. Unfortunately, in the hotter, drier, climate crisis-fuelled climate that we're under, we can't promise that the people of Mallacoota and other communities at risk from fire are going to be safe. All we can do is to say that we will do what we can to make you safer, but it's got to be a sophisticated response—not just going out and burning and pretending to people that that is making them safe, because the evidence from the Black Summer fires is that that's not the way to do it. Yes, there is a role for hazard reduction burning, but it has got to be done in a sophisticated way. It's got to be done in a way that is supported by science. It's got to be done with a clear understanding of what you are achieving by doing that hazard reduction burning. At the moment, that's not what's going on around the country.
One of the other recommendations that the government has only noted was recommendation 7, which was for better mental health support. The recommendation states:
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government make the Better Access Bushfire Recovery initiative and the Better Access Bushfire Recovery Telehealth initiative permanent mental health support services, with both initiatives properly funded over the forward estimates.
Sadly, the government only noted this recommendation. They didn't commit to doing that. They said they recognise the need for continued mental health support and providing funding, but it's very clear, again from my trip last week, that the funding that is currently being provided and the support for people with mental health issues, as they are still dealing with the trauma of those fires, is not meeting the need. In particular I spoke to a mental health nurse who worked out of Orbost who was servicing communities in very remote areas of East Gippsland—in Bendoc, Tubbut, Goongerah and Bonang. Her work is only one day a week, and there is no ongoing certainty about the funding for her mental health outreach. She has tried to get support for ongoing bush nursing to provide the health support and the mental health support to these remote communities and has been currently knocked back. So again, clearly, governments at both a state and federal level need to be listening to the community and genuinely engaging with the needs of the communities and then actually implementing them. Rather than having the top-down approach that the government knows best—'This is what we're going to do, and we're going to hold on to the power; we're going to do what's good for you, community'—we need to be supporting and facilitating communities to come together and work with government in a genuine way to actually work out the best way forward.
Finally, I want to go to one of the other recommendations that the government said they support: to fund mitigation projects through the Emergency Response Fund. I thought, 'That's great, they're funding mitigation projects.' What does it mean to fund mitigation in the case of bushfires? To me, mitigation means: what are we going to be doing to reduce the risk of fires? It's very clear. The lesson from the Black Summer fires is that we need to tackle our climate crisis, and we need to tackle it urgently.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rice, your time has expired. Do you seek leave to continue your remarks?
Senator RICE: I seek leave to continue my remarks—just for sake of it!
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Consideration
The following committee reports and government responses were considered:
Motion to take note of document no. 27 moved by Senator Rice. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of document nos 32 and 33 moved by Senator Ciccone. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Job Security Select Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (18:05): The President has received a letter nominating senators to be members of the Senate Select Committee on Job Security.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (18:06): by leave—I move:
That Senators Hanson-Young, McKim, Rice, Siewert, Steele-John, Thorpe, Waters and Whish-Wilson be appointed as participating members of the Select Committee on Job Security.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (18:07): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (18:07): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021 and I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
MUTUAL RECOGNITION AMENDMENT BILL 2021
Today I am introducing the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021.
The changes proposed in this Bill represent the most significant reform to Australia's mutual recognition arrangements for occupational registrations since they were introduced in 1992.
This reform is part of the Government's JobMaker plan for economic recovery and the whole-of-government approach to deregulation. This Bill also marks a milestone for the Council on Federal Financial Relations with all jurisdictions working collaboratively to deliver on this deregulation reform to improve occupational mobility.
The MutualRecognition Act 1992, orMRA, was designed to reduce regulatory impediments to a national market in goods and services. The Act recognised that once a person was assessed as good enough to practice in a trade or profession in one state or territory then they should be able to perform the same work anywhere in Australia. Mutual recognition reforms were supported by governments of all political persuasions from the outset.
Over 19 per cent of Australian workers require a registration or a licence to perform their work. Some occupations, including some in the health sector, are registered nationally, but most trades and other professions, such as builders, plumbers and real estate agents, are registered on a state-by-state basis.
Regulatory requirements and processes for most registered professions are managed and set differently in each of the eight states and territories. Differences in regulation between jurisdictions for the same occupation make it harder for tradespersons and other professionals to move across borders for work, raising the costs to employers to fill job vacancies and reducing competition and choice for consumers. These arrangements can also create particular challenges for those living and working in border communities and inhibit rapid responses to natural disasters when registered workers are needed urgently to restore critical infrastructure.
Mutual recognition under the MRA has helped to reduce barriers to occupational mobility across borders for a range of occupations. Around 12 per cent of new occupational registrations were made under mutual recognition in 2019. Regardless, a person is still required to apply and pay for an additional registration even though they have already paid for their current registration in another state or territory.
In its 2015 study into mutual recognition schemes, the Productivity Commission found that the current mutual recognition arrangements generally work well, but there would be cost savings from automating these processes. The Productivity Commission recommended governments give higher priority to expanding the use of automatic mutual recognition of occupational registrations, or AMR, to improve the efficiency of mutual recognition arrangements for individuals and businesses.
The reform I am introducing today increases the strength and resilience of the Australian economy. It is critical that Australians can take up job opportunities wherever they arise. A more mobile labour force will respond to new opportunities, with more skilled workers crossing borders to work.
In addition, this reform will help communities respond to national emergencies and disasters by enabling registered workers to relocate more quickly to help with immediate or longer term recovery efforts in another jurisdiction.
This Bill introduces a uniform scheme for AMR to streamline processes where individuals seek to work in other states and territories. The scheme applies to those registrations covered by the existing mutual recognition arrangements, including builders, plumbers, architects, surveyors and security workers.
Registered persons will not be required to pay additional application, registration or renewal fees, complete an application form or provide supporting information to undertake the same activities in another jurisdiction.
Analogous to a driver's licence approach, the Bill will enable a person who is licensed or registered for an occupation to perform the same activities in another state or territory. As an example, under AMR, a builder holding a licence may assist with bushfire recovery in South Australia under his or her registration from Tasmania. They could save around $700 annually in registration fees and time in completing an extra application form.
This Bill is the culmination of efforts by National Cabinet, the Council on Federal Financial Relations and officials from the Commonwealth, states and territories. I also commend the work of the Treasurer in bringing this to fruition. As a result of these efforts, in December 2020, the Prime Minister, State Premiers and the Northern Territory Chief Minister signed an intergovernmental agreement to implement a uniform scheme for AMR from 1 July 2021.
The policy has been informed by input from consultation with industry, unions and the public. Draft legislation was released for public consultation from 17 December 2020 until 12 February 2021. In addition, the Commonwealth, states and territories held a range of meetings and consultations with industry, unions and regulators.
Feedback from stakeholders raised during consultations indicated that there is broad support for the intent of AMR and the national framework. For example, Ai Group saw AMR "as a positive improvement on current arrangements" and the Business Council of Australia saw it as "a great step towards eliminating the barriers and bottlenecks that are holding back Australian workers, consumers and businesses". The Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia "supports the concept and goal of" AMR and Master Plumbers Association Australia and New Zealand "agrees with the intent behind the AMR principles". Key benefits identified include increased labour mobility, reduced administration costs and fees, and greater productivity.
PwC estimated that AMR could lead to additional economic activity of around $2.4 billion over ten years as a result of savings to workers and businesses, productivity improvements and extra surge capacity in response to natural disasters. Over 168,000 workers would benefit, including 44,000 people who will work interstate that would not otherwise have done so.
Consumers and businesses stand to benefit from improved access to skilled workers, lower prices and improved service quality as a result of increased competition. Businesses large and small will be able to bid more confidently for interstate projects and advertise without fear of breaching local licensing laws. For these businesses, the process and cost of working across borders will be more certain.
Regions and towns near state borders, such as Albury-Wodonga, will particularly benefit, as will small communities who may not have access to registered workers locally. Further, as the nature of jobs change and more work is undertaken remotely, AMR also provides the framework for regulation to adapt as technologies change. Under the reforms, an architect living in Victoria and working remotely in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia could save around $1,200 a year and no longer need to renew three registrations.
This Bill amends the existing framework of the MRA to establish a new Part 3A. Part 3A will enable a person who is registered for an occupation in their home state to carry on those activities in other states and territories.
While registered workers will be automatically entitled to carry on the same activities in another state or territory, the Bill contains measures to protect against significant risks.
Stakeholders highlighted a number of risks and challenges with implementing AMR, including differences in licensing across jurisdictions. This could result in unintended consequences for consumers, workers and other groups within the community given the existing variations in licensing arrangements and related state or territory laws.
The Government recognises these risks and has enshrined a number of important safeguards in the proposed AMR arrangements to protect consumers, the environment, animal welfare and the health and safety of workers and the public.
To step through some of these safeguards, consistent with existing arrangements, a person subject to disciplinary actions or who has conditions on their registration as a result of disciplinary, civil or criminal action will not be eligible for AMR. Information on cancelled or suspended registrations and disciplinary actions for people in the new scheme will be available to regulators. This will ensure non-compliant workers cannot move jurisdictions and continue to work.
For some registrations, workers may need to notify the regulator they intend to work in their jurisdiction. Local regulators will also be able to access the information they need from interstate regulators, including any non-compliant behaviour, to ensure AMR operates effectively. Material received by local regulators will be managed in accordance with privacy requirements.
Any conditions a person has on their home state registration will apply, unless waived by the local registration authority. For example, a condition on a home state registration that requires a less experienced builder to work under supervision in a bushfire prone area would still apply in other states.
The local laws of a second state will continue to apply to all persons carrying on the activity in its jurisdiction. This includes the need for workers to meet financial requirements, such as having insurance or making contributions to compensation funds. Interstate builders, for example, will still be required to rectify defective building work and interstate electrical workers will still need to comply with relevant local wiring rules as required under local laws.
A person would also need to satisfy a working with vulnerable people character test, where required by a local law.
A local registration authority will be able to take disciplinary action, including suspending or cancelling a person's automatic deemed registration, consistent with the laws that local registration holders are subject to.
Recognising that AMR may not be appropriate for all occupational registrations, a state or territory Minister can declare specific registrations in their jurisdiction exempt from AMR, for up to five years, where they determine there is a significant risk, arising from particular circumstances or conditions in their jurisdiction, to consumers, the environment, animal welfare or the health or safety of workers or the public.
Declarations to exempt a registration can only be made where necessary to address significant risks, to ensure that benefits from AMR can be realised. The declarations will need to include a statement of reasons explaining the risks to consumer protection, the environment, animal welfare or the health or safety of workers or the public. The declaration will automatically expire after five years. A new declaration can be made following a review if the significant risk remains.
As a transitional measure, state and territory Ministers will be able to declare a specific registration exempt from AMR for a period of six months from commencement of the Bill, with an option to extend for a further period to 30 June 2022 if needed. This temporary exemption power gives time for implementation issues to be resolved, such as improving information sharing arrangements between regulators and enhancing the information available for workers.
The proposed amendments will not prevent a person from seeking mutual recognition under the existing framework nor will it disrupt existing national registration, state model law schemes or state-based automatic recognition schemes.
The Bill also makes consequential changes to other parts of the MRA to ensure consistency and that mutual recognition and AMR operate as intended.
In closing, this Bill will make it simpler, quicker and less expensive for businesses and registered workers to operate across Australia and help to better use the skills of the Australian labour force. The AMR scheme will reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation, while maintaining high standards of protection for consumers, the environment, animal welfare, and the safety of workers and the public. AMR is an important national reform.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2020 MEASURES NO. 4) BILL 2021
This Bill implements a number of streamlining and integrity measures.
Schedule 1 to the Bill will amend the income tax law to ensure that no tax is payable on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges.
This measure will apply to refunds paid since 1 January 2019.
Under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, energy retailers and other liable entities must surrender large-scale generation certificates or pay a shortfall charge. This shortfall charge can be refunded where the outstanding certificates are surrendered within the allowable refund period.
This measure will clarify the operation of the income tax law for energy providers and will ensure that the market for large-scale generation certificates works as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers.
Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Act to facilitate the closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT) and any transitional arrangements associated with Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) replacing the SCT.
The AFCA Act will be amended to allow for the transfer of SCT records and documents to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for ongoing records management, and will also allow the Federal Court to remit appealed cases back to AFCA, where previously these had been remitted to the SCT.
Schedule 2 also introduces a rule-making power to the AFCA Act, to allow the Minister to prescribe matters of a transitional nature that may be required to facilitate the closure of the SCT.
Through this measure, the Government is delivering on its promise to wind up the SCT at the conclusion of its work, allowing all superannuation-related complaints to be dealt with by AFCA.
Schedule 3 will enable the Government to establish a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with the Franchising Code by amending the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to increase the maximum civil pecuniary penalty available under this code to the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit derived from the contravention of the Code or 10 per cent of annual turnover. The maximum civil penalties that can be applied to other industry codes will also be lifted from 300 to 600 penalty units.
Appropriate penalties in the Franchising Code are necessary to provide a strong deterrent against breaches of the Code across the franchising sector, particularly by large multinational franchisors.
Schedule 4 to the Bill will re-implement a temporary mechanism which allows arrangements for complying with information and documentary requirements to be altered under Commonwealth legislation, including requirements to give information in writing and produce, witness and sign documents. The temporary mechanism was previously in place from 9 April 2020 to 31 December 2020. The re-implementation of this mechanism responds to the continuing challenges posed by social distancing measures and restrictions on movement and gathering in Australia and overseas introduced to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Social distancing restrictions are expected to continue to cause difficulties in complying with information and documentary requirements under Commonwealth legislation both in Australia and elsewhere.
In recognition of the importance of continued business transactions and government service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic, this measure provides that a responsible Minister may continue to determine that provisions in Commonwealth legislation containing particular information or documentary requirements (i) can be varied, (ii) do not apply or (iii) prescribe that another provision specified in the determination applies, for a specified time period. A responsible Minister must not exercise the power unless they are satisfied that the determination is in response to circumstances relating to COVID-19. The mechanism is temporary and will be repealed at the end of 31 December 2021. Any determination made under the mechanism will cease to operate when the temporary mechanism is repealed.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (18:08): 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) (18:08): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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 has an ongoing commitment to supporting northern Australia to deliver on its potential. This Bill positions the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (the NAIF) to deliver for northern Australia while it navigates the challenging economic conditions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Government released the Statutory Review of the NAIF in December last year. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all stakeholders who participated in the Review's consultation processes. Those stakeholders said, loudly and clearly, that while the NAIF is delivering for northern Australia, it can and should do more. The Australian Government has listened to that feedback. Today I introduce this Bill to give effect to reforms arising from that Review. The Bill aims to make the NAIF more proactive in investment decisions and freeing up unnecessary administrative burdens to accelerate lending.
The Bill extends the investment window of the NAIF for a further five years, until 30 June 2026. This will allow more time for project proponents to seek and secure financial assistance for investments that deliver economic or population growth for the north.
The Bill also expands the scope of projects for which financial assistance can be provided, increasing the breadth of projects eligible for financial support. This means that, while the central objective of the NAIF remains building infrastructure, its support can now also go to additional elements of infrastructure development. These might include the purchase of equipment, leasing, training and the expansion of existing business operations. As it was put to the Review by one stakeholder, the NAIF will be able to finance not just the building of a shed, but also the equipment you need in it.
The Bill will support streamlining and simplification of the NAIF's processes, and reducing administrative burden. The NAIF will have greater freedom to decide how and under what conditions it provides financial assistance to project proponents.
Amendments to allow for direct lending to project proponents in certain circumstances reduces the burden on state and territory governments. The NAIF will also have the flexibility to invest through subsidiaries, on-lending partnerships and other investment vehicles. These changes allow greater flexibility in how the NAIF delivers financial assistance to the north.
The Government recognises the significant contribution smaller businesses make to their regions. These reforms will allow the NAIF to partner with organisations experienced in working with small businesses to make NAIF finance more accessible. Under these arrangements, the NAIF will provide the capital, and their partner will support small businesses through the application process, providing opportunities for them to deliver projects and significantly benefit their regions.
By adding the Minister for Finance as jointly responsible for the NAIF Investment Mandate; introducing a Government member to the NAIF Board; and expanding the NAIF Board's areas of expertise, the Bill strengthens the NAIF's governance and supports its alignment with the Australian Government's policy agenda.
Following passage of this Bill, the Government will issue a new Investment Mandate for the NAIF. The new Mandate will provide direction on implementing the new functions and responsibilities provided for in this Bill, including on making equity investments and supporting accessibility by small projects and businesses.
I commend this Bill to the Chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Consideration of House of Representatives Message
Message received from the House of Representatives informing the Senate that the House has agreed to the bill with an amendment and requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the amendment.
Ordered that the message be considered in Committee of the Whole immediately.
House of Representatives amendment—
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 29), after subsection 7(2DA), insert:
(2DB) A Minister and an agency other than the Australian Human Rights Commission are not exempt under subsection (2DA) (a) from the operation of this Act in relation to documents created for purposes other than the Independent Review to which a right of access otherwise exists or existed under the Act.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (18:09): I move:
That the committee agree to the amendment made by the House of Representatives.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (18:10): Labor supports the amendment to the bill made in the House. Our staff deserve nothing less than a completely safe and supportive workplace. The Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces by Commissioner Kate Jenkins is going to be enormously important in changing the culture in this place. This bill is necessary to ensure that our staff can participate in that review and be assured that their privacy and confidentiality will be protected. Since the bill's passage in the Senate, further consultation has occurred with current and former staff, resulting in an additional protection being agreed to and passed in the House, in the form of this amendment. The amendment ensures that staff with current or historical complaints lodged with the Department of Finance are not prevented from accessing documentation about their complaint through the FOI process. The amendment does not erode the protections afforded by this bill to ensure the complete privacy and confidentiality of participants in the review. With the passing of the bill through the Senate today, I hope that Commissioner Jenkins will move swiftly to open submissions so that we can begin the process of long-overdue reform.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (18:11): I would like to add some brief remarks encouraging every member of staff, every MP and anyone covered under the MOP(S) Act or who works in this building to participate in the Jenkins review. The culture of this place will not change until we shine a light on all of the problems with it. We strongly encourage everyone to participate and we support this amendment to give additional protection and comfort to those who wish to involve themselves in this process.
Question agreed to.
Resolution reported; report adopted.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020
Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the Senate of assent to the bills.
Biosecurity Amendment (Clarifying Conditionally Non-prohibited Goods) Bill 2021
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the bill without amendment.
Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the bill.
MOTIONS
Veterans: Suicide
Message received from the House of Representatives informing the Senate that the House has concurred with the resolution of the Senate relating to the rate of suicide among current and former serving Australian Defence Force personnel.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of Mr Hill, in the place of Mr Gorman, to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2020-2021
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (18:14): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (18:14): I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2020-2021
Today, the Government introduces the Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills. These Bills are:
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021; and
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2020-2021.
These Bills underpin the Government's expenditure decisions.
These bills ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs, for instance changes in costs for demand-driven programs. These bills also pay for the first year costs for measures announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and subsequently-announced new measures.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $2.5 billion. This Bill is necessary to support the Government's COVID-19 recovery strategy and to ensure that life-saving vaccinations against COVID-19 are available for all Australians.
I now outline the more significant amounts provided for in this Bill.
Firstly, the Bill will provide an additional $701.2 million to the Department of Health including $539.1 million for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout during the remainder of 2020-21
Secondly, the Bill will provide the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications with an additional $408.2 million for policies and programs to support economic recovery from COVID-19 through improving transport access and supporting regional development and local communities.
Thirdly, the Bill provides an additional $253.3 million to the Department of Defence including $194.8 million to reimburse Defence for foreign exchange movements across 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, with additional funding being provided for Defence operations including Operation COVID-19 ASSIST.
A further $237.5 million will be provided to the Department of Education, Skills and Employment to assist recent job seekers impacted by COVID-19 to re-join the labour market, through employment services programs such as Transition to Work and Jobactive.
The Bill proposes an additional $199.4 million for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including $89.3 million for the ongoing support of Australia's international interests and supporting Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic when they are overseas; and importantly, $62.1 million to support COVID-19 vaccine access in the Pacific and Southeast Asia.
An additional $142.1 million is proposed for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. This includes
$42.7 million to provide an interim production payment for the major oil refineries that recognises the importance to Australia of the refining sector's fuel security. Funding will also be provided to decommission the Northern Endeavour floating production storage and offtake facility and remediate the Laminaria-Corallina oil fields.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements tabled in the Parliament.
I commend this Bill.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2020-2021
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2020-2021, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021, which was introduced earlier, are the Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills for this financial year.
This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $141 million. These bills also ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs. Due to relative proximity of the 2020-21 Budget Appropriation Bills, the Bill is comparatively small compared with previous years.
I now outline the most significant items provided for in this Bill.
The Bill proposes $45.1 million to the Department of Home Affairs. Most of this amount, $31.5 million, will be provided to support the development of a secure digital platform for the collection and management of incoming passenger information.
Secondly, the Bill proposes a further $21.6 million to Services Australia for IT systems to support additional costs for the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, delivery of the New Employment Services Model, and greater flexibility for families reporting income for Child Care Subsidy.
The Bill also proposes $12.4 million be provided to support the Office of the Special Investigator investigate potential criminal matters identified in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force's Inquiry into the conduct of Australia's Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule 1 to the Bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimate Statements tabled in the Parliament.
I commend this Bill.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (18:15): Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2020-2021 seek to appropriate additional funding for the 2020-21 financial year largely relating to the measures delivered in last year's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, otherwise known as MYEFO: $2.5 billion is allocated from bill No. 3 and a further $141.3 million is sought from bill No. 4.
Labor won't stand in the way of these appropriations, as is our practice with appropriations. The reality is that the spending contained in these bills has been dwarfed over the past few months. We've borne witness to announcement after announcement, media drop after media drop, containing billions upon billions of dollars announced in new spending. We've seen nearly $55 billion in new spending flagged since MYEFO and over $30 billion in the last week alone. But, in the avalanche of spending that we've seen, we have to look past the glossy headlines. That's because, in tonight's budget, we'll again see a deficit of delivery, a deficit of credibility and a deficit of vision—yet another political con job from the master of marketing, the Prime Minister, long on announcements and short on delivery—from a visionless government that waits until there is an absolute crisis before it acts or an election that is not too far off into the distance, and then it's all about acting in its own political self-interest for self-preservation.
The essential truth of this budget tonight is that it's designed to get the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, through an election. We don't yet know when that will be or whether there will be another budget between now and then, but this is certainly a political budget designed to serve Scott Morrison and the government's interests, not deliver for the Australian people. The fact is that this government has now been in office for eight long years. At the next election, they will be asking for 12 years—that's longer than the Howard government. After eight long years of the Liberals and Nationals, what do we have? Four million Australians are in insecure, casual or gig work. Two million Australians are unable to find work at all or unable to find the hours that they need to survive. There are 140,000 fewer apprenticeships. There are 90,000 fewer manufacturing jobs. Out-of-pocket health costs have gone up by more than a third, childcare costs have gone up by more than a third, and you now have to work even longer just to save enough to buy your own home.
It's only now, right before an election, when all the pollsters are telling them that women voters don't trust them, that this government starts caring about women. It's only now, after eight long years, that this government is finally making promises about funding for child care. It's only now, because they think there are votes in it, that they're announcing funding for roads. I might add that, in my home state and Senator McGrath's home state, this government is actually spending less per capita on infrastructure than any other state in this country. The state that returned the Morrison government is being given a slap in the face, with half the new funding for infrastructure that is being provided to New South Wales, to Victoria and even to South Australia, a much smaller state than Queensland. I would really hope that Senator McGrath could do better than that.
After almost a decade, can you think of anything proactive this government has done to make your life better? Beyond the COVID response that has been driven by the states, the Australian Public Service and the experts in departments across government, what are the policies of this government? Where are their big changes for the future? What have they actually delivered rather than just announced? Now they want you to give them three more years to do more of it. They've had eight long years in power with nothing to show for it—no legacy, no reform—eight wasted years. Many of the issues they now claim to be addressing tonight are, in fact, problems of their own making. It's this government's cuts, this government's policies, this government's neglect and this government's mismanagement that have made child care, aged care, the economy and, particularly, the stagnant wages worse, not better, on its watch. Astonishingly, Mr Morrison wants the Australian people to believe all of a sudden that he and his government care about jobs and wages, the very government whose senior ministers said had a deliberate design policy of keeping wages low. All of a sudden, Mr Morrison wants the Australian people to believe that he cares about child care and women's participation in the workforce, that his government cares about aged care despite a damning royal commission titled Neglect that found this government's own cuts had contributed to the neglect we continue to see in aged care. In the eight long years the government have been in office, it's their cuts to aged care, their inability to deal with child care and their deliberate attempts to put downward pressure on wages that have had genuine tangible costs and consequences for the Australian people.
I'll be honest: this government excels at generating headlines and putting up shallow, sugar-hit announcements. I have rarely seen a government better at this in my life: Labor, Liberal, Nationals. So congratulations, Senator Duniam! That's something I will concede to you.
What the government have done and what they do have a problem with is generating secure, well-paid jobs for Australians. Even today the government, in my home state of Queensland—and Senator McGrath will remember—won a range of regional Queensland seats at the last election by promising coalminers they were on their side. The government, whose members like to get around dressing up like coalminers, today of all days is in the High Court of Australia appealing a decision won by the mining union that would have finally done something about the casualisation explosion that we've seen on this government's watch. Today this government, which says it cares about miners, which says it cares about mining communities, is in the High Court of Australia backing labour-hire firms and big mining companies who are trying to continue the casualisation of their workforces. That's how much this government cares about generating secure, well-paid jobs for Australians. While they're at it, some figures that came out recently through a question on notice revealed that they are going to spend $300,000 of taxpayers' money taking this matter to the High Court. This government, which went to the last election saying it would have the back of mining workers, is now turning around and stabbing them in the back by going to the High Court to try to keep them working as casuals, even if they've worked there for seven years, eight years, nine years. That's how much this government cares about secure, well-paid jobs.
As I say, right now there are still two million Australians who can't find work or who can't find enough hours to support their loved ones. Yet, despite this need, we know this budget tonight will be about getting the Morrison government back into their jobs, not about getting Australians back into secure, well-paid jobs that they can feed their families with. Labor wants to see the economy recover strongly and broadly and sustainably. We want there to be more jobs and more opportunities for more Australians. Just because the recession could have been worse doesn't mean the recovery couldn't be better. The fact is the recovery and the economy would be stronger were it not for Scott Morrison's own failures.
I remember just a couple of weeks ago we had a hearing of the COVID committee—probably about the 80th hearing! We had representatives of the tourism industry there who were talking about the desperate skills shortage they now have. They are unable to find people to fill their jobs, and, again, it comes back to decisions that this government made. They admitted—and these are tourism business figures; they're not Labor Party members—that the two key decisions this government has made that now contribute to the inability of tourism businesses to get back on their feet and hire the workers they need are the decision to exclude short-term casuals from receiving JobKeeper, which saw a whole host of people leave the hospitality and tourism industry because they couldn't get JobKeeper and had to go and get a job somewhere else, and, secondly, the decision more recently to stop JobKeeper even though so many tourism and hospitality businesses are still on their knees. It always comes back to decisions of this government that are making problems worse. And now they want us to forget about that and look at all of the headlines which talk about the billions of dollars they're going to throw at every political problem that they have caused.
You can bet your bottom dollar there's going to be something in the budget tonight about skills, a problem that this government has caused through its decisions about JobKeeper and its decisions over the last eight years to cut 140,000 apprenticeships. Again, in my home state of Queensland, if you look at the government's own figures, the most recent we've seen from this very government show that in the period that it's been in office, since 2013, the number of apprentices and trainees in North Queensland has fallen by over 33 per cent, over one-third fewer apprentices and trainees in North Queensland now than there were when this government was elected in 2013. It's the same all around the country. Tonight we're all supposed to sit back and give the government a nice big clap about some more funding for skills, when all they've done for the last eight year is cut money for TAFE, cut apprenticeships and traineeships and make decisions, particularly in tourism and hospitality, that now see employers desperate for skills. That's the kind of government we've got, rather than a government that is actually planning for the future.
The fact is the recovery of the economy would be stronger were it not for the Morrison government's own failures. There are a range of issues which have been festering in the economy and in the budget for eight long years that this government has ignored. But, by all accounts, this a show-bag budget. It'll be a budget that looks pretty flashy, but when you take it home it only lasts for a few days or a few weeks. There will be no substantial economic reform and no plan to deal with stagnant wages, because that's how the government wants it to be. It's a deliberate design feature of the economy under this government to keep wages low. There will be no plan to deal with cost-of-living pressures that families are contending with and no plan to support the two million people who are underemployed and seeking more work. What this budget also shows is that, for all their bluster about budget emergencies and debt-and-deficit disasters, back when the budget deficit and debt were at levels lower than they are today, those on the other side were just hypocrites when it came to the budget.
Their newly embraced fiscal strategy simply vindicates the approach that Labor took through past crises, most recently the GFC, and was condemned universally by the very people coming in here now and spending even more money, racking up even more debt and racking up even bigger deficits. Let's not forget: it was this Prime Minister, including as Treasurer, that was using debt as a political weapon when it was a quarter of what it is today. Well, we've now got a trillion dollars on the national credit card, and they've manifestly failed to meet their own test on public debt. Putting the level of debt and the hypocrisy of Liberals and Nationals to one side, we're careering towards one trillion dollars in debt, the highest level we have ever seen in Australia, and what have we got to show for it? Just consider what they delivered, or rather failed to deliver, in just the last year, despite racking up historically high debt levels.
The Morrison government has failed to efficiently and effectively roll out a vaccine program, probably the most important thing that any government could do to get the economy going again and get people back into work. Firstly, they failed to secure enough vaccines, and now we're paying the price of a slow rollout. Last budget, they were boasting about the fact that a faster vaccine rollout would benefit the economy to the tune of $36 billion. But you can bet your house on the fact that tonight they will be silent on the cost to the economy of their botched vaccine rollout. The Morrison government has also failed to set up a safe national quarantine system and one that is fit for purpose to bring stranded Aussies home. They didn't just break their promise to bring Aussies stranded across the globe in COVID infested countries home by Christmas last year but are now even threatening people with Australian passports with jail if they come home from India. Over a broader time line, the failure is no less stark. We've got significant areas of need in the budget, where this government has made cuts year after year, effectively denying people essential services.
We've also got a budget weighed down with waste, companies that got billions of dollars in JobKeeper and turned a profit, yet this government seemingly doesn't care. Contrast this with how actively and viciously this government pursued victims of its failed robodebt scheme. We've got slush funds that exist in the budget, billions of dollars in slush funds that the government doled out as they head towards an election, with ministers deciding where taxpayers' funds should go based on political convenience, not what the community actually needs. We've got a trillion dollars on the national credit card and a government that's focused on political fixes, not real solutions. What Australians cannot afford tonight is another political patch-and-paint job. For a trillion dollars of debt, Australians cannot afford yet another budget which is again all about spin and marketing but fails to deliver. Time and time again in these budgets, we've seen big promises made and big failures follow. Just think about last year's budget, where the centrepiece, the thing that all the headlines were about last year, was yet another epic failure from this government, the JobMaker Hiring Credit. That was the $4 billion centrepiece of the last budget, in October.
Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 20:30
BUDGET
Statement and Documents
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (20:30): I table the budget statements for 2021-22 and other documents as listed on the Dynamic Red. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents.
Leave granted.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I move:
That the Senate take note of the statement and documents.
Debate adjourned.
Proposed Expenditure
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (20:30): I table particulars of proposed and certain expenditure for 2021-22 and seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees.
Leave granted.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I move:
That the documents be referred to legislation committees for examination and report.
Question agreed to.
Portfolio Budget Statements
The PRESIDENT (20:30): I table portfolio budget statements for 2021-22 for the Department of the Senate, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Department of Parliamentary Services.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (20:31): I table portfolio budget statements for 2021-22 for portfolios and executive departments as listed on the Dynamic Red.
ADJOURNMENT
The PRESIDENT (20:31): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Tasmanian State Election
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (20:31): Just over a week ago Tasmania went to the polls and, for the first time in our history, a Liberal government has won three successive terms. I would like to congratulate Premier Peter Gutwein on that victory and also acknowledge his personal vote, achieving the highest personal vote ever in a House of Assembly election in receiving over 32,000 primary votes. All seats will be finalised in the coming days, and I wish to congratulate all candidates, both successful and unsuccessful, for their contributions. On 1 May there were also two upper house seats decided in Tasmania. Voters in Windermere, the Legislative Council seat covering parts of Launceston and the state's north-east, were faced with five new names to choose from, after longstanding independent member Ivan Dean decided not to contest this election.
Tonight I would like to acknowledge Ivan's 18 years as a legislative councillor as well as his varied roles before politics, all of which add up to a phenomenal record of service for Tasmania and Australia of more than 60 years. Ivan insists he is not retiring but moving into another phase of his life, which he knows will involve more time with his family, some bike riding, building a new house and maybe even writing a book. Having grown up in Levendale as one of eight, Ivan remembers his childhood fondly. His parents were hard workers, and his family were embedded in their Southern Midlands community through their logging business, sawmill, milk bar, school bus contract, transport business and farm.
Ivan was conscripted as a national serviceman, serving in the Indonesian confrontation in Borneo for two years. Military service forced Ivan to learn new skills, like starching and ironing his uniform and complying with commands quickly, but it also left him with permanent hearing loss, which he said had a huge impact on his life. Upon his return to Tasmania, Ivan worked in various odd jobs before joining Tasmania Police, a role which shaped his career. Starting in general policing in Hobart and New Norfolk, Ivan worked at a time when there were single-person patrols. At one stage he was assaulted and hospitalised, and he was often the first responder to horrific road accidents.
Ivan was seconded to the Commonwealth Police as a United Nations Peacekeeper in Cyprus, where he worked with personnel from Britain, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. He also spent time in Sydney seconded to the homicide and consorting squad, working under the now infamous convicted murderer Roger Rogerson, a man he learnt was not a man to be questioned or messed with. Ivan's time in the police force included a stint in prosecution; 17 years in CIB investigating murder, rape, child sexual abuse, robbery, home invasion and fraud; and time as a tutor with the Australian Institute of Police Management. He was eventually promoted to commander in Hobart and later Launceston, which is where I first met him. Ivan rightly holds 11 decorations for his service to Tasmania, Australia, the United Nations and policing.
Post Tasmania Police, Ivan turned his commitment to government, serving as a councillor of the City of Launceston for nine years, including two years as mayor. His most recent role as representative for the Legislative Council seat of Windermere followed. Elected to the Tasmanian parliament upper house in 2003, Ivan's profile in Tasmania Police afforded him strong support. He sees his greatest wins as moving a power pole that was in a dangerous position, an underpass, roundabouts, speed changes and gaining funding for community groups. However, Ivan says nothing has been as rewarding as helping a person, a family on their knees, to get a house, get employment or to retain their employment. Ivan will also be remembered for two further things: his questions on the legitimacy of Tasmania's fox eradication program, or what he calls 'the fox saga', and his attempt to raise the legal smoking age to 21. The latter is something Ivan is still passionate about, citing it as a root cause in Tasmania's poor health status and the reason 560 Tasmanians die prematurely each year.
In his last speech in the upper house Ivan said he knew somebody else would pick up the issue of smoking and bring it back before parliament. Admitting he stood on a few toes and upset some, Ivan's final words in the Legislative Council are something we can also relate to here in this place. He said, 'I admire in the most part the work of the state service, the departments who bring work to us, put the bills together, brief us and answer our questions and put up with us.' Ivan, while you may have ruffled feathers in your various roles, your service to your state and country is something we are very grateful for. I am honoured to have been able to share part of our story here tonight, and I wish the new member for Windermere, Nick Duigan, great success in his role. Congratulations, Nick. You ran an excellent campaign.
Catherine House
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (20:36): I rise tonight to speak about a South Australian organisation that has changed many lives for the better. Catherine House provides services to women from right across the state. It is the only recovery based service that supports women in crisis and experiencing or facing homelessness, and it is the only service available to women who are not eligible for support through the domestic and family violence system. Currently 95 per cent of Catherine House clients are no longer homeless at the end of their period of support, which is a remarkable statistic. However, after 33 years of providing this service to South Australian women, its future is now uncertain. Steven Marshall's government has decided to change how homelessness and domestic and family violence services in South Australia are funded, and rather than individually fund separate services, the new model funds five alliances each run by a consortium of organisations.
This is where the issue for Catherine House arises. There is a statewide domestic and family violence alliance and four geographically based alliances, but Catherine House is a service that does not have a place in this new service delivery model. The scope of the support Catherine House provides does not fit into any one of the alliances, precisely because it provides services no other organisation provides, and as a result Catherine House's funding arrangement will come to an end in June. South Australia's only service that specifically supports women in crisis will see a loss of $1.2 million of state government funding, wiping out a third of its operating budget, and this is happening when women represent 44 per cent of all people experiencing homelessness and women over the age of 55 are the fastest-growing group of those becoming homeless.
The Marshall government has acknowledged that the new alliance model does not work for all services. For example, Youth110 is one of the services that has been determined as out of scope for the new model. Like Catherine House, Youth110 specialises in supporting a specific segment of our community, delivering crisis accommodation to South Australians aged 16 to 21. But unlike Catherine House, Youth110 will continue to be funded directly outside of the new alliance based service delivery model. South Australians deserve to know why the same approach has not been taken with Catherine House. Put simply, we must have properly funded women's homelessness services and we must have a state government that knows the distinction between women's homelessness services and women's safety services, because our community does not want women experiencing homelessness. It's not who we are. But without this service, with the cuts that are being imposed, single women in our state risk losing their only support option.
I have written to Michelle Lensink MLC, the state Minister for Human Services, urging the state government to reverse its decision to cut funding to Catherine House, and now again, in this place, I urge the South Australian Liberal government to reverse these cuts. I ask Minister Lensink: surely this is not what you entered politics for? Don't do what your federal Liberals have done for eight years—don't leave acting until there is a political problem. Do the right thing. Please remember how many women's lives have been transformed because of Catherine House. I have had the privilege, over the period I have engaged with Catherine House, of meeting some of them. I say: women in our state deserve continued access to these transformative and empowering services.
I want to thank my colleague Ms Nat Cook MP, the state shadow minister for human services, who is standing up for Catherine House and the whole homelessness sector during this time of change, with other vital service providers, such as Neami, the Hutt Street Centre and Vinnies also facing cuts. The sector needs Nat's advocacy and community support now more than ever. I also want to thank Catherine House's staff, volunteers and supporters for all that you do, and to recognise the women—the clients, past and present—who you have supported. These women face enough uncertainty and stress as they recover from personal crisis, and their state Liberal government should not be making it harder.
Welfare Reform
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:41): I rise tonight to share an account of a mother who is trying to survive on the cashless debit card. To protect her privacy, I'm going to call this mother Emma. In 2020, Emma was living in a so-called cashless debit card trial site when she separated from her violent partner. She relocated to a small regional town to escape domestic violence, to find safety and to be close to family support. The town she moved to was not a cashless debit card trial site. It has a population of around a thousand people and is around 30 kilometres from the nearest regional centre.
The place she is living has one local store, an IGA. And guess what? It does not accept the Indue card. Emma does not have a drivers licence, and there is no public transport that goes to the nearest bigger regional centre. Emma has three children, including a relatively newborn baby, and accessing the regional centre is extremely difficult. She generally relies on the kindness of her community to collect shopping for her or to provide transport to that town.
Emma rents a property from a local resident and has negotiated to be able to pay the landlord using bank transfer. However, this consistently fails, and she often has to pay the rent using her cash portion. The inability to consistently pay is also quite embarrassing for Emma, who budgets adequately for rent but is let down by the system. This impacts on her reputation in this small community, where she is establishing a safe home for herself and her children and acceptance from her community is important. While her landlord has, thus far, been patient and supportive of her situation, it is not right to expect the landlord's kindness to make up for the failure in this system.
Emma chooses to live in this small community for several reasons, one of which is the supportive community around her. However, she is feeling increasingly stigmatised because of her inability to participate fully in her community. She is often left short of cash as a result of having to pay rent from her cash supplies when the system fails and to pay for essential daily supplies such as nappies, milk, bread and fresh fruit. This often leaves her unable to pay for items which should not be seen as luxuries, such as school uniforms and excursions, day care or second-hand clothes from the local thrift store.
Emma has applied to be exited from the card and has been rejected twice. The reason for the most recent rejection was that she did not supply bank statements. Emma has clearly told me, and has also sent details to prove this, that this is incorrect. There has been no follow-up from the department, and Emma is left in a precarious situation. It is very clear that, in these circumstances, the Indue card is simply inappropriate. The infrastructure to support the use of the card in this location is not up to standard, and she's not in a situation where this is working for her. Emma is in a unique situation. Despite her raising these very legitimate concerns about the efficacy of the card in this location, there have been no improvements since November 2020, and she hasn't been able to get off the card either. She's still not able to pay rent consistently or purchase basic daily groceries—simple, basic human requirements. Emma was experiencing domestic abuse by her partner, and this is financial abuse by her own government.
In November 2020 I wrote to Minister Ruston in regard to how she could assist Emma. I'm once again calling on the minister to show some compassion and ensure Emma gets off this card, because the government is causing abuse to this mother and her three children. This is a woman escaping domestic violence and trying to start a new life in a small community where she knows she will get support. The government—the government!—is undermining her life and her ability to mother her children and establish for herself a new life in safety. Shame on you, government!
South Australia: Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2020
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (20:46): I rise this evening to speak regarding the lamentable South Australian Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill and the equally lamentable social and moral trajectory of state parliaments all across this country, including in my home state of South Australia. The last 12 months have seen the South Australian state parliament pass numerous radical social policy bills, bills which devalue the very essence of our humanity. I'm puzzled by the new-found priority at state level of social policy reform, given the difficulties Australians now face in their day-to-day lives due to COVID-19 and the array of restrictions and shutdowns imposed upon them. In times when businesses are trying to keep their doors open, the South Australian parliament appears insistent upon spending its time debating matters including, but not limited to, the decriminalisation of prostitution, full-term abortion and euthanasia, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Last week the South Australian Legislative Council passed the radical Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill. Rather than adopt the evasive language of the Left, let's call it what it is: state sanctioned suicide. The bill has been introduced into the state parliament despite a recent report from the South Australian Joint Committee on End of Life Choices recommending a wait-and-see approach following the introduction of legalised euthanasia in Victoria and Western Australia. I refuse to believe that members of parliament would wish to send the message that life is not worth living, and I ask those in our state parliament to consider the following: At what point can you be satisfied that someone doesn't deserve hope? At what point can you be willing to tell a person and their family that their life is no longer worth living? At what point can you be satisfied that there are enough safeguards in place?
In 2021 we have access to high-quality palliative care and we can reduce the pain of our loved ones in their final days. Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer, but the notion that the state would aid and provide its blessing to the ending of someone's life is immoral. It is the responsibility of parliament to legislate to protect its people, and the law should never support any belief that some lives are not worth living. There is no human dignity or freedom in state sanctioned assisted suicide; rather, it poses a very real risk to vulnerable people through coercion and abuse. If passed, this bill will place pressure on vulnerable people who may well feel like a burden on their family or carers, and this would especially affect those who are elderly, sick or disabled. It will also have a profound effect on the relationship between doctor and patient. Instead of having only a healing or caring role, doctors will be burdened with the role of the grim reaper.
Once legislation is introduced, the ability to water down protections and extend the powers becomes very, very real. The slope will become very slippery. We've seen this in jurisdictions such as the Netherlands and Belgium. I too have lost loved ones under difficult and awful circumstances, but parliament should promote a way of caring for the dying without inducing death. We must not forget the sanctity of life and the belief that all human beings are equal regardless of their race, social status or religion.
Sadly, I have little doubt this bill will pass, and so, to those South Australians who hold strong convictions about what is right and wrong, I say: I too share your dismay about what has been taking place. Together we must reclaim the moral narrative and together we must turn this around.
Middle East
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (20:49): I rise to speak on Al Nakba, and Senator Urquhart puts her name to these remarks. May 15 marks the day in 1948 which the Palestinians call 'Al Nakba', meaning 'the catastrophe', after which the state of Israel was founded. The Israelis call it the War of Independence. Tragically, leading up to Al Nakba this year, we have seen the worst violence in many years erupt in Jerusalem. Some 300 Palestinians and 17 Israeli police were reportedly injured in fighting around Haram al-Sharif, or the Temple Mount. The violence has continued despite calls by the UN requesting that Israeli authorities exercise maximum restraint and respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Tragically, children, along with adults, have lost their lives, and more than 15 other children have been injured.
This violence has erupted because Israel will not halt forced evictions from the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Palestinians have lived in this neighbourhood for generations, in homes specifically built for them by the UN. If the forced evictions go ahead, Palestinians will once again be forced from their homes to be replaced by Israeli settlers. Of course, the latest attempt by Israel reflects a larger reality. During the 1948 war, more than half of the Palestinian population was driven from, or fled from, their ancestral homes. Seventy-three years after Nakba, life for Palestinians remains poor. Some 5.6 million Palestinians remain refugees. Many live in substandard refugee camps in neighbouring Middle Eastern countries. Palestinians make up 21 per cent of the global refugee population. Other Palestinians live inside what is now Israel. They live as second-class citizens, with 65 laws discriminating against them and in favour of Israelis. In neighbouring West Bank, Palestinians live under a military occupation with grim effects on life and the economy. Israel has fragmented the West Bank into disconnected segments of land between which movement is restricted and controlled by military checkpoints. Just 50 kilometres south, two million Palestinians live in Gaza—an isolated enclave, cut off from Israel and the West Bank. The situation there is dire, with a lack of basic infrastructure. Ninety-six per cent of the water is undrinkable. There's irregular electricity and a blockade which significantly restricts movement of people and goods. Five years ago, the UN indicated Gaza would be unliveable by 2020, and it certainly is, but people have no choice but to stay there.
Hanna is a Western Australian constituent whose story I'm honoured to share. His grandfather was a saddler in Jaffa in mandate Palestine. When cars arrived, he transformed his business into a bus factory, importing chassis from Germany and building coaches—the first in the Middle East. Business was excellent. He bought more land and built a new house for his young family. However, in 1948 he was forced from his village, leaving every single thing behind, like thousands of Palestinians who were pushed into neighbouring countries. Hanna tells me his grandfather was 63 years old when he was given a special permit to visit his old town. This was in 1973. He knocked at the door of his old home, and a Polish woman opened the door. 'I know who you are,' she said. 'I found old photos of you in the house, but the government gave me this house.' His proud grandfather was in tears as he told of this experience. 'They stole everything: our properties, furniture, wall paintings, photos, businesses, money, memories, our livelihoods, our lives,' he said. The next day, penniless in exile, a fatal heart attack finished his story. Hanna's family eventually arrived in Australia. Having an Australian passport enabled Hanna to travel back to his home town of Jaffa—now part of Israel. But, despite the detailed information given to him by his mother, he couldn't find his grandfather's house because names have been changed and the landscape has changed.
The international community must take action to challenge Israel on these policies to better prepare the ground for a future just solution for all Palestinians and Israel. Towards that end, I'm proud that Labor sees the recognition of Palestine as an important priority.
Queensland: Water Infrastructure
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (20:54): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to relate my travels through the Flinders catchment area, which is the fourth-biggest river flow in Queensland. There is rich soil, vast grassy plains with no trees, and water: abundant water, regular water, yet untapped. The potential is being wasted. I felt excited, supported, encouraged and inspired by the people I met in North Queensland, but I also felt worried and disappointed because of the atrocious state and federal governments that are cruelling that area. My needs in the people were met entirely: commitment, competence, dedication. But that was matched, sadly, on the other side of the scale by the inability of the state and federal governments to meet their needs for support and good governance.
We went to look firstly at the Bradfield Scheme, to do our due diligence. We've done it at the Murray-Darling Basin; now we've done it in the Flinders. The Bradfield Scheme is a visionary scheme to turn the waters that are flowing to the east, and being wasted, to the west and into the Thomson. We wanted to look at the Murray-Darling Basin catchment, which we have, and also at the Flinders, and this was a chance to see the Bradfield Scheme source and then to go across the Flinders. What we saw as we flew up the coast was naturally wet area in the tropics, the coast, Ingham and Tully. We then swung west over the Tully midstream and all the way down the Burdekin River to the Burdekin Falls Dam. We then turned west and went back across the Flinders catchment area, through Charters Towers, Hughenden, Richmond, Julia Creek and Cloncurry. We touched down in Cloncurry to fuel and then went north to Normanton, where there are huge, vast plains, and then back south-west to Townsville, where we'd started.
We then spent a week driving on the ground, listening to people, getting the lie of the land and the people. What impressed us was the locals with vision, real vision, complemented by energy, knowledge, competence and practicality. It was very inspiring, as I've already said. And there was plenty of water. They all said: 'We don't need the Bradfield Scheme water here. Let it go to the Thomson, as the original visionary plan from Bradfield suggested.'
In particular, I was impressed with the Richmond council; John Wharton, who is, I think, Queensland's longest serving mayor—25 years if my memory is correct; and his very young but very competent CEO, Peter Bennett. They have a plan and a project, the Richmond agricultural project, that the locals are on board with. It's very simple: no dams, just water diverted to 8,000 hectares of irrigable and rich, fertile soil. With agricultural production come people and with people come services. Instead of Richmond bobbing around at 900 people, we can get it back up to 3,000, maybe even 8,000, people. It could be a really vibrant area in the north.
We also visited Hughenden, where the same recipe is being followed: water captured not in a dam but in weirs and diverted into storage areas or underground water. We saw Jane McNamara leading her team there, and Daryl Buckingham, who's had experience in the Murray-Darling Basin and who's transferring it to the north. We also visited HIPCo, Hughenden Irrigation Project Corporation, with Shane McCarthy. The council-sponsored projects there, as I said, follow the same recipe.
We then went to Julia Creek on the ground, and we went to Etta Plains, where we saw a very dynamic young Lucas Findley, from Findley Farms, escaping the Murray-Darling Basin and the devastation of the regulations, the bureaucracy and the poor governance in the south. And we saw something fresh.
I could go on, but time will catch me here. What they're all waiting for is good governance, which the state government and the federal government are not providing. The state government won't allocate water allocations. They can't do anything without that. Ironically, the state government talks about capturing carbon dioxide, which the evidence shows is not necessary, but crops absorb carbon dioxide, and dams create crops that will absorb carbon dioxide. If they were fair dinkum, they'd do it. Ironically, the challenges up north are land tenure, water and energy. While they're looking for it up north and have it in abundance, they can't use it, because the same policies are destroying governance in the south.
Budget
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (21:00): After eight long years of this tired Liberal government, after eight long years of flat wages, after eight long years of rising job insecurity, Scott Morrison needed to deliver more than a budget tonight. He needed to deliver a plan for good, secure jobs for all Australians. But the only jobs that this government has been focused on delivering are jobs for its mates. This year has definitely been the year of the Liberal mates. Just how good are the Liberals to their mates? Appointments to the Fair Work Commission, appointments to boards, appointments to government agencies, appointments to government departments—and most on more than $300,000 per year—all while almost two million Australians are unemployed or underemployed, all while four million Australians are in insecure, casual or gig work and all while Australians are crying out for a pay rise.
This Morrison government has no plan. This Morrison government has no plan for the real challenges that Australians face every day, no plan for people working two, three jobs to make ends meet, no plan for workers stuck in endless casual job after casual job, no plan for vulnerable gig workers to get basic protections, no plan for labour hire workers or contract workers to get certainty and security and no plan for the almost 40 per cent of Australians who are stuck in insecure jobs under this government. They don't have a plan or a vision for Australia because they're too busy figuring out how to cover up their next scandal and their next rort. They are too busy figuring out their next big headline and how not to deliver on it. Look at JobMaker. It was an absolute dud of a scheme that failed to produce anywhere near the number of jobs that they promised in the last budget, and now they've scrapped it. It was their one idea for job creation, and they've thrown it straight in the bin. How can Australians trust this government to deliver for them when it can't deliver on its own ideas? How can Australians rely on this government to ever come up with a real plan for good, secure jobs? They can't. This government has had every opportunity over the last eight years to stand up for working Australians, to stand up for aged-care workers, to stand up for Australian manufacturing and the good, secure jobs it can provide, to stand up against wage theft and insecure work and to stand up for the women workers of Australia. You have had every opportunity to stand up for the women workers of Australia, and you haven't. The only people the government stand up for are themselves. The only jobs they stand up for are their own and the jobs that they hand out day after day to their Liberal mates.
On Labor's side, we have a plan for good, secure jobs in this country. We will stand up for good, secure jobs for aged-care workers, because we know there is no solution to the aged-care crisis without treating the workforce with the respect they deserve. We will stand up for Australian manufacturing with our National Reconstruction Fund, because we know that 'Made in Australia' means good, secure jobs for Australians. We will stand up for young workers and guarantee that one in 10 workers on major federally funded work sites will be apprentices, trainees or cadets, because we know the importance of upskilling the next generation. We will stand up and give insecure workers portable leave entitlements. We will stand up and crack down on cowboy labour hire firms, to guarantee that, if you work the same job, you will get the same pay, just like you deserve. And we will stand up against the toxic casualisation of permanent work that is happening under this government. We have a vision for good, secure jobs, a vision that only Labor will ever build, and it is a vision that we will deliver.
Mining Industry
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (21:05): Last week I travelled to Gamilaraay land to hear from community members in Coonabarabran and Gunnedah living on the front line of coal seam gas expansion in the central west of New South Wales. These communities have been fighting against dirty coal seam gas drilling for years now. It was a privilege to reconnect with locals and activists who have had their lives upturned by coal seam gas.
The First Nations people I spoke to in Coonabarabran told me that, if the 850-plus wells of the Pilliga Narrabri gas project were to go ahead, gas wells would be constructed only a few kilometres from their homes. We know from previous gas expansions in the Queensland Surat Basin that there are real concerns about health impacts of living so close to coal seam gas wells, not to mention the damage to and destruction of Aboriginal culture and heritage, the environmental impact from the mass deforestation required to construct the wells or the huge amount of carbon emissions that would be released.
The First Nations people of Coonabarabran wanted to know why their Gamilaraay land, their culture and heritage, was being destroyed for a dangerous industry that has become irrelevant. They wanted to know why the government would let their precious water be poisoned and their air made toxic for a fossil fuel project that makes no sense when that there are renewable energy alternatives available right now. Sadly, they knew why: because the choice to destroy our planet is a political decision made time and time again by our so-called leaders and corporations in the pursuit of their profits and political gain.
I had the rare opportunity to celebrate the cancellation of the Shenhua Watermark Coal mine licence with the Gamilaraay people and the farmers in Breeza. This massive win came at the end of a 13-year campaign of relentless and powerful community opposition. It shows that change is possible when we fight for it. However, throughout the celebration, there was an acknowledgement in the community that the fight wasn't over, because, while they had fought off a coalmine, their land is still under siege from coal seam gas extraction and the prospect of the Queensland Hunter Gas Pipeline. The high-pressure pipeline is planned to run from Wallumbilla in Queensland to Newcastle, passing through valuable farming land in Moree, the Liverpool Plains and the Upper Hunter region. Such a pipeline will lock us into a dirty industry for decades to come, threatening the goals of the Paris climate agreement and leading billions of dollars away from investment in renewable energy.
These communities are sick and tired of their land being destroyed for profit-hungry billionaires and corporations. Those of us who live in the cities would be naive to think that we are not impacted by this destructive behaviour, because it is the regions that supply our water and it is the regions that supply our food. It is also the emissions from these projects driving the current climate crisis which has contributed to ever more intense and frequent fires and flooding across our country in the last few years. It is shameful that this government is using public money to subsidise climate criminals. Just look at the federal budget: $51 billion of public money for coal and gas corporations. They're out of control. The notion of a gas led recovery is farcical, especially now that we have the technology to support the production of clean energy.
However, we also must recognise that technology cannot be the only solution. We need climate justice. Climate justice means democratising energy and engaging communities in infrastructure decisions. Climate justice means handing First Nations land back to First Nations people to be cared for and protected. We know that a post-carbon economy in the hands of big corporations would be just as damaging as the system we live in today. It is clear that there is no hope for climate justice in our current capitalist, profit driven society. If we want to seriously address the climate crisis, we need to challenge the economic system that demands constant resource extraction. The only way we can do this is by coming together and demanding change, and we do have the power. As the end of Shenhua Watermark Coal mine licence shows, strong community resistance can lead to change. Together, we need to stay strong and demand climate justice in a future with First Nations sovereignty, green jobs and no more fossil fuels.
Budget
Member for Dawson
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (21:10): We've been treated to the government's budget and I can't help but reflect upon last year's budget. The centrepiece of last year's budget was JobMaker. It was the first measure and it was the biggest measure in last year's budget. It promised to support 450,000 jobs for young Australians. But what did it deliver? By March it had supported 609 jobs. The total was just over 1,000 jobs, or 0.02 per cent of what the Prime Minister and Mr Frydenberg promised, so there is no relationship between what comes out of the Prime Minister's mouth in terms of announcements and what actually happens in the real world. You can tell that the Prime Minister is telling mistruths because his lips are moving: announcement, but no delivery, time after time after time. We see it with this budget: no plan for wages—in fact, what it shows is that, for most Australians, wages will go backwards. In a heroic assumption after this catastrophic failure on vaccine delivery, this budget tells Australians that they will all be vaccinated by the end of the year. That's like, 'You'll all be home by Christmas'; it's like, 'We'll be at the front of the queue'; it's like, 'Four million by the end of March'. All of them are lies, and they probably knew when they were making the announcements that they were lies. I think people will see this budget for what it is.
Over the break, however, we were greeted with some good news. In a six-minute very strange video, the member for Dawson announced that he's retiring at the next election. He said: 'I'm concerned about where our politics is heading. Our politics does not seem to be working when it comes to the issues that matter to me. Unfortunately I'm not sure that these issues can be properly fixed by legislation and the ballot box.' He has been a member of parliament for 11 years and in the governing party for eight of them. After all that time and attention, Mr Christensen has decided that politics doesn't work. That raises the question: what exactly was he doing here?
He wasn't here for a great deal of the time, and nor was he in his electorate of Dawson. For many of those years, Mr Christensen spent more time in the Philippines than in Parliament House, up to a third of the year, on a taxpayer-funded salary. I don't think it's a coincidence that Mr Christensen gave up on the Australian political system the minute a pandemic forced him to stay here to be a part of it. What was Mr Christensen doing there? Mr Turnbull wrote in his memoir:
… Christensen had an unusually complex online presence and had been spending substantial sums in Manila bars and nightclubs as well as making small payments to women there.
The so-called God-fearing conservative was leading culture wars from the red-light district in Manila. He is a security risk for the country, but he is a reputational risk for this parliament. He's a disgrace and a dishonour to this parliament.
He's maintained that the concerns about his travel are all a vile smear. But when he had the chance to be open and honest with the Australian people, he made sure that the files the Australian Federal Police proposed to release were never released. It's hard not to be sceptical of his calls for privacy and understanding. He has rarely extended that courtesy to other Australians.
This part-time parliamentarian appears to be devoting his last moments in public life to beating the drums of war and claiming on his Facebook posts that war is coming. He's a keyboard warrior, entirely reckless about the consequences of war. He wants conflict, but will never know the horror of war. He wraps himself in the flag but undermines our national interest every day that he continues to sit in this parliament. He's given up on the Australian political system but not on the taxpayer, because he's demanding that the LNP disendorse him so he can trouser another $100,000. This bloke should be sacked by the Prime Minister as the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, because every day that he is here— (Time expired)
Regional Development Australia Illawarra
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (21:15): Regional Development Australia is an Australian government initiative that brings together all levels of government to support the development of regional Australia. Funded by the federal government and by state, territory and local governments, the 52 RDA committees across Australia are made up of dedicated, passionate local leaders. These committees work with the three tiers of government to support economic and workforce development, local procurement and strategic regional planning and inform government programs and infrastructure investments.
With my office located in Wollongong, I have been fortunate to work with and see firsthand the contribution by RDA Illawarra. The Illawarra region comprises the Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama local government areas. Over 300,000 people live in the Illawarra. It borders the Shoalhaven in the south, Sydney in the north and the Southern Highlands in the west. RDA Illawarra has a small staff of three and a board of 14 dedicated people who volunteer their time to drive economic development initiatives for the greater good of the region. It is a neutral broker of growth as well as public and private sector investment for our region, in collaboration with regional stakeholders. Under the guidance of CEO Debra Murphy and chairman Eddy De Gabriele, RDA Illawarra continues to work towards the delivery of projects, often from concept stage, that will sustain and grow the Illawarra region.
RDA Illawarra's flagship project is the innovative Leadership Illawarra program, which is in its ninth year. It provides a sustainable pathway to grow the next generation of leaders in the Illawarra community. It has been my very great pleasure to meet with many participants in this program, both here at Parliament House and at my electorate office in Wollongong. Each quarter, RDA Illawarra publishes a report to the region in which it provides a snapshot of its achievements. In doing so, it demonstrates openness and accountability to the region's stakeholders and the wider community. Moving forward, the Illawarra region continues to face challenges. Having said that, I believe that there are many—perhaps more than before—opportunities for the Illawarra, especially given the University of Wollongong now ranks in the top one per cent of universities in the world and the presence of international corporations like BlueScope. RDA Illawarra, through its work, has identified some of these challenges and opportunities, and I would like to examine some of these this evening.
The Illawarra economy is diverse. There is an over-reliance on healthcare and social assistance sector and education jobs, which respectively are 14 and 23 per cent above the New South Wales state average. Sadly, the Illawarra has lost thousands of jobs in the manufacturing and mining sectors over the past 10 or so years, and this means it has a lower-than-average income—12 per cent lower than the New South Wales and national incomes. Consequently, Illawarra residents have less disposable income. Economic changes have seen lower-income jobs replace more highly paid jobs. There is a jobs deficit of more than 25,000 jobs. Hence, many people are required to commute long distances to work, often two hours each way per day, or they choose to no longer participate in the workforce. Infrastructure investment is lagging, with major road and rail corridors near capacity and in need of investment. With the advent of the second airport at Badgerys Creek, to Illawarra's north-west, I hope that future consideration can be given to greater connectivity of air, rail and port links.
There is, however, opportunity to grow sectors—the professional and technical services sector, the finance sector and the information and communication technology sector. The Illawarra is also in a prime position for further decentralisation of public and private sector jobs due to its proximity to Sydney and Canberra, particularly as part of RDA's COVID recovery strategy, which includes a Future of Work project focusing on remote working opportunities for the region. The post-COVID recovery of the visitor economy in the region is patchy, with Wollongong LGA, especially, lagging in the recent domestic tourism boom. RDA Illawarra estimates that 50 per cent of food and accommodation services jobs will be lost when JobKeeper ends. One year on from COVID, the current decline in the tourism sector has seen a loss of 1,500 jobs across the Illawarra.
There are opportunities, though, for growth in advanced manufacturing, in scale-up and start-up businesses. Most recently, RDA has led a collaborative approach to addressing many of the Illawarra's regional challenges. It has leveraged opportunities through the Illawarra-Shoalhaven City Deal initiative, with a prospectus launched in October last year. To date, projects identified in the deal have secured funding of over $69 million from the New South Wales government and $240 million from the federal government. Those familiar with the area will be especially pleased with the announcements in this year's budget of $240 million to construct the Mount Ousley interchange. Work on the Illawarra-Shoalhaven City Deal continues and, I'm informed, there is an increased pace of engagement with the New South Wales and federal governments as well as with local stakeholders.
The RDA has maintained that the port at Port Kembla has been underutilised, and I certainly agree with this. In October 2014, in my capacity as an Illawarra based senator, I made a submission to the defence white paper, attaching a paper prepared by my husband, Commander John Wells (RAN Retired), proposing that the time had come to consider the relocation of the Royal Australian Navy Fleet Base East from Garden Island, Sydney, to Port Kembla. Following this, in June 2015, RDA Illawarra, with bipartisan support from local MPs Sharon Bird and Stephen Jones and key regional stakeholders, produced a publication: 'Jewel of the East Coast': the case for relocation of Royal Australian Navy Fleet Base East to the port of Port Kembla. In 2016, Racial Discrimination Act, together with other stakeholders, commissioned a report outlining the suitability of Port Kembla harbour as a potential location for future RAN basing on the east coast of Australia The report was provided on a confidential basis to both the federal and New South Wales governments.
There are significant opportunities for growth at the port of Port Kembla and surrounding industrial land precincts—either current investment attraction opportunities or potential future precinct opportunities. The RDA Illawarra continues to support current investment attraction opportunities at the port. The Illawarra Hydrogen Hub includes significant opportunities for green energy, including Coregas's hydrogen production and heavy vehicle refuelling station. Andrew Forrest's Squadron Energy group has two key developments: Australian Industrial Energy's Port Kembla gas import terminal and Australian Industrial Power's Port Kembla dual-fuel green power station. The gas terminal will be the first LNG import terminal on the east coast and could supply 75 per cent of New South Wales's annual gas needs. In November last year, BlueScope announced a $20 million plan to create a renewable manufacturing zone at Port Kembla.
RDA Illawarra continues to highlight significant future investment attraction and precinct activation opportunities available at the port of Port Kembla, including a future Navy submarine base and maintenance facility. I have advocated that it would be very good to base our submarines there, given the proximity of the harbour to the deep waters off Port Kembla. Other opportunities are a hydrogen-vehicle production facility; advanced manufacturing and industrial support services; a dry-bulk and bulk-liquids facility; a container terminal, along with warehouses and distribution centres, including activation of the south-west Illawarra rail link and the southern container intermodal rail terminal projects; and green-energy production and resource recovery and circular-economy facilities to handle recycling from greater Sydney. There is significant industrial land in the port precinct at Port Kembla and Unanderra that could be activated for future growth. RDA is working to ensure the best use of an estimated 1,400 hectares of land to maximise economic benefits and high-value jobs for the Illawarra.
To see the port of Port Kembla come to fruition, a planned and strategic approach to its development is required. Having been born, raised and educated in the Illawarra, in Port Kembla, it is my dream to see the port of Port Kembla developed and, most especially, to see a Royal Australian Navy presence there. I conclude by congratulating RDA on its work in growing a confident Illawarra regional economy that harnesses competitive advantages, seizes on economic opportunities and attracts quality and sustainable investment to the region. I commend the work of RDA Illawarra, including its dedicated staff and volunteer board.
Tasmanian State Election
City Park Radio: 35th Anniversary
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (21:24): I rise to speak about the 2021 Tasmanian state election. Although the final result is yet to be determined, I believe that Tasmania has re-elected a Gutwein Liberal government. Unfortunately, Tasmanians were forced to go to an election 12 months early to capitalise on the COVID effect. The Premier was hoping that the result would emulate what happened in Western Australia, Queensland, the ACT and the Northern Territory, and that he would be returned. Well, yes, he was returned, as all those incumbent governments were. Mr Gutwein ran a presidential style campaign under the pretence of maintaining a majority government. But what we've seen is that the result will most likely return the status quo. So there was no landslide victory in Tasmania. In fact, returning with only 13 seats is not what I would call a landslide—not like what was experienced in Western Australia and Queensland, in particular.
The Premier has already shown a lack of judgement by not sacking former minister and candidate in the state election Adam Brooks. As we understand and as the public have learned, there have been serious allegations made by two women that he used aliases of 'Terry' and 'Gav' Brooks. This happened after what we have seen as extraordinary circumstances and events in this place. And what did we see the Premier do? Absolutely nothing. He stood by without taking any serious consideration of what these women had brought to the attention of the public. We have already experienced Mr Adam Brooks when he was a minister, with his career-ending performance in budget estimates in the state parliament, where he denied using his mining business email while serving as the minister for mines. That was the extraordinary behaviour of this minister. To date, we have seen no explanation from Mr Brooks in relation to the allegations that two women have come forward saying that he used these aliases and in fact falsified a Victorian drivers licence. These are serious allegations, and yet we see the Premier standing by him.
The campaign was short, it was a year early, and it had it highs and lows. So many people, as usual, put up their hands to be candidate. Whatever party or wherever they came from as Independents, they should be commended. But, ultimately, Tasmanians rewarded the current government for keeping them safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quite frankly, as I said, there is nothing for this government or the Liberals to crow about when they were only returned with the same numbers after orchestrating the early election by sacking the Speaker of the Tasmanian parliament.
Unfortunately this election was fought and the result created under false pretence. There will be no change at all to TAFE. There will be no changes to the ramping of ambulances in both the Royal Hobart Hospital and the Launceston General Hospital. There will be no change whatsoever in unemployment in Tasmania. There will be no change in housing affordability under the incoming Liberal government. There will be no change to the fact that too many Tasmanians cannot find affordable rental accommodation.
What we have seen is a continual growth in the casualisation of employment in Tasmania, as there is around the country, along with underemployment. What we did see, though, was an innovative, creative health policy put forward, and I'm hoping that the incoming government will take that policy and implement it. I want to put on record my appreciation of Bastian Seidel, upper house member, the shadow spokesperson for health, who did an extraordinary job in pulling together a well-costed, well-founded health policy to take to that election. Unfortunately—and that's democracy, and I respect the Tasmanian community—they have voted to return a Liberal government. As I said, there are real issues. There's a crisis in our hospitals. There's underemployment, casualisation and a lack of housing affordability, with people unable to find rentals. The government have not been supporting TAFE, not employing enough apprentices and not making sure that our community are well skilled in the jobs of the future and have real security in employment.
What particularly disappoints me is that the Liberal government, in its wisdom, did not see the need to match Labor's commitment to building a 10-bed, standalone hospice for northern Tasmania. After all, it was the former Minister for Health Dr John Morris who made a commitment, on his deathbed, that he would support the establishment of a hospice in northern Tasmania. The government has walked away from that. I want to commend Barb Baker and the Friends of Northern Hospice and Palliative Care Foundation for their 14 years of unwavering support and lobbying for a hospice in northern Tasmania that would meet the needs of Tasmanians in their final weeks and months.
I'd like to turn to something more positive, and that is to congratulate City Park Radio on their 35th anniversary. What an outstanding achievement for a local community radio station that services northern Tasmania; in particular, my home city of Launceston. City Park Radio is Launceston's community radio station. It offers a diverse range of locally and nationally produced programs, both music and spoken word. It does this from studios situated at the cottage in Launceston's City Park. For the past 35 years, people have been tuning in to this service for Australian music, local news and events, to hear local voices and personalities, and for an independent voice that isn't owned by big business.
I was honoured to attend the event, hosted by the Launceston City Council, to celebrate the longevity of the radio broadcast. It's so important to support our community. Something I and, I'm sure, a lot of people have been reminding ourselves over the past year is how important during this pandemic it has been to have a local community radio station, with local voices and personalities, as a conduit to the community. How important that has proven to be not only in our local community but around the country.
City Park Radio is a microcosm of the community, with people of all ages and walks of life involved. It's run by a large workforce of volunteers who value community engagement. Volunteers are an essential part of the station's existence and a hallmark of its value as a community service. They are the lifeblood of the station, taking on a variety of positions, from radio announcers and producers to behind the scenes roles, including management, administration and technical services, amongst so many others. City Park Radio offers all individuals and community groups the opportunity to participate and to work towards creating a more inclusive society. Through multicultural programming, the station broadcasts in over 10 languages. In providing this service, it enhances the quality of life of residents in Launceston and northern Tasmania and creates a more inclusive community which promotes multiculturalism.
Community radio gives voice to a diverse range of groups and is Australia's largest independent media sector. A key pillar of the Australian media landscape, it must be supported so that it can prosper into the future. Six million Australians tune in to over 450 not-for-profit, community owned and operated radio services across the country each and every week. These stations provide programming that caters for the needs and interests of their communities and provides the news and information that is relevant to them. It's provided in very authentic and familiar voices that we know and trust. Another vital role that community radio plays is in helping people not to feel socially isolated. That's why it has been instrumental throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. I congratulate City Park Radio and wish them all the very best for another 35 years and beyond.
Human Rights
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (21:35): I rise tonight to speak about human rights, both here in Australia and around the world, as has been my habit every Tuesday night on sitting weeks for a while now. The Australian Greens believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected and protected in all countries and for all people.
In talking of human rights, I want to start here in Australia. Sadly and tragically, there are significant human rights breaches occurring right here in Australia. We've seen the government implement a travel ban on Australians coming from India, threatening them with jail time for returning home. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights say that everyone has the right to return home to their country and shall never be deprived of the right to enter their own country. We have written to the Prime Minister calling for the government to significantly increase quarantine capacity and travel capacity to return home, to enable everyone who wants to to safely return to Australia, upholding that fundamental human right.
For First Nations peoples in Australia, it's been thirty years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody that made clear recommendations to prevent future deaths. Tragically, in those 30 years more than 474 families have lost a loved one in custody. As my colleague Senator Lidia Thorpe has repeatedly called for, governments across Australia must implement the long delayed recommendations of that royal commission.
Moving to the United States, in America the Black Lives Matter movement has been borne out of tragic and unnecessary deaths. As Human Rights Watch summarised:
The police killing of George Floyd … and a series of other police killings of Black people, sparked massive and largely peaceful protests, which in many instances were met with brutality by local and federal law enforcement agents.
… … …
Police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the shooting of Jacob Blake provoked massive protests calling for police accountability, reduction in the scope and power of police, elimination of extortionate court fines and fees, and investment in Black communities.
Rather than address problems of poverty or health that contribute to crime, many US jurisdictions focus on aggressive policing in poor and minority communities, fuelling a vicious cycle of incarceration and police violence.
We call on the United States government and state governments to protect the lives and human rights of all and respond to racial injustice with clear, rapid action that addresses wealth inequality, racism in their police structures and the unequal effects of the COVID pandemic.
In Afghanistan we've seen multiple attacks on members of the Hazara community, with the latest bombing in Kabul targeting and killing innocent schoolgirls. Those who carry out such crimes must be held accountable. Some of the attacks which have occurred against Hazara communities in Afghanistan, particularly those against medical facilities, amount to war crimes. The Australian Greens have called for action by the Australian government and Afghan authorities to protect Hazara communities and individuals who are at risk. We want the Australian government to increase the humanitarian quota in Australia’s refugee program, ensuring that more places are available to accept Hazara refugees.
In speaking on Afghanistan, we must also acknowledge the awful actions committed by Australian troops. As my colleague Senator Steele-John has said:
… the lack of oversight from chain of command meant that individual patrol commanders were enabled to set their own objectives which, as we have seen from the horrific allegations in the Brereton Inquiry report, fell far outside the behaviour Australians expect from our troops.
… … …
On top of the dreadful cost that we also have paid dearly in the lives of our own, and in resources, Australia must acknowledge the terrible legacy that we have left in Afghanistan and compensate the families, and the communities, affected by our occupation.
In West Papua, the worsening situation is tragic. Killings are occurring, including in recent weeks nine Papuans and an Indonesian police officer. We've seen internet access cut to West Papua and leaders in the Indonesian government saying that human rights will be disregarded in the crackdown as military troops are deployed to West Papua. We call on the Indonesian government to urgently withdraw all combat troops from West Papua and to allow immediate unfettered access to UN and other independent human rights observers. The Australian government must not be silent while this occurs. The Greens call on our government to speak out for our West Papuan neighbours and to advocate to the Indonesian government to prevent violence and the loss of life in West Papua.
This week Palestinians commemorate Al Nakba day, Arabic for 'the catastrophe' when in 1948 thousands of Palestinians were killed, and an estimated 700,000 lost their homes and became refugees. Many of their descendants have remained in refugee camps since. This week, some Palestinians are facing the threat of a second expulsion, this time from Sheikh Jarrah in Jerusalem. In the aftermath of the Nakba, the UN and Jordan built and granted ownership of homes for 27 families on what was vacant land in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood in East Jerusalem. Since that time, generations have been born, grown up, married and died in these houses. However, Israel seized control over Jerusalem in 1967, and, despite international calls for it to withdraw, it has refused. East Jerusalem is recognised as being under military occupation. Israel has used a raft of discriminatory residency regulations and planning frameworks to reduce the Palestinian population in Jerusalem. Israel has passed a law that allows Jewish people to claim land that was owned by Jews prior to 1948. But, in contrast, Palestinians who lost homes or property in 1948 are not compensated nor can they exercise their inalienable right to return to their former homes inside what is now Israel, which is a right enshrined in UN Resolution 194.
These are some of the policies that have led human rights groups to conclude that Israel is committing apartheid. Last month, a report by the US based Human Rights Watch found:
…in most aspects of life, Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy. In pursuit of this goal, authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity.
Human Rights Watch's report follows one by Israeli human rights group B'Tselem that reached the same conclusion, as did a 2019 report to the UN by Palestinian human rights organisations.
This institutional discrimination is felt acutely in Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood. While the pandemic rages 500 Palestinians are at risk of unjust eviction, 87 of them imminently. They've faced years of long, exhausting court battles that have been financially draining, beyond the personal stress on those residents. This is the tragic experience of people facing discriminatory laws and policies from the Israeli government.
The Greens support the rights of the Palestinian and Israeli people to live in peace and security in their own independent sovereign states and recognise the ongoing injustice that has been done to the Palestinian people. That injustice needs to be rectified to enable Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace. We condemn the escalation in violence overnight, which has cost the lives of Palestinian civilians, including children. This violence has roots in the efforts of Israeli settler groups to evict Palestinian families. We need to end injustices like settlements, forced evictions and the occupation itself to have a hope of putting an end to violence and conflict, starting with no evictions in Sheikh Jarrah.
Last week the EU said 'The Israeli authorities should cease these activities and provide adequate permits for legal construction and development of Palestinian communities,' with similar sentiments expressed by UK officials and the US State Department. Australia must speak out and add our voice to stop the ongoing Nakba for Palestinians.
I have spoken before about ongoing human rights abuses and I will keep speaking out in this parliament.
Women: Workplace Safety
Brain Cancer
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (21:44): All women deserve to be safe at work. That's something that shouldn't have to be said again and again, but it does need to be said.
I'd like to share with the Senate information about an important centre in the Northern Territory called the NT Working Women's Centre. Sadly, the federal government has turned its back on the safety of working women in the Northern Territory by cutting funding to the only NT-wide service providing free advice and advocacy. The NT Working Women's Centre has been supporting women in regional and remote areas to have safer workplaces for more than 30 years, but this government has cut their core funding, with the NT Working Women's Centre facing a very uncertain future from 30 June. Recommendation 49 from the Respect@Work report says working women's centres should be supported by the Australian government. Yet, disappointingly, especially tonight, this government is still continuing to let the NT Working Women's Centre close its doors after June, leaving the rest of us stranded.
In December 2020, the centre was unsuccessful in securing its core funding from the Fair Work Ombudsman under the federal community engagement grant, and, every four years, the NT Working Women's Centre had to go through this funding drama. But this time, the federal government decided to award the funding for the NT to a youth law organisation in New South Wales. No disrespect to this youth law organisation in New South Wales—it no doubt does an excellent job—but it is a hell of a long way from the Northern Territory. So the NT Working Women's Centre is left without three-quarters of its core funding after 30 years of supporting Territory women. The NT government has provided the centre with short-term funding to cover this shortfall, but this government continues to avoid the responsibilities that it so blatantly needs to give. The fact is most Australians and Territorians are no different. They spend one-third of their lives at work, and the federal government should be prioritising the creation of safe and healthy work environments, including right here in Parliament House.
I'm proud to say that workers from the NT Working Women's Centre recently delivered training to senior Labor staffers around identifying and dealing with workplace harassment, but this training is only one facet of their work. In the last six months of 2020, the service had 2,093 client contacts, with 157 clients receiving case support. Fifty per cent of their clients are from regional, rural and remote locations, and, to give you an idea of some of the work that they do, I'd like to share the story of one client. We will call her Maria to protect her identity. Maria was working in the Northern Territory on a visa, and, after hearing about her unsafe working conditions, debt bondage and appalling treatment, the NT Working Women's Centre took advice from Anti-Slavery Australia and the case was referred to the Australian Federal Police. This resulted in a human trafficking investigation uncovering national and international links exploiting workers across an industry. Eight people in the Northern Territory were removed from forced labour. Without the NT Working Women's Centre, these vulnerable women would still be exploited, harassed and treated appallingly. I urge the federal government to please step up in relation to our working women's centres across Australia but especially the NT Working Women's Centre. We need to make sure they continue well beyond 30 June.
I'd also like to take this opportunity tonight to talk about the ongoing and life-changing impact on people in our community affected by brain tumours, including patients and their carers, families, friends and colleagues. I also acknowledge the significant cost to the community and the economy of these diseases, primarily through premature death from brain tumours and brain cancer—particularly, and heartbreakingly, the deaths of children. Over the last 35 years, while survival rates for many cancers have improved, survival for brain cancer has shown no significant improvement. Five-year survival for brain cancer remains stubbornly low at 22 per cent.
Cancer Australia estimated that, in 2020, 1,879 new brain cancer diagnoses would occur. That is more than five people in this country being diagnosed with brain cancer—not including non-malignant tumours—every day. For that same year, it was estimated that 1,518 people would die from a malignant brain tumour, and that is, on average, more than four people dying a day, every day.
Distressingly, brain cancer was the leading cause of cancer-related death in Australian children between the ages of zero and 14 years in 2019, and, whilst many childhood cancers have seen excellent increases in overall survival, some childhood brain cancers, such as diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG, remain terminal on diagnosis, with children surviving an average of only nine months from their diagnosis. This is not acceptable, and we do need to do more as a country.
The cost of brain cancer is more than the suffering and grief of those affected by it, though this cost is more than we would want anyone in our community to bear. Financially, brain cancer costs more per person than any other cancer because it is highly debilitating, affects people in their prime and often means family members can't work if they become carers. It is the cancer with the highest total burden of disease.
On 28 November 2017, the Senate Select Committee into Funding for Research into Cancers with Low Survival Rates handed down its report. I and seven other senators sat on this select committee, with Senator Catryna Bilyk sitting as chair. Many in this place will know that, in March 2008, Senator Bilyk had two benign brain tumours removed. In February this year, our colleague Senator Bilyk announced she had been diagnosed with a further brain tumour, a slow-growing meningioma. She has advised that it does not pose a serious threat to her health and she is taking a short leave of absence from parliament to undertake treatment. And, Senator Bilyk, if you're listening, our love and thoughts go with you.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Senator McCARTHY: It's heartening to know that Senator Bilyk does not currently face a serious threat, but she is incredibly courageous and deeply passionate about wanting to see this disastrous disease treated more seriously in Australia and, in particular, by the Australian parliament.
The Senate Select Committee into Funding for Research into Cancers with Low Survival Rates made 25 recommendations in its report. On 16 November 2018, the government provided its response to the report. Of the 25 recommendations, 10 were simply noted, eight were supported in principle, five were supported and two were deemed to be the responsibilities of the states. Most disappointingly, recommendation 24—that the federal, state and territory governments develop and implement a comprehensive Australia-wide strategy to increase five-year survival rates for low-survival-rate cancers to above 50 per cent by 2027—was only noted.
While the Brain Cancer Mission of doubling survival rates over the 10 years to 2027 was welcome, this did not aim as high as the committee had recommended. Most importantly, I am aware that brain tumour patients, their carers, families and friends had hoped for more support for the report's recommendations. If carried through, the recommendations have the potential to improve quality of life, reduce financial burden and ultimately, and most critically, extend and save the lives of brain tumour patients. I celebrate these improvements, little as they are, and I hope that very soon Australians facing brain cancer, for the sake of those who love them, can also have vastly improved survival rates and a chance for more of them to live long, healthy and productive lives in our community. We've seen improved survival rates in other cancers; notably, for example, the five-year survival rate of prostate cancer has increased from 60 per cent to more than 90 per cent.
Cybersecurity
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (21:55): Last month the Australian government made a significant announcement in relation to cybersecurity threats to Australia. In a joint statement, issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Defence and Minister for Home Affairs, the Australian government joined with the US and UK in condemning Russia's harmful cybercampaign against the US software firm SolarWinds. The Australian statement followed an announcement in Washington that US President Joe Biden had signed an executive order declaring a national emergency to deal with the threat of Russia's foreign interference, including malicious cyber and naval activities. US intelligence agencies directly attributed the SolarWinds attack to the Russian Cozy Bear hacker group operating for the Russian foreign intelligence service, the SVR. The Australian ministers declared that, in consultation with our partners, the Australian government had determined that Russian state actors were actively exploiting SolarWinds and its supply chains. The foreign affairs, defence and home affairs ministers further declared that over the previous 12 months Australia had witnessed Russia use malicious activity to undermine international stability, security and public safety.
This wasn't the first time that the Australian government had attributed cyberattacks to Russia. Just over three years ago, then defence minister Senator Payne publicly attributed the hacking of more than 400 Australian businesses to unnamed Russian actors, but at the time stopped short of attributing the attacks to agents of the Russian government. The announcement last month represented a shift in Australia's response to its cyberattacks, for the first time joining with other countries to call out a particular foreign government as responsible. This was a step forward. While there have been many warnings about the dangers to Australian and state government agencies, to vital defence capabilities and critical infrastructure, to Australian businesses, universities and community organisations from hostile cyberattacks, the Australian government has been very reluctant to directly identify those responsible for such acts.
While diplomatic sensitivities must be considered, the absence of specific attribution of responsibility for major cyberintrusions and attacks has diminished the government's effort to alert Australians to the importance of cybersecurity. This systematic weakness in their approach to cyberthreats was evident when the government announced in June last year:
… Australian organisations are currently being targeted by a sophisticated state-based cyber actor.
At that time, the Prime Minister said hostile cyberactivity was occurring across a range of sectors, including all levels of government, industry, political organisations, education, health, essential service providers and operators of other critical infrastructure. The Prime Minister noted that 'there aren't too many state-based actors who have those capabilities', but he declined to name the culprit. The perpetrator was rather like Lord Voldemort, in the Harry Potter novels: too scary to be named.
The government has now been prepared to name Russia, a country with which we only have limited bilateral relations. But the elephant in the room is, of course, China. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reflected the reality well in his memoir in which he observed:
… what's become increasingly apparent over the last decade is the industrial scale, scope and effectiveness of Chinese intelligence gathering and in particular cyberespionage. They do more of it than anyone else, by far, and apply more resources to it than anyone else. They target commercial secrets, especially in technology, even where they have no connection with national security. And, finally, they're very good at it.
Although the Australian government is not prepared to publicly attribute responsibility for the cyberattacks directed at numerous federal, state and government agencies, universities and businesses, there is no doubt that the Chinese state, the Chinese Ministry of State Security and the electronic warfare components of the People's Liberation Army have been responsible for a great number of these hostile actions against Australia. So far China has waged this cybercampaign without any effective response from the Australian government, even when the parliament's IT system was hacked. We have strengthened our cyberdefences, spending well over a billion dollars nationwide, but China has suffered no consequences at all. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. If we are to counter China's strategic cybercampaign, there must be disincentives; there must be consequences for Beijing.
Firstly, we need to call out China's behaviour. China will no doubt protest their innocence and engage in a further round of vilification in the Global Times and other Communist Party mouthpieces, but we shouldn't be too worried about that. Our bilateral relationship with China is what you would expect of a cold war. That's the reality. What we need to do is send a very clear message to our allies and friends that we will not lie down and accept electronic aggression from the Chinese government. Cyberwarfare is just that: a form of warfare, short of open hostilities but warfare nonetheless.
Secondly, the government needs to impose targeted sanctions against the individuals and organisations involved in the Chinese state's hacking and cyberwarfare programs. We should be prepared to act in concert with our allies, especially the US, but we should also be prepared to implement our own unilateral sanctions, especially against Chinese telecommunications and IT companies with any connection to China's cyberwarfare activities. Sanctions may not have a large material effect, but they will send a clear message that we regard China's actions as hostile and unacceptable.
Thirdly, the Australian government needs to impose a direct diplomatic price for cyberattacks that can be attributed to the Chinese state or its proxies. Each time such an attack occurs, the department of foreign affairs should expel at least one diplomat from China's Canberra embassy and at least one consular official from each of China's consulates in Australia's state capitals. In the event that China keeps up its cyberattacks, such a policy would at least quickly reduce China's bloated diplomatic and consular presence, larger than that of any other country, which serves as cover for espionage and political interference operations in Australia.
Finally, Australia should be prepared to retaliate in kind. The Australian Signals Directorate has significant offensive cybercapabilities both as a national capability and as part of a wider collective capability amongst signal intelligence agencies of the so-called Five Eyes countries. Those offensive capabilities are a closely guarded secret, but I note that in December 2016 the government made a wideranging disclosure to ABC News about the Signals Directorate's success in hacking and destroying the electronic infrastructure of the Islamic State propaganda unit. In the event that China continues its cyberoffence against Australia on the scale experienced in recent years, the government should authorise targeted retaliation, especially against Chinese state owned enterprises operating outside China, Chinese communist propaganda outlets and Communist Party controlled United Front organisations.
Another focus should be on exfiltrating data from Chinese state agencies that highlight the Chinese state's systematic human rights abuses and the rampant corruption that pervades the top echelons of the Communist Party power structure. The threat of such action might give Beijing pause for thought before they embark on another round of hacking or decide to ratchet up economic pressure on Australia's export industries. One thing is clear: without imposing some consequences, there is no reason to dial back what are unquestionably hostile actions against Australia's national interests. Without consequences they will continue to treat Australia as a hackers' training ground and may eventually secure electronic footholds that may deeply harm our national interest, including defence capabilities. This cannot be allowed to continue, and the Australian government needs to move from a strictly reactive defensive posture to a proactive offensive one.
Budget
Costa, Mr Frank Aloysius, AO
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (22:04): I rise tonight to speak about the 2021-22 Morrison government budget. This is a budget which leaves no Australian behind. This is the next stage of the Morrison government's economic recovery plan to build a stronger Australia. There is no doubt that Australians and Victorians whom I proudly represent have had a very, very tough year. We've endured lockdowns, separation from our friends and families, unemployment and many other consequences of the global pandemic. This budget continues the Morrison government's work to put us back on track. It reflects our ironclad commitment to ensuring all Australians benefit from our economic recovery. It guarantees services, creates more jobs and keeps Victorians safe from COVID-19.
I want to reflect on a number of initiatives in tonight's budget, starting with the government's commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, with some $18 billion worth of funding for the aged-care sector, including substantial support for mental health, suicide prevention and people living with disabilities. Most importantly insofar as our support of the aged-care sector is concerned, we are also ensuring our aged-care workers are better paid and better trained. Something that will make a massive difference to seniors who are staying at home are some 80,000 additional home-care packages. All of this extra funding brings our total commitment to aged care to some $119 billion over the next four years, which is the most significant investment in aged care in Australian history.
The budget makes child care more affordable for families; funds essential infrastructure; supports new construction jobs and homeownership; and provides record funding for schools, hospitals and, of course, the vitally important NDIS.
The budget includes some $10 billion of targeted infrastructure spending on road and rail projects around the country, including a $2 billion initial investment for a new Melbourne intermodal terminal servicing Inland Rail. There's another $1 billion to extend the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program to deliver upgrades for local roads, footpaths and community infrastructure. Of course, this allows local councils to have the certainty to decide the projects which are most important to their communities, providing they're shovel-ready, because this is a program that drives jobs and gets shovels in the ground as quickly as possible.
Across south-western Victoria, which I represent as a patron senator, there is more funding for many major infrastructure project projects which are underway, including better and safer roads and more reliable rail. In the Geelong region in this financial year, for the Barwon Heads Road duplication, for instance, there's another $90 million. For the Waurn Ponds to South Geelong rail upgrade, another $105 million will flow this financial year. Some $69 million will be delivered under the Geelong City Deal to continue our support of the tourism economy, particularly around the Twelve Apostles, along the Great Ocean Road and in Geelong centre. In the Ballarat region, there's $35 million for the Ballarat line upgrade stage 2, including more funding for the Western Freeway. In the Bendigo region, there is a massive new injection of funding for the Calder Highway for road safety upgrades of some $15 million.
The budget commits another $1.7 billion to child care over four years to help working families cope with childcare costs. The government will raise the childcare subsidy for families with two or more children under five years old to 95 per cent, up from 85 per cent. This is forecast to save some 250,000 Australian families around $2,200 per year.
For those Australians affected by natural disasters, the government has committed some $600 million for natural disaster recovery to help Australians rebuild their communities after natural disasters hit. These measures include funding for bushfire and cyclone proofing as well as measures to ensure telecommunications resilience, a vital element in any disaster response.
A major part of this budget is its support for women. It includes a support package of some $3.4 billion, which will target women's safety, economic security, health and wellbeing. These include women's safety measures for women fleeing domestic violence. There's also a very significant women's health package, some $334 million, to support women's health, including funding for cervical and breast cancer treatments, endometriosis and reproductive health.
The budget ties national objectives to local needs. If I consider the massive investment in mental health and suicide prevention, this is a landmark reform for our nation. This is going to make the most extraordinary difference to so many families, including the 65,000 or so Australians who attempt to commit suicide every year. There is very substantial funding in the budget to support those people after they leave hospital. Traditionally, they would have left and had no ongoing support.
These numbers that we hear in the budget are so often abstract—a billion dollars here, $10 billion here, $100 billion here—but this is money being spent by our government to secure our economic recovery at one of the toughest times in our history. It's so important that, at the end of the day, it ends up on the front line. That is why, as we've heard, there's another $1.7 billion or so for vaccines right across the country. We know how important our investment is in our health response, including in vaccinations.
The 2021 budget is the next stage of the Morrison government's economic recovery plan to create a stronger Australia. I'm very proud of what our nation has achieved so far. I'm very proud of the way in which our government has stood up for all Australians. I'm incredibly proud that this is a budget that leaves no Australians behind. The absolute landmark massive investment, particularly in aged care, in mental health, in infrastructure, in tax cuts, in backing small and family businesses, in driving job creation, will help Australians go from strength to strength.
In the short amount of time I have left, I want to mention a very significant event happening tomorrow in Geelong. Tomorrow, Geelong farewells one of its favourite sons. Frank Costa's funeral is tomorrow, and many people from my city and the region will gather. He will go down in history as one of Geelong's most significant citizens. In fact, he was a dynamo. So many of the projects and investments that we have delivered and so many of the policy changes that we have achieved, and the transformation of the Geelong city, have been driven by Frank, including when he was steering the committee for Geelong. He has left an incredible legacy. He was such a wonderful community leader. He was a leading philanthropist. He was a good friend, he was a mentor, and he was the heart and soul of the Geelong community. My sincere condolences to Frank's wife, Shirley, his eight daughters and the broader Costa family. I say vale, Frank Costa.
Australian Football League Women's
Israeli Declaration of Independence: 73rd Anniversary
Victoria: South-West Coast
Keely, Mr John
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (22:14): I rise tonight to speak about, amongst other matters, this year's highly successful AFL Women's season, the AFLW. After its cancellation last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this year the AFLW has showcased women's sport at its very, very best. Since its inaugural season in 2017, we've seen the action on the field continue to get better and better, while off the field we've seen interest in the competition continue to grow. This has been reflected through strong attendances, growing media interest and the strong rise in participation by women and girls in the sport of Aussie Rules right around the country at the grassroots level.
The success of the AFLW competition has been no fluke. It is the result of considerable investment in women's football by the AFL and competing clubs, and I congratulate them. It has also involved great effort by the players, their families and volunteers, who work hard to put on the high-quality competition so many of us enjoy today. I've particularly enjoyed watching Collingwood's performance this year, playing some great football, despite falling just short of making the grand final, losing to the eventual premiers.
Having attended the competition awards night just a few weeks ago, I extend my congratulations to all those selected in the AFLW All-Australian side, particularly Collingwood's Brianna Davey, who was also named its captain; Chloe Molloy; Ruby Schleicher; and Brittany Bonnici. I would also like to congratulate the winners of this year's AFLW premiership, the Brisbane Lions; the winners of the season's Best and Fairest award, which was jointly won by Brianna Davey and Fremantle's Chiara Bowers; and all other award winners on the night. Like many of my colleagues in this building, I thoroughly look forward to next year's competition and will be cheering on the mighty Pies in their campaign next year to win their first AFLW premiership.
On a separate matter I would like to acknowledge the recent 73rd anniversary of the declaration of independence of the State of Israel. Israel truly is the miracle in the desert. Its formal re-establishment all those years ago facilitated the return of the Jewish people to their homeland, who together have created a state that they can be incredibly proud of. From the harsh terrain and climate of the British mandate, Israel has risen as an example to other nations of what is possible through determination, hard work and perseverance. It has developed an economy that is both prosperous and innovative, and a society where diversity and progress are embraced. And, of course, it is a country which has a long and close relationship with Australia, back to before its independence. Australians fought in the Sino-Palestine campaign during the First World War in what is now modern-day Israel, including in the famous Battle of Beersheba. Through the leadership of HV Evatt, 'Doc' Evatt, we were the first country to vote in favour of the UN partition plan resolution and were then amongst the first countries in the world to formally recognise the Israeli state, under the Chifley Labor government in 1949. This support for the State of Israel is something we should be incredibly proud of and ensure that it continues well into the future. While there have been some stark differences between our two countries, one only needs to look at a map to see the contrast in size. There are many things that we have in common. Our two peoples both share a deep commitment to participatory democracy, the rule of law and respect for minorities, to name just a few.
Like Australia, Israel has faced challenges over the last year but has also had notable successes, including the signing of the Abraham Accords; the groundbreaking normalisation of relationships between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain; and through its vaccination program, with Israel leading the world in the race to combat COVID-19. Israel has shown the global community how to beat this deadly virus through vaccination, achieving the highest vaccination rates against COVID-19 in the world. There are a number of factors that have contributed to this, including a strong and universal healthcare system as well as the desire to prioritise a quick rollout of the vaccine. But it is the effective rollout of the vaccine that the global community should look to as a template on how to protect their population during a pandemic.
I'd also like to commend the State of Israel for its commitment to rolling out the vaccine to Palestinians in recognition of the fact that, while Israel is under no obligation to do so, given the failure of the Palestinian authorities to provide for their people, Israel nonetheless has a moral obligation to take up the task and lend a hand where they can. While, sadly, some have sought to spread misinformation on this matter, already tens of thousands of Palestinians have been vaccinated by Israel with hundreds of thousands more to come. So, as we mark the recent anniversary of the State of Israel, I'd like to wish our Israeli friends both near and afar all the best for the 74th year, and I look forward to seeing our respective countries grow closer and continue to thrive together in peace and prosperity.
Last week, I had the pleasure of touring parts of western Victoria, visiting towns along the south-west coast of the state. Like others in this place, I take my responsibility to represent my constituents seriously, regardless of whether they live in metropolitan or in regional or remote communities. In Portland, I visited the Alcoa aluminium smelter, a facility which employs around 500 workers and supports the jobs of many thousands in the region and beyond. Much has been said in this place about the smelter over the years—sadly, some of it less than favourable and by those who are yet to set foot in Portland and understand the true value that this facility contributes to the town and its people. Whilst there are many lessons to come out of COVID-19 for Australia, one that I think is most important is the need to ensure that we maintain our sovereign capability to manufacture the inputs that our economy needs to prosper. In the case of this smelter, the workers there produce around 20 per cent of Australia's total aluminium output. Labor has welcomed recent announcements to secure the smelter's future; however, there is still more to be done in this space.
In particular, I draw attention once again to the plight of Keppel Prince, also in Portland—Australia's only producer of towers for wind turbines. Despite the significant increase in wind energy over recent years, Keppel Prince finds itself losing out to cheap imports from overseas, jeopardising the livelihood of its workers. When we talk about manufacturing and when we talk about sovereign capability, these are the kinds of jobs we're talking about—jobs at Alcoa, forging the nation's metals, and jobs at Keppel Prince, providing innovative solutions to our energy challenges. So, whilst I thank the management of Alcoa and Keppel Prince as well as the Australian Workers Union for facilitating my visit and giving me the opportunity to talk to workers firsthand, I also want them to know that I stand with them, because the livelihoods of these workers are too important for our language on securing Australian jobs to be hollow.
Lastly, I'd like to acknowledge the retirement of John Keely as vice-president of United Dairyfarmers of Victoria. After faithfully serving the organisation and its members, since becoming vice-president in 2019, John has decided not to contest the upcoming election for the position of vice-president. I know that his departure will be felt, and I look forward to seeing him later on this month at the annual conference, where I'm sure he will do a very fine job. Again, John, thanks for your advocacy, your leadership and support for the many dairy farmers not just in your region but across the state of Victoria.
His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
Mercy Community
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (22:23): With the passing of His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, we say farewell to a great man. For more than 80 years, Prince Philip served his country, our Commonwealth and the Crown. He was an outsider when he entered the royal family, but his love for his wife inspired nearly eight decades of devoted service to his Queen, to the people of the Commonwealth, including Australians, and to the world. The duke's life was one of duty and service, of loyalty and of honour, always standing beside our Queen. As Her Majesty has said, he was her strength and stay.
Prince Philip cared deeply for Australia, visiting on more than 20 occasions. Some of these visits were celebratory. In 1956, he opened the Olympic Games in Melbourne. Other visits were in times of mourning and loss, such as in 1967 when Prince Philip came to Tasmania to comfort the victims of the terrible Black Tuesday bushfires. Humbly, he met with people and heard their stories. He was no stranger to suffering, having lived through his family's exile from Greece, his mother's mental breakdown and the death of his beloved sister Cecile in a plane crash when he was just 16 years old. But when an interviewer once asked the duke how this made him feel, he was apparently bemused, stating, 'It wasn't good,' but he 'just got on with it'.
There are many positives to our growing awareness of mental health issues and our willingness to talk about things we're struggling with, but it's worth observing that there was strength in Prince Philip's attitude too. It was his willingness to 'get on with it' that allowed his generation to, like him, face seismic shifts in the course of their lifetime. This was a generation that fought the Second World War to secure our liberty, lived through the fear and tension of the Cold War and helped shape the international rule based order that we have benefited from for generations.
The duke was patron of more than 50 organisations here in Australia. His efforts in them reflected his personal passions, including conservation, science, industry and design, engineering, sports and the military. Truly, his was a life dedicated to making the lives of others better. His efforts were focused on fostering the talents of individuals and enabling communities to grow and to thrive. In that work, he leaves behind a legacy that will extend long beyond his years and, I have no doubt, long beyond ours.
In this place, we often talk about the ways that government can make people's lives better. It's a sentiment I appreciate, well meaning as it is, but it is a principle I take with a grain of salt. Governments have resources from Australians, sure, but the decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats will never be made with the same local knowledge and care as decisions that are made by local community organisations and civil society on the ground.
One organisation that I'd like to pay tribute to today is Brisbane's Mercy Community. They provide enormous love, care and support for people facing some terrible, difficult times in their lives. Mercy have a history as St Vincent's orphanage and convent, which has developed into a child-fostering program, and there are many vulnerable Queensland children who are now safer, loved and educated because of Mercy's work. The training and employment help they offer for people with disabilities, including in their hospitality program, which is first class, give real freedom, hope and independence. That is so important to people in our community who are so deserving of the dignity and accomplishment that come with them having the ability to earn their own living.
Mercy provide support for older people needing residential aged care—again, enormous dignity in the face of the end of one's life's hardships. But they have one program about which I'm particularly passionate. It is the New Families Program. It solves this problem: what do you do when a woman is expecting a baby but has either had past adverse contact with child safety authorities, is living in a circumstance of domestic violence or, worse still, both? Mercy provide a safe residential program that begins in the last trimester of pregnancy, when mums can be protected from violence, learn about healthy eating and living and about how to provide what their child will need, helping them grow into capable parents with the skills and framework to be able to keep their family financially stable, to maintain safety and to grow the awareness of what good healthy relationships mean and look like into the future.
I have to acknowledge it's frightfully expensive, but, by the time you take into account the support workers, the clinical care that's provided, the housing and food and the in-community visits once the residential phase comes to an end, it really adds up. Demand for this program well outstrips supply, but it has an enormously impressive success rate. These successes are measured by injuries not sustained, by children reaching their development milestones, by mothers' improved mental health, by staying away from unhealthy substances and by the kind of loving family life that we know massively improves the chances of permanently breaking cycles of violence, poverty, crime and neglect. When you take into account all of those practical effects as well as the brutal reality of the cost of all of those flow-on impacts, well, it's an investment well made.
On Mother's Day, I visited the ladies in the Mercy New Families Program. I can't mention the names of the brave people I met, but I have a message for them: Ladies, I want you to know that I am so proud of your courage to seek a better life for yourselves and for your babies, better lives than you had and better lives than you, until recently, have been having. And I want you to know that with the determination you're already showing I believe you can do anything, including raise your children to be outstanding members of the Australian community and to achieve your most ambitious goals.
It's also timely to salute the team who work with Mercy, who are building stronger communities, lives of dignity and a devotion to leaving our world and this nation a better and more loving place than they found it. To them, I say thank you.
Senate adjourned at 22:32