The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and a return 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:
COVID-19—Select Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 5 pm.
Economics Legislation and References Committees—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Thursday, 17 and 24 June and 5, 12 and 26 August 2021, from 3.30 pm.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1)—
today and Tuesday, 22 June 2021, from 4.30 pm and from 5.30 pm.
Wednesday, 16 and 23 June 2021, from 12.30 pm and from 4.30 pm.
Thursday, 17 June 2021, from 11 am.
Monday, 21 June 2021, from 3.30 pm.
Thursday, 24 June 2021, from 9.45 am and from 11 am.
public meeting on Thursday, 17 June 2021, from 9.45 am.
Foreign Interference through Social Media—Select Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 1 pm.
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), following by public meetings—
today and Tuesday, 22 June 2021, from 4 pm.
Wednesday, 16 and 23 June 2021, from midday.
Thursday, 17 and 24 June 2021, from 3.30 pm.
Job Security—Select Committee—private briefing today, from 4 pm.
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BILLS
Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:01): I rise to move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1117 revised:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
2. Schedule 1, items 1 to 6 |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
2A. Schedule 1, items 7 to 18 |
At the same time as the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Act 2020 commences. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Act 2020 does not commence. |
Before I ask questions of the minister, in particular I want to flag to the chamber that this revised amendment would have the effect of splitting the bill. Effectively, it would allow the chamber to deal with aviation workers without delay but provide time for the government to address the big, gaping hole that sits in this legislation.
The government have provided legislation that purports to deal with the security risks posed by transport workers—not all transport workers of course but those who would seek to use their position to facilitate the importation of drugs and firearms and other illegal activities through our ports and airports. The government have proposed legislation that seeks to enhance security clearances for workers at ports and airports, but they have left a giant, gaping hole. That giant, gaping hole is that the bill does nothing to enhance or strengthen the security clearance process for foreign workers on flag-of-convenience vessels at our maritime ports. This is an issue that was raised previously by the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection and that has been ventilated through Senate inquiries. It is an issue that has been raised multiple times when the government have presented a bill purporting to deal with transport security and organised or serious crime. They did it in 2016, they did it again prior to 2019, and they've got a bill here today that again, for the third time, fails to deal with foreign crew who arrive on flag-of-convenience vessels.
We on this side of the chamber accept that there is a need to deal with the risks posed by organised criminal gangs who have infiltrated airlines and airports. We have seen the revelations in the media about the infiltration. We take with credibility the evidence provided by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission that there are organised criminal gangs that are infiltrating Qantas and that have extraordinarily—from evidence of the ACIC boss, Michael Phelan, on 60 Minutes—infiltrated government agencies. Of course, the community rightly expects this chamber to act upon those reports, so what I make clear to the government and what I make clear to the community is that the Labor Party is seeking to facilitate passage through this parliament of enhanced security checks for aviation workers.
We think the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 proposed by the government is not strong enough. We think the bill proposed by the government has some weaknesses, to be sure. It's a bill that has got the words 'serious crime' in its title, but there's no definition in the bill of 'serious crime'. We think there are issues with this bill because it doesn't have a legislative avenue of appeal. Nonetheless, we are willing to facilitate through the parliament this week the passage of this bill as it relates to aviation workers. Our invitation to the government is—and what this revised amendment represents is an invitation to the government, one I made to the Prime Minister last week, one that I make here today on the floor of the Senate to the government—let's take the time and get it right when it comes to our maritime ports.
What do we know about our maritime ports? We know that our maritime ports are where the great risk lies when it comes to the facilitation of drugs into Australia. We know that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, as it was formerly called, now the Australian Border Force, shared those views with the Senate in 2017. We know that foreign workers on flag-of-convenience vessels can get a security clearance from an Australian maritime port within 24 to 48 hours, but it can take up to three months for an Australian worker to get that same clearance. Why are we putting such stringent requirements on Australian workers but failing to put them on foreign workers? As I outlined in my speech to the Senate when we last addressed this matter, some months ago now when the government last prioritised this bill for debate, we have had multiple incidences of maritime crew from foreign vessels, foreign workers, who have been responsible for or have facilitated the movement of drugs through our maritime ports. This is what this amendment represents, and I invite members of the chamber to have a very close look at it.
In particular, what this amendment does is seek to delay the commencement of the bill as it applies to maritime workers until we have got to a satisfactory proposal from the government or indeed the passage of a private member's bill that I have brought into the Senate to deal with foreign crew from flag-of-convenience vessels. The government may not like the private member's bill that Labor has moved to deal with foreign crew on flag-of convenience-vessels, so I invite the government to come up with their own solution. This is not a political game of 'I have to win, you have to lose'. I think the win that we need here is a win that is in the national interest, is a win that is in the name of stronger border security protection measures and is a win in terms of enhancing security arrangements at our maritime ports.
So I invite the government to consider this amendment. I invite other parties in this chamber to consider this amendment. Now, the government will argue back that the vast majority of maritime crew visa holders do not require unescorted access in maritime security zones. They will say that any seafarer is only required to hold an MSIC if they require unsupervised access to a maritime security zone. They will say that it would impose a significant financial burden on the administration of the scheme for no discernible benefits. But I have to say that if you had listened to the department of immigration in 2017 and if you had listened to the evidence from wharfies and the maritime unions in the Senate inquiries, you would know that foreign crew do not just have unescorted access to ports. They do have unescorted access; any wharfie will tell you that that is the case. The Morrison government have taken their eye off the ball, we contend, when it comes to our ports. We know that foreign crew are allowed to wander around secure areas. My first question to the minister concerns the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's finding in 2017:
… there are features of FOC registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorist groups may seek to exploit.
… … …
Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make FOC ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups.
This means that FOC ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling, and facilitating prohibited imports or exports.
Minister, does the government agree with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's finding?
The CHAIR: I advise the Senate that the revised amendment, on sheet 1117, has been circulated.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:11): In the first instance, what I propose to do is put on record the government's response to the amendment that has been moved by Senator Keneally on sheet 1117. I acknowledge, Senator Keneally, that there has been an amendment to that particular amendment. In the first instance, the government will not be supporting the amendments to the bill in sheet 1117, which I understand would make the commencement of the bill contingent on the passage and commencement of Senator Keneally's private senator's bill, the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020.
As the government does not support the opposition's bill, making the commencement of this bill contingent on the opposition's bill would mean the important measures in this bill would never commence. The government opposes the opposition's bill because it would be an unnecessary replication of processes already in place for maritime crew visas and lead to additional red tape. Before a person is granted a maritime crew visa, they are required under the current migration legislation to have their criminal history assessed and to undergo a security assessment. Requiring a holder of a maritime crew visa to also satisfy the elements of a maritime security identification card background check concerning criminal history and security would replicate requirements that are already considered in the visa application process. Requiring visa holders to comply with the elements of the MSIC scheme would pose a significant financial burden on the maritime crew visa scheme for no discernible benefit. Maritime crew visa holders who do not hold an MSIC are required to be escorted and monitored by an MSIC holder at all times whilst in a restricted zone of a seaport. Any maritime crew visa holder who requires unescorted access to a secure zone at a seaport would be required, like all individuals, to obtain an MSIC and undergo a full background check.
I will also address the calls by the opposition to split the aviation and maritime sections of the bill. I would say to those calls: serious crime is a major threat to the Australian way of life and causes enormous human suffering. Addressing serious crime only in the aviation sector does not address the wider problem. Of the 227 aviation security identification and maritime security identification cardholders of concern to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, 73 per cent are in the maritime sector. By splitting the bill, the vast majority of the cardholders the ACIC has serious concerns over will continue to have unsupervised access to maritime secure areas.
Kilograms of illicit goods enter Australia through airports, but tonnes—I emphasise that—enter in shipping containers through seaports. We must close all entry points to trusted insiders and serious criminals, not just those in the aviation sector; otherwise, organised criminals will continue to exploit Australia's ports. It will also waste time and money by creating completely unnecessarily red tape. It will increase processing times and costs for cardholders. All the time Labor stalls implementing this legislation, more illicit goods are entering Australia and more people are being harmed. Separating the ASIC and MSIC schemes will also mean that those who require both an aviation security identification card and a maritime security identification card will in future have to apply for two separate background checks, increasing both costs and delays to cardholders.
The other issue that Senator Keneally raised when she was addressing the amendment put by the opposition on sheet 1117, as amended, was in relation to foreign maritime workers. Anyone seeking to have unescorted access to secure areas of our airports and seaports needs an aviation security identification card or a maritime security identification card, regardless of their nationality. In making the comments that Senator Keneally did, Labor are deliberately seeking to muddy the waters. There is no Australian government requirement for all Australian seafarers to hold a maritime security identification card. What this card does is ensure the holder has been background checked and allows the holder to be unescorted inside the maritime security zone.
Foreign ships and foreign seafarers must comply with the security measures of Australian ports and port facilities. Foreign seafarers who are employed on non-military ships on international voyages to Australia will hold a maritime crew visa, otherwise known as an MCV. Like all travellers to Australia, applicants for an MCV are subject to a range of character and security checking processes, and an MCV will not be issued to a person who fails the character test or who is identified as a security risk. If an MCV holder required unmonitored access to a maritime security zone, they would be required, like all individuals, to obtain a maritime security identification card and undergo the required background check. MCV holders are not exempt from MSIC requirements. I'm just seeking some further advice, Senator Keneally, in relation to the question that you posed about why foreign seafarers are excluded from this bill. As I've already stated, there is no Australian government requirement for all Australian seafarers to hold a maritime security identification card. Maritime industry participants have the discretion to establish maritime security zones to safeguard their operations. At all security regulated ports and on security regulated ships, any person who does not hold a valid MSIC must be continuously monitored by a current MSIC holder at all times while in maritime security zones.
The government has security arrangements in place to monitor all vessels and personnel entering Australia, and a clear protective security regime for ports and ships underpinned by legislation. The security requirements apply to all vessels which enter Australian waters and ports, irrespective of flag state. Foreign flagged vessels entering Australia must demonstrate compliance with international security standards. Foreign flagged vessels and foreign seafarers must also comply with the security measures of Australian ports and port facilities. Security requirements for maritime transport in Australia are separate from shipping registration and coastal trading licences. That is the information I have on me to date.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (12:21): Let me start by saying, when it comes to national security and serious crime legislation, One Nation will always take a tough stance. So, from the outset, One Nation will support the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill, which deals with serious crime, particularly inside secure areas of our ports and airports. Can I commend the former Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, and his senior adviser, Mark Dominic, for giving me a thorough understanding of this bill. What the member for Dickson has achieved as Minister for Home Affairs will never quite be understood or realised by many Australians, but I, for one, thank him, and it's worth passing on my gratitude to his wife, Kirilly, and young family for the work they also have allowed Mr Dutton to perform in his previous role as Home Affairs minister.
Now to the heart of this bill: Australia has a very serious issue with the importation of illicit drugs and illegal firearms. If you want to know why, it's because Australians pay a higher price for drugs than most other countries across the globe, so it's fair to say the risk of getting caught is worth the financial reward in far too many cases. To give you an example, here in Australia a gram of cocaine sells for at least $300, whereas in the Netherlands it's less than $60 a gram and, worse still, in South Africa they're paying $32. When drug dealers are buying it for $3.50 a gram in Colombia and selling it for $300 or more here in Australia, they are making enormous profits that unfortunately help buy illegal favours from people in trusted and secure positions within our ports and airports.
I have seen the volume of drugs coming into this country firsthand, thanks to the AFP. I have been in the belly of one of the Australian Federal Police drug vaults, which, that day, was carrying over $5 billion worth of illicit drugs seized by officers—drugs which would have otherwise have been up the noses and in the arms of someone's children here in Australia. You don't forget the pungent stench of chemicals when you walk into a police drug vault, nor do you forget the sight of plastic wrapped bricks of cocaine stacked in aisles similar to an Aldi store. Honestly, there was more white powder and ice in that vault than on the slopes of Thredbo. I can only paint the picture, but this is what's being broken down and peddled on streets by scumbags who don't give a damn about the carnage they're creating throughout society. Suicide, relationship and family breakdowns, mental illness, addiction, antisocial behaviour, sex crimes, unemployment—the list goes on and on. Drugs are a scourge on society whichever way you look at it. Anyone who advocates for the decriminalisation of illicit drugs needs to spend a night on the frontline with police, ambulance and nursing staff who are having to deal with the psychotic symptoms they bring out in users.
Most Australians, when they've taken a domestic or international flight, would have seen an ASIC card around the necks of pilots, crew members and airport workers. They're a red-dot photo ID card that provides access to all of the secure areas of an airport. An MSIC card provides the same level of security clearance for our ports; the only difference is that they're blue. What's happening is that, despite the assessment by ASIO and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, who look at someone's criminal history, these cards are still being issued to people who police know have an extremely close affiliation with known or previously convicted drug dealers, terrorists and other serious criminals. As the law stands today, any Australian could have an El Chapo- or Osama bin Laden-type character renting a spare room in their home and still make an application for an MSIC or ASIC card, and there's nothing authorities can do to prevent the security access card being granted. It's a cosy loophole that criminals have exploited for far too long, and I'm pleased to say that it ends today. If you want to shack up with criminals, don't expect to maintain clearance to secure ports and airports across Australia. It's as simple as that.
For Labor to deny passage of this bill today tells me that Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Party prefer supporting organised crime gangs more than getting serious about cutting the supply of illicit drugs and illegal guns on our streets. I recognise the unions have concerns with this bill—I've listened to you—but we cannot continue protecting this very small cohort of union members. The vast majority of union members want this cleaned up as much as anyone in the public, so it's time to get rid of the one per cent or fewer who give unions a bad name. The unions talk a big game about the importance of safety on job sites—well, this is a safety mechanism we parliamentarians are implementing to better safeguard our nation's children, their members' children and broader society from the scourge of drugs and illegal firearms. Again, I reiterate One Nation's strong support for this bill.
On a side note, I congratulate the Federal Police on their more recent sting, which shocked the criminal world as much as the tech world, with their AN0M app. This was a stroke of genius that originated here in Australia and penetrated the heart of some of the worst criminal activity here at home and across the globe. Operation Ironside saw 224 people charged, 3,700 kilos of drugs taken off Australia's streets, $45 million in cash seized, 20 murder plots foiled and 72 firearms and weapons seized.
We have the advantage of being an island nation, which gives this parliament and authorities the upper hand in preventing illegal drugs and firearms flooding our streets, unlike many other countries across the globe. Today's Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 will go a step further in shutting down criminal activity within Australia. I commend the bill.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:27): I thank the minister for her answer. I say to Senator Hanson, just to correct the record: Labor have not said they are opposing the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. What we have said is we're actually here to facilitate the passage of the aviation portion, and that we are in fact seeking to strengthen the bill by providing appropriate security clearances for foreign crew on flag-of-convenience vessels. I don't know whether Senator Hanson heard me earlier, but those crew can get a clearance in less than 24 hours, whereas for an Australian worker it sometimes can take up to three months to get a clearance. We think there's a disparity there; a gaping hole that needs to be closed. That's what our amendments are seeking to do. I would hope that senators in the chamber would have a listen to the debate. It is an important one.
I thank the minister for her answers. She didn't particularly directly answer my question about the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's finding in 2017 that, in fact, foreign crew on flag-of-convenience vessels do pose a serious risk in terms of organised crime syndicates and terrorists, and that there are features of flag-of-convenience registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit. Those aren't my words; those were the words of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2017. Since 2017 I can see no change the government has made to security clearances for foreign crew.
So I come back to my original question. I thank the minister for all her previous answers, but my question was: does the government agree with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's 2017 finding:
There are features of flag of convenience registration, regulation and practice that organized crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:30): The instructions that I have are as follows: 'All individuals accessing a secure area or zone of a regulated port must have a valid MSIC'—as it is known—'or must be escorted or continuously monitored by an MSIC holder whether they are foreign or Australian workers. Foreign ships entering Australia must demonstrate compliance with international security standards. Foreign ships and foreign seafarers must also comply with the security measures of Australian ports and port facilities. An MSIC ensures the holder has been background checked and allows the holder to be unescorted inside a maritime security zone. The schemes are designed to ensure persons, both Australians and foreigners, who require unescorted access to the secure areas of certain security controlled airports and security regulated ports are subject to an appropriate background check. The introduction of the bill will strengthen the ASIC and MSIC schemes to ensure that we prevent individuals who pose a high criminal risk, both Australians and foreigners, from holding a card, which is consistent with the findings of a range of parliamentary reviews.'
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:31): I might raise a particular case and seek to see if the minister, in the context of that answer, can explain it. It's on the Sage Sagittarius and its master, Captain Salas. In 2012 he became a person of interest in the New South Wales coroner's investigation into three highly suspicious deaths aboard the Sage Sagittarius. Captain Salas admitted to the coroner that he was involved in gun trafficking and trading in alcohol. Despite that evidence in front of the New South Wales coroner, the Liberal government allowed Captain Salas back into Australian waters in December 2015 as master of the Kypros Sea. His ship travelled between a number of Australian ports, primarily Gladstone and Weipa, in early 2016. Can the minister explain in the context of the answers she's just given about the stringent controls and checking that's applied to foreign crew why Captain Salas was allowed back into Australian workers and Australian ports after the evidence he'd provided to the New South Wales coroner?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:33): I can advise as follows: the MG Sage Sagittarius is a Panama flagged bulk carrier owned and operated by NYK Line. Venancio Salas Jr was the captain of the vessel. There were three suspicious deaths on board the vessel. There are also allegations that Captain Salas was involved in the illegal sale and transport of firearms.
At the time, there were no known character or security concerns in regard to Captain Salas. As the relevant authorities were not aware of the character or security concerns regarding Captain Salas, an MSIC application would not have picked these up. Now that the concerns regarding Captain Salas's behaviour have come to light, these will be taken into account on any future applications. The government cannot speculate about any application that may have been lodged or pre-empt any future decisions. However, the government can confirm that the testimony of Captain Salas during the coronial inquest, specifically any admissions to selling firearms to his crew as well as penal certificates from any country Captain Salas has resided in for longer than 12 months over the age of 16 years in the last 10 years, other adverse information and any character references supplied, can be considered. There is no disputing that Captain Salas was a genuine seafarer. He had a long history of travelling into and out of Australia as the captain or crew member of non-military vessels. Whilst we can't comment on individual cases, we can confirm that people with similar character concerns to Captain Salas may be prevented from being granted a visa due to these concerns.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (12:35): First, I want to lend my support to the comments made by Senator Kristina Keneally. But I also want to go to what the government should be considering with regard to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. The government pretends to be tough on borders and tough on crime, when in reality it's left a huge gaping hole in our national ports. Foreign seafarers are excluded entirely from security measures in this bill. Australians working at ports are forced to wait up to three months just to renew their maritime security identification card. But the crew of foreign vessels that use flag-of-convenience registration to flagrantly avoid tax and regulations can waltz into Australia with as little as 24 hours notice. That's correct: three months for checks for an Australian port worker; 24 hours for a foreign crew member on a ship registered in Liberia, Panama or Russia. How can the AFP or our intelligence agencies do a comprehensive background check on the entire crews of foreign vessels in 24 hours? As the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection told the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in 2017:
There are features of FOC registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit.
… … …
Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make FOC ships—
flag-of-convenience ships—
more attractive for use in illegal activity including by organised crime or terrorist groups.
This means that the FOC ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling, and facilitating prohibited imports or exports.
That quote is the government's own bureaucrats saying four years ago that foreign vessels are prime targets for organised crime and terrorist groups.
Foreign vessels are the express lane for trafficking people and people smugglers, and the Morrison government is keeping that express lane wide open. The Morrison government is also keeping that lane wide open for terrorists. The world was horrified by the explosion in Beirut, Lebanon, on 4 August last year. The blast caused 207 deaths, over 7,500 injuries and US$15 billion in property damage. It was one of the most powerful non-nuclear blasts in human history and was felt and heard hundreds of kilometres away. Lebanon's interior minister said the blast was a store of 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate blowing up. The ammonium nitrate had been seized from a Russian ship, the MV Rhosus. In Australia, in 2020 alone, 18 voyages of foreign flagged ships carried that same material, ammonium nitrate, on domestic routes. They were mostly long voyages between Western Australia and our east coast ports. Those ships carried up to 6,500 tonnes of ammonium nitrate per voyage, more than double the volume which led to the tragedy of Beirut, and the foreign crews on those flag-of-convenience vessels carrying what is effectively 6,500 tonne bombs into our ports in Australia are waved through our borders on as little as 24 hours notice. At the same time an Australian port worker could be forced to wait three months for their MSIC to be renewed.
We've been fortunate in Australia that the Morrison government's negligence on national security matters has not resulted in disaster and tragedy. In 2014 a truck hauling just 50 tonnes of ammonium nitrate rolled on a highway 30 kilometres south of Charleville, Queensland. Thankfully no-one was killed, but a secondary explosion injured eight, 'disintegrated' the truck, destroyed two firefighting vehicles and caused catastrophic damage to the Mitchell Highway. That was just 50 tonnes. We've seen the grave consequences of 2,750 tonnes in Beirut, but we're talking about 6,500 tonnes, which is what flag-of-convenience vessels are carrying in our ports with just 24 hours notice. The consequences are unimaginable.
The Morrison government has been warned of this danger for years. The Maritime Union of Australia, the MUA, has been particularly vocal about the threat that this gaping hole in our national security poses. After Beirut, in August last year, MUA National Secretary Paddy Crumlin said:
The porous and substandard level of background checks on foreign workers through the Maritime Crew Visa—which is issued electronically without background checks—is completely inadequate and inappropriate for such high consequence cargoes.
Mr Crumlin went on to say:
Last year, 85,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate moved through the Port of Newcastle alone—30 times the amount that devastated Beirut—posing a significant threat to safety.
The Australian Government must urgently tighten shipping regulations to ensure dangerous goods are carried on vessels that are registered in Australia and crewed by Australian seafarers who have undergone appropriate training and security checks.
That is correct; 85,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate moved through the Port of Newcastle in 2019 alone. The Morrison government is fully aware of this. The Prime Minister was playing politics last week with national security at his press conference. In reality it's the Prime Minister who is playing fast and loose with our security. Ammonium nitrate has previously been used in terrorist attacks. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 demolished the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building with just 2,200 kilograms of ammonium nitrate.
There is a reason we have serious background checks and security qualifications for workers in the aviation and maritime industries. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection said that flag-of-convenience vessels are attractive for terrorists and organised crime. The opposition has put forward amendments that would ensure that foreign crews are subject to background checking similar to that of Australian workers, so why is the Morrison government persisting with a bill that discriminates against Australian workers and doesn't elevate everybody to the great security challenges? This leaves ports open to organised criminals operating through flag-of-convenience vessels and leaves Australia's borders wide open to terrorist attacks that could be of a scale similar to—or even larger than—the devastating accident in Beirut.
It was reported by the Geelong Advertiser this morning that two crew members of the Chinese ship Glorious Plumeria, registered in Panama,have snuck through security and are currently at large. These two crew members would have received their visas with as little as 24 hours notice, so the government doesn't know anything about their background. The most likely explanation is that these two are just ill-treated crew members, as exploitation is rampant through flag-of-convenience vessels, but the fact is that, if the crew members can waltz into Australia without security checks, so can terrorists and so can organised criminals. The Morrison government is tough on the Biloela family—two young girls have been locked up on Christmas Island—while being soft on flag-of-convenience vessels, soft on organised crime and soft on terrorists waltzing into Australia without background checks. Minister, why does the bill force Australian workers to wait up to three months to renew their MSIC while foreign crews remain able to waltz across our borders without background checks and with just 24 hours notice?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:44): There does appear to have been a conflation of two issues in the comments that have been made by those opposite. In the first instance I will deal with the comment that it takes 24 to 48 hours to process an MCV application but up to three months for an MSIC application. What I can say to you in that regard, Senator Sheldon, is as follows: while an MCV can be granted in 48 hours, it is important to note that the MSIC and MCV schemes operate for two different purposes and undertake different checks, hence my comment that there appear to be comments made that indicate there is not quite an understanding of what the two schemes are actually doing—a conflation of the issues.
The MSIC scheme operates for the purpose of access to security zones, whilst the MCV operates for the purpose of immigration entry and stay rights. Where a foreign seafarer requires unsupervised access to a maritime security zone, they must have an MCV and an MSIC. Any evidence of people accessing a maritime security zone without holding an MSIC, or being supervised by an MSIC holder, should obviously be reported to the department for investigation. What I can also say in relation to the processing times, though, is this: during the 2020 calendar year, AusCheck processed within 15 business days 85 per cent of ASIC and MSIC applications received.
Can I also address some of the comments made basically in relation to foreign seafarers being excluded from the bill. There is no Australian government requirement for all Australian seafarers to hold an MSIC. Maritime industry participants have the discretion to establish maritime security zones to safeguard their operations. At all security regulated ports and on security regulated ships, any person who does not hold a valid MSIC must be continuously monitored by a current MSIC holder at all times while in maritime security zones. The government has security arrangements in place to monitor all vessels and personnel entering Australia and has a clear protective security regime for ports and ships, underpinned by legislation. The security requirements apply to all vessels which enter Australian waters and ports, irrespective of flag state. Foreign flagged vessels entering Australia must demonstrate compliance with international security standards. Foreign flagged vessels and foreign seafarers must also comply with the security measures of Australian ports and port facilities. Security requirements for maritime transport in Australia are separate from shipping registration and coastal trading licences.
Senator Sheldon, you also raised in your comments that the new rules mean that we're treating Australian workers more harshly—I'm probably paraphrasing you here—than foreign workers on flag-of-convenience vessels, and why should Australian workers be under more scrutiny than foreign workers? What I can say to you is that I'm instructed as follows. All individuals accessing a secure area or zone of a regulated port must have a valid MSIC or must be escorted or continuously monitored by an MSIC holder, whether they are foreign or Australian workers. Foreign ships entering Australia must demonstrate compliance with international security standards. Foreign ships and foreign seafarers must also comply with the security measures of Australian ports and port facilities. An MSIC ensures that the holder has been background checked and allows the holder to be unescorted inside a maritime security zone.
The schemes are designed to ensure persons, both Australians and foreigners, who require unescorted access to the secure areas of certain security controlled airports and security regulated ports are subject to an appropriate background check. As I've stated in previous comments, the introduction of the bill will strengthen the ASIC and MSIC schemes to ensure that we prevent individuals who pose a high criminal risk, both Australians and foreigners—to go to the point you have raised in your comments—from holding a card, which is consistent with the findings of a range of parliamentary reviews.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:50): I want to go back to Captain Salas. I thank the minister for her answer. I may be paraphrasing her, but it seemed to be that the government was unaware of the issues around Captain Salas when he returned in December 2015. I quote from News Corp papers on 11 April 2016, which reported that a Senate inquiry into foreign shipping heard, in response to a question from Queensland Nationals senator Barry O'Sullivan:
The Department of Border Protection confirmed it had "holdings" on Capt Salas since December 24, 1994 – 17 years and eight months before a spate of fatalities occurred on the Sagittarius, now known as the "Death Ship".
I also note that Captain Salas had been wanted for questioning by the coroner as a result of the 2012 murders. Is the minister really telling this parliament that the department had no information that said Captain Salas should not be given permission to come back into Australian ports?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:52): Thank you, Senator Keneally. I seek further instructions from you in relation to the comments you've put to me. I don't have them in front of me, unfortunately, to verify exactly what was being said. Again, all I can say to you is this, in terms of the instructions that I have been given: at the time, there were no known character or security concerns in regard to Captain Salas. As relevant authorities were not aware of the character or security concerns regarding Captain Salas, an MSIC application would not have picked these up. As I also said to you in my comments, now that the concerns regarding Captain Salas's behaviour have come to light, these will be taken into account on any future visa applications. As I've already said, obviously the government can't speculate about any application that may have been lodged or pre-empt any future decisions. Again, the government can confirm that the testimony of Captain Salas during the coronial inquest, specifically any admissions to selling firearms to his crew, as well as any penal certificates from any country Captain Salas has resided in for longer than 12 months, over the age of 16 years, in the last 10 years, other adverse information and any character references supplied can now be considered.
Again, just for the Hansard record: there is no disputing that Captain Salas was a genuine seafarer. He had a long history of travelling in and out of Australia as the captain or a crew member of non-military vessels. While we can't comment on individual cases, we can confirm that people with character concerns similar to those of Captain Salas may be prevented from being granted a visa due to these concerns. That's the information I have at this point in time.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:54): I'm happy for us to get the transcript of the evidence provided by Border Force officials that they had holdings on Captain Salas going back to 1994 and that they had boarded his ship several times. I will quote LNP senator Barry O'Sullivan, who said in this same Senate hearing:
This is not going to end here for me … you have left me once more very concerned about the security arrangements in your agencies, if someone like Captain Salas does not qualify for a red flag. You might not want to know, but I suspect that ordinary Australians would want to know when the Salases of the world are in our ports … G-U-N-S—I do not give a rat's arse where they are coming from or where they are going. We need to know when these sort of people are in our company.
I apologise for the language, but that is the language used by former Senator O'Sullivan in relation to Captain Salas.
What I would say to people who may be watching at home is: this is not just about Captain Salas; he is but one example of the point that Senator Sheldon and I and others on this side of the chamber are trying to make, which is that, when the government says that there is some kind of thorough check of foreign crew, that there is some kind of process that flags the character issues or the other issues, I can't take that at face value. We have the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2017 telling this Senate that the regulation around flag-of-convenience vessels and foreign crew has holes and gaps in it that allow for the importation of drugs or for terrorist activities. We have an example—just one—in Captain Salas, who has been wanted by the New South Wales coroner for questioning for some time. According to the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection, this is someone whom they have had holdings on—those are their words—since 1994. They have boarded his ships multiple times. They indicated in this hearing that they had concerns about him, yet he gets to come back and go to Gladstone and Weipa.
These are the issues that we're flagging—that the maritime crew visa checking process is not thorough enough. If we couldn't take the word of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2017, whose word are we going to take? We need to take the advice of our national security agencies closely. We need to take heed of it, and that is what this amendment seeks to do. Our view is that this bill is a good step, but it is not strong enough; hence, our invitation to the government to either accept our amendment or come up with one of their own, or a process of their own, to deal with foreign workers to strengthen the requirements. I've now heard the minister say several times that when foreign crew get off the ship they cannot access areas without being supervised, without someone with an MSIC. But the evidence we have now heard throughout multiple inquiries is that that is simply not the case. Talk to any wharfie; you will know that that is not how things work in practice.
Let's see if we can tackle it from another side. Minister, how many people would typically be in a crew on a foreign vessel? How are those crew supervised when they get off the vessel? How many would be doing the supervision while they're in a secure area?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:58): I apologise, Senator Keneally; I was listening to your comments in relation to what I had put on the record and I want to make it clear that, if there is any evidence at all of people accessing areas that they shouldn't be accessing—that allegations are not just being made here in the Senate—I hope that reports are being provided to the relevant officials so that they can be properly investigated. I'm quite sure that you would've asked whoever has given you that information to pass it on to the relevant investigators so that they can actually undertake any investigations.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:58): Thank you; however, my question was: how many people would typically be in a foreign crew on a ship and accessing the ports, how are those crew supervised when they get off their vessel, and how many people would supervise crew when they're in a secure area?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:59): I am advised that it will actually depend on the circumstances of the particular vessel at a particular point in time.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:59): Is there any mandated ratio—one to five, one to 20, one to fifty? Does the minister have any information she can provide along those lines?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:59): I am advised there is no mandated ratio.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:59): Do they have to be physically supervised, or could that supervision occur via a security camera?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:59): I am advised that the regulations require the person to be constantly supervised.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:00): Could this constant supervision happen via a security camera?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:00): I am advised that that would depend on the circumstances.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:00): So it could happen via a security camera. Could the security camera operator be located outside of Australia?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:00): I am instructed that the answer is no.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (13:00): I want to put on the record, given that we are back here talking about the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 again, that I don't know how many times since I've been in the Senate we have been discussing this bill, and basically nothing has changed. The Greens remain opposed to this bill. It is a flawed bill. It has been developed with a flawed process. People have been raising concerns about this bill for the last four years, and the government haven't listened to them.
Obviously, issues of organised crime in our ports and our airports are really, really serious. It's something that we need to get right. This bill, as my Labor colleagues have been pointing out, is incredibly flawed when it comes to our maritime ports, in that it's an overly onerous, overly restrictive process for Australian seafarers which does not apply to foreign seafarers, who are much more likely, because of the conditions that they work in, to be potentially part of organised crime networks. What the minister has been saying today is that things are fine because these seafarers are supervised and because there are maritime security zones which can be established. Clearly, this isn't what happens in reality. Clearly, we have massive gaps in our maritime security that are not being addressed by this bill. Yet, at the same time, there are overly onerous restrictions. It can be months before a seafarer manages to get their MSIC reviewed. And for what purpose? It is not solving the issue of the massive gaps in our port security processes.
With regard to the differences between our airports and our seaports, the Greens are happy to support Labor's proposal today to split the bill. There are different circumstances. But we think that, as far as aviation workers go, this bill is also flawed. There are also issues which have been raised by the Transport Workers Union with the totally opaque process as to whether somebody gets issued with an ASIC, the lack of review and the lack of accountability, if somebody is denied an ASIC, as to why that's the case.
These issues have not been addressed, and they have been on the table, as I said, for four years now. Yet the government just reckon that they are just going to push it through. They're just going to ride roughshod over the interests of workers. Basically you just raise the issue of security and that's meant to make us all say: 'Oh, okay. This is how it has to happen.' But no. You can have a difference between having a problem and what solution you apply to that problem. If we have a problem with our maritime security and our aviation security, with organised crime and drugs coming into the country, then, yes, we need to deal with it. But we do not need to deal with it in the way that has been outlined in this bill, which has many totally unwarranted impacts on workers.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:04): Minister, with the greatest of respect, I know you're repping for the portfolio at the moment, but I think it's integral that we have a little bit of a history lesson for your good self so you can find out exactly what happened with the Sage Sagittarius and Captain Salas. I was the chair of the committee through the whole inquiry. I had the pleasure of sitting next to Senator Barry O'Sullivan when that evidence came out from border security. You don't have to apologise to me, Senator Keneally, about the language because I've worked closely with Barry O'Sullivan and I dearly miss Senator O'Sullivan.
But on that: what we do know is that the Sage Sagittarius is a Japanese owned vessel. We do know—and, forgive me, I can't give the dates because there's a bit going on up here in my brain cells at the moment—Minister Cash, that coming into Newcastle I think it was, one of the sailors on board the ship mysteriously fell overboard. He was missing when it came into port. So one had gone overboard on the way in and then just hours outside Newcastle or wherever it was, one fell down into the hull and was killed. So we had one sailor missing and one killed.
When it got to port, the Japanese owners—and this is all on the record—actually put an undercover detective from Japan onto the Sage Sagittarius before it sailed from our waters. This undercover detective mysteriously fell into the conveyor belt when the ship berthed in Japan to unload. So we have two deaths, as Senator Rice would remember—and as would those of us who were involved in this—and we have one missing overboard. Minister, with the of greatest respect—I'm not blaming you—but your colleague Minister Dutton know exactly every little detail around this sordid issue in our maritime history. Minister Dutton, his officers and advisers at the time know every single, miserable, sordid detail about this death ship.
I'm not pointing to the officers—the crew in the box—with you; I'm going back to Minister Dutton. I'm saying that there are so many mistruths and things which have not been owned up to. You're the poor devil who's carrying the can to get the legislation through. It's a shame that Minister Dutton doesn't reside in this house, because I'd love to see him turn the same colour as the walls in here when the truths are put to him—to see if he could wriggle out of them. I stand by every word I say in this chamber.
Also—and this is a very important part, Minister, which I feel so sorry for you for because your colleague has led you down a dead-end street here—we have to understand that Captain Salas was of interest. As Senator Keneally stated clearly, and as did Senator Sheldon, Captain Salas clearly owned up to gun running and alcohol running. There's no issue about that. Captain Salas sailed off into the sunset, and I know that when the New South Wales coroner's report was on, when they were actually in the courtroom—and, Minister Cash, you've been in courtrooms more than I have; probably me as the witness and you as the prosecutor. I'm saying that because I've always stood up for truckies, I don't care what happens! Where was I? Oh, yes: they couldn't lay charges on Captain Salas because nobody knew where Captain Salas was, except one person. The Australian Federal Police didn't know where Captain Salas was. The New South Wales police didn't know where Captain Salas was. Border protection and immigration didn't know where Captain Salas was. I don't know if they even asked ASIO—I have no idea! I'm saying who I know who didn't know. But there was one very, very sharp, intelligent person, a man by the name of Owen Jacques. He was a reporter for one of the News Corp rags on the Sunshine Coast. Owen rang me here in this building to tell me that he was in the New South Wales courtroom, listening to proceedings. They went to smoko on the proviso that they probably wouldn't come back because they couldn't find Captain Salas.
Owen Jacques went up to the prosecutor in New South Wales and said: 'Guess what, cobber, I know where he is! He's coming into Gladstone tomorrow.' I can't remember the name of the ship; Senator Keneally named it earlier. Captain Salas was coming—can you believe this stuff? You can't write a Hollywood series that goes this badly. He's sailing in, and it's not his first trip—he had come on other ones. But Owen Jacques had the register. It wasn't spooksville: it wasn't stolen from the headquarters up on Russell Street with ASIO. He had it off the internet. Here comes Captain Salas—oh! All of a sudden the place went into a whiz and they got Captain Salas. There you go.
So, Minister, while the advisers can only work on what they're being told, I think someone needs to take a back step really quickly and get back to the chameleon—and I'm not going to apologise for this, unless you pull me up—being Minister Dutton, who has managed to wriggle out of all responsibility here. They knew every single thing that went on exactly. I think there needs to be some real soul searching if you're going to be providing—not to the decent advisers in the box. You poor devils. You only got what you got from Dutton's office previously setting everyone up here. Be very careful what you say. Be very careful how you answer these questions. They're in Hansard. There are a lot of people who are going to follow this up. On saying that, I hope that has painted a far better picture for you, Minister. I can tell you now, when you have the information 24 hours, or if you're lucky 48 hours, offshore, when a captain sends an email to whoever it is to say, 'These are the people I've got on board'—it's actually the shipper that's supposed to be doing it but he's got to get it from somewhere—I can categorically guarantee that all the faces on the passports will match the face of the character that's holding the passport given. That's not a problem. The name will be the same. It will probably have something else that says that's who he or she is. I've got a couple of questions here. When that email comes through to the powers to be to say that we're doing our background checks, just walk me through what happens when whoever it is gets that list to say they can come in. Help me out there, Minister.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:11): Thank you, Senator Sterle, for noting that I was not part of the inquiry et cetera. This was done some time ago. I can't add anything further to what you've put on the table. All I can say is the instructions that I have in front of me are at the time there were no known security or character concerns with regard to Captain Salas. As relevant authorities were not aware of character or security concerns regarding Captain Salas an MSIC application would not have picked those up. So I can't at this point in time add anything further to answers that I've previously given.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:11): Thank you, Minister Cash. So now the powers to be who are going to let these people come in on this ship—whatever it may be—have a list of names in front of them. What do they do with that list?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:12): Again, Senator Sterle, there does seem to have be a conflation of two issues here. I understand that the people that you're referring to would actually go through the maritime crew visa as opposed to the MSIC. They operate as two separate schemes depending on the reason you're coming into the country.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:12): Minister, there is no confliction here. We're talking about tightening up our border controls. We're talking about whatever we can do—which Labor fully supports. How can we stop the influx of illegal drugs coming into our nation? There's no argument. What's left for you to do, Senator Keneally? Would it be like a scene from Life of Brian where you have to paint it 100 times on the Parliament House walls—very clear what you've made there. What we are saying, with no confliction of getting our things mixed up here, is that it is not Australians who are bringing these drugs into our shores. If this government—and I accuse this government of all being smoke and mirrors. I accuse you of being half—I nearly said half arsed; that was lucky—interested in trying to pursue the sheriffs at the gate to stop drugs coming in. I go back to this: when you have a list, the powers to be, that says, 'These are the seafarers, this is the captain, these are the cooks and everything else on the ship', what and who does what with that list?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:13): Senator Sterle, I can provide you with the following information: like all travellers to Australia applicants for an MCV are subject to a range of character and security checking processes and an MCV will not be issued to a person who fails the character test or who is identified as a security risk. I can also provide you with the following information: all crew departing a vessel are required to disembark at an appointed port where there is an Australian Border Force presence. The ABF will conduct an assessment against all vessels. Any risks identified will be treated appropriately. This includes physical checks and other compliance activities. Vessels may request permission to arrive at a non-appointed port without ABF presence. This will only be approved by the ABF if the risk can be managed or the ABF can attend in person. All appointed first ports of entry have facilities to conduct immigration clearance. Vessels are required to enter Australia at an appointed first port of entry where ABF and Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment biosecurity checks can be completed. In circumstances where the ABF or biosecurity grant permission to a vessel to attend a non-appointed port, both agencies will ensure appropriate arrangements or facilities are available to undertake required checks.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:15): Thank you, Minister. That was long and drawn out. I appreciate what you've just read into the Senate record, but I also remember what was put to the Senate inquiry, which contradicts a lot of those statements where that doesn't happen. But I'll come back to my original question. Sorry, my shorthand is not that good, but you did say, when this magical list of 'who's on my ship' comes to whoever it may be—ABF, I believe. Have ABF got that list? Okay. You said ABF go through a range of—what was the word you used? I'm sorry, I couldn't get it down.
Senator Cash: Assessment.
Senator STERLE: What does that assessment involve?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:16): At this point in time, the department are getting me further information, but, in terms of the ABF's assessment, it is conducted against all vessels, and, as I've stated, any risks identified are treated appropriately. This includes the physical checks and also other compliance activities. Vessels, as I've said, may request permission to arrive at a non-appointed port without ABF presence, but this will only be approved by the ABF if the risks associated with that—which is what you seem to be going to—can be managed or the ABF can attend in person.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:17): What I am trying to go to is this—and please free feel to pull me up if I'm wrong. A list goes to the ABF, and the ABF run it through whatever they do. Am I right to believe that, if no red flags come up, it's business as usual?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:17): I'm instructed that, on the basis of what you've said—that no red flags come up—the answer is yes, that would be correct.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:17): I'm led to believe this is the process for every entry of every foreign vessel into our nation—is this correct?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:17): I'm instructed that that would be correct.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:17): On saying that, Minister, I go back to when you said, through your notes there, that nobody had any interest in Captain Salas even though Captain Salas had lost one person overboard; two people had been mysteriously killed on his vessel, one an undercover Japanese detective engaged by the owners; and one person had confessed to him to gun running. I forget the time line; I think it was 2.15 or something like that. All that happened and yet Captain Salas continued to sail into Gladstone and Weipa, and no-one could find him. I don't know if I've missed something, but should there not have been one of these magical emails saying: 'Here I am. Here's the crew. In I come'?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): Minister? Senator Sterle.
Senator STERLE: Minister, I find that bitterly disappointing. I find that the height of hypocrisy when we're discussing a bill that goes to 'clamping down on crims and drugs coming into our nation'. I asked a simple question of the minister and the department officials, or the ministerial officials sitting there. You're pushing a bill down the throat of this Senate on falsehoods. The minister can stand at the table and read her notes—I'm not blaming the minister; she's just parroting them—and tell me: 'Nothing gets past us. We would know. There was nothing on Captain Salas.' I have just laid out what I know, what the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in the Senate knows, and what all of us who have sat there know—and, Senator Sheldon, thank goodness you've joined us in the last couple of years too. I asked a very simple question on national security, and I stand here gobsmacked that I'm now to be shut down, pushed off; that hopefully I'll go away; that maybe the tucker bell will ring and I forgot to pick up my pie and it will be all over by the time I get back.
I'm giving you the opportunity, Minister, to please either correct the record or put someone in a headlock in the adviser's box and send them upstairs. I cannot let go of the fact that I asked a very simple question. I outlined my concerns and you very clearly answered them: 'Every list that comes off that vessel, whether it be 48 hours or 24 hours, nothing gets past us.' The ABF have their assessments and their range of whatever it was that you said, yet Captain Salas had two years—or two voyages, or whatever it was—in which someone mysteriously fell overboard, two people were murdered on the vessel and there was a confession to gun running. Two years later, Owen Jacques, a reporter with News Corp, brings to my attention that it's not Salas's first trip and that he's coming into Gladstone, as Senator Keneally clearly outlined: Gladstone, Weipa, there are a couple of things. I ask a simple question and, Minister, you can't answer. You are far more intelligent than the persona you've just portrayed to me. You know I always give credit where credit is due. I said very clearly that the chameleon in this place is in another portfolio at the moment. That whole office knows darn well every secret—every dirty, filthy and sordid detail—of this shocking bit of our maritime history. Yet no-one can give me an honest answer.
I say to the people of Australia and I say to the crossbench—I don't have to say it to the Greens or Labor, because we've got it—please get me by the nose and take me in a direction that tells me I've got this wrong—'you' being the LNP Morrison government; we'll forget the dopey Nat half—that this is a massive plus to stop criminality and the influx of illicit drugs coming through our ports. I'm not even talking about aviation. There may be the odd stupid idiot who tries to smuggle something through in an envelope or their bags, but both you and I know, as does everyone in this building, that these drugs are coming on foreign flagged vessels crewed by foreign captains and exploited foreign seafarers.
There's a terrible exploitation of the temporary voyage permit in this nation. When Mr Howard was the Prime Minister and this nonsense first started: if you couldn't find an Australian flagged vessel, you'd go and find a foreign vessel, 'because we've got to move the freight'. We dopey ones thought, 'That sounds fair; we don't want to stop productivity in this nation,' when we should have realised that was the thin edge of the exploitation. We had 95 Australian flagged vessels when Mr Howard was the Prime Minister. Do you know how many we have now? 13.
I asked a very simple question: should every single Australian believe the Morrison LNP government says, 'Nothing gets past us; we know who's coming to these shores. We get a list'? How wrong could you be? 'We get a list, and not only that but it's an email list and it's come to us from 48 hours earlier. Guess what? There were no red flags.' No red flags? You couldn't even find a confessed gun runner who had been working on our shores, in and out, for two years. Who the hell's feet do I lay the blame at? Should I stand here and belittle the poor devils trying to make this crap ball work at the ABF or the Australian Federal Police? No. I think they do a magnificent job. But this government comes in here to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people, and you dare go out there and you attack Labor: that we're soft on drug importers because we want to do this properly. You bag us, because we're saying, 'If you're fair dinkum, go all the way.' How can you convince the Australian public that when you stand up there and say you're strong on drugs and you're strong on crime, and then this side of the parliament, Labor and the Greens, and some of the crossbenchers, say, 'Good. Flow that toughness on to the foreign seafarers, the foreign captains, the exploited ones and the ones who may not have had a red flag in 48 hours'?
After all the work I've done on this committee in 16 years—I've sat on eight inquiries into maritime—do you think I'm going to be fooled? Do you think the Australian people are going to be fooled because you people gave us a nod and a wink?
So I will ask one more time, Minister. I will give you the opportunity now that hopefully there's been a flurry of paperwork around. Can you please explain to the Senate and to the good people of Australia how the hell you could look us in the eye and tell us that there were no red flags on Captain Salas, two years after one of his crew went overboard, two years after two deaths on the same voyage, on the Sage Sagittarius—that he's coming to our shores and you don't know?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:25): Thank you, Senator Sterle, for those comments. Unfortunately, all I can say is that I have actually answered those questions. I don't have anything additional I can present to you that would build on my previous comments. What I would say is that I think this government has shown time and time again that we are committed to keeping Australia and Australians safe.
In terms of the particular bill that we have before us today, this is all about preventing—and you've referred to it—serious criminal influence and activity from occurring at our security controlled airports, seaports and offshore facilities. What we've seen, particularly just last week with Operation Ironside, which gained global media attention, is that organised criminals are taking advantage where they can, and the Morrison government is doing everything it can to stop them. Serious crime, as you've acknowledged, is a major threat to our way of life. In fact, the figure that I have been given is that it costs Australia more than $47 billion a year. Again, as you articulated, it causes enormous human suffering. Our airports and seaports are vectors for the importation of illicit substances and weapons, as you referred to in your contribution to the Senate. That is why the government has introduced this particular piece of legislation to ensure that Australia's transport security sector is no longer a safe haven for serious criminal activity.
We've had a number of years now to consider this legislation. What we are calling on Labor to do today is show that you will join with us to show the Australian people that you are also serious about stopping organised crime by supporting the timely passage of this bill through the Australian Senate. As Senator Pauline Hanson, on behalf of One Nation, stated, 'We need to stop organised criminals getting access to our wharfs and our airports.' The bill is a very simple bill, and it very much goes to the commitment that the Morrison government has to keeping Australia and Australians safe.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:27): Minister, I just have a couple more before I cede to Senator Keneally. Let me ask you this, then, Minister. I went and spoke to the crossbench and the Greens, with the endorsement of the leadership, saying that we wanted to defer the passage of the legislation and go back to the committee because we had a lot more questions to ask, which we did ask—and there were a lot that were unanswered too, Senator Sheldon, which gave me no warmth, I can tell you. But I'll go back to this one. At the time—I can't give the exact date, Minister, because I don't have the copy here, but if I start looking for it I'll find it on Google—there was a large shipment of illicit drugs. I think it may have been heroin or cocaine. I can't remember. It just sort of fell off a ship off the Queensland coast around the same time that this was going through. I'm sure your officials will be well aware of that. What happened with the crew that were on that ship? Can you tell us how this bill has addressed that or will address that?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:28): Thank you, Senator Sterle. I have no information before me in relation to the example you've raised.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:28): Ben, if you're listening, mate, could you get a copy, and I'll give it to the government. I'll come back to this one then. Minister, it is also a well-known fact, which we established during the inquiry through many witnesses, that the drugs that are flooding our nation and coming through on shipping are not coming in from transactions on the waterfront; they're going out in containers and being delivered to wherever it may be. Please tell me how this bill goes to address that concern of mine. How will making it harder for port employees to get MSICs stop illicit drugs being shipped through containers that are not screened through our ports? You haven't got the screening facility. You have a hit and run every now and again; you have a couple of dogs walking around having a bit of a sniff. Some of our waterside workers, our wharfies, have waited six months for their MSIC.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:29): Thank you, Senator Sterle, for those comments. I'm instructed that currently the scope of background checks in the act is limited to only preventing unlawful interference with aviation and maritime infrastructure. To go to the issue that you have raised, the bill will provide for the strengthening of the ASIC and MSIC schemes by ensuring that those with serious criminal convictions or links to organised crime do not exploit the schemes to access the secure areas of our airports, seaports and offshore facilities.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (13:30): I'll make this my last one. Minister Cash, I come back to this: drugs are flooding into this nation on ships or via shipping. What I've just said clearly and passed on to you and everyone listening is that the majority of this rubbish is sitting in containers. It may be in foreign languages. It may have a waybill that lies. It may be smuggled in tomato cans or it may be smuggled in car parts; I don't know. We're making it tougher and tougher for Australian waterside workers—wharfies, stevedores or anyone else that goes on a port—to get their MSIC, but we're not lifting one finger to make it any more rigid or harder for the captains and the crews who are bringing these ships in or to benefit our ability to know about them. There's nothing that's going to happen on the port. The containers will still be going out not scanned, and it goes to another part of the drug syndicates.
How does this bill tap that? How does this bill appease the Australian people, who are saying: 'You know what? The Morrison government's not all announcement and no follow-up; they're actually doing something'? How does this bill appease the majority of decent, hardworking men and women in this nation who hate illicit drugs? How can you con them into thinking, 'We're going to make it harder for an Aussie to get an MSIC, but we're not going to do anything to make it easier to know who is coming to our nation, and while they're here they can exploit the temporary voyage permit and cart between Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth; they can do three runs, and if they do more than three runs, we'll make sure they pay Aussie wages, but we won't police it'? And, by the way, they've taken off after three. We're absolutely crucifying our rail industry because of this exploitation of the temporary voyage permits and maritime crew visas. Please tell Mr and Mrs Citizen how this bill will make them feel a lot safer with illicit drugs coming out of wherever they're coming from, going to warehouses and other points and being unloaded by crooks. How is this bill going to stop that?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:32): I've answered much of that question in relation to questions that have been put to me by other senators. What I would say to you, in toto, is this: I've already placed on the record that we need to stop organised criminals getting access to our wharves and to our airports, and it is critical to ensure that criminals do not have security credentials to access secure areas of our ports, allowing drugs onto our streets and compromising Australia's supply chains.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:33): I'd like to go back to the questions I was asking earlier about security cameras. The minister seems to have indicated—although she hasn't made a declarative statement—that foreign crew can be supervised via a security camera, not by an actual person. When they are accessing unsupervised areas or areas where they should be supervised, they can be supervised via a security camera. The minister has said that it's her understanding that the security camera operator must be located in Australia. Can she confirm that is correct? Does the security camera operator need to have an MSIC?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:33): In relation to the operation of the schemes themselves, both the ASIC scheme and the MSIC scheme, you'd be aware—but I say this for the Hansard record—that they are nationally consistent identification cards that show the holder has met the minimum security requirements to remain unmonitored within an aviation or maritime security zone. All individuals who require an ASIC or MSIC must have a valid background check. To enter an aviation or maritime security zone, an individual must have an operational need for entering the area, and they must display their valid ASIC or MSIC. People who have an operational need to enter a security area, but who do not have in this circumstance an ASIC or MSIC, must be escorted and continuously monitored by an ASIC holder in the secure areas of an airport or by an MSIC holder in the security zones of a port or offshore oil and gas facility.
I have some additional statistics that I can provide the Senate. As at 17 May 2021, there were 120,900 issued ASICs and 101,817 issued MSICs in circulation. In the 2019-20 financial year, AusCheck processed 80,155 ASICs and 40,947 MSIC applications. As I stated, Senator Keneally, those who have an operational need to enter a security area but do not have an ASIC or MSIC must be escorted and continuously monitored by an ASIC holder in the security area of an airport or, in relation to a MSIC, by an MSIC holder in the security zones of a port or offshore oil and gas facility.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:36): Earlier, I asked the minister about that supervision that she has just referred to, and I asked if she could describe, in terms of the operation of the ASIC or the MSIC scheme, how crew are supervised. Is it a one-to-one supervision; is it a one-to-five, a one-to-20? She said there was no ratio. Then I asked if that supervision could occur via security camera. Is the minister saying that foreign crew who do not have an MSIC or ASIC, when they are accessing security zones, have to be both physically supervised and monitored, or can they just be monitored? Can that supervision and monitoring occur via a security camera?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:37): Senator Keneally, it will very much depend on the circumstances. The example that the departmental official has just given me is that if they were in a locked room with another person, then what you may find is that security cameras—as long as the person is being monitored by an ASIC holder or an MSIC holder in the secure area, depending on whether we're talking about an airport or a maritime facility—could be adequate, but it will very much depend on the particular circumstances. To clarify again, for the Hansard record: people who have an operational need to enter a security area but who do not have an ASIC or MSIC, must be escorted and continuously monitored by the ASIC holder in the secure areas of an airport or by an MSIC holder in the security zones of a port or offshore oil and gas facility.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:38): I appreciate the minister's answers, but I don't think I'm quite getting the answer that I'm looking for. Is there ever a circumstance where a foreign crew could be in a secure area monitored and supervised only by a security camera?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:38): If the person is free to move around, the answer will be no.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:38): I'm sorry, but what did you just say? If the person is free to move around—
Senator Cash: If they're not in a secure room.
Senator KENEALLY: They're not in a secure room. If they are not in a secure room—I'm asking if they are in a secure facility, in a secure place, are they being physically supervised? Is there ever a circumstance where they're only being supervised by a security camera?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:39): Senator Keneally, again, just to restate my previous answer: I've been instructed by the department that at all times the person must be escorted or continuously monitored—I think we've established that—by an ASIC holder in the secure areas of an airport or by an MSIC holder in the security zones of a port or offshore oil and gas facility. To put it very simply: depending on the circumstances, if a person is able to move around—if they are in a locked room by themselves and that is defined as the secure area, it may be that the person that is continuously monitoring them, as long as they are an ASIC holder or a MSIC holder, may not have to be physically present in the room with them.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:40): Is it the minister's advice to this parliament, then, that every single member of a foreign crew—that is, people not required to have a MSIC at our maritime ports—is never left unattended in secure areas of maritime ports?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:40): I am advised that that is correct. If you have evidence that would support that there has been such a case, could you please provide it so that it can be provided to the relevant authorities?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:40): I think we've had some evidence provided in various Senate inquiries. I'm seeking to understand: when a foreign crew are walking through a maritime port, is it like an airport? Are the crew required to hand over their passports to immigration officials for inspection?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:41): I'm instructed: yes.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:41): We might come back to that. Are there X-ray machines to check out what the crew are taking in and out of the port?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:41): I'm advised that it'll depend on the port and the deployment of ABF resources, depending on risk et cetera.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:41): Is it your evidence that crew are always required to hand over their passports to immigration officials for inspection?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:42): I'm instructed by the department that the answer is: they should. If there is evidence that this is not occurring, please advise. I'm also instructed by the department that there is no legislative requirement for passengers and crew arriving in Australia, whether by sea or air, to be subjected to security screening—for example, going through a metal detector. All identified risks—this goes to my previous answer—are scrutinised and treated appropriately to prevent the importation of prohibited goods. The ABF deploys specialist capabilities, including detector dogs, to areas of greatest risk and identified need, as informed—this goes to my previous answer—through intelligence.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:42): I think you gave evidence earlier similar to this point I'm about to make—that 72 per cent of amphetamines seized in 2018-19 came through our maritime ports. I was going to ask if there are drug detector dogs at maritime ports; you have said they will be in areas of most significant need or prioritised where there is need. If I were to ask you about foreign pilots of major commercial airlines landing, for example, at Sydney airport, could you tell me what proportion of those pilots would have walked through a metal detector before entering an Australian airport?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:43): This is something that the department would need to provide, if you're looking for the statistic.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:43): Can you tell me what proportion of Australian pilots have their luggage X-rayed or examined when they enter or exit an airport? Surely you must have some idea.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:43): The department has said that, if you would like the information, they will seek to obtain it for you. As I previously stated, there is no legislative requirement for passengers and crew arriving in Australia, whether by sea or air, to be subjected to security screening. The example we gave, which you've picked up on, was that of going through a metal detector. All identified risks are scrutinised and treated appropriately to prevent the importation of prohibited goods. As you picked up on in my previous answer, the ABF deploys specialist capabilities, including detector dogs, to areas of greatest risk and identified need, as informed through intelligence.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:44): Minister, I suspect the answer we will get from the department is that it was about aircraft pilots and that it would be close to 100 per cent. Are you able to tell me what proportion of foreign crew at our maritime ports hand over their passports for inspection, go through metal detectors or are assessed by drug detector dogs?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:45): I am advised that they should all have their passports checked. But, in relation to the security screening that you are referring to, again I reaffirm for the record that there is no legislative requirement for passengers and crew arriving in Australia whether by sea or air—in this case, you were talking about by sea—to be subject to security screening and, for example, go through a metal detector. All identified risks are scrutinised and treated appropriately to prevent the importation of prohibited goods. Again, as you picked up on in relation to the detector dogs, the ABF deploys specialist capabilities, including detector dogs, to areas of greatest risk and identified need as informed through the intelligence that they are gathering.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:46): Thank you Minister. I think this goes to the heart of the matter. You've said twice now that there's no legislative requirement. I think if we get the answers we will find out that the practice at airports for foreign crew coming off aeroplanes is they go through metal detectors. They hand over their passports. They are assessed, quite frequently, by drug detector dogs. But when it comes to our maritime ports the practice is different. This is the point that was made by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2017. It said:
There are features of flag of convenience registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit.
… … …
This means that FOC ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling, and facilitating prohibited imports or exports …
We heard from Senator Sterle the sad, long saga of Captain Salas and the fact that, according to the minister, we should have known he was coming. We know heaps about him. All the character tests in the world didn't stop him from coming back to Australian ports.
Here we have a circumstance where the government cannot explain the practice that is in place in maritime ports versus airports. But the Australian people have eyes. They see foreign crew at our airports being checked. The government has yet in any forum or any time this has been through a Senate inquiry been able to demonstrate that it has rigorous policies, processes and practices in place. The minister has made reference to the fact—and I will repeat it—that 72 per cent of amphetamines seized in 2018-19 came through our maritime ports. Some 20,000 foreign flagged ships visit Australian ports every year, crewed by some 200,000 crew. Senator Sterle made the point about how few Australian vessels there are these days. We've seen that 83 per cent of cannabis seized in 2018-19 was seized via sea cargo, 24 per cent of MDMA seized in 2018-19 was seized via sea cargo and 11 per cent of heroin seized in 2018-19 was seized via sea cargo.
Minister, you made the point before about the difference between kilograms and tonnes. It was a rather dramatic point—that kilograms come through airports and tonnes come through our maritime ports. That is the point we're making here. Let me ask you this: given the evidence you've just provided, what's to stop a crew member getting off a ship with a couple of kilograms of crystal meth in their backpack and walking straight into an Australian port? What's stopping that?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:49): Again, Senator Keneally, the majority of what the ABF are looking for is actually found in the containers, not necessarily on the particular person themselves. I go back to my previous evidence: there is no legislative requirement for passengers and crew arriving in Australia, whether by sea or air, to be subject to security screening. As we've discussed, in relation to, for example, a metal detector, all identified risks—this is what the benefit of intelligence is—are scrutinised and treated appropriately to prevent the importation of prohibited goods. So, depending on the level of intelligence that has been gained by the ABF themselves, they will then seek to deploy specialist capabilities, including—and we've referred to them—detector dogs, to areas of greatest risk and identified need as informed through intelligence. This is why the gathering of intelligence is such an important part of the Australian Border Force's functions.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:50): If I'm understanding the government correctly, they can't actually answer the questions that we're putting about why someone like Captain Salas—who is just one of many examples—has been able to access Australian maritime ports. They can't tell us how many foreign crew actually have their passports checked, are actually assessed by metal detectors and are actually subject to drug detector dogs. They can't really explain why it takes just 24 to 48 hours to get a maritime crew visa but some three months to get an MSIC for an Australian worker. Let me be clear again: Labor is all about supporting tougher border security controls. We maintain our concern, and I am disappointed that the government are indicating that they're not willing to take the opportunity either to provide their own solution to foreign crew problems, first identified by the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection, or to accept our amendment. So our position remains that, while this bill seeks to make some improvements, it doesn't go far enough. It is not tough enough. It does not take the appropriate security measures that are necessary at our maritime ports.
While the revelations on 60 Minutes from the head of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Mike Phelan, about the facilitation and importation of drugs into the country are quite concerning, they do go to show that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has made significant strides when it comes to airports, and we congratulate them and the AFP. What we are concerned about is that there has yet to be any action on the evidence provided by the department in terms of the risks posed by flag-of-convenience vessels. So I have to express my extreme disappointment that the government is leaving this gaping hole in our border security, and I flag that we in the Australian Labor Party continue to take this seriously. We will continue to look at other ways to address the gaping hole that the government seems intent on leaving in its legislation. I know that Senator Sheldon has some additional questions. I'm going to ask him, rather than ask another question myself. If we have some time before we move out of this amendment, I may come back to some additional questions.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (13:53): I want to draw to the minister's attention an article from 12 March 2021 by Laura Chung in the Sydney Morning Herald. The heading of this particular story is 'Rough seas and dim light: Inside the fishing boat raid to nab 200kg of cocaine'. In what appears to have been an early morning raid, the article describes:
… on Thursday morning as authorities trailed a small fishing boat in Port Botany. Authorities spent two days training for the operation to seize hundreds of kilograms of cocaine, search two boats — including a 330-metre ship — and arrest a 27-year-old Australian man. Police will allege a small boat was launched from Port Botany, south of Sydney, to meet its 330-metre mother ship, the MSC Joanna, which originated in Antwerp, Belgium. Drugs, believed to have been stored on the larger ship, were transferred to the small fishing boat.
I have some other questions on this, but can the minister explain what the steps are for the assessment for a maritime crew visa? What are the actual checks that are done?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:55): Thank you, Senator Sheldon. I'm sure you do know the answer, but I will advise as follows: the maritime crew visa—otherwise known as the MCV—allows a noncitizen to enter and temporarily remain in Australia as a member of a crew, or a non-military ship to undertake work that meets the normal operational requirements of that ship. Maritime crew visas are—again, you're probably aware—multiple entry visas which are valid for three years. A 'non-military ship' means a ship that is engaged in commercial trade or the carriage of passengers for reward; or that is owned and operated by a foreign government for the purposes of scientific research; or that has been accorded public vessel status by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. A non-military ship does not include a vessel which has been imported under the Customs Act 1901 and is not registered in the Australian International Shipping Register.
A licence issued under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 exempts international ships engaged in domestic trade from importation. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications is the authority responsible for (a) determining if the vessel has been imported and (b) licences issued under the Coastal Trading Act. Since 2012, foreign flagged ships have the ability to remain in Australian waters on 12-month temporary licences granted by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications and, currently, crew maintain their lawful visa status on their maritime crew visa for the duration of the ship's licensed temporary stay in Australian waters.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (13:58): So, Minister, from what you explained to me, there is no real check—because you haven't given us what the check is specifically of those MCV holders. It does raise deep concerns in light of this cocaine importation that there is not an appropriate check of these particular crew members. I want to just step through this. Minister, what are the MSIC and ASIC tests and what agencies carry out those tests?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:58): In the first instance, I will take you through what the difference is in the background checks for what we were previously talking about, which was the maritime crew visa—or the MCV, as it is known—and the MSIC. In terms of the MSIC and the background check that is undertaken: an identity check, a security assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation—otherwise known as ASIO—a criminal history check by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and an immigration check by the Department of Home Affairs. In terms of the MCV, the public interest criteria assessment is undertaken as follows, and I will refer to public interest criteria as 'PIC': PIC 4001 (character), which includes a criminality assessment; PIC 4002, which is the national security assessment; PIC 4003, which is the weapons of mass destruction; PIC 4004, debts to the Commonwealth; PIC 4013—
Progress reported.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Pensions and Benefits
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister for Government Services, Senator Reynolds. In approving an almost $2 billion settlement for victims of the coalition government's unlawful robodebt scheme, Justice Murphy characterised it as 'a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration'. Why was this shameful chapter designed by Mr Morrison as social services minister, implemented by him as Treasurer and supported by him as Prime Minister?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:00): I thank the senator for the question. The Federal Court has approved a settlement of the income compliance class action. Services Australia will be implementing a scheme to distribute the settlement funds of $112 million, less court approved costs for Gordon Legal. The background of the history which Senator Gallagher raises is very well-known. But for me, as the minister now, what is important is how we move forward and put this behind us. The court has decided the settlement is fair and reasonable and is in the interests of class action members. The court noted that the contradictor who was appointed to represent group members' interests described the proposed settlement as a very favourable outcome. Both the Commonwealth and Gordon Legal have acknowledged that the settlement of the class action is not an admission of liability by the Commonwealth and does not reflect any acceptance by the Commonwealth of the allegations that the Commonwealth or any of its officers had any knowledge of unlawfulness associated with the Income Compliance Program. His Honour similarly found that there is little in the materials placed before the courts that could have substantiated such an allegation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:02): Justice Murphy also said:
One thing that stands out … is the financial hardship, anxiety and distress, including suicidal ideation and in some cases suicide, that people—
or their loved ones—
say they have suffered through the Robodebt system …
Does the Morrison government accept that almost half a million people were hounded and suffered at the hands of a scheme designed, implemented and supported by Mr Morrison from day one?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:02): Any death is regrettable, but I think the suggestion by those opposite that there was an elevated death rate for those who previously received income data-matching letters is not consistent with the facts. Incorrectly interpreting death statistics as being suicides can, in fact, cause further distress. I would ask, most sincerely, all parliamentary colleagues and the media to reflect on their commentary, including their own duty of responsibility to not risk causing harm to vulnerable Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong on a point of order.
Senator Wong: My point of order is on direct relevance. I think everyone in this place—some of us personally—understands this is an issue that must be spoken about carefully. If you listened to what Senator Gallagher asked, she quoted Justice Murphy and she asked if this government accepted that almost half a million people were hounded and suffered at the hands of a scheme designed, implemented and supported by the Prime Minister from day one. I would ask the minister not to go down the path she is going but to be directly relevant to that question.
The PRESIDENT: I'm glad you remind the minister of the question. I believe, given the quotation that was used, the minister is allowed to talk about that topic and remain directly relevant.
Senator REYNOLDS: Thank you very much, Mr President. What I will do is reiterate what the Prime Minister said on 11 June 2020. The Prime Minister did apologise in parliament for any hurt and harm caused in the way the government has dealt with this issue. Clearly, this has been an extraordinarily difficult process for all involved, and we do apologise for the way aspects of this program were administered. Departmental officials— (Time expired)
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:04): Justice Murphy also said that the harm and flaws in Mr Morrison's illegal robodebt scheme 'should have been obvious, should have been plain' and that ministers and senior public servants 'should have known'. How did the Morrison government keep this massive failure of public administration, which is estimated to cost taxpayers an overall $4 billion, going for so long?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:05): Again, can I just say that the facts and circumstances of this matter are well known; they have been well prosecuted and traversed in this place and also in the courts. That matter has come to a conclusion in that the Federal Court has approved a settlement in the income compliance class action. The court has said that this settlement on behalf of the Commonwealth is fair and reasonable and is in the interests of class action members.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! If I call senators to order I'm going to ask them to pause interjecting.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT (14:06): Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of the President of the Legislative Council of South Australia, the Hon. John Dawkins. On behalf of all honourable senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the parliament and, in particular, to the Senate. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I invite Mr Dawkins to take a seat on the floor of the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Mr Dawkins was then seated accordingly.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Security
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:06): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister outline Australia's approach to working with partners to address current regional and global challenges to security and stability?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:06): I thank Senator Paterson for his question. We know that Australia's future prosperity and security depend on an Indo-Pacific region that is stable, open and free but supported by cooperation between sovereign nations. We are working with allies and partners to maintain and expand a resilient region in which sovereign states make decisions which are free from coercion, interference or aggression.
Our inclusive and practical diplomatic approach is to work ever more closely with all countries that share this vision, reinforcing traditional alliances with the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, while expanding cooperation with regional groups, such as ASEAN and the Pacific Islands Forum; newer arrangements, such as the Quad; and innovative partnerships, such as the Australia-France-India trilateral partnership and the Australia-Indonesia-Timor-Leste trilateral.
We have five clear objectives in enhancing our national interests: supporting open societies, open economies and a rules based order; building our sovereign capability, capacity and resilience; cooperating on global challenges, including equitable COVID-19 vaccine distribution and climate change, for example; enabling renewed business led growth, including advocating strongly for reform of the World Trade Organization; and, fifthly, demonstrating that liberal democracies work.
Australians can be assured that the Morrison government will continue to promote their interests at home and abroad, whether that's in strengthening our defence, in protecting human rights or in opening opportunities for trade and business, as we've seen overnight in the meeting between Prime Ministers Johnson and Morrison. Our free trade agreement with the UK is aimed at creating jobs and expanding opportunities in a clear demonstration of what two liberal democracies and open economies can achieve. The two prime ministers will have more to say on this later today, our time.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a supplementary question.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:08): Can the minister update the Senate on the outcomes secured during her and the Prime Minister's recent international visits?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:09): Again, I thank Senator Paterson. The Prime Minister's visits to Singapore and the G7-plus meetings have been shown to produce important outcomes and the benefits of collaboration with key partners. Australia will provide at least 20 million COVID-19 vaccine doses to boost access in developing countries, and we've signed partnerships on low-emissions technology investment with Singapore, Japan and Germany. The Prime Minister's discussions and my own with G7-plus foreign and development ministers last month and also in Geneva and Washington have reinforced the aligned approaches of like-minded nations on issues such as open markets, political freedoms, human rights and global recovery from COVID-19. In addition, the Prime Minister and I and Minister Seselja have also been able to visit our close friend and neighbour New Zealand to underscore our shared commitment to working together on our region's health, security and economic interests.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:10): Can the minister update the Senate on the outcomes of Australia's two-plus-two meetings with Japan and Germany last week?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:10): Our joint foreign affairs and defence two-plus-two dialogues are vital to align our diplomatic and security priorities with key partners and are virtual, at this point in time, rather than in person, but the outcomes with our Japanese and German counterparts last week really do demonstrate the value of that shared effort. With Japan, we agreed to strengthen cooperation on economic security, to deepen defence cooperation, to enhance engagement with the United States and other partners and to support South-East Asia and the Pacific in response to COVID-19. We also voiced our strong shared opposition to coercive and destabilising behaviour in our region. Our meeting with Germany demonstrated the increasing focus of liberal democracies on the Indo-Pacific. I signed an enhanced strategic partnership on practical cooperation with Germany during the second of our two-plus-twos, the first being held in 2016. Australia has been active in creating these opportunities, and it's something that both the Minister for Defence, Mr Dutton, and I will continue to pursue.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Payne. Senator Watt.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:11): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. On at least 11 occasions in budget estimates, this minister refused to say whether or not the Morrison government is responsible for vaccinating aged-care workers. Can the minister confirm today whether the Morrison government is responsible for vaccinating aged-care workers—yes or no?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:11): Thanks, Senator Watt, for the question. Clearly, the Australian government is responsible for the vaccination rollout to Australians all across the country. So, in that context, we are responsible for the management of the vaccination rollout for everybody. We as a government have taken particular responsibility and we indicated publicly that we would organise the vaccination specifically of residents and workers in residential aged care. We made that announcement very early in the vaccine rollout.
Unfortunately, we received a couple of pieces of advice that meant that we had to reassess our vaccine rollout process. Firstly—and I've indicated this to the Senate in Senate estimates, as Senator Watt very well knows—we received advice that we should not vaccinate residents and the workforce at the same time as it wouldn't be safe to do so. So we followed that advice, and we continued with our process of vaccinating the residents in aged care, and I'm very pleased to say that that 100 per cent of aged-care facilities across this country have received a first-dose visit and 94.2 per cent of those facilities have now received a second-dose visit. So we are very close to having vaccinated our aged-care residents.
Then we received some advice that indicated that we should change the way that we utilise the AstraZeneca vaccine. So that meant that we had to again re-pivot the rollout for vaccines to the workforce. So we went back to national cabinet and we got agreement from the states and the territories that they would work with us to vaccinate the workforce. So we are working with them. We are offering five different mechanisms to vaccinate the workforce across the country.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:13): On 7 January this year, the Prime Minister said:
I think, you know, there are more important people who need to get vaccinated, frankly, than me and the Health Minister, and the Premiers, for that matter. They're the aged care workers …
Almost four months after Mr Morrison received his first dose, how many aged-care workers are still waiting for their first dose?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:14): Mr President—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: I've got lots of followers, Mr President! It is important that the aged-care workforce gets vaccinated, and that's why we worked with the national cabinet to put in place where, cooperatively with the states, we would vaccinate the workforce. So we did take our responsibility seriously. We've worked with the states, and a number of the states have had periods of time where they've accelerated access to the vaccine for the aged-care workforce. So we have taken that responsibility, and we will continue to do so. We continue to work cooperatively with the states—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck. Senator Watt, on a point of order.
Senator Watt: On relevance, Mr President. I'm conscious there are only 21 seconds to go and I'm keen to get an answer to my question, which is: how many aged-care workers are still waiting for their first dose?
The PRESIDENT: I've reminded senators asking questions before. I've allowed you to remind the minister of—
Senator Watt interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: If you could listen when I rule, Senator Watt. I've reminded senators that, where a question is highly specific in nature without a preamble, the test of direct relevance is strictly applied, and I have done so. I've allowed you to remind the minister of the concluding part of your question, which did include that specific element. But you did include a quotation before that, and the minister is entitled to be directly relevant if he's addressing that quotation. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Mr President. We continue to work with the states and territories, aged-care providers and the medical workforce around this country to vaccinate all of those who need a vaccination, and quite clearly aged-care workers have had priority. As of the latest statement that I have, 46,273 have received their first dose and 40,256 have received their second dose. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:16): The Morrison government promised that aged-care workers would be fully vaccinated by Easter. When will Mr Morrison finally deliver on this promise and ensure that all aged-care workers are fully vaccinated?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:16): It's really quite dishonest that the Labor Party continue to repeat statements that don't take into account the changing circumstances that have occurred since those statements were made. It's really quite dishonest. We recognise the importance of vaccinating the workforce in aged care. That's why we've offered them so many different pathways to accessing a vaccine, whether that be through their GP, whether that be through a state Pfizer clinic, whether that be through a Commonwealth GP respiratory clinic, or whether that be through an inreach program that's supported by the aged-care provider. We have put in place a number of different mechanisms to support the aged-care workforce in receiving their vaccine. It is important that they do so, and we will continue to work through all of those avenues to make sure that every aged-care worker in this country has access to a vaccine should they want one.
Asylum Seekers
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:17): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, I refer to the Murugappan family, which your government has detained for years, spending millions of dollars to deliberately harm two innocent children and their parents. Why did it take one of the children suffering from a potentially life-threatening illness for your government to show even the merest glimpse of compassion? Minister, why has this family not simply been allowed to return to their home in Biloela?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:18): I thank Senator McKim for the question, because, Senator McKim, what it again shows the people of Australia is that, under the Greens, you will continue to allow people smugglers to exploit people by putting them on boats and drowning—around 1,200 drowned—and taking that perilous journey to Australia. Senator McKim, the question that you have put to me is a very real reminder for everybody in this chamber that, as a country, as a government, we are still today, in 2021, dealing with the legacy of border protection failure when both yourself and Labor were last in government. The Morrison government has made it very, very clear that only misery, human misery, can result from allowing people smugglers to conduct their ugly trade. Twelve hundred people—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash! Senator McKim, on a point of order.
Senator McKim: Thanks, Mr President. The point of order is on relevance. I didn't ask about borders. I didn't ask about border protection. I didn't ask about the Greens' policy. I didn't ask about Labor policy. I just asked about one family and why they are not allowed to return home. That was the extent of the question.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, while it was a very broad question—and questions that contain multiple 'whys' do allow a lot of discretion in answering them—I will take your point, Senator McKim, that that does not include covering alternative policies or policies of other parties in general commentary. Senator Cash to continue.
Senator CASH: Thank you, Mr President. The Morrison government has made it very clear that there can be no incentive for people to circumvent our orderly and generous migration system. In relation to the decision that has been made by the minister for immigration, he has decided that the Sri Lankan family on Christmas Island will be released from held detention and they will be reunited in the Perth community. They will reside in suburban Perth through a community detention placement, close to schools and support services, whilst the youngest child receives medical treatment from nearby Perth Children's Hospital. But let me be very, very clear: this decision strikes a balance between the government's strong border protection policies and appropriate compassion in circumstances involving children in detention.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, a supplementary question?
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:21): Minister, why does the minister not simply lift the bar and allow this family to make a valid visa application and set them on a pathway to permanent residency and, ultimately, to citizenship—or haven't they suffered enough for you?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:21): I will reiterate what the relevant minister has reiterated, what previous ministers have reiterated and what the Prime Minister has reiterated. We have made it clear that, under our government, if you arrive here illegally you will not be permanently resettled here. We need to be very clear: today's decision by the minister for immigration does not create a fresh pathway to a visa. The government's position on border protection has not changed. Anyone who arrives in Australia illegally by boat will not be resettled permanently. Anyone who is not found to be owed protection—and, Senator McKim, the parents have, through numerous courts now, not been found to be owed protection now—is expected to leave Australia. The result of what you want us to do is a clear signal to the people smugglers.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, a final supplementary question?
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:22): The government's argument that this family must be detained and mistreated to prevent people from coming to Australia by boat to seek asylum is an admission—is it not, Minister?—that Australia's immigration system is built on a foundation of torture. Minister, how many other government policies depend on the deliberate mistreatment of children and families to be effective?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): Unfortunately, Senator McKim, yet again—and you and I have done this before—we are going to agree to disagree. The decision that we have made strikes the right balance in our government's strong border protection policies. The Morrison government, unlike you, Senator McKim, and the Australian Greens, will not send a message to the people smugglers that Australia is open for business. This case alone reminds Australians that we are still dealing, in 2021, with the legacy caseload of what occurred last time you were given the opportunity, Senator McKim, of joining with the Australian Labor Party, when in government, to unravel Australia's strong border protection policies. There were 50,000 people arriving illegally here by boat and 1,200 people, that we know of, dying at sea. We will not, as a government, send that message to the people smugglers.
COVID-19: Quarantine
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:24): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. In Senate estimates, the CMO confirmed the source of the Victorian outbreak was from a breach in hotel quarantine in Adelaide. New South Wales Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian has said:
In the future you can't have a hotel built for tourism as a quarantine facility.
Does the Morrison government agree with Premier Berejiklian?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:24): I would urge those on the other side to use the entire quote in context, rather than the way that they do in this place, because it provides a very different perspective.
What's occurring in Australia right now in the context of the provision of quarantine for people coming into Australia is that we are operating a quarantine system based on a national cabinet agreement that's been reaffirmed by national cabinet a number of times. The hotel quarantine system is being operated at a national level in consultation and collaboration between the states and the Commonwealth based on a national cabinet decision. That's the process and the fundamentals under which the quarantine system for people returning to Australia is being conducted right now.
As the Prime Minister has said and as a number of my colleagues have said, we're very happy to receive submissions from states and territories with respect to further quarantine proposals. There's a conversation occurring right now; in fact, there's an agreement between the Commonwealth and Victoria with respect to a proposed additional facility in Victoria. The arrangements for that are being finalised right now; those negotiations with Victoria continue.
We will continue to work in accordance with the national cabinet decision for the operation of quarantine for people coming back into Australia with COVID. We will continue to work with the states and territories on the development of additional capacity in the states and territories based on proposals provided by those states and territories. We've accepted the proposal from Victoria. We continue to operate that. And I might add, those proposals were about providing additional capacity to the system so that we can bring more people home. We will continue to work in the collaborative way we have through national cabinet.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:27): Premier Berejiklian also said, completely unambiguously:
If the feds want to increase capacity in NSW they're going to have to build and operate a facility themselves.
Will the Morrison government listen to Premier Berejiklian and build and operate a federal quarantine facility in New South Wales?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:27): I thank Senator O'Neill for the question. As I've just indicated—and had Senator O'Neill wanted to listen to the answer, she would have noted—the Commonwealth government is quite happy to receive submissions from any state or territory for a hotel quarantine proposal. If the Premier of New South Wales wants to put up a submission for additional hotel quarantine or an additional quarantine system in New South Wales, we will happily receive it. We will happily receive it, just as we have from Victoria, just as we're having conversations with other states and territories. So, if they want to put up a proposal, we welcome that. We are working collaboratively with the states and territories through national cabinet to bring people home. I congratulate New South Wales for operating a gold-standard system but also for handling the bulk of the burden in bringing Australians home. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:28): We've had 22 breaches of hotel quarantine to date. How many more hotel quarantine breaches will need to occur before the Morrison government finally accept their constitutional responsibility and act on establishing a national federal health quarantine?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:29): The Commonwealth does acknowledge and accept its responsibilities at a national level for quarantine, but we're working in a global pandemic circumstance, and we're working collaboratively with the states through national cabinet to safely bring Australians home. That's what we're doing. We're not sitting at the sidelines just chipping away and making criticisms. We are working cooperatively and collaboratively with the states to operate a national system of bringing Australians home through a process that was agreed by national cabinet. That's what we will continue to do, responsibly and collaboratively. I think that's a really important thing that we continue to do to give Australians confidence that we have a system that is over 99 per cent effective in bringing Australians home.
As Senator O'Neill from New South Wales will know, New South Wales have done the bulk of the heavy lifting in bringing over 50 per cent of the people back to Australia through their hotel quarantine system and should be congratulated for their efforts.
Law Enforcement
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (14:30): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. Last week we saw an exceptionally successful police operation that landed a significant blow on organised crime in Australia and abroad. Can the minister outline to the Senate how the Liberal-National government is building a more secure and resilient Australia in the face of growing threats to Australia's security?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:30): I thank Senator Abetz for the question. Just last week, we saw why Australian governments can never take their eyes off protecting Australia and Australians from organised crime. Operation Ironside is a great example of cooperation between our law enforcement agencies and their overseas counterparts in our ever-constant fight against organised crime networks that target Australia.
Operation Ironside has inflicted significant damage to organised crime networks in Australia. Approximately 9,000 officers globally, including 4,500 from here in Australia, have been involved in this three-year covert operation. The operation has led to hundreds of alleged offenders being charged, over 100 weapons being removed from our streets and over 500 search warrants being executed across Australia. The work done by our law enforcement agencies in this operation has led to police acting on 21 threats to kill, including saving a family of five.
The Morrison government is continuing to invest in supporting the international efforts to combat the ever-growing threat that transnational, serious and organised crime poses to us here in Australia. In the recent budget, the government committed an additional $1 billion to help tackle the risks our community faces from organised crime, criminals and terrorists. This will continue to support the investments our government has made in law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies since first elected in 2013. I'd like to particularly thank, though, the men and women in our law enforcement agencies who work on the frontline each and every day to keep Australians safe.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Abetz, a supplementary question?
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (14:32): I thank the minister for her most informative answer. I ask further: as Operation Ironside exposed that a large criminal network exists in Australia which threatens our way of life, has the government provided our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies with more support since first elected and, if so, to what extent and how?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:33): Thank you, Senator Abetz for the additional question. Every decision we as a government make in this area of policy is to ensure that we equip our law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies with the necessary tools that they need to keep Australia and Australians safe. Since first elected in 2013, our government has now passed 22 different pieces of national security legislation—legislation that is crucial in helping the relevant agencies investigate, monitor, arrest and prosecute extremists.
Our National Anti-Gangs Squad led to the arrest of 1,330 offenders and the seizure of over 6,000 illicit firearms and firearm parts and over 2.5 tonnes of illicit drugs and precursors. That was at December 2020. Operation Ironside has built on this, with 224 alleged offenders charged and over 100 weapons confiscated. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Abetz, a final supplementary question?
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (14:34): I ask the minister: how is the government providing the tools our law enforcement agencies need, as shown by the successful Operation Ironside, to identify and disrupt serious crime on the dark web?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:34): As a government, we are determined to provide our agencies with all reasonable powers necessary to protect the lives of children and to protect the Australian public from criminals acting anonymously online to perpetrate other serious crimes. As technology has changed, so too has the tradecraft of criminals. Our government has introduced a bill to parliament that will provide new powers to law enforcement agencies to shine a light into the darkest recesses of the internet and hold those who are committing serious crimes to account. These key new powers are critical in enabling law enforcement to tackle the fundamental shift in how serious criminality is now occurring online. Without enhancing the powers of the AFP and the ACIC, we leave them with outdated ways of attacking an area of criminality that is only increasing in its prevalence. As a government, we are committed to doing all that we can to tackle this. (Time expired)
Defence Personnel
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:35): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. At estimates, I asked the Chief of Army about the issues at the Sydney University Regiment. Since then I've heard more stories about young cadets and Army reservists training to be officers being pushed around and harassed by older officers who think they own the joint. Is the Minister for Defence confident that the next cohort of 18- and 19-year-old gap-year officer cadets and Army reservists who go through the Sydney University Regiment will be safe from abuse, illegal room searches and other unacceptable behaviour from the hierarchy?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:36): I thank Senator Lambie for her question. Senator Lambie—through you, Mr President—I don't have a specific brief with me in relation to the Sydney University Regiment, but I can absolutely reiterate the expectations of the highest standards of behaviour applying right across the system, including to the regiment, its leadership and its administration. I will take the details of Senator Lambie's question on notice and provide further information to the chamber.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:37): The cadets and Army reservists training to be officers who have blown the whistle and told me and others what's going on here have been incredibly brave. What protections is the minister planning to put in place to make sure there won't be serious consequences for their careers because they have finally found the courage to speak out? We're going to have the same thing going on with the royal commission unless we give full protection to diggers to come forward so we can get to the bottom of why we have suicides. So is there anything put in place?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:37): Again, I will take the specific details of Senator Lambie's question on notice, but I can say that the bravery, strength and leadership it takes to speak out to call out inappropriate behaviour is most certainly acknowledged, not just in relation to the ADF and not just in relation to cadet and reserve units but much more broadly across our society and our communities. So I do acknowledge that, and I agree with Senator Lambie that appropriate support should be provided to those people who are appropriately calling out bad behaviour where it exists, no matter where that happens.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:38): As usual, the ADF has called in one of its own, a colonel from the very regiment that is dishing out the abuse. Why haven't the military police or IGADF been asked to investigate serious allegation of illegal room searches instead of the ADF doing a stupid fact find that we know will go nowhere? There is no central database for these fact finds to report to. Once again, you would think that, with a royal commission coming up, they would be trying a little bit harder to make sure the right people are investigating these things that are going on in their regiments. Why not?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:38): I understand there would, of course be initial steps taken in circumstances such as these, and again I will take the details of Senator Lambie's question on notice and return to the chamber with further information.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:39): My question this afternoon is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. After four months, why is it that less than 15 per cent of Australia's 366,000 aged-care workers have been fully vaccinated?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:39): As I've indicated to the chamber a number of times today, on a number of occasions we've had to reset the vaccination rollout to the aged-care workforce. In fact, the vaccination of the aged-care workforce was a specific topic of discussion at national cabinet only a couple of weeks ago. All the states and territories and the Commonwealth are taking the matter of vaccination of the workforce extremely seriously.
As I've indicated to the chamber already today, on a couple of occasions we've had to reset the vaccination process for the residential aged-care workforce because of health advice we've received with respect to, firstly, vaccinating the workforce and the residents at the same time, and, also, the utilisation of the AstraZeneca vaccine for those 50 and over and a preference for the Pfizer vaccine for those under 50. What is in place right now to support the workforce is: access to their GP; state Pfizer clinics; GP respiratory clinics; an in-reach program that is out for open tender for aged-care providers to vaccinate their own workforces, in conjunction with other health professionals; and, of course, we continue to offer the aged-care workforce in residential aged care access to the Pfizer vaccine while we're doing the second round of vaccinations and completing that process. So we continue to provide a number of opportunities for the aged-care workforce to access a vaccine, and it remains a topic of discussion at the highest levels, including national cabinet.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a supplementary question?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:41): By what date will all aged-care workers who want to be vaccinated be fully vaccinated?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:41): Every aged-care worker who wants access to a vaccine right now has access to a vaccine right now. They have a number of channels to access that vaccine. They've been given priority access to that vaccine by the states and territories. We continue to work with the states and territories and with the aged-care providers on providing a number of channels for the aged-care workforce to access a vaccine.
As you will all be aware, the topic of whether or not the aged-care workforce should be compulsorily vaccinated was discussed at national cabinet just a couple of weeks ago. The fact it was discussed at that level is an indication of how seriously both the state and territory governments and the Commonwealth government agree that this issue is to be managed. We continue to offer a number of opportunities for the aged-care workforce to access a vaccine, to make it as easy as possible for them to do so. We continue to work with the states and territories to achieve that goal.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:42): The government has broken its promise that all Australians would be fully vaccinated by October, that four million Australians would be vaccinated by the end of March, that all of 1a would be vaccinated by Easter and that six million Australians would be vaccinated by 10 May. Isn't the Morrison government refusing to take responsibility for vaccinating aged-care workers because it would rather not have a target than miss yet another one?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:43): I thank the senator for the question. We continue to build and grow the rollout of the vaccine. The fact that we have now had over five million Australians receive their first dose of a vaccine is a significant achievement, and we're very close to achieving six million doses of vaccine administered.
We continue to build the vaccine rollout as we increase the capacity of supply. That's always been the case. We have been basing the rollout on the supply of vaccine into the country and our distribution to the states and territories and the GPs, who have done a fantastic job in administering over 50 per cent of the vaccines that have been supplied, and the vaccination process continues to develop. We will continue to work with the states and territories and all outlets to ensure Australians have access to a vaccine.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister please update the Senate on the Morrison government's commitment to ensuring there is a strong, skilled and sustainable NDIS workforce?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:44): I thank Senator Askew for that question and for her support for people on the NDIS in Tasmania. The Australian government is committed to fully funding and delivering on the vision of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That, of course, includes ensuring that there is a strong and sustainable workforce for many generations to come. Last week, I had the pleasure of launching the NDIS National Workforce Plan whilst visiting Autism WA in Perth. Autism WA is an extraordinary organisation that for over 50 years has been providing life-changing services and today provides services to more than 4,500 children and adults with autism. I was incredibly privileged to present long-service awards to Stacey, Ken and Darren. These three dedicated individuals so clearly love their jobs and are passionate about, and proud of, what they do each and every day. The values and the skills and the heart and the passion that these three bring to Autism WA is what we need in our workforce, and we need so many more of them. In fact, we need 83,000 more Staceys, Kens and Darrens. Today, 270,000 Australians work in supporting and caring for 450,000 NDIS participants. However, that is not enough. We need to recruit, over the next few years, another 83,000 workers into the support workforce. That's why I've launched the NDIS National Workforce Plan. It's a comprehensive and very practical blueprint for today and also well into the future. It's designed to attract workers with the values, the attributes and the heart we need, while improving existing workers' access to training and new development opportunities. But to do that we need all Australians—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Reynolds! Senator Askew, a supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:47): How will this plan benefit NDIS participants, workers and providers?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:47): Thank you again for the question, Senator Askew. This workforce plan focuses on a range of very practical initiatives that the Australian government is implementing. But the government is not doing this alone. We're working in partnership right across the sector. The plan focuses on the following initiatives, which together will make a real difference. We're improving training and career opportunities for workers. We're strengthening entry pathways to the sector to provide school students, school leavers and jobseekers with improved access to entry-level careers, including supported traineeships and workforce placements. We're innovating by creating new and accessible tools so that jobseekers can self-assess their suitability for jobs across this sector. We're also upskilling the workforce with the development of micro-credentials, something which is long overdue in this sector. A skills passport will also speed up the recognition of training in the sector, and we're enhancing leadership opportunities for staff. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a final supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:48): Could the minister advise how this NDIS workforce plan also supports alignment across the care and support workforce?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:48): Indeed, I can. The initiatives in this workforce plan also support workforce growth in both the aged-care and veteran sectors. It simply makes sense for us to create a single care and support workforce for all Australians who need this assistance the most. The $12.3 million care and support workforce package in this year's budget is the first stage of regulatory alignment activities across the aged-care, disability and veteran-care sectors. We're establishing a single worker screening check, an alignment of standards and also an alignment of auditing processes and regulations. Pleasingly, for providers and their staff, this will significantly cut red tape and reduce the regulatory burden, particularly for providers who work across all three sectors. The Morrison government is utterly and completely committed to creating meaningful, sustainable and skilled careers in this critical sector— (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:49): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. The Prime Minister has, for almost two years, refused to answer any questions about his friendship with prominent QAnon supporter Tim Stewart. Why?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:49): I am surprised that Senator Wong has framed the question in that way. Let me make it very clear, as the Prime Minister has, that he sees QAnon as being a discredited and dangerous fringe group. The Prime Minister has been very clear in his condemnation of the organisation, his rejection of the approaches of it and very clear in relation to the fact that the Prime Minister takes his security advice from the nation's security agencies. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer in that regard. The fact that those opposite may wish to ask questions about the husband of a friend of the Prime Minister's wife is a question for them. The Prime Minister's position in relation to the security advice and briefings he receives and his actions upon those has been clear, as has his condemnation of this organisation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:51): Thank you, Mr President. If the Prime Minister believes QAnon to be as dangerous as he claims, can he explain why he failed for almost two years to repudiate the claims made by his good friend and QAnon supporter Mr Stewart, including that the term 'ritual sexual abuse' came to appear in the Prime Minister's speech at Mr Stewart's request? These are claims that Mr Stewart has made. Why has the Prime Minister not repudiated them?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:51): The Prime Minister doesn't go around repudiating individual statements that are made across the nation. The Prime Minister has made clear, as I said in my primary answer, the fact that he repudiates QAnon—full stop.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:51): For months, Mr Morrison tried to keep secret his request that his friend Brian Houston be invited to the White House. For nearly two years, he has been secretive about his relationship with Mr Stewart. Why is Mr Morrison so secretive about some of the company he keeps?
Government senators interjecting—
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:52): I hear some of the interjections from behind me. It is astounding that here we are at 2.52 pm, coming through question time—the first parliamentary sitting week since the budget week—and I've sat here all question time and there's not been a single question about the budget or the economy. But, of course, why is that? Why is that from those opposite. It must have something to do with having a good economy.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: Yes, Mr President, on direct relevance. The question does go to the Prime Minister's refusal to be transparent. If the minister now wants to answer all the unanswered questions on notice, I will give him leave to do so now.
The PRESIDENT: You reminded the minister of the question. He has 36 seconds remaining to answer. Senator Birmingham.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: The Prime Minister has addressed the substantive issues here in terms of his repudiation of QAnon and that organisation.
Senator Wong: No, he has not.
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator BIRMINGHAM: But those opposite won't address the matters that are actually of interest to Australian families: their jobs; the economy; the fact that this side of politics has ensured that we have more jobs and an economy coming back stronger than anywhere else in the world; and the fact that this side of the parliament has made sure that Australians have more in their pockets thanks to our tax cuts—and those opposite won't say whether or not they will support them into the future. That's the contrast. That's the clarity for us. We are working for Australian families. (Time expired)
Women's Safety
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Women's Safety, Senator Ruston. Can the minister advise how the Morrison government is supporting Australians who are escaping violence?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:54): I thank Senator Hughes for her question on this really important issue. In the 2021-22 budget I think we have demonstrated our absolute commitment to keeping Australian women safe with our historic $1.1 billion commitment to ending domestic violence, family violence and sexual violence against women and their children. It also lays the groundwork for the establishment of the next national plan. As I said, we're talking about ending violence against women and their children, not merely reducing the level of violence.
The package focuses on all aspects: prevention, early intervention and responding to give women support when they make that extraordinarily brave decision to leave a violent relationship. That's why we have made an investment into the escaping violence payment: $164.8 million over the next two years to provide up to $5,000 in support to women and their children when they leave a violent situation. We know that financial dependency is something that often keeps women in a violent relationship, and we are absolutely committed to helping women who wish to escape those situations. This money goes towards a $1,500 payment in cash so that a woman can buy the essentials for herself and her family. There is also a further $3,500 to do things, maybe, like paying a bond or registering the car, or maybe it's just being able to give her the confidence to start a new life.
We've also provided $130 million through the COVID pandemic to help frontline services. We will be providing an additional $260 million to continue to support our states and territories to bolster frontline services over the next two years. We have also added money to our safe places program—$60 million over the last two years, with another $12.6 million—to make sure that women have a safe place to go when they're escaping violence. We know that emergency accommodation is one of the most critical things on that night or day when a woman chooses to leave home.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, a supplementary question?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:56): Can the minister outline how the Morrison government is helping prevent domestic, family and sexual violence into the future?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:56): Our priority has to be early intervention and prevention, because we know that a future without domestic, family and sexual violence can only happen if we change behaviours and attitudes and if we make sure that people understand what acceptable behaviour is. We have announced $35.1 million to expand our national campaign, 'Stop it at the Start', which has been so tremendously successful to date.
Yesterday I was very pleased to announce the launch of a five-part series of children's audiobooks, which can be downloaded wherever you download your podcasts from, to encourage respectful behaviour amongst children. I'd like to thank Nova Entertainment for partnering with the government in this thing, which we called Project ARI. It's a series which has been written by children's author Nat Amoore, and it focuses on a young robot called ARI, who's sent to live with a family. He has to learn to have a human experience. It's a fantastic resource. It's great fun, and I'd encourage everybody here to download it and listen to it.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Hughes, a final supplementary question?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:57): Can the minister update the Senate on the work the Morrison government has been doing with the states and territories to keep women and children safe?
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): We know that domestic violence orders or apprehended violence orders are not worth the paper they're written on unless they're enforced. Recently, Minister Cash, Minister Payne and I convened an extraordinary meeting of our state and territory counterparts, women's safety ministers, attorneys-general and police ministers to discuss how we can all work together to improve safety outcomes for women and their children, particularly in the wake of the terrible tragedies that we have seen again this year. States shared details of what they were doing. Last week, I visited Tasmania and had the opportunity to talk to the Tasmanian team down there about a GPS monitoring system that they have in place on high-risk people subject to domestic violence orders. The fantastic news is that we have seen an 82 per cent decrease in the number of AVOs that have been breached since people have been on this program and a 100 per cent reduction in the amount of stalking that's being reported. That's a fantastic initiative and I congratulate the Tasmanian government.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Farrell.
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Sport, Senator Colbeck. In a submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Sports Grants, dated 14 February 2020, the secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Gaetjens, stated that Senator McKenzie was the final approver of funding decisions. Mr Gaetjens reaffirmed this evidence before the committee on 22 July 2020. Is Mr Gaetjens correct that Senator McKenzie was the final approver of funding decisions?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:59): The guidelines for the community sports infrastructure grants were very, very clear. The minister was the decision-maker with respect to the allocation of the grants.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (15:00): In reference to a current Federal Court proceeding, it was reported on 2 June 2021, by the Guardian:
Sport Australia insists it retained the final say on which applications would be approved for funding despite a flurry of late changes to grant recipients requested by the former federal sport minister …
Why is the Commonwealth asserting one thing before the Federal Court and another thing before the parliament?
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:00): I'm not sure some of you should make that sort of comment. This is a serious reflection on a—
The PRESIDENT: I didn't hear. If someone wishes to raise something, they can.
Senator COLBECK: Sport Australia has put forward a defence for the case that's been taken against it into the court. Senator Farrell did ask some questions of Sport Australia at estimates, as a part of the estimates process. At that point in time, the CEO of Sport Australia indicated that, under legal advice, he was not prepared to answer questions with respect to the defence while the court case was ongoing. I don't intend to either.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (15:01): Will the minister now tell us who was the final decision-maker.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:01): As I've indicated, the guidelines for the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program were very, very clear: the minister was the decision-maker with respect to the grants. They were very, very clear. The guidelines for the community sport infrastructure program stated that the minister was the decision-maker with respect to the allocation of the grants.
Senator Birmingham: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.
DOCUMENTS
Question No. 3572
Tabling
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:02): I table, for the information of the Senate, the response to Senate question No. 3572.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Question No. 3359
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:02): In accordance with standing order 74(5), I seek an explanation from the minister representing the defence minister as to why question on notice No. 3359 has not been answered.
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (15:02): I don't have specific information in relation to question No. 3359—I was not aware that you were raising this today—but I will seek further information for you from the defence minister's office.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:03): I move:
That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.
I did inform the minister's office, or raised a question in the minister's office, this morning in relation to these questions. It indicated that I might exercise my rights at the end of question time. I'll just let the chamber know what this question is about. It's an important question about defence industry. I have four questions. The first is: what is the current status of the mapping or matching of industry capability to defence requirements? This is something that Defence had indicated they were undertaking, and it was merely a question to try and find out what the status was. I also asked a second question: how is the department capturing or documenting this? The third question: Dr Sawczak advised that the government was working with EBS on a feasibility study to enhance the mapping. What is the status of the feasibility study? Again, that's quite a reasonable question. The final question was reminding the department or the minister that Ms Kate Louis, as the first assistant secretary of defence industry policy, had previously stated to the Senate committee that such work was being done in 2016 and 2017, so I just wanted to know what happened with the work and the associated plans and what the output was of that work. These are important questions that go to defence industry and the use of Australian industry in our defence projects. It's much, much easier for the department to operate if it has a prior understanding of exactly what industry is able to do.
Now, comfort is the enemy of progress. What we've been seeing for far too many years is comfort, and there shouldn't be. The government needs to wake up in relation to industry capability from not just a defence perspective but a national resilience perspective, and I'll talk briefly about that. World War II forced us to do this. In late 1942 the government was considering postwar reconstruction, and we had a division of government called the Division of Industrial Development. It was aimed at developing and expanding secondary industry in postwar Australia in areas that included rural reconstruction; the conversion of munitions and armaments factories for other industrial uses; and encouragement for an Australian car-manufacturing industry, workforce training and employment opportunities, electricity supplies, fuel production and industrial technology. That was what we were doing at the end of World War II—in fact, well before it ended—to make sure we had a plan coming out of it.
Now we have COVID. The government has done a reasonably good job, or it did a reasonably good job at the start of COVID. I won't talk to the vaccine rollout and the lack of quarantine facilities, but a reasonable job was done at the start to protect Australians. We did call on Australian industry to assist us in that regard, making sure that we had medical supplies and things like PPE. Sadly, all of that emphasis seems to have tapered off. The government's approach to Australian industry has been demonstrated by the department. It seems to be that industry should be standing by ready, willing and able should government decide to engage them. That often happens when we've got a foreign supplier that gets us into a mess or when it's an emergency, but there's a general belief that Australian industry will be ready and waiting and that they'll be there when we need them. That's an unfair proposition, and it's also not a reality. There's a saying: use it or lose it. If we don't have our industry, if we're not engaging our industry, then of course it's going to taper away and it's not going to be there when we need it.
Whilst I can use defence as a reference point, the problem is not strictly limited to defence. We have the largest island nation and yet we have no merchant navy. That has a corresponding impact on shipbuilding and sustainment. We have tier 1 contractors that are all foreign owned. All those large projects that we're developing under the extra $10 billion of money that has been provided by the government in the budget has to go to foreign owned companies, because our companies, the Australian owned companies, are tier 2 companies. That simply means that we're handing over those functions to foreign companies. We have dwindling offshore oil and fuel refining. We can see that listed on the Notice Paper—the need to weigh in and support our refineries. Even when we asked the four remaining refineries to stay in Australia, only two of them took up the offer. We will be dealing with that, but we shouldn't be in this problem. We're also reducing textile production. Last year when I asked Defence, 'Where's the map—where's the thing that tells us how we integrate our industry capability into our defence capability?' we were told that there was work going on but that they don't have one.
We can look at things like the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. They were changed in 2016. They require officials to achieve value for money. Of course we want that. But for procurements above $4 million—or $7.5 million for construction services—we also require officials, in accordance with the rules, to consider the economic benefit of the procurement to the Australian economy. This hasn't been happening. Even since the August 2020 guidelines were issued, it still doesn't seem to be happening. What we need to be doing is making sure, whenever we buy something with Australian taxpayers' money, we look to the economic benefit that comes from selecting a particular entity for doing that. That includes looking at how many jobs they might create. How much investment might they make here in Australia? What are the supply chain effects of going with a particular tender? These questions are required in our rules, but are not followed through. One of the reasons I think they're not followed through is because departments like Defence simply don't have the tools to be able to work out the trade-offs between taking one particular option versus another option and understanding what the economic benefit of that is, because the government simply is not tooling them up correctly. What we shouldn't be doing is just saying, 'What is the cost, what is the price.' We should be saying, 'What is the value of going with a particular contractor,' but we're not doing that.
We have a requirement to have Australian industry participation plans developed. The AIP Authority—it's under the Australian Jobs Act—basically needs a revolving door for the number of people who pass through that office. It's a continual churn. We do have Australian industry capability plans, but the reality is that these plans are not being implemented and enforced. I've seen the plan that was offered up by Naval Group, then DCNS, for the future submarines. It was actually a good plan. It involved partnering with ASC. It involved establishing a whole bunch of centres of excellence. It involved developing technologies here in Australia. These are exactly the sorts of things we want to do with an Australian industry capability plan. And yet, we find what was contracted by Defence was nothing along those lines. They did everything they could do to avoid ASC, and they did everything they could to avoid contracting in the very things that DCNS promised. I also note that, in that particular contract, even though—I've seen this in the documentation, where Naval Group did offer metrics. They offered 50 per cent. We didn't contract that. We have recently had to retrospectively contract in 60 per cent. That's a huge problem. You can't ask people to front up with an AIC plan, assess them on the quality of their AIC plan and then just put it in the back drawer.
One of the problems I think we have is Defence people concentrate on Defence. They don't think about Industry. Recently we tried to have Industry driving some of this in the Defence space, and Defence pulled it back in under their wing, I guess so that industry players didn't have to be or wouldn't be loud. There's a whole range of things we need to be thinking about in relation to this. We've just seen, with the Boomeranger contract, Australia contract out a whole bunch of sea boats when that's something we can do here in Australia. Indeed, under World Trade Organization rules, because it's defence related, we can overtly state we are going with an Australian company, and yet we don't seem to do that.
I'll tell you the story of how uncoordinated we are. We had a company, an Adelaide company, called Ezy-Fit procure—part of the procurement was paid by them, part of it was paid by the department of industry, to buy machining tools that would allow Ezy-Fit to build periscopes for the future submarines, and, indeed, to assist with sustaining Collins. What happened then? Defence contracted the job overseas. So, the taxpayer lost, and the company lost. They had bought an asset that could no longer be used.
We need people to focus on these sorts of matters. There are many, many things that we can do at the end of COVID. I'll just turn to an executive order signed by the US President on 25 January this year on ensuring the future is made in all of America by all of America's workers. Let me read from that executive order, just one paragraph because it's enough:
It is the policy of my Administration that the United States Government should, consistent with applicable law, use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards and Federal procurements to maximize the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.
There's leadership from the US President, signing into effect an executive order which must be complied with.
We still have this view here in Australia that we should simply let the market decide. What we have happen here is that the Australian government—and I'm not being critical of what we do here—imposes upon Australian companies minimum wages, leave loadings, holiday pay, long service leave and superannuation. We make them comply with environmental laws. We make them comply with occupational health and safety laws. We make them comply with a whole range of quality regulations. We do that, and that drives cost up. I don't say that's a bad thing. I think that ends up with Australians producing quality products. But then, when the government goes out and procure things, it looks at the price coming in from Vietnam or China or some other foreign jurisdiction where those particular requirements are not mandated. It's not an even playing field, and yet the doctrine of competitive advantage gets played out all of the time on the other side of the chamber. It is not a level playing field. It is not a level playing field when we deal with procurements that involve Chinese companies, because often they are well and truly backed by the state. So let's not pretend this theory of competitive advantage applies.
I've stood up and talked a little bit about Australian industry. It's really, really important. It's important for our resilience and important for our national security. Yet, when I ask a simple question—and remember that I ask these questions not for me but on behalf of my constituents—about what the government is doing to map industry capability to our defence needs, I can't get an answer in a timely fashion. Firstly, that worries me about what's happening behind the scenes, because they ought to be easy answers to come to. But, secondly, it is disrespectful to my constituents, who have a right to know, through Senate processes, what the answers to their questions are.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:18): I rise to take note of the minister's statement, and I particularly want to address remarks that Senator Birmingham made.
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
Senator WATT: I wouldn't be quite so smart, Senator Birmingham; you haven't heard what I have to say yet.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, Senator Patrick stood on Minister Payne's response to a question he put. That's the matter that we're dealing with—
Senator WATT: It's on the government's answers in relation to some questions on notice, and I've been informed I can do this as part of this process.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, I am advised as long as it is in relation to the matters that Senator Patrick asked of Minister Payne you are well in order. Please continue.
Senator WATT: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I would submit I am relevant to the point raised by Senator Patrick because my comments also relate to government ministers' statements in relation to questions on notice.
I do want to focus on an answer that was just tabled by Senator Birmingham at the end of question time. It's question on notice No. 3572, which I lodged nearly two months ago. It was a question seeking details from the Prime Minister as to representations made by the former foreign minister Ms Julie Bishop to government ministers on behalf of Mr Lex Greensill or his company, Greensill Capital. It is highly unsatisfactory that it has taken me flagging my intention to raise this today to finally get an answer from the Prime Minister of this country to this question. It does go to government integrity, something that we should be able to expect from our Prime Minister, if not all ministers, in this government. What the question that I lodged nearly two months ago sought was detail from the Prime Minister as to how many introductions Ms Bishop had made between government ministers and Mr Greensill or employees of his firm, Greensill Capital; in what capacity government ministers understood Ms Bishop to be making such communications; and details of the dates and nature of any meetings that did occur between ministers and representatives of Greensill Capital as a result of Ms Bishop's representations.
This matter does have some background, and one of the reasons that we are asking questions about this is that anyone who has followed either the collapse of Greensill Capital or, particularly, developments in the United Kingdom relating to this company, would be aware that quite a scandal has emerged in British politics involving the former British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, who was hired as a lobbyist by Greensill Capital. Various text messages, WhatsApp messages and other information have surfaced demonstrating Mr Cameron's abuse of his former role as Prime Minister of the British government and his personal connections to serving British Conservative ministers in pursuit of his client, Greensill Capital, who, as we know, went on to collapse, putting many funds and many creditors in jeopardy.
What we're concerned about, from the opposition's point of view here in Australia, is whether something similar has occurred in relation to the efforts of the former foreign minister Ms Julie Bishop. It's a matter of public record that Ms Bishop is on the payroll of Greensill Capital. She has now registered as a lobbyist on behalf of Greensill Capital, among other companies. She was a bit tardy in updating her register, but she is now a registered lobbyist on behalf of, among other firms, Greensill Capital. So there has been a connection between Ms Bishop and Greensill Capital in the same way that there has been a connection involving Mr Cameron in the United Kingdom.
On 23 April, I submitted questions to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the finance minister and the Attorney-General about representations made by Ms Bishop, the former foreign minister, on behalf of Greensill Capital. These were very simple questions. All they tried to establish was what contact had occurred between Ms Bishop and various government ministers regarding her client, Greensill Capital. But it seems that ministers needed longer than the 30 days dictated by the standing orders to get their stories straight. The Attorney-General, who, frankly, should be aware of standing orders, responded to my questions on 8 June. That's 46 days to respond, rather than the conventional 30. Interestingly, the Attorney-General did not respond until after Senate estimates was completed. Subsequently, the Attorney-General tasked her acting secretary with seeking clarification from the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party Ms Bishop on the nature of her role with Greensill prior to her registration under the lobbyist code being lodged. As I said: from facts that are on the public record, it does appear that Ms Bishop was undertaking lobbying work on behalf of Greensill Capital prior to her having registered in a public way as a lobbyist for that company. She needs to explain that, and she's been asked to do so by the acting secretary of the Attorney-General's Department. The Treasurer responded to my question on notice on 10 June, 48 days after I submitted my questions and only after it was revealed in Treasury estimates that Ms Bishop, acting on behalf of Greensill, had approached the Treasurer, who then ensured that Ms Bishop and Greensill Capital secured the ear of Treasury officials. All very convenient, all very cosy.
Then the finance minister and the leader of the government in this place also seemed to forget the standing orders and responded to my question on 11 June: that's 49 days after I lodged my question on notice. The Minister for Finance says that he has, 'not ever received communications from the former foreign minister Ms Bishop relating to Greensill Capital'. We can only take him at his word on that. But we do know that the former Minister for Finance and the former leader of the government in this place Mathias Cormann did open the backdoor to his mate Julie Bishop when he met with Greensill Capital in Davos in January 2020. Again, all very convenient and all very cosy—captains of industry and leaders of this government all sitting down having a nice mulled wine around the fire in Davos in the middle of winter.
This meeting that Mr Cormann arranged for Ms Bishop and had with Greensill Capital occurred despite a Department of Finance memo warning the then Minister, then Minister Cormann, that Greensill's scheme for financing, which was being touted to this government, was, 'wages on demand' and 'economically similar to payday lending'. We have a company who the Department of Finance has advised ministers wants to offer a service that is similar to payday lending being promoted by a former minister of this government, Ms Bishop, being facilitated by a former Minister of this government, Mr Cormann, and ministers aren't really keen to talk about what their involvement was. At least though the Attorney-General, the finance minister and the Treasurer answered those questions—albeit exceptionally late.
It wasn't until we flagged today that we were intending to ask Senator Birmingham where the answer to the question to the Prime Minister was that we finally got an answer. There was one minister who it took prompting from this Senate before he was prepared to answer my questions about representations made by Julie Bishop on behalf of Greensill Capital. It wasn't just any minister; it was the Prime Minister of this country. It took 53 days since I lodged my questions, 23 days after they were due, to get an answer—if you can call it that—from the Prime Minister.
I've had a quick look at the answer, if you can call it that, that we've received today to this question. Essentially what that answer says is that the Prime Minister is unable to answer my question. The question, of course, was how many introductions Ms Bishop had made between government ministers and Mr Greensill or employees of his firm. Despite taking 53 days since I lodged this question the Prime Minister now comes back and says he's unable to answer because answering this question would amount to an unnecessary diversion of resources of his department. Again, how very convenient and how very cosy that we have the Prime Minister covering for his mate Julie Bishop, refusing to answer questions about representations that she has made as a paid lobbyist for Greensill Capital to government ministers touting the services of a firm that the Department of Finance has likened to a payday lender. How very convenient; how very cosy.
Why is the Prime Minister wanting to cover up for the activities of his former Liberal colleague Julie Bishop? Why is the Prime Minister covering up the representations that she has made to government ministers on behalf of her client Greensill Capital? Greensill Capital is a company likened to a payday lender by this very government. Is it because we're facing a similar scandal to what we've seen in British politics involving former Prime Minister David Cameron? He was exposed for having made all sorts of private contacts to his mates in the current UK government on behalf of Greensill Capital in return for his payment as a lobbyist for that firm. Is that what we're seeing here with Ms Bishop? We don't know, because the Prime Minister won't tell us. We don't know, because the Prime Minister won't even tell us how many introductions Ms Bishop has made on behalf of her client Greensill Capital to government ministers to promote their services, to promote their payday lending services, which would be offered at the expense of ordinary Australians. This Prime Minister, if he has any sense of accountability, should be answering. He should be telling the Australian public what representations his former Liberal colleague Ms Bishop has made to ministers in this government and what work she has done on behalf of this payday lender—so called by the Department of Finance—to try to generate government business in return for a payment that she receives as a lobbyist for this firm. We deserve to know this.
In the absence of answers from the Prime Minister, we can only go on what has been reported, and that is fairly damning. On 12 April this year, the Australian reported that Lex Greensill sought to win influence with Scott Morrison by dropping in a WhatsApp message to the Prime Minister that he had signed up as a premium platinum member to the Liberal Party's Australia Business Network. So we've got Mr Greensill sending WhatsApp messages directly to the Prime Minister, talking up the fact that he's taken out a premium platinum membership of the Liberal Party's business network, but we can't find out Mr Greensill's lobbyist Julie Bishop has been up to. What WhatsApp messages has Julie Bishop been sending to her former colleagues, in trying to line up business for her client, the payday lender, Greensill Capital? What meetings has she arranged with government ministers to promote Greensill Capital's services? We don't know because the Prime Minister won't tell us. The Prime Minister won't be honest with the public because the Prime Minister wants to cover up for his former colleague Julie Bishop. I understand that premium memberships to this Liberal network that Mr Greensill joined cost around $120,000. Is this why the Prime Minister doesn't want to tell us what his former colleague Julie Bishop has been up to? Is it because he's protecting a very valuable donor to the Liberal Party? $120,000! Not a bad donation to a political party! Is that why the Prime Minister is covering up for Ms Bishop and Mr Greensill? Is it because he doesn't want to jeopardise those donations?
It turns out that, after a Liberal Party business network event in September, the Prime Minister himself met with Mr Greensill on 30 October 2019. This has been confirmed by a spokesperson for the Prime Minister. Was this meeting arranged by Julie Bishop as the lobbyist for Greensill? We don't know because the Prime Minister won't tell us because the Prime Minister is covering up for his colleague Julie Bishop. So we've got an Australian businessman, Mr Greensill, running a payday lending outfit which is mired in controversy at least in the UK, if not in Australia at this point, and which has collapsed, owing creditors significant amounts of money, and he is donating money to the Liberal Party, getting meetings with the Prime Minister through WhatsApp messages that he's sending and hiring Julie Bishop, a former federal minister in this government, to tout his services to ministers, but the Prime Minister won't tell us what his former colleague Julie Bishop has been up to. He won't tell us who she's met with. He won't tell us what WhatsApp messages she's been sending to her former colleagues.
Are we facing our own David Cameron style scandal in Australia, similar to what we've seen in the UK, based on a former Liberal minister of this government using her private connections to line up business deals for one of her own clients? We'd like to know that. I think the Australian people would like to know that. But the Prime Minister won't tell us that because he's covering up for his colleagues and covering up for what seems to be a major donor to the Liberal Party. This stinks of Liberals helping out their mates. We know that they treat taxpayers' money like Liberal Party money, and we're starting to find out that they apply special rules for Liberal mates who make nice donations to the Liberal Party and who like to cosy up with former ministers around the fireplace with a mulled wine at Davos. They're the kinds of people who are protected by this government. They're the kinds of people we don't find out about meetings with because this government has too much at stake. It's about protecting mates who've paid $120,000 to sign up as premium platinum members of the Liberal Party's business network. We deserve answers and transparency. It is not negotiable—and it should not be negotiable—for the Prime Minister to comply with the standing orders and properly answer these questions.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
COVID-19: Vaccination
COVID-19: Quarantine
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:34): I move:
That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) to questions without notice asked by Senators Watt, O'Neill and Pratt today relating to COVID-19 vaccinations for aged care workers and to quarantine facilities.
In estimates we saw Minister Colbeck asked on numerous occasions—I think it was 11, as Senator Watt referred to—about what the responsibility of the federal government is in relation to vaccinations not only for older Australians but older workers. He wasn't able to give us a direct answer during estimates, but clearly he did today. Families with parents, grandparents, aunties and friends in residential aged care are asking the Australian government: has this government ensured that every older Australian in residential care that wants to be vaccinated has had a vaccination? They also want to know—because it's critically important—that aged-care workers have had access to a vaccination.
Today we heard the minister say that vaccinations are available for aged-care workers if and when they want them. But the reality is that they have to take time off work—and, quite frankly, too many of them have to work across a number of sites—to find the time to do that. The simplest, easiest plan would have been to roll out vaccinations to older residents and to staff. We've heard that the government was given advice that they shouldn't happen at the same time. That advice doesn't say that they couldn't have gone back and started that program. What is just as alarming is that the supplement being paid to aged-care workers so that they didn't have to work across more than one site during the pandemic was taken away, and it then, when we saw another outbreak in Victoria, had to be reintroduced. That's just not good enough. There is no planning by this government.
During this pandemic, this government has had two responsibilities: (1) to roll out the vaccine; and (2) to provide quarantine. What have we seen from this government? No leadership whatsoever. It can't even roll out the vaccine in a timely manner. We still to this day do not know accurately how many aged-care workers have in fact been vaccinated even once, let alone had a second dose. It is not good enough.
We have seen from this government a failure to accept responsibility for quarantine. There is no reason why there should not have been federally funded quarantine facilities purpose built for such a contagious virus as COVID-19. But we have not seen that leadership. We have one such facility, and there have been no outbreaks from that. Everyone knows only too well that hotel quarantine has, on the whole, been a failure. Hotels are not built to accommodate people quarantining due to COVID-19. It is unacceptable to have hotels in inner cities trying to do the job this government has failed to do—providing purpose-built quarantine facilities. Every state and territory should have one of those facilities. That is the safest and best way to protect older Australians.
Time and time again we've seen this minister's failings in this portfolio. During estimates I asked: what is the protocol for new residents, older Australians, going into residential care, to ensure that they have been vaccinated? They couldn't tell me; they had to take that on notice. With the deaths we've had in this country in residential aged care, they couldn't tell me what the protocol is. Ask them what happens when those residents, for whatever reason—they may have been ill or they may not have been ready to have the COVID-19 vaccine administered to them—change their minds and want to have the vaccine. How is that protocol being rolled out? No answers. Silence again and, 'We'll have to take that on notice.' It is not good enough. This government has failed— (Time expired)
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (15:39): Yet again we find ourselves in this place with Labor conveniently ignoring many of the facts that have underpinned Australia's incredible success in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Let's not forget that the Morrison government led the world in closing the international border to arrivals from overseas, declared COVID-19 a pandemic more than two weeks before the WHO did, and, in fact, took the very, very important decision in August of last year to ensure that Australia has sovereign vaccine-manufacturing capability. Despite taking those decisions early—and despite ensuring that not only were the lives of Australians protected through the health response but also their livelihoods were protected, through programs such as JobKeeper, the cashflow boost and the other important economic stimulus measures—the government has worked collaboratively with the states and territories, through the national cabinet process, to ensure that the vaccine rollout occurs in an orderly and planned fashion.
It's also important to note that not only has national cabinet had complete oversight of the vaccine rollout but also that the Australian approvals of the vaccines were not done in an emergency fashion, because the Morrison government's success in managing the pandemic meant that we could allow evidence from overseas to be assessed, where countries such as the UK, the US and those in Europe experienced death rates far in excess of those experienced here in Australia and were forced, with their backs against the wall and bodies piling up in the streets, in some cases, to rush through emergency approval of the vaccines. Instead, Australia's expert authorities reviewed that evidence and came to the decisions that they did.
Now we find ourselves rolling out the vaccine through the national cabinet process. National cabinet agreed on 8 June to increase access to the COVID-19 vaccine program for people aged over 40; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged between 16 and 49; NDIS participants aged over 16; and, indeed, temporary visa holders, who had previously been excluded. So we have responded to the dynamic situation of rolling out an unprecedented vaccination program in this nation. National cabinet further agreed, at the same time, not to proceed with the identification of other essential and high-priority workers in phase 2a, given the difficulty of defining these populations, simultaneously with the expansion of access to people aged over the age of 40.
So, at the end of the day, the Commonwealth, through the national cabinet process, is collaboratively prioritising vaccinations for those who most need them. We've simplified and streamlined access to the vaccination program, through state and territory operated sites—including, for example, providing walk-in access and no requirement to pre-book an appointment. Not only this, but we face criticism, despite that success in managing the pandemic and the approvals and rollout of the vaccination program—disingenuous attacks from those opposite on the quarantine program.
Let's cast our minds back to 27 March 2020—almost 15 months ago now—when national cabinet collectively made the unanimous decision that mandatory hotel quarantine would be implemented under state public health orders. That reflected the fact that the Commonwealth wasn't resourced with either the workforce or the facilities to handle the return of Australians from overseas in these circumstances. Notwithstanding that, some 360,000 Australians have been returned to our shores through that program, with a greater than 99.9 per cent success rate. So, whilst those opposite criticise us for not allowing Australians to return, they're equally criticising us for using hotel quarantine systems that give us the capacity to have had more than 360,000 people thus far, and counting, returned safely to Australia. It belies the credibility of their attack on government policy, which ignores the success that we have achieved in the health battle against COVID-19 and completely misrepresents the realities of the situation that we face.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (15:44): I also rise to take note of answers to questions asked of Senator Colbeck by myself and my colleagues. The government, as we have seen clearly now, month after month, is behind in every aspect of the COVID pandemic in Australia, and Australians continue to suffer. The government promised as recently as late last year—October—that all aged-care workers would be vaccinated by March this year. Yet here we are in June, in this question time, with the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services, speaking on behalf of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, unable to tell us how many aged-care workers have had the vaccine and unable to give us any state breakdown of what that looks like.
It's all very well for those opposite to try and blame the procedures and processes of the national cabinet. This is not a job for the national cabinet. This is not a cover-up, where the states will have paid detailed attention to this, leaving it open for the Liberal Party to lay the blame: 'Well, this is how it was supposed to be all along. We did this deal with the states.' The simple fact is that in this nation aged care is a Commonwealth responsibility, and the need to track any vulnerabilities in our aged-care system due to COVID-19 is clearly and firmly a Commonwealth responsibility. Yet we have a government that simply does not know how many people who work in the aged-care sector have been vaccinated. A person's occupation isn't being asked for when they line up for their vaccination. Yet, within this context, plenty of younger workers who are supposed to be in the 1a cohort, who would not otherwise have been eligible, are not being asked what their profession that would make them a vulnerable frontline worker is. In the recent estimates, we heard that fewer than two per cent of people living in residential disability care are fully vaccinated, and yet we hear time and time again that the government is 'comfortable' with the vaccine rollout. This is the very same government that said they were committed to underpromising and overdelivering, and yet they have not been able to meet their own explicit measure of what they promised they would do, which even they said was, in effect, not a very high benchmark.
The government has lifted the ban on employees working at multiple facilities, which was imposed during the last outbreak, and yet again we have evidence to show that only 15 per cent of aged-care workers have been vaccinated. We know a proportion of these workers may be Medicare ineligible and may have to go through clinics, but where's the oversight to ensure that the state-run clinics, as per our protocols with the states for people who are Medicare ineligible, are actually prioritising and seeing aged-care workers? There's nothing here that demonstrates there's been any proactive effort by this government as the regulator of aged care to ensure that aged-care workers are going through any of those systems. We're told that staff members who were vaccinated at aged-care homes were done with the spare doses that were left over. There wasn't an intention to completely vaccinate those staff members, because they were vaccinated with the dregs of the system.
Frankly, it's clear to me that, with many workers being under 50, they would want to wait for the Pfizer vaccine. We know there's been vaccine hesitancy, and I'm by no means endorsing that. But—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Pratt. Senator McMahon.
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (15:49): I rise to take note of answers in response to questions by Senators Watt, Pratt and O'Neill to Senator Colbeck. I find it absolutely incredulous that those on the other side of this chamber would take something that has been a massive success and can only nit-pick and criticise—'Oh, you haven't built this;' 'You haven't vaccinated fast enough;' 'You haven't done this'. We have been one of the most successful countries in the world at combatting COVID and in bringing our people home from overseas—bringing Australians home from overseas—without spreading COVID to the rest of Australia. We have been one of the most successful countries, yet those across the floor can only nit-pick and criticise. They take absolutely no notice of the science behind it, of the health advice and of the actual success of this government in managing this disease outbreak.
Senator Polley mentioned the fact that we've been using hotel quarantine—and we have. That's a state decision. Quarantine of Australians returning is a state and territory responsibility and decision. The wonderful place that is 'Danistan' decided to use hotels that were possibly not suited and personnel who were possibly not properly trained and equipped to do this, and we have seen outbreak after outbreak. Senator Polley also mentioned one facility in the Northern Territory that has been enormously successful and from which we've had no outbreaks. That is the Howard Springs quarantine facility. That was not a purpose-built quarantine facility; that was a workers' camp. So, yes, it has proved ideal for the purpose of quarantine, but that's not because it was a Commonwealth built, purpose-built facility; it is a Northern Territory facility. It is still owned and operated by the Northern Territory government.
The success of that facility is not purely down to its location, its structure, its build or the facility itself. The success of that facility is down to the people who are running it—Professor Len Notaras and AUSMAT, the Australian Medical Assistance Teams. These people are specialists in biosecurity and specialists in disease control and prevention. That is what has made the facility so successful. We can have hundreds, even thousands, of people through that facility safely and without the virus escaping, due to the professionalism, the training and the expertise of those personnel.
I will disagree with Senator Polley on one point she made point, and that was that we have one facility. Well, we don't; in the Northern Territory alone we have two facilities. There's a second one, which is very similar and possibly even better in its design and construction than Howard Springs. That is Bladin Village. Why are we not using Bladin Village? I don't know; you'd have to ask the Labor Northern Territory government, because they are the ones that are refusing to utilise this facility.
Then we go to the issue of vaccination and the criticism of the vaccine rollout. Again, that is a function of the states and territories. The Commonwealth is supplying the vaccine, and the states and territories are rolling it out, and we don't necessarily have the ability to dictate to them how they will do that. However, in all Commonwealth residential aged-care facilities everyone has received their first dose and 94.1 per cent have received their second dose. I think that's not a bad achievement. Nearly all are fully vaccinated. If you look at the issue of the workers in those facilities, yes, that vaccine rollout did experience a hiccup when it was discovered overseas—and it was in fact pointed out in this chamber by the senator that sits in front of me, Senator Canavan—that issues around this vaccine had stared to occur and we have since seen them occur in Australia, with a very tiny percentage of people coming down with blood clots. Would those across the room want us to barrel on ahead in those circumstances? (Time expired)
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (15:54): I also rise to take note of answers to questions asked by Senators Pratt, Watt and O'Neill. We've been in this pandemic for one year now, and in that time there's been time to learn, to look at what's happening on the ground, to think of solutions and to roll them out. On the two things that we know the federal government is ultimately responsible for—quarantine and vaccinations—we've seen failure after failure.
On the vaccine, Scott Morrison has said that the vaccine rollout isn't a race, and he could not be more wrong. It is a race, and Australians are paying the price for his failures in it. South Australians don't want any more excuses. They don't want any more deadlines missed, avoided or dodged. They don't want to hear the federal government continue to blame the states or, indeed, anyone they can look at or point to. They want the federal government to take responsibility, and they want the federal government to deliver. They want to be safe, and they're fearful that they're not safe.
Nowhere are the government's failures on the vaccine rollout more stark than in aged care, where we have lost Australian lives and where workers and residents alike are fearful of this virus and of what happens if the vaccinations aren't rolled out quickly and they aren't protected and kept safe. And can we blame them after everything they have been through these past 12 months? They expect the federal government to deliver for them. They expect to be kept safe.
It's not just aged care; it's the disability sector as well. Just today I met with advocates from this sector who told me that their staff are yet to be fully vaccinated and that their workforce are concerned about their safety. The PM promised to vaccinate vulnerable workers by Easter, and with good reason. Easter mattered. It was a promise with reason, because the Australian winter is the most dangerous time for this virus. It's when respiratory diseases are at their highest and Australians are most vulnerable. They promised Easter with good reason, and they have failed to deliver on it. That has left Australians less safe. That has left people who work or live in aged care less safe and more fearful. It has left people who work in the disability sector less safe and more fearful, and it is simply not acceptable.
There were two jobs: quarantine and vaccinations. Hotels aren't meant to be quarantine facilities; they're meant to house tourists. This has been a failure of the federal government. It is a failure which affects Australian lives. It is a failure which affects South Australian lives.
The vaccination rollout is failing, too, in its speed of delivery. It is so important that the federal government get this right. It is important for confidence, and it's important for the safety of some of our most vulnerable workers and our most vulnerable Australians. Instead of coming in here and defending it, puffing up your chests and saying, 'We've done a great job, and therefore that's it; game over, we're done,' you actually need to keep working on this. You need to keep working every day, doing everything you can to keep South Australians safe. You always need to be looking to do better and roll out better. You need to spend less time focused on excuses for errors and failures in delivery and more time working out solutions to these problems. You need to spend less time focused on Labor, although you might want to think about some of the things we've suggested to fix this, such as purpose-built quarantine facilities. An advertising campaign wouldn't go astray. Channel 9's done a pretty good one. You can listen to us and our positive suggestions, but spend less time focused on the politics of this and more time focused on the things you're responsible for: the rollout, the delivery and the implementation—the fundamental roles of federal government and the responsibility you have to keep your fellow Australians safe. It's a clear, linear responsibility that you hold.
There's a clear job ahead of you. Australians expect it of you, and if you don't deliver you are leaving Australians less safe and you are leaving them fearful. After the year that we have had, after the lessons that we have learned, it's time to take responsibility. It's time to actually set targets and meet them. It's time to stand up for South Australians.
Question agreed to.
Asylum Seekers
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:00): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKim relating to asylum seekers.
Well, here we are again. There's a sickening case before us today that has appalled so many people in Australia—the Murugappan family, Priya, Nades and their two little girls, originally from Sri Lanka and more recently from Biloela. They are a family that has been deliberately mistreated because it suits this government's political ends to do so. This family has now finally been let off Christmas Island, and the Australian Greens are very pleased that they will no longer be detained in inhumane and unsafe conditions on Christmas Island. But for them to simply be placed into community detention in Perth is not good enough. They should be released not just into community detention in Perth but, in fact, back to their home, to the community in Biloela that wants them returned there and will support them when that happens. Biloela is the place where they were building a life and where they were welcomed and loved by the local community.
The developments of the last week—but really over the entire life of this government—show that the mistreatment and cruelty that has been doled out to this family is not some by-product or some accident. It's not a bug; it's a feature of the government's policy. It's a deliberate choice by a government that choose to build in torture as a cornerstone of their immigration policy. They've militarised our borders. They've advertised their cruelty for the world to see, with slogans that have been in aped by far-Right nationalists in Europe. They've turned around people fleeing persecution and, in some cases, turned them straight back into the hands of the regimes and the persecution they were fleeing. They have destroyed thousands of lives in offshore detention, an appalling, bloody policy that has the full support of both major parties in this place. It is a brutal policy with brutal, human consequences.
Make no mistake: the cornerstone of Australia's immigration detention system—both offshore and here onshore in Australia—is to make people's lives so miserable, to harm people so grievously, that they decide that going back to the persecution in the places they fled from is the lesser of two evils. It has been designed to break people, and break people it has. It has the express and admitted intent of deterring other people from seeking asylum. It's like the old medieval practice of impaling corpses on the walls of cities to dissuade other desperates from trying to enter. Here we are, in the early to middle 21st century, engaged in that kind of medieval barbarism.
Those millions of Australians who know this is wrong, who believe we are a better country than this, know all too well how hard it's been to achieve even a glimpse of humanity and compassion. They're fighting against billions of dollars, a paramilitary campaign supported by the two major parties. They're fighting against racist, baying elements in the media and the two major parties, who wear their cruelty as a badge of honour. But, in the face of all that, the Australian Greens and the millions of Australians who want to see a more compassionate approach will never stop fighting so that families like the Murugappans are given the freedom and safety in this country they so richly deserve. When they win their freedom on a permanent basis—and I genuinely believe they will—we'll continue to fight for those others who need it, for those people who were medevaced here and still languish in hotel prisons, for the people still stuck in Papua New Guinea or Nauru. And let's not forget, with regard to this Sri Lankan family, if they were to arrive tomorrow in Australia by boat to claim asylum in this country, under the policies of both major parties they would be immediately exiled, kids and all, to a prison camp on Nauru. Shame on the bloody lot of you! (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Ciccone to move on the next day of sitting:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Temporary Migration be extended to 2 September 2021.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require reporting on electric vehicles, and for related purposes. Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting days after today:
That the Telecommunications (Fibre-ready Facilities — Exempt Real Estate Development Projects) Instrument 2021, made under the Telecommunications Act 1997, be disallowed.
Senator Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) there is a tremendous amount of public opposition to the redevelopment ofthe Australian War Memorial, both within the Australian Capital Territorycommunity and across the country, as evidenced by the record number of601 submissions, of which only 3 supported the redevelopment proposal asit is,
(ii) the National Capital Authority has not sufficiently addressed publicconcern around the destruction of ANZAC Hall, removal of native treesand excavation works in their approval,
(iii) the early works program as proposed is so extensive as to make the fullproject a foregone conclusion, and
(iv) the approval is subject to appeal and there is a significant possibility that itwill be appealed; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to request that the Australian War Memorial notcommence any works until all appeals processes are concluded. (general businessnotice of motion no. 1126)
Senator Colbeck to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to sport, and for related purposes. Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021.
Senator Colbeck to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes. National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021.
Senator O'Neill to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a bipartisan framework for the sustainable use of water in the Murray-Darling basin system;
(b) supports a river system that has healthy ecosystems, agricultural production, sustainable local communities and encourages First Nations cultural practices;
(c) further notes the commitment of the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia (Mr Pitt) to recover all of the 450 gigalitres from New South Wales and Victoria in his press release of 4 September 2020; and
(d) supports the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, in full and on time.
Senator Pratt to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) Australia's leadership on the issue of HIV/AIDS by co-facilitating the 2021 United Nations General Assembly High Level Meeting (HLM) on HIV/AIDS, which took place from 8 to 10 June 2021, to review the progress made in reducing the impact of HIV since the 2016 HLM,
(ii) the HLM adjourns a meeting of public health and political leaders on 17 June 2021 to discuss Agenda 2025: Ending HIV transmission in Australia,
(iii) that in Australia and internationally, ongoing bipartisan action is needed to address HIV transmission among First Nations, trans and gender diverse people, and emerging high-risk population groups, and
(iv) gay and bisexual men bear the burden of Australia's HIV epidemic and ongoing health education among this demographic is needed; and
(b) recognises and acknowledges:
(i) the Agenda 2025: Ending HIV transmission in Australia strategy outlines the commitments needed to virtually eliminate HIV transmission in Australia,
(ii) the journey people have made through their diagnosis, treatment and experiences of living with HIV,
(iii) the efforts of peer educators, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists in improving the lives of people with HIV, and
(iv) the tireless community advocates and civil society organisations that tackle HIV stigma.
Senator Sterle to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the horrific mouse plague continues to significantly impact multiple states including South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, costing farmers millions and hurting regional communities,
(ii) farmers in NSW say the cost of the mouse plague on the state's winter crop will top $1 billion, and warn it could span for two years,
(iii) Budget Estimates revealed there is no national response by the Morrison Government to help farmers and rural communities address the impact of the shocking mouse plague, and
(iv) the NSW Agriculture Minister said 'it's incredibly disappointing to hear theCommonwealth admit they've got no national response and throw theirhands up as our regions face this problem', and has written to theMorrison Government calling on it to provide assistance with the mouseplague;
(b) conveys its disappointment that the Morrison Government has not:
(i) developed a national response to help farmers and regional communitiesaddress the mouse plague, and
(ii) taken any responsibility to help abate the impact of the mouse plagueacross multiple states; and
(c) calls on the Morrison Government to:
(i) lead a national response to this growing crisis, and
(ii) put the costly mouse plague at the top of the agenda at the next meeting ofAgriculture Ministers.
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges:
(i) World Elder Abuse Awareness Day is venerated each year on 15 June tohighlight one of the worst displays of ageism in our society, elder abuse,
(ii) elder abuse can take various forms, including financial, physical,psychological, emotional and sexual abuse or neglect, and
(iii) elder abuse can occur in many settings, including in an older person'shome, and is often caused by someone who is trusted by that person, suchas a family member, friend, or paid caregiver; and
(b) notes that:
(i) in 2019-20, residential aged care services reported 5,718 allegations ofassault under the mandatory reporting requirements,
(ii) a study conducted by consultancy firm KPMG in 2019 for the AustralianDepartment of Health calculated that an additional 27,000 to 39,000assaults occurred, which were exempt from mandatory reporting, and
(iii) the Royal Commission's Final Report in to Aged Care Quality and safetyestimated that 1 in 3 people in aged care have experienced substandardcare; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to include home care in the Serious IncidentResponse Scheme as there are around one million older Australians receivingsupport or care in their own homes, and there is an equal risk of serious incidentsoccurring in that setting.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the following resolutions of the G7 on 13 June 2021, that the group'acknowledges their duty to safeguard the planet for future generations' by:
(i) more than halving their collective emissions from 2005 levels by 2030,
(ii) ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2025,
(iii) ending direct financial support to thermal coal generators by the end ofthis year,
(iv) achieving an overwhelmingly decarbonised power system in the 2030s, and
(v) increasing and improving climate finance for the developing world by 2025; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to implement these commitments in Australia.
Senators Watt, Chisholm and Green to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Queensland Coal Mining Board of Inquiry has released its report into the Grosvenor Mine explosion in Central Queensland, which seriously injured five workers,
(ii) the report found that:
(A) poor safety practices at the mine exposed workers to an 'unacceptable level of risk', and
(B) labour hire workers at the mine feared they would lose their job if they reported safety concerns, and
(iii) the Morrison Government, in partnership with Pauline Hanson's One Nation, has failed to stop the rampant abuse of casualisation and labour hire across the Queensland coal mining workforce; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to urgently implement Labor's 'Same job, same pay' policy, to ensure that labour hire mine workers have fair work conditions and safer workplaces.
Senator Lambie to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2021:
The future development of Australia's relationship with the People's Republic of China.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (16:05): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 15 to 24 June 2021:
(a) Senator Griff, for personal reasons; and
(b) Senator Molan, medical reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
General business notice of motion no. 1097 standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young for today, relating to the Dry Creek Saltfield in South Australia, postponed till 23 June 2021.
General business notice of motion no. 1119 standing in the name of Senator McKim for today, proposing the introduction of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Amendment (Ending Jobkeeper Profiteering) Bill 2021, postponed till 21 June 2021.
General business notice of motion no. 1121 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) for today, proposing the introduction of the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021, postponed till 16 June 2021.
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021 [Provisions]—from 11 June to 18 June 2021
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Funding for public research into foreign policy issues—from 17 June to 12 August 2021
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (16:07): Thank you. 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 now proceed to discovery of formal business.
Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee
Reporting Date
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (16:07): I move:
That—
(a) the time for the presentation of the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System be extended to 29 October 2021; and
(b) a message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in this variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Domestic and Family Violence
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:08): I seek leave to, sadly, increase the number of women killed from 11 to 18.
Leave granted.
Senator WATERS: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 18 women have been killed by violence in Australia in 2021, as reported by Destroy the Joint's Counting Dead Women project,
(ii) no national government toll reports on women killed by violence in real time,
(iii) more than 370,000 women are subjected to violence from men each year,
(iv) 1 in 3 women have experienced physical violence and, on average, one woman is murdered every week by her current or former partner,
(v) women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience intimate partner violence and 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalised from family and domestic violence,
(vi) young women, women with disabilities, and First Nations women are more likely to experience violence,
(vii) coercive control and persistent emotional abuse is abuse in its own right, and a strong risk indicator for physical violence, and
(viii) demand for domestic and family violence services continues to increase; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) recognise violence against women as a national security crisis,
(ii) fully fund frontline family and domestic violence services to ensure all those seeking safety can get the help they need, and
(iii) coordinate a national approach to combating coercive control.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (16:08): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Every single death is one too many. We know that domestic violence against women takes many forms, including coercive control. The decision to legislate in this area sits with states and territories; however, we have committed $4.7 million to invest in legislative reform across the country as part of the $1.1 billion Women's Safety Package. This is the single largest investment in women's safety and acts as a down payment on the next national plan, which is currently being consulted upon.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:09): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: One Nation opposes this motion. The national crisis is the very existence of violence in our homes and communities—violence against men, women, children, the elderly and those living with disabilities. It is fact that males are less likely to be victims of assault from an intimate partner compared to women, but that's not the whole story. When it comes to violence and assaults from other family members, the statistics show that men and women are almost equally likely to suffer. Australia loses six men per day to suicide, and more men died from suicide in 2019 than the entire Australian road toll of 2019 and 2020 combined. Men are 75 per cent more likely to commit suicide than women. These figures are a national tragedy. This motion separates out a portion of the problem without regard for the whole. To solve a problem first requires understanding the problem and its causes and understanding what drives the perpetrator and the victim. To separate out only a part of the problem will perpetuate the violence.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Privileges Committee
Reference
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:10): I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 1.
Leave granted.
Senator PATRICK: I move the motion as amended:
That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:
Having regard to the matters raised by Senator Patrick in correspondence tabled by the President on 12 May 2021:
(a) whether any conduct ofthe former Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds, or any other person amounted to an improper interference with the Economics References Committee inquiry into Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability; and
(b) if so, whether any contempt was committed in respect of those matters.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (16:11): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The government does not support Senator Patrick's motion. This motion contains inappropriate imputations about a distinguished senior public servant which would be further compounded if it were carried. The amendment is nothing but a sleight of hand, and the intent and outcome of the motion remain unchanged. Secretary Moriarty has served the Australian people with distinction in a life of public service. He was the senior negotiator with the Peace Monitoring Group in Bougainville and served as our ambassador to Iran, our ambassador to Indonesia and Australia's Commonwealth Counter-Terrorism Coordinator. The government is committed to working with senators where concerns are raised, but this motion is not an appropriate or constructive way to advance public debate or the public interest.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as amended and moved by Senator Patrick on a matter of privilege be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:16]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
MOTIONS
Legal Aid
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (16:19): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the additional public money for women's legal services in the Budget is very welcome,
(ii) other legal assistance services like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and community legal centres did not receive extra resourcing in the Budget,
(iii) given the alarming imprisonment rates of First Nations people, it is more important than ever for legal assistance services, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, to be properly resourced and accessible across the country,
(iv) all legal assistance services are under incredible pressure and the demand for their services does not meet the public funding provided to them, and
(v) legal assistance services, Aboriginal community-controlled organisations and legal sector peak bodies were excluded from the Budget lock up; and
(b) calls on the Commonwealth Government to properly resource legal assistance services, including family violence prevention legal services, and move to long- term funding agreements to ensure funding certainty for these critical services.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (16:19): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The Morrison government is committed to supporting access to justice. We are providing more than $2.3 billion over five years for legal assistance services across Australia through the National Legal Assistance Partnership, including approximately $350 million in additional funding following the 2021-22 budget. The budget also provided $26 million over four years to improve the quality, capability and cultural safety of Indigenous and non-Indigenous family violence services, including for the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services.
Question agreed to.
JobKeeper Payment
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:20): I move:
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes that the 2020-21 Budget delivered the JobKeeper wage subsidy, which saw over $1 billion in JobKeeper payments paid to companies that made a profit or paid executive bonuses; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to require companies with an annual turnover of more than $50 million that received JobKeeper payments, and in the last 12 months did one or more of the following:
(i) issued dividends,
(ii) made a profit, or
(iii) paid executive bonuses;
to repay the Commonwealth an amount equal to the amount of JobKeeper payments they received, up to the sum of profits made and executive bonuses paid.
(2) That this resolution be sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:21): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: One Nation supports this motion. Many broad-stroke policies were voted through in the early days of COVID due to the uncertainty at the time. And yet mistakes were made, and these must be admitted and addressed. In some cases, JobKeeper payments went to companies with no need for the money and who used the money for purposes having nothing to do with the intent of JobKeeper, which was to protect jobs and to help workers and families get through tough times. Mega car dealership Eagers Automotive claimed JobKeeper and then paid out dividends for almost the exact same amount—$67 million. Star Casino received $64 million and then gave CEO Matt Bekier an equity bonus of $800,000.
Without basic governance, greed has come out to play. Company executives purloining JobKeeper for their own financial benefit does not pass the pub test. It's time this government stopped running the country for the benefit of its big-business mates and started caring about the people paying for all of this—Australian taxpayers, current and future.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1117 standing in the name of Senator McKim be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:26]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Child Care
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:29): At the request of Senator Bilyk, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1120 be taken as a formal motion.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is an objection.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:29): Pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Wong, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent general business notice of motion No. 1120 being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:31]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:35): At the request of Senator Bilyk, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) expresses its support for public funding for early childhood education and care (ECEC), recognising that it helps increase the participation of parents in the workforce, especially women, thereby boosting Australia's economy, and contributes to the physical, intellectual, social and emotional development of children;
(b) notes that public funding for ECEC has been described by certain Government members and senators as a 'money pit', 'communism' and 'the hand of government reaching in and taking away our children's youth';
(c) recognises that the Government's child care policy:
(i) does not start until July 2022,
(ii) provides no additional benefit to families with only one child,
(iii) rips away increased subsidy support for families with two children in care when the oldest child goes to school,
(iv) creates confusion for many families as to whether they will be eligible for any support, and if so how much and for how long, and
(v) has missed the opportunity to boost Australia's economy by increasing women's workforce participation; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to adopt Labor's Cheaper Child Care Plan, which will benefit four times as many families as the Government's plan.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We usually table at this point. Are you happy to do that?
Senator FARUQI: Yes.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1120 standing in the name of Senator Bilyk be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:40]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Gender Dysphoria
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:43): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1114 in the terms circulated in the chamber, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.
Leave granted.
Senator ROBERTS: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
i. 100 years of diagnostic history of childhood gender dysphoria (GD) there is an alarming trend that teenage girls, with no history of GD, have become the largest group seeking treatment,
ii. in the United States of America, girls requesting gender reassignment surgery in 2016-17 rose 400%,
iii. in the United Kingdom, girls presenting with GD in the last 10 years rose 4000%, and
individual. Australia's Royal Children's Hospital indicates referrals have grown from 1 every two years to 104 patients in 2014;
(b) further notes that:
i. Sweden's leading gender clinic has ended treatment of minors with hormonal drugs due to safety concerns, citing cancer and infertility, and
ii. suicide mortality rate for transgendered people is 20 times higher than comparable peers;
(c) supports children presenting with GD to be given:
i. the 'wait and see' method as the first choice, since evidence shows between 70-90% of young people's dysphoria resolves itself by puberty, and
ii. a comprehensive therapeutic pathway since a large percentage of these children have pre-existing mental health issues, and not a medical pathway; and
(d) condemns the practice of children receiving:
i. experimental and unproven medical treatments of irreversible puberty blockers and sex hormone treatments, and
ii. irreversible transgender surgery.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (16:44): by leave—The government is committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of young Australians. We acknowledge that the clinical treatment of children experiencing gender dysphoria is a complex and evolving area, and that more research is needed.
In Australia, state and territory health departments are the system managers of their public hospital and health services, and have primary administrative and clinical responsibility and control of the relevant services. It's important that the states and territories work to develop a nationally consistent, evidence based approach to best-practice treatment and clinical care, with appropriate safeguards. We encourage them to immediately prioritise this critical work.
Also, this motion touches on complex issues that could be a matter of conscience, and therefore coalition senators will be voting in accordance with their consciences.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (16:45): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RICE: Newsflash: transgender and non-binary people exist, they are valid and they deserve our love and support, and, for some of them, medical support to affirm their gender is life-saving. This motion is harmful. It is full of misrepresentation, misinformation and fearmongering, and it has no place in our parliament. It is a complete misrepresentation of the support being offered to young people in Australia in affirming their gender identity, such as the world-class services being provided at the gender clinic at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne.
The Greens reject this motion absolutely, and state our support for all trans and gender-diverse people. You are valid; we see you and we support you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1114, moved and amended and standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:50]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
MATTERS OF URGENCY
Gas Industry
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ) (16:54): I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 26 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 that the letter from Senator McKim, proposing a matter of urgency, was chosen:
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:
"Opening up the Beetaloo Basin will release massive amounts of toxic methane, a dangerous climate heating gas, and in the words of United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, building huge gas infrastructure now will leave us 'stuck with stranded assets in 10 or 20 or 30 years'."
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that 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 WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:55): I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
Opening up the Beetaloo Basin will release massive amounts of toxic methane, a dangerous climate heating gas, and in the words of United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, building huge gas infrastructure now will leave us 'stuck with stranded assets in 10 or 20 or 30 years'.
I rise to speak on this matter of public urgency, which is about not spending public money to open up the Beetaloo Basin, which would turbocharge the climate crisis our globe is already in. Sadly, we know that there was almost a quarter of a billion dollars of public money committed in the budget to opening up the Beetaloo Basin. Perhaps even more sadly, we know that the opposition also supports opening up this basin.
I want to make a few points about what a bad idea this is. Not only is it a climate bomb, and not only will it be an enormous threat to 90 per cent of the Northern Territory's groundwater systems; there is no consent from the traditional owners for any of this gas mining, this fracking, this extraction from their land. That should be enough to stop this proposal in its tracks, but, as we all know, our laws do not provide any protection for First Nations people to have any sort of determination over what happens on their land. But it should provide pause to this government and the opposition that the First Nations owners of this part of the Territory do not want fracking on their land. They do not want their groundwater jeopardised and they do not want the world's climate stuffed up. That hasn't provided any pause to this government, because they have allocated so much public money: $175 million for roads in and out of the Beetaloo Basin and $1.1 billion of new spending, $16 million of which is for so-called strategic gas basins, including the Beetaloo, and $50 million for drilling in the Beetaloo. Is this government going to get in there and drill gas fracking wells for the company itself? Frankly, it is essentially bankrolling the whole project.
It is very interesting to see who is in fact undertaking the project and who is going to benefit from this largesse of public funds. Two billionaires are set to profit in particular—surprise, surprise!—and many of the big energy companies pushing this are donors to the Liberal Party. Blow me down with a feather! The companies are comprised of those that have been accused of tax dodging, like Jemena and Santos; those that donate to the Liberal Party, like Origin, Santos, Empire Energy and Jacaranda; billionaires Gina Rinehart and Dale Elphinstone; and Liberal Party luminary Paul Espie. What a bunch of folk to get public money to open up a gas basin, against the wishes of the traditional owners, which will turbocharge the climate crisis that we're in and potentially wreck 90 per cent of the groundwater of the Northern Territory.
Fracking the Beetaloo will increase Australia's emissions, if it goes ahead, by at least eight per cent and possibly up to 23 per cent; it is that much of a carbon bomb. We just had the G7 saying yesterday that not only should we not be funding more fossil fuel subsidies or more fossil fuel projects with public money by 2025; we should have strong emissions reduction targets by 2030—at least double what this government is proposing, and the opposition doesn't even have a 2030 target.
Australia is flying in the face of the rest of the world in wanting to sink a quarter of a billion dollars in public money into opening up a climate bomb that would wreck the groundwater of the Northern Territory, against the wishes of the traditional owners of that land. It is hideous. You could not think of a worse proposal. Naturally it's for the benefit of the big corporations that either donate to, or have links to, the Liberal Party. But the Australian people will not let this fly. They want genuine action on climate, they want renewable energy investment and they want the wishes of First Nations owners respected.
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (16:59): First of all, I'd like to touch on Senator Waters' comments about public money being used for energy projects in this country. The Morrison government has committed billions and billions of dollars to renewable energy—not the least $10 billion in the Clean Energy Fund; $5 billion in the Snowy Hydro; $3.5 billion for the Climate Solutions Package; $2.5 billion for the Emissions Reduction Fund; $1.5 billion for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency; $1 billion for the Grid Reliability Fund, which has now become another fund; and $0.5 billion for the Hydrogen Strategy. That comes to about $24 billion all up.
My view is that you either nationalise the energy market or let the market rip. But this idea of going around subsidising energy producers regardless of the type of energy is not on. I think the private industry should pay their fair share of tax. If they make money, they should pay money. In terms of putting in roads to enable this to happen, I'm more than happy to argue that they should pay their fair share of tax on that. However, the Beetaloo Basin does have over 200,000 petajoules of shale gas in place. To put that in perspective, Australia currently uses 1,920 petajoules a year, both for domestic use and for export. So there is over 100 years of gas just for Australia in the Beetaloo Basin. So we'd be mad not to use our own natural resources where we can. We cannot rely on wind and solar alone. It's intermittent energy, and, ultimately, it's not renewable and it's not clean either—which I'll talk about in a minute.
The other thing I would like to talk about is this allegation of it being a 'climate bomb' and, in particular, the description of methane as being a 'dangerous climate-heating gas'. We've got to get over this notion that greenhouse gases are somehow warming the planet. What warms the planet is the sun. The scientific equation for that comes under E=mc2. Every second, 600,000 tonnes of hydrogen is burnt and converted into 596 million tonnes of helium and four million tonnes of energy. That energy is transported in the form of a photon to planet Earth. Not all of it but some of it comes here to planet Earth. How long that takes depends on where it was created in the sun. If it was created internally in the sun—in the middle of the sun—it can take up to 170,000 years just to get out of the sun. Then, once it is out of the sun, it takes about eight minutes and 20 seconds to get here. But that will have a lot less energy than that of a photon created on the edge of the sun, which will get here with a lot of energy. That will come either as an ultraviolet ray or a gamma ray and that will have a lot of energy. Hence why we have to stay out of the sun, because ultraviolet light will knock out an electron—it has that powerful ionising effect—and hence could cause cancer.
On the infrared radiation, which is on the other side of the visible spectrum, you've got two parts. There's near radiation and thermal radiation. The near radiation—the infrared radiation—is the incoming stuff and the thermal radiation is the outgoing stuff. Interestingly enough, methane, even though it stays in the atmosphere for about 20 years versus, supposedly, carbon dioxide for 200 years—but that ignores the photosynthesis effect and lots of it gets absorbed by the ocean to create corals, of all things—actually emits at about eight microns versus 15 microns of carbon dioxide, which I will talk about in a minute. I thought I would talk a little bit about the science, because we often hear people say how they 'believe in the science'. Well, you don't 'believe' in science; you either understand it or you don't. Science isn't a cult. It's not a faith. You've got to actually understand the science.
When it comes to heat, you've got three forms of heat transfer—convection, conduction and radiation. I'd like to quote a paper that was released in 1917 that talks about the quantum theory of radiation. That paper was put out by a bloke by the name of Bert—Albert Einstein. In this paper he concludes that the 'momentum transferred by radiation is so small that it always drops out as compared to that from other dynamic processes'. What that means is that radiation has such a minimal impact that it's basically negligible in the overall transmission of energy on planet Earth. I love to quote these scientists, because we're told that we've got to believe the science; well, here's the science. Interestingly, he says at the start that 'molecules will acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions'.
He goes on in this paper to talk about nitrogen and oxygen, which make up over 95 per cent of the atmosphere. They are heated up as well. Given that they don't emit radiation, how is it that these things heat up if radiation is such a powerful effect? Effectively, they heat up because the major forms of heat transfer in the environment are convection and conduction. About eight million collisions a second go on; that's conduction. Then convection is basically where the wind and the evaporative cooling from the ocean and everything cools the planet. We need to understand that because, unlike climate science theory—and that's all it is; it's a theory—there is actually a true science that has been around for about 200 years and that's the science of heat, which is called thermodynamics.
There are two laws in that that really matter. The first applies to conduction—the first law of thermodynamics—and that says that energy can neither be destroyed nor created, only transformed or transferred. That's important, because, when we have a collision with molecules, whatever one molecule loses in energy the other molecule gains. But overall there is no increase in energy in the system, because, ultimately, energy is kinetic energy. When we talk about heat it is kinetic energy which is the energy of motion, which makes a mockery of the whole 'climate science carbon dioxide traps heat' because nothing traps heat. As per the Stefan-Boltzmann law everything absorbs and radiates, absorbs and radiates. This idea that carbon dioxide is up-down and it's sucking up all this heat is absurd. If it were sucking up all this heat, the question you'd have to ask yourself is: given it has been around for 3½ billion years, why don't we get hotter and hotter? The answer to that is: effectively it emits as well.
Then we go to the second form and the major form of heat transfer in the atmosphere, which is convection. The second law of thermodynamics applies to that. Yet again I emphasise the word 'law' as opposed to 'theory', because laws have been proven through empirical science. That basically says the entropy of a system must always increase. What does that mean? That effectively means that if I've got half a cup of water here at 10 degrees and half a cup of water here at 20 degrees, and I pour one into the other, it'll average out at 15 degrees. It's a bit like the atmosphere. If you turn those two cups on their sides, effectively whatever heat is emitted downwards, by the so-called greenhouse gases, convection will naturally balance out. Why? Because the atmosphere is basically one big pressure gradient based on temperature differentials. Any change in the pressure or the temperature will always seek to increase the entropy of a system. As I said, if you're putting heat downwards—so if we've got those two cups on their sides and carbon dioxide's radiating downwards and suddenly the bottom cup increases to 21 degrees, using the first law of thermodynamics that means the upper cup will go back to nine degrees. If you combine the two again it still averages out at 15 degrees. Long story short: we really have to stop scaring the world with this whole climate change mantra, because the climate has always changed and the earth has always been able to balance it out as a result of the atmosphere, pressure gradients, evaporative cooling and so on.
The other thing I want to touch on here is that the proposed solution to all of this is somehow renewable energy. Let me tell you, there is nothing renewable about lithium. Lithium is a one per cent ore body. What does that mean? That means that you've got to mine 100 tonnes of ore to get one tonne of metal. These ore bodies don't sit in the ground in a nice, perfect shape where you can go in and just dig it up; you've got to go around and around and around. When you see those mining pits they will probably be 10 times the size of the ore. You've got to get down to the ore. You can't just have a big truck driving down a steep gradient. You might have to shift 1,000 tonnes of dirt just to get one tonne of metal. To get lithium out of the ore it has to go through four intensive electrolysis processes—before it's even ready to be put into a battery, right? That's just one half of the battery. You've then got to use graphite as the cathode. Then you've got to dig all that up as well.
Interestingly enough, a guy by the name of Richard Herrington, who is the head of the earth sciences in the Natural History Museum, says, 'Just to power of the UK fleet you're going to have to use half the world's available copper, the entire amount of the world's available lithium and about three-quarters of the world's available cobalt', so it's never going to happen.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (17:09): It's always good to follow Senator Rennick, the Senate's own Julius Sumner Miller, giving us all a version of a science lesson, just like he does at Senate estimates as well. This urgency motion debate is an important one. It's about a particular basin in the Northern Territory, and it's also more broadly about the gas industry and its future in Australia.
I think it's important, at the outset, to put on the record what Labor's position on the gas industry actually is. We hear a lot from people in this chamber and people in the media about what Labor's position allegedly is. They say, 'It's about this and it's about that.'
Senator Seselja interjecting—
Senator WATT: So, for the benefit of Senator Seselja and other people—our friends in the Greens, our friends in One Nation, our friends in the LNP—I thought I'd actually enlighten them as to what Labor's policy is. If they'd actually bothered to pay attention and observe Labor's National Conference earlier this year they would know our position on the gas industry was made crystal clear then, and it has been crystal clear ever since. This is the direct quote from Labor's national platform:
Labor recognises and supports the critical role that gas plays in the Australian economy. Labor recognises that gas has an important role to play in achieving Labor's target of net zero emissions by 2050. Labor's policies will support Australian workers in the gas extraction industry, building on Labor's legacy of supporting sufficient and affordable gas supply for Australian industry and consumers. This includes support for new gas projects and associated infrastructure, subject to independent approval processes to ensure legitimate community concerns are heard and addressed.
Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward. Pretty clear. So, for anyone out there who is actually interested in what Labor's position on gas is, I'd encourage you to maybe not worry too much about what the LNP says Labor's policy is, what One Nation says Labor's policy is or what the Greens say Labor's policy is. You know what? It might actually be a good idea to go back to the original source document and look at Labor's platform—and there it is. It is very, very clear.
So what that policy means in practice is that Labor do support the gas industry. We support the jobs in the gas industry. We support the export earnings in the gas industry. And we also support strong environmental protections applying to that industry, as we do for any resource or other industry in the Australian economy. Labor does recognise that gas has an ongoing role to play when it comes to firming and peaking electricity, as well as being an important feedstock for manufacturing.
As I say, Labor supports the jobs created by our gas sector—in particular, those 17,000 who are already employed in the industry—and also the role that the industry plays in creating economic growth and export income earnings. Labor will support new gas projects that meet all regulatory requirements and that stack up environmentally and economically. Any new exploration must of course be done safely, with widespread, genuine community consultation. Importantly, consultation must include consultation with traditional owners as a priority to ensure that cultural heritage and the natural environment of country is protected as a matter of importance. We will always assess public spending for gas, or any infrastructure being funded by government, on a case-by-case basis to ensure that Australians are getting value for money and are not being ripped off by this government and its own preoccupations.
Now, the energy debate in this country—and I suspect we'll see a bit more of that this afternoon—is too often dominated by loud voices on the extremes of each side of the argument touting all-or-nothing opinions. Labor do not take that approach. As I've made clear, we support the gas industry and we support our resources industries generally, and the jobs that they create. But, unlike the government, we also acknowledge that climate change is real, that we need to take action to combat it, and that one of the best ways we can do so is to genuinely support the expansion of renewable energy in this country.
Now, to think, as some do, that gas is not going to play a role in our transition to renewables is, quite frankly, unrealistic. We will need reliable energy sources to back up our renewables industry as it grows and until we have the technology for it to power the grid alone. If you talk to anyone who knows anything about energy in this country, renewables—while we want to see them go ahead in leaps and bounds—will require firming, whether it be by gas, by pumped hydro or by batteries, for some time to come. So gas will have an important role in backing up those renewables even as we expand their use. As I say, gas is also important as a feedstock for manufacturing and for the jobs that come with it.
But, of course, we on the Labor side also know that the need for action on climate change is urgent. Every single day we have reminders of that, whether it be what we see in the climate or what we see in expert reports warning us of the dangers if we do not take action on climate change and drastically reduce our emissions. That's why Labor, for some time now, have committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. That is the best thing that we as a country can do as to contribute to the global fight against climate change.
I might note that we are not alone in supporting net zero emissions by 2050. In fact, most of the key bodies and companies involved in the gas industry in Australia also support net zero emissions by 2050. The peak body for oil and gas, APPEA, supports net zero emissions by 2050. Santos and Origin, two of the biggest gas producers and exporters in this country, support net zero emissions. Of course it goes beyond the gas industry to pick up the big mining companies, like BHP and Rio Tinto, and the National Farmers Federation, speaking on behalf of real farmers in this country, as opposed to people like the National Party, who pretend they speak for farmers.
It's on this point—net zero emissions and the need for strong action on climate change—that the Morrison government fails time and time again. What its energy policy even is is still a mystery to most of us. It's time the Morrison government made a serious commitment to renewable energy in this country. We are falling further and further behind on energy and climate policy, to a point where, if you speak to gas or mining companies—as I do on a regular basis—they will tell you that they have given up on this government and they're just getting on with it. They've all adopted a target of net zero emissions by 2050, because they know that's the direction the world is taking and they want to be able to compete in that environment. They are leaving this government in the shade, while it continues with its ideological preoccupations and its own internal divisions on matters like climate change. These companies—whether they be in the oil and gas industry, in the mining industry, in agriculture or in many other extractive industries—are getting on with the job, are moving ahead and recognise the need for action on climate change, including a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. Industry can see that this is the logical and rational thing to do. It's just a shame that we don't have a government in Australia who can do so as well.
Australia is perfectly poised to take advantage of the opportunities in renewables, both domestically and overseas. We have an abundance of sun, wind, water and critical minerals, and, frankly, we should just start using them properly. Let's look, for instance, at northern Australia. There are critical minerals present in the north which are needed to manufacture batteries, solar panels and wind turbines. There is a massive opportunity in northern Australia not only to mine these minerals but to process them, export them and even create our own advanced manufacturing industry where it's Australia that builds batteries, solar panels and wind turbines, rather than exporting these minerals only to see other countries value-add, create jobs and produce products which we then import. We can do it in Australia. We could do it in Australia if only we had a government that was prepared to pull its head out of the sand, recognise that there are jobs and dollars to be made by tackling climate change, as well as the obvious environmental benefits that come with it, and allow Australians to actually seize those jobs rather than offshoring them to other countries.
Similarly, we are well positioned to develop, use and export hydrogen. Even in my own state of Queensland, places like Townsville and Gladstone are at the forefront nationally of grabbing these opportunities in hydrogen and creating jobs for North Queenslanders and Central Queenslanders. Why does this government not want to see those jobs go into places like North Queensland and Central Queensland? Why does this government want to continue sticking its head in the sand, ignoring the reality of climate change and ignoring the jobs and export opportunities that come with tackling climate change? Why does this government want to see these jobs go offshore to other countries who are recognising these challenges, rather than have them in places like North Queensland and Central Queensland? I know the same can be said about places in Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania and pretty much every state in the country.
Where is the federal government on these issues? When are we going to have a federal government that takes climate change seriously, that grabs the job opportunities, that has a sensible policy about energy and that recognises that gas will have an ongoing role to play for some time to come and supports the jobs in that industry but at the same time grabs the incredible opportunities we have in solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy? It's not difficult. All it requires is for people to get over their ideological preoccupations.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:19): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss this issue which, at its core—quoting from the Greens—is about 'climate heating'. Really—about humans heating our climate! One Nation relies upon data, facts and empirical evidence proving causation. Senator Watt relies upon 'belief'.
Let's have a look at some data on another issue, and that is the Greens' claims. On 9 September 2019, I invited Senator Waters and then leader Senator Di Natale—remember him?—to present us with the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. I also challenged them to a debate on the empirical evidence and on the corruption of science. What have we heard since? Nothing; not a thing—just more claims and more beliefs. On 7 October 2010, I invited Senator Larissa Waters, who's now the Greens leader in the Senate, to debate me on climate and climate science corruption. She jumped to her feet and said: 'I will not debate you.' Six years later, in May 2016, five years ago, I challenged her again, along with the Labor Party, and again she wouldn't debate me. She won't debate me because they haven't got the facts.
So let's go instead to someone who used to be part of the Obama administration, Steven Koonin—or should I say Professor Steven Koonin. He has written a book called Unsettled, and he says: 'Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900'—121 years ago. Secondly, he says, 'the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past 50 years'—so much for warming!—and, thirdly, that 'humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century'. These are facts. These are things that I have spoken about in the past in this chamber. Professor Koonin continues: 'Tornado frequency and severity are also not trending up, nor are the number and severity of droughts; the extent of global fires has been trending significantly downward; the rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated; global crop yields are rising, not falling; and, listen to this, while global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are obviously higher now than two centuries ago, they're not at any record planetary high—they're at a low that has only been seen once before in the past 500 million years', as I have said repeatedly. Since all that data that Mr Koonin uses is available to others, he poses the obvious question: 'Why haven't you heard these facts before?' He's cautious—perhaps overly so—in proposing the causes for so much misinformation. He points to such things as incentives to invoke alarm for fundraising purposes and official reports that mislead by omission. Exactly!
Let me touch on the CSIRO. The CSIRO have admitted to me—we've had three presentations from the CSIRO—under my cross-examination that there is no danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. They've admitted today's temperatures are not unprecedented. And they have claimed the rate of warming is, but their own papers reveal that that is false.
There is no merit to this matter of public urgency. We say: toss it in the can.
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (17:23): I rise today to speak on the matter of urgency. I would just like to start by saying that there has been a crime committed here, and the crime is Senator McKim's motion, in that it demonstrates a complete lack of genuine understanding and knowledge of basic chemistry and perpetuates John Kerry's apparent scientific qualifications and practical experience of oil and gas and energy in general.
The motion talks of 'massive amounts of toxic methane'. Well, sorry—when I did chemistry, methane was not toxic. It's actually biologically inert and it is only harmful if it displaces oxygen, which leads to asphyxiation, or as a flammable gas in large concentrations. If you strike a match and you're down a mine and there's lots of methane, it will blow you up. So it can be harmful, but it is not toxic. It is certainly not going to be deliberately mass released into the atmosphere. The whole point of methane is that it has a value. It's a valuable gas. When we talk about the oil and gas industry, we don't just take it out of the ground and throw it up into the atmosphere. We collect it and we do things with it. Methane has many uses. It's used in LNG, in—ironically—hydrogen production, and in the production of ammonia and other chemicals.
The Beetaloo Basin—which is what we're talking about—is in my neck of the woods in the Northern Territory. If we put the gas reserves into perspective, the gross potential revenue from the Beetaloo Basin would be in the order of $1.7 trillion. This is the equivalent of all of Australia's annual GDP, so we're talking about fairly high-value commodities here. The development of the Beetaloo has the potential to create 6,000 jobs by 2040. Six thousand jobs in the Beetaloo region of the Northern Territory is absolutely massive and staggering. Historically, there have been very few labour market opportunities in this region of the Northern Territory other than the pastoral industry. In 2016, the region's unemployment rate was almost double the Territory's unemployment rate. This likely understates the real jobless rate in the region, with only half of all people of working age in a job or actively looking for one. There are many more people who are unemployed than turn up in official figures, so jobs represents one of the best opportunities for the Beetaloo Basin and for this entire region of the Northern Territory. I know that the Greens don't care about regional Australia, but I and my coalition colleagues do. In this case, so do Senator Watt and Joel Fitzgibbon; they know how important the oil and gas industry is.
Here are a couple of fun facts about the Beetaloo. It's approximately 5,000 kilometres south-east of Darwin in the Northern Territory. It lies between Katherine, 100 kilometres to the north, and Tennant Creek, 250 kilometres to the south. The Stuart Highway bisects the sub-basin from north to south. It covers an area of 28,000 square kilometres and comprises mainly vast rolling plains. It sits within the larger—at 180,000 square kilometres—McArthur Basin, which covers the majority of the north-east of the Northern Territory. Population is very sparse. Fewer than 1,500 people reside in the rural communities which border, or lie within, the Beetaloo. Most of the land in the Beetaloo is used for cattle grazing and Indigenous land practices. Perpetual leasehold covers most of the Beetaloo region. Native title exists for most of these leases, and the rest are under application. Tennant Creek is the key service centre of the Barkly region. It has a population of 3,200, and the town has a long history of mining and cattle grazing. Tennant Creek also has a strong Indigenous presence, comprising 51 per cent of the population.
I would reject the premise of the Greens that Indigenous people oppose the oil and gas industry in the Beetaloo region. Many of them have engaged with oil and gas exploration companies and have come to agreements with those companies or are in the process of coming to agreements with those companies because they realise that this represents their best opportunity at economic independence and jobs for their people. They know that, at the moment, there is very little to look forward to in the way of economy and jobs in this region of the Northern Territory, and they understand the importance that the development of this basin will have for their economic independence. That is something that the Greens do not want traditional owners to have. They want to keep them oppressed. They want to keep them living in communities that have no economic opportunity whatsoever. They don't want to see them lift out of a lack of an economy. They don't want to see them get jobs. They don't want to see them get training. They don't want to see them get trades. They do not want to see the economic development of traditional owners and Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
With regard to our future energy mix, we understand that gas has a role to play. Yes, solar, wind and a whole pile of other, emerging technologies and intermittent generators also have a role to play, but they need to be firmed. We understand that gas is one of the best ways that we currently have to do this in a transition to a future energy mix. Gas will continue to underpin these emerging industries, and gas will be a way forward from a fossil fuel based economy to a future economy where intermittent generators will have a role to play.
The development of the Beetaloo and the technological development of renewable gases, such as hydrogen and biomethane, will complement each other. If we look at where methane comes from—seeing as it's such an evil, horrible and non-toxic gas—methane obviously comes from the oil and gas industry, extracted from the land and the seabed. It also comes from biomass burning, from livestock and from waste management practices.
If we look at emissions, the government's gas-fired recovery measures are a key component of our transition, as I said, to future energy mixes. That may include wind, solar or pumped hydro and it may also include hydrogen, which the Greens like to trot out as the renewable energy mix of the future—the panacea for everything that's evil about the oil and gas industry and fossil fuels. Let me tell you: nearly all hydrogen on the planet today is ironically manufactured from—guess what?—that evil, evil methane. Does that make hydrogen evil as well? Maybe it does.
If the Greens truly want to go as fast as they can to low emissions or no emissions, then they should consider gas as a transition fuel and nuclear power generation in their mix of renewables and intermittent generators.
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (17:33): I rise today to speak on this urgency motion, and, in doing so, I recognise the contributions from Northern Territory senators such as Senator McMahon. This is an issue that relates to the Northern Territory, but, as we know, this is a far-reaching debate about much more than just one area of our country; it's about the government's energy policy, it's about where we're going in the future and it's about the jobs that can be created right now and how those jobs are going to be created.
The problem with what the government put forward in these debates is that they talk about a transition but there's no plan of where they're going to. They talk about a transition, but there is no support for renewable energy; there is a walking away from and a walking backwards of support for renewable energy. There's even, as we've seen from some of the contributions today, a complete denial that this is something the government needs to address, that these jobs can be created and will assist our regional communities, and even that climate change is something that we need to talk about in this place. So it's disappointing. I respect the views of the Territorian senators that have contributed to this debate, but the broader debate around this government's energy policy is incredibly lacking.
On the Beetaloo Basin: can I just say that federal Labor respects and understands the Northern Territory government's support for exploration in the Beetaloo. Labor also understands that there are strong community views and concerns on the issue in the Territory, and that's why Labor will continue to advocate for the government and industry to continue to consult with traditional owners to ensure that cultural heritage and the local environment are protected as a matter of urgency. Under this government, we've had repeated attempts to put in place laws that will not do that—that will not protect the environment and will not protect cultural heritage. So, again, we call on the government to do what is necessary under the Samuel review and bring a bill to this parliament that isn't just a repetition of Tony Abbott's one-stop shop so that we can actually move forward and get good environmental protections and good cultural protections in place to assist state parliaments and state governments to do this work.
More broadly, this motion raises issues around the contribution of gas and the contribution of renewable energy to the energy mix and where we're going from here. Labor has always continued to argue for urgent and meaningful action on climate change, in keeping with our commitment to reach net zero by 2050 and in keeping with our support for the declaration of a climate emergency. Labor's record in government was to ratify Kyoto, to supercharge Australia's renewable sector and to put Australia on a pathway to sharply declining emissions. That's what Labor governments do, but this government has walked backwards from all of those achievements.
Labor's position on matters that involve environmental and heritage protection has always been that we must adhere to, defend and act upon analysis and research. This is science based, and, as much as members opposite want to come in here and give the Senate a science lesson, they are not the scientists. We need to listen to the scientists when it comes to these issues. Of course Labor knows that gas has an ongoing role to play in both firming and peaking electricity, as well as feedstock for manufacturing, but where there is a role for gas to play in firming and peaking electricity, and as a feedstock for manufacturing, it must be subject to rigorous, independent scientific assessment—not scientific assessment from Senator Rennick over there, but scientific assessment that is independent and rigorous.
Labor supports the Australian gas sector. Let's be clear about that. Labor supports Australia's gas sector, the jobs it creates and supports right now and recognises its important role in creating economic growth, export incomes and earnings and both job retention and creation. There's no opportunity here for the Greens to put a wedge motion through or for the government to point the finger at Labor. Labor has a strong position on this, and we want to make sure that is clear. But we also know that we need to invest more money in renewable energy. We want to make sure that we invest money in jobs that not only create economic development but also contribute to our country's need to do something about climate change.
I want to quickly address the comments that were made by the Deputy Prime Minister, the acting Prime Minister, this week about climate change, where he again sought to frame this debate as a city-versus-country divide. Let me tell you this: this isn't about regional versus city. Climate change is not a regional issue. It's not a city issue. It's not about baristas. The jobs that will be lost if we fail to act on climate change are regional jobs.
Climate change is the biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef, which supports 64,000 jobs. Those aren't my words; they are the words of the member for Leichhardt—the special envoy for the reef. This government isn't listening to their own members or their own scientific panels on this. The jobs that will be created if we do something and support renewable energy are regional jobs. You only have to go to the wind farm that was vetoed by Minister Pitt—250 jobs in North Queensland vetoed by this government—to understand that renewable energy jobs are being created right now in regional Queensland, but they're being held back by this government. We also know that the communities that will be impacted if we don't take any action on climate change are regional communities. They're the islands in the Torres Strait that are facing rising sea levels right now. They know that they may have to leave those islands because this government is failing to take action. Can we just agree that this is a problem— (Time expired)
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (17:40): We are in a climate emergency. Yet, across our nation, particularly in our north, the major parties are opening up massive gas projects, from the Beetaloo in the NT to the Scarborough gas project in Western Australia. Both parties are in lock step towards the precipice of oblivion, against the wishes of traditional owners, against the advice of the best science and against the common sense of communities who are coming together to oppose fracking in all of its forms, to keep coal in the ground and to invest in renewable energy solutions. This government and state governments like Mark McGowan's in WA and Michael Gunner's in the Territory are tramping over the top of the desires and wishes of traditional owners. Embodying the very finest arrogance that white men have ever brought to government in this place, they are seeking to exploit and open up from the ground some of the most filthy fuel in existence that will supercharge global heating.
This is one of the most disgraceful moments in Australian political history. When the world is moving to action on the climate crisis, Australia has dug itself in. The Morrison government, helped by Anthony Albanese's so-called opposition, is leading the charge of the denialists globally, blocking action on climate change left, right and centre, particularly here in the Asia-Pacific region, when our neighbours and friends are struggling with the reality of water lapping around their ankles. We turn up to international fora after international fora and block action. Why do we do it? Why is it that these two parties are so willing to sell the future of young people particularly in this country? It's because they take millions for it; it's because they are on the take. Woodside alone has given $2 million between 2013 and 2020 to the major parties. Other gas giants have given millions more. What do they get in return? They get to be able to utilise their claims over the Fitzroy River in Western Australia. Whether they are Boral Energy, Origin Energy, Black Mountain, Mitsubishi or 'Twiggy' bloody Forrest, all are able to circle at the trough and pursue their claims over one of the last great pristine wildernesses in this country. Just a few weeks ago we saw the former Treasurer of Western Australia leave his position and join the boards of Rio Tinto and Woodside, claiming $400,000 for it. The disgusting, slimy turnstile of Australian politics is on full display.
We in the Greens oppose it. We are united in support for the community to keep the gas in the ground and go bloody renewable.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ): Senator Steele-John, your time has expired, and I just comment on your unparliamentary language during the course of your presentation then.
Senator Steele-John: Oh, burble, burble, burble!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I ask you to apologise for that, please.
Senator Steele-John: The swearing and the raspberry, or just the raspberry?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Both, thank you.
Senator Steele-John: Both the raspberry and the swearing?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
Senator Steele-John: I withdraw both.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:45): I rise to speak on the matter of urgency. The contrast is becoming so clear. As the world moves away from digging up fossil fuels, it is Australia's absolute shame that the Liberals are propping up oil and gas by funnelling endless taxpayer dollars to this dying industry. No amount of actual science or the climate disasters that we have been witnessing in our own back yard—the fires, the floods and the heatwaves—seems to convince this government that digging up fossil fuels is dangerous in the extreme. It is killing us. It is destroying our livelihoods, our communities and our planet.
Just this morning, Mr Morrison spoke via video to the oil and gas lobby's annual conference after being isolated and shamed at the G7 summit. We know who your real mates are. I can never forget that this is the same guy who brought a lump of coal to parliament. The International Energy Agency has made it absolutely clear that, if we want a future free from the climate crisis, it means no new fossil fuel projects, starting now—starting today. This means no more new coal, oil, or gas. Yet this government single-mindedly continues down the path of the so-called gas-led recovery, promising hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new projects and exploration, and sadly the Labor Party is being led down the same garden path. This bipartisan refusal to take significant action against the climate crisis is leaving us behind.
Any new fossil fuel assets will become useless to us in the next decade or two. At the most, the Beetaloo Basin drilling, the Kurri Kurri gas-fired power station and the Woodside Scarborough gas project are all doomed to fail. But the government are only interested in spin. They are very focused on faking it—faking that they care about climate change and that they and their oil and gas lobby mates are taking action. Their hollow rhetoric about technological change and emissions reductions means nothing as they continue to bankroll dangerous fossil fuel projects with tonnes of carbon emissions.
But you know what? Time is running out for these climate criminals. Climate change has become a real problem for them because the community has risen up, because people are demanding change and they're demanding change right now. The Liberals will soon have to reckon with this, or, better still, they will soon be booted out, with the Greens holding the balance of power and pushing the next government to phase out coal and gas and transition to safe, sustainable jobs rolling out renewables.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:48): If you want to know how much the world's changed recently, consider this: last month, the International Energy Agency released its Net zero by 2050 road map, and, at the launch, the head of the IEA said this:
If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now—from this year
There it is, clear as day, in black and white. Remember, the IEA were basically formed in 1974 to ensure the security of global oil supplies. Basically, for the best part of the last 50 years, they've been part of the fossil fuel lobby, and here they are saying clear as day: 'No fossil fuels. They are done. They are over. We're living in a climate emergency. We need to change course, and we need to change course now.'
This is the rational response of most of the rest of the world. In the face of an existential crisis, the world is choosing survival. It's common sense, right? Well, wrong—not here in Australia and not for this government. No, this government is happy to choose the apocalypse. While the rest of the world is going the other way, this government—with plenty of support, I might add, from its mates in the Labor Party—is trying to turn Australia into a petro-state, and a big part of their petro-dreaming is the plan to open up the Beetaloo Basin. This one gas field, the biggest in the country, would see the release of up to 34 billion tonnes of carbon pollution—the equivalent of 68 years of Australia's current annual carbon emissions. Why is this government apparently so hell-bent on cooking the planet? It's because there's big money to be made in cooking the planet and there's big money to be made in cooking the planet from the people who are donating big money to the LNP.
Over the last decade, companies involved in Beetaloo have donated—wait for it!—$1.4 billion to this government and, by the way, nearly another billion dollars to the Labor Party. Those companies don't care about the future. All they want now is to squeeze another decade or two of obscene profits out of pillaging the earth and cooking our planet. What comes after is somebody else's problem, according to them. Their view is: pay off the pollies and party while the world burns. This is debased politics. It's a stain on our nation. It is utter, utter madness. Let's not forget that the oil and gas behemoths who will profit from this madness—among them Santos and Origin—are also systematic and serial tax avoiders. How does the government treat serial and systematic tax avoiders? By pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into their latest planet-cooking venture. That's how the government treats them. This government has tipped over $220 million into Unlocking the Beetaloo so that the big corporations and the billionaires who have already got obscenely rich from cooking the planet while paying next to no tax can get even richer while continuing to pay no tax and cooking the planet even faster. It's morally bankrupt, it's economically irresponsible, it's planet destroying and it's stealing the future from our children and our grandchildren. Congratulations, everyone!
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (17:52): I've said it before and I'll say it again until you understand. First Nations people are of country; we are not just from country. I want to acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the land, waters, air and sky of what we now call the Beetaloo and connected basins. The traditional owners that are still protecting country from desecration come from many nations and clans, but they have come together to fight for country. I acknowledge your struggle to protect your country. I support you, and everyone in this place must listen. They are standing united against the desecration of their lands and the poisoning of their waters. They fight for country like their ancestors and their law men and women, how their old people always have. They've maintained their country for thousands of generations, and you can see what's happened in just over 200 years: absolute desecration of country. They're in parliament this week with one message: together they will fight for country. I'm proud to be able to join with them in their fight. For years, they've been told lies by the gas and oil corporations—the very dirty companies that have brought so many of the politicians in this parliament.
I've sat with those companies, like Santos. They've told me how they con our people. For years, our people have been told that there would be no damage to country. They walk into communities and say: 'Everything's going to be alright. We're not going to damage.' They're lying. They're dirty liars, going into communities, destroying not only country but people's lives with lies that have been facilitated by the very politicians in this place that have been bought cheap by these dirty climate-destroying gas and oil corporations. Yes, we know that those opposite are in their pockets and vice versa; that's the problem in this country.
It's lies, like the acknowledgement of country: every morning we do an acknowledgement of country. You do your prayer and then have your acknowledgement of country right here in this chamber. What does that really mean, though? Do you really mean it from your heart, while you backdoor us, stab us in the back and rape and pillage our country and our water? Don't acknowledge country if you're going to go off and do that! These companies do not respect traditional owners. They have failed to consult properly. I know that Labor talks about consultation, but, gee, with their consultation Labor are just as bad as the government!
Consultation is not consent! Don't think that it is, because you've been getting away with it for too long—and both sides know that. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is clear: free, prior and informed consent of First Nations peoples must be secured before any action on country. Are you doing that, Labor? Are you doing that, Libs? We know that the National Party just don't give a stuff. So if that's how we're going to operate, with no consent, we know that— (Time expired)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McLachlan ): Order! The question before the Senate is that the urgency motion be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:00]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
DOCUMENTS
Australian Human Rights Commission
Consideration
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:06): I refer to the Australian Human Rights Commission's Human rights and technology final report, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I think this report is very timely—particularly as we had the outcome of the robodebt debacle last Friday, where the judge named the debacle a 'shameful chapter' in public administration, which has led to the Federal Court approving a settlement between the Commonwealth and victims of the robodebt scheme worth $1.8 billion. The judge also described it as a 'massive failure' and said that it should have been obvious to the government ministers and senior public servants that the debt-raising method central to the scheme was flawed. He said the evidence showed that it was unlawful. And of course we know that this scheme led to the government unlawfully raising $1.76 billion in debt against 443,000 people.
I raise that to highlight the importance of this report by the Australian Human Rights Commission. In their report they actually use the robodebt debacle as an example of why we need to make sure that we address human rights in the use of technology, the use of artificial intelligence and the digital world. In fact, there's a section on 'Automated government services'. First off, it talks about a Council of Europe study and says:
As a Council of Europe study observed, automation by government can reduce transparency and accountability—
bingo for robodebt!—
and increase the risk of arbitrary decisions—
bingo, robodebt! The report further says:
The use of AI, and especially automation, in delivering government services can engage human rights including the right to social security—
Bing! Robodebt!—
and an adequate standard of living, the right to nondiscrimination and equality, and the right to an effective remedy.
This is why this sort of report is so essential. It contains a number of recommendations which I urge the government to take on board.
One of the issues that I particularly want to raise here is the disadvantage people on low incomes and in poverty can face in trying to access a digital world, an online world, when more and more services are being delivered by government online. They are being increasingly isolated. In fact, people talk about digital poverty because when you're living in poverty, you cannot afford these services. In particular, in the very near future this place will be talking about the delivery of employment services online, sending more and more people online and on to digital platforms. Again, this will disadvantage the most vulnerable members of our community who cannot afford the internet or cannot access platforms on their phones—they run out of credit on their phones, for example, because it's pay as you go. The report talks about that extensively. It talks about the fact that the Red Cross said:
Pervasive service digitisation and dependence on technology in our private and public lives can further disadvantage vulnerable Australians. Improving digital inclusion is critical to ensure that everyone in our community is empowered to participate and contribute. Technology can empower people in so many ways—they can stay connected and involved with their social and community networks, access knowledge and services to help them stay well, or link to learning and job opportunities.
I couldn't agree more, but the central point here is that you have to be able to afford it. You have to look at people's human rights. That's why this report is so important. Not only are people being excluded from society because of the digital divide, their human rights are being violated under a number of conventions, including the right to social security, the right not to be discriminated against and the right to equality. This report is very important. I urge people to read it. I urge the government to take action to ensure people are not excluded because they're vulnerable and can't afford the technology. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (18:12): I also want to add my two cents worth in relation to this report. I note that Justice Murphy called it a 'shameful chapter' and talked about maladministration. It does disturb me that throughout this process we've had government ministers and government officials referring to the robodebt scheme as legally 'insufficient'. That's a word I'm going to have to try to use if I ever get dragged into a courtroom. Instead of saying it was unlawful, the government simply sought to invent a new word or put a new word into our lexicon: legally 'insufficient'.
What happened was wrong. I just want to add to Senator Siewert's remarks and say that there is still wrongdoing occurring. Robodebt 2.0 is still playing out in relation to payslip averaging, where Services Australia are, in fact, guessing by way of payslip averaging. I've helped a number of constituents whose cases have gone to the AAT. The AAT has basically said these debts are not properly proved; they're not the correct debt. It's like someone coming up to me and saying, 'Senator Patrick, you owe me 50 bucks.' I say: 'Well, how did that happen? Where did that come from?' They're not able to ground the claim. If it was my mate, I'd simply say, 'You're wrong; go away.' Unfortunately, in this instance, it's the federal government. Most people, when confronted by the federal government, don't really know what to do. Sometimes they're greeted by officials, by frontline staff, who are quite assertive, and this has caused all of the difficulties that Senator Siewert has talked about.
We do have an ongoing issue with payslip averaging. It may not be to the same magnitude as what has been dealt with in the court, but it does need to be looked at. Ministers can't stand by and simply state that they're unaware or they're not quite sure. I've invited Minister Ruston to perhaps put up a test case. So, instead of chewing up the AAT's time with differing opinions coming out, let's get it to either the Federal Circuit Court or the Federal Court, where the decision would be binding on the executive, and that would provide some clarity. This issue hasn't gone away, sadly, and the government does need to address it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Motion to take note of reports and government responses nos 28, 29 and 35 moved by Senator Chisholm. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of report no. 33 moved by Senator Siewert. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Additional Information
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:16): On behalf of the chairs of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committees as listed at item 13 on today's order of business.
COMMITTEES
Consideration
The following committee reports and government responses were considered:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information—
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020 [Provisions].
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 [Provisions]
Community Affairs References Committee—Effective approaches to prevention, diagnosis and support for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder—Additional information.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Report—Judges' Pensions Amendment (Pension Not Payable for Misconduct) Bill 2020—Additional information.
Motion to take note of reports and government responses nos 28, 29 and 35 moved by Senator Chisholm. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of report no. 33 moved by Senator Siewert. Consideration to resume on Thursday
COMMITTEES
Northern Australia Committee
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McLachlan ) (18:19): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:19): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Northern Australia—Joint Standing Committee—
On 17 June 2021—
Discharged—Senator Siewert
Appointed—Senator Thorpe
On 19 June 2021—
Discharged—Senator Thorpe
Appointed—Senator Siewert
Road Safety—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—Senator Sheldon
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021
Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:20): 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 COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:21): 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—
FINANCIAL REGULATOR ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY BILL 2021
This Bill will create the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (FRAA), which will be charged with assessing the effectiveness and capability of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
This will fulfil the Government's commitment to implement recommendations 6.13 and 6.14 of the Financial Services Royal Commission. The Royal Commission highlighted that while APRA and ASIC operate within complex accountability frameworks, the regulators' effectiveness in delivering on their mandates is not subject to consistent and independent expert review over time. The FRAA will provide a robust framework for assessing the effectiveness and capability of APRA and ASIC.
The FRAA will consist of three expert part-time members (including the Chair) and an additional ex-officio member from the Department of the Treasury. The members will be supported by a secretariat located within the Department of the Treasury.
The FRAA will be required to conduct biennial assessments of the effectiveness and capability of APRA and ASIC. In addition to the biennial assessments, the Minister may also direct the FRAA to conduct assessments on any matter relating to the effectiveness and capability of the regulators.
To preserve the independence of APRA and ASIC, the FRAA will not be permitted to assess and report on single cases, or on individual uses of their legislative powers.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
FINANCIAL REGULATOR ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2021
This Bill facilitates the disclosure of sensitive, confidential and protected information from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) to the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (FRAA).
This information will support the FRAA to carry out its main function of providing effectiveness and capability assessments of APRA and ASIC.
The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to the amendments as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:21): 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 COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:22): I move:
That these bills now be read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
TERTIARY EDUCATION QUALITY AND STANDARDS AGENCY (CHARGES) BILL 2021
The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 establishes a new annual charge for the risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework.
This bill, along with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, is required to enable an annual charge to be collected from higher education providers.
The 2018-19 federal budget included increased resourcing for TEQSA, as well as a shift to increased cost recovery for TEQSA's regulatory activities from the currently very low level of partial recovery of around 15 per cent of TEQSA's total costs. This shift will occur through increased fees for TEQSA's application-based regulatory assessments and a new annual charge to cover the cost of TEQSA's risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities. It is the annual charge that is the subject of this bill.
The bill implements an annual charge on all higher education providers who are registered with TEQSA. The annual charge will recover from higher education providers the costs incurred by the Commonwealth each year for TEQSA's risk monitoring, compliance monitoring and investigations, complaint management, stakeholder engagement and other regulatory oversight activities.
The bill does not set the amount of the annual charge, which will be prescribed by regulations. Prior to the introduction of those regulations, TEQSA will seek stakeholder feedback on a draft Cost Recovery Implementation Statement, consistent with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines.
The annual charge will commence from 1 January 2022 and will be phased in over three years. 20 per cent of the related costs will be recovered in 2022, 50 per cent in 2023 and 100 per cent in 2024. This phased approach will assist providers to budget for and transition to the new charge.
TEQSA's move to increased cost recovery, which was originally announced in the 2018-19 federal budget but subsequently delayed due to other external pressures, including the Covid-19 pandemic, will ensure broad consistency and fairness of charging for regulatory services across the tertiary education sector.
The annual charge is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework and links the cost of services to those who benefit from them. The new TEQSA annual charge is expected to collect around $5.7 million annually. This is an amount that the general taxpayer will not have to bear.
Associated amendments will also be made to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, through the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, to implement the annual charge. Subject to the passage of both bills, the annual charge will commence from 1 January 2022.
I commend the bill.
TERTIARY EDUCATION QUALITY AND STANDARDS AGENCY AMENDMENT (COST RECOVERY) BILL 2021
The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, and the associated Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021, give effect to increased cost recovery arrangements for the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA).
The 2018-19 federal budget included increased resourcing, alongside a measure to increase the level of TEQSA's cost recovery from the current low level of around 15 per cent of total costs. This will be achieved through increased fees for TEQSA's application-based regulatory assessments and a new annual charge to cover the cost of TEQSA's risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities. Application-based fees will increase from 1 January 2022. The new annual charge will be phased in over three years from that date.
The new annual charge will recover the costs incurred by the Commonwealth for TEQSA's risk monitoring, compliance monitoring and investigations, complaint management, stakeholder engagement and other regulatory oversight activities.
This bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) to enable TEQSA to levy the annual charge created by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021. The amendments will require a higher education provider to pay the annual charge as and when it falls due, including any penalties for late payment. Failure by a higher education provider to pay the charge will constitute a breach of its conditions of registration.
The annual charge will commence from 1 January 2022 and will be phased in over three years. 20 per cent of the related costs will be recovered in 2020, 50 per cent in 2023 and 100 per cent in 2024. This phased approach will assist providers to budget for and transition to the new charge.
The amount of the annual charge will be prescribed by regulations. Prior to the introduction of those regulations, TEQSA will seek stakeholder feedback on a draft Cost Recovery Implementation Statement, consistent with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines.
TEQSA's move to increased cost recovery, which was originally announced in the 2018-19 federal budget but subsequently delayed due to other external pressures, including the Covid-19 pandemic, will ensure broad consistency and fairness of charging for regulatory services across the tertiary education sector.
The annual charge is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework and links the cost of services to those who benefit from them. Currently these costs are borne by taxpayers.
Subject to the passage of this bill and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021, the annual charge will commence from 1 January 2022.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:22): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:23): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 (the Bill) includes a range of five measures to reduce regulatory burden, reform outdated regulations that are no longer fit for purpose and enable Australia's media industry to continue to provide services and content valued by audiences across the country.
New Eligible Drama Expenditure measures
Schedule 1 to the Bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) to reduce the expenditure required by subscription broadcast channel providers and licensees on new eligible drama expenditure from 10 per cent to 5 per cent.
These amendments will reduce the regulatory burden on channel providers and licensees, and form part of a broader set of reforms to the regulation of Australian content announced by this Government on 30 September 2020. These reforms include measures to: modernise Australian content rules for commercial free-to-air broadcasters (including simplifying and reducing obligations); and provide greater support for the production and distribution of Australian content, particularly in drama, documentary and children's content.
The changes to the drama expenditure requirement for subscription broadcasters included in the Bill reform unsustainable obligations on our industry and create a more consistent regulatory framework. They are part of a package of measures that will enable Australians to continue to have access to Australian content across a range of mediums, regardless of whether they prefer to watch free-to-air television, subscription television or streaming services.
Subscription TV captioning
The Bill proposes allowing future rules for subscription television (STV) captioning to be made via Ministerial instrument. The captioning rules for subscription television captioning are very complex. There is limited transparency for consumers in the level of captioning on different STV channels.
The current exemption and application processes mean that captioning targets can be altered during the year and even during the annual reporting process. Exemptions are not based on objective criteria so there is no transparency as to why some services are exempt and some are not.
The application process for exemptions is onerous for licensees and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The STV industry, the ACMA and consumer groups support a simplified and more transparent framework for STV captioning.
The proposed instrument to govern future subscription TV captioning requirements will be a disallowable instrument and the existing legislation would not lapse until the disallowance period passes.
Grandfathering
The Bill proposes enabling a retrospective application of grandfathering powers to protect radio broadcasters from potential breaches when ACMA makes a population determination under section 30 of the BSA.
The proposal also includes a sunsetting provision of five years for the application of these amended grandfathering powers. This clearly signals to licensees the Government's commitment to review the state of the market and their provision of services in relation to these provisions.
These proposed arrangements will support broadcasters in meeting their requirements while balancing net population movements that affect licence population areas (as per section 30 determinations) and having regard to market conditions supporting competition and low barriers for new licensees.
Other Measures
The Bill also proposes to make two minor amendments to ensure that the provisions for the broadcasting industry remains current.
The first amendment proposed is to remove a redundant requirement for digital radio planning in the Radiocommunications Act 1992. Digital radio could previously be provided in different parts of the spectrum but now the standard has now been reduced to one. There is, therefore, no requirement for planning within a licence area to ensure that all channels are within the same spectrum band.
The second amendment proposed is to add an additional timeframe to that currently provided for the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation (RASPI) program to enable funding delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic to be allocated beyond 1 July 2021.
These five measures demonstrate the Government's commitment to reform and streamline regulation across the broadcasting industry.
I commend the Bill.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McLachlan ): In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned until 17 June 2021.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Bill 2021
Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending the Student Loan Fee Exemption) Bill 2021
Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021
Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:23): 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 COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:23): I table the revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021 and 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—
COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE AND REPAIR INFORMATION SHARING SCHEME) BILL 2021
This Bill establishes a mandatory scheme to promote competition in the Australian automotive sector by requiring all motor vehicle service and repair information be made available for purchase by independent repairers at a fair market price.
Motor vehicle servicing and repair is a $23 billion industry in Australia with nearly 35,000 businesses employing over 106,000 Australians.
Currently, around one in ten motor vehicles taken to repair workshops are affected by a lack of access to service and repair information.
When this is the case, it results in higher service costs for consumers. This is because there is little choice as to where a vehicle, particularly newer models, can be repaired safely and efficiently.
The 2017 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) market study into the sector found that a lack of access to service and repair information was causing delays and detriment to consumers.
The ACCC's market study also found that independent repairers were not often given fair access to the information they need to do their job safely and effectively.
The Scheme will mandate that all service and repair information that car manufacturers share with their dealership networks, must also be made available to all independent repairers and registered trading organisations to purchase.
The objectives of the Scheme, as set out in the Bill, are to:
promote competition between Australian repairers of passenger and light goods motor vehicles and establish a fair playing field by mandating access to diagnostic, repair and servicing information on fair and reasonable commercial terms;
enable consumers to have those vehicles diagnosed, repaired, serviced, modified or dismantled safely and efficiently by a repairer of their choice;
encourage the provision of accessible and affordable information to repairers and registered training organisations;
protect safety and security information about those vehicles to ensure the safety and security of consumers, information users and the general public; and
provide for the low-cost resolution of disputes.
To promote competition and ensure the provision of accessible and affordable information, scheme information must be offered at a price that does not exceed fair market value. Fair market value allows for cost recovery and a reasonable profit margin.
'Fair market value' is a recognised concept in both Australian law and in an international context. When undertaking regulatory action, it is established practice to ascertain fair market value by using an objective test. The factors to be taken into account in setting fair market value include the price charged to other repairers, reasonable recovery of costs, and the prices for information in overseas markets.
To support consumer choice of repairer, the majority of vehicles on Australian roads will be captured by the Scheme, including passenger and light goods vehicles manufactured from 2002.This approach is consistent with similar arrangements in overseas jurisdictions.
As you would expect, widespread access to safety and security information would create unacceptable risks to vehicle safety and security. Therefore, information related to safety and security will only be available to individuals that have the appropriate qualifications. This will protect consumers, repairers, and the general public.
Further information on the requirements for individuals accessing this information will be set out in scheme rules which will be consulted on shortly.
The Government has been working with industry to develop technical aspects of the scheme's design and has consulted extensively throughout the duration of the development of the Scheme to ensure it is effective, fair and safe.
Ongoing industry cooperation will be crucial to the Scheme's success. Therefore, a statutory adviser will be established and it will have a key role in the day-to-day operation of the Scheme. Importantly, the adviser will play a key role in assisting with the mediation of disputes and reporting to Government on the operation of the Scheme.
The Government intends for the adviser position to be conferred on a joint-industry led organisation that will have the technical expertise, experience and relationships within the automotive industry to support the Scheme.
Based on successful arrangements in the United States, industry representatives have advised me that this joint-industry led organisation will run an online portal to facilitate easy access to and supply of information for those that wish to participate. The Government will provide a $250,000 grant to facilitate online access to service and repair information.
This Bill provides a strong incentive to comply with these new obligations, with a maximum penalty of $10 million to apply in circumstances where data providers fail to comply with the Scheme. The ACCC will be responsible for monitoring compliance and taking action where necessary.
This Bill includes significant reforms to the service and repair industry that has only been made possible through a strong partnership with industry and I would like to thank the five signatories to the existing voluntary agreement for their ongoing engagement.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (EXTENDING THE STUDENT LOAN FEE EXEMPTION) BILL 2021
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending the Student Loan Fee Exemption) Bill 2021, builds on the Government's commitment to support students, providers and the broader economy through the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Schedule 1of the Billamends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to extend the exemption from FEE-HELP loan fees for approximately 30,000 undergraduate students mostly studying at private providers for a further six months. This exemption originally commenced on 1 April 2020 and will now continue through to 31 December 2021.
The Australian Government is committed to supporting the higher education sector, and ensuring that all Australians can access high-quality educational opportunities that provide the job-ready skills they need to enter the workforce. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government understands that students and higher education providers alike have been put under significant financial pressure.
The FEE-HELP loan fee exemption will encourage students to continue or commence study for the remainder of 2021 and, in doing so, will support providers to continue delivering the high quality education necessary for Australia to recover economically from the COVID-19 pandemic.
I commend the bill.
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (INCOME THRESHOLDS) BILL 2021
The Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021 implements a measure announced in the 2021-22 Budget. It will provide continuity for the current policy settings by continuing the pause on the indexation arrangements for income thresholds in the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 for a further two years, and updates the indexation arrangements to apply to the current thresholds from 2023-24. The income thresholds contained in the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 are used in determining the tiers for both the private health insurance rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge. The rebate and surcharge will continue to be income tested.
The Government invests over $6 billion each year in the private health insurance rebate which contributes to the affordability of Private Health Insurance for Australians. Following significant reforms over recent years which have made private health insurance simpler and more affordable, the 2021-22 Budget sees the Australian Government continue to increase overall spending and investment in health. This includes investing in ongoing reforms to private health insurance which to date have resulted in the lowest annual average premium change for consumers since 2001 - 2.74 per cent. Specifically in the 2021-22 Budget the Government is investing $30.6 million over 4 years to continue to make private health insurance simpler and more affordable for Australians.
Australians continue to rate the quality of healthcare available in our country at near record high levels but are concerned about the system becoming overstretched. Private health insurance continues to be viewed by Australians as a vital element of the health system, providing choice and helping to relieve pressure on the public system.
The Bill supports ongoing reforms in private health insurance. More than half of the Australian population have some form of private health insurance. Income-tested rebate arrangements are a foundation stone of these arrangements and continue under this legislation.
This Bill preserves the explicit link between the rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge. It makes no changes to the Medicare levy surcharge rate or the private health insurance rebate rates. This is important as they operate together to ensure that people whose rebates are reduced because of means testing continue to have a strong incentive to retain their private health insurance.
It is important to note that these changes over the next two years will not affect individuals with an income that remains below current base tier thresholds of $90,000, or couples and families with an income that remains $180,000 or below. Higher income earners without private health insurance will continue to be subject to Medicare levy surcharge.
Importantly the bill will ensure the recommencement of annual indexation from the current income thresholds following the end of the pause, which is important for the continuity of policy settings and predictability for Government financing.
This Bill provides stability regarding access to the private health insurance rebate and application of the Medicare levy surcharge. During this pause the Government will undertake a detailed study into the settings of these two important private health insurance policies to ensure they provide the appropriate incentives for individuals, couples and families when choosing the healthcare cover that best suits their circumstances.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2021 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2021
This Bill will implement a number of urgent and important measures which are designed to provide relief and support to Australians in need.
Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge - Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, and seniors and pensioners, consistent with increases in the consumer price index. These changes will ensure that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in the 2019-20 income year will generally continue to be exempt in the 2020-21 income year if their incomes have risen in line with, or by less than, the consumer price index.
The Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure that people who pay no personal income tax due to their eligibility for structural offsets—such as the low-income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset—generally do not incur the Medicare levy.
The changes to the thresholds mean that no Medicare levy will be payable for individual taxpayers with taxable income that does not exceed $23,226 in 2020-21 (increased from $22,801). Single seniors and pensioners with no dependants who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not incur a Medicare levy liability if their taxable income does not exceed $36,705 (increased from $36,056).
Further, in combination with the individual thresholds, couples and families who are not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $39,167 (increased from $38,474). Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $51,094 (increased from $50,191). The thresholds for couples and families go up by $3,597 for each dependent child or student (increased from $3,533).
The increase in thresholds will apply to the 2020-21 income year and future income years.
Schedule 2 to the Bill introduces an amendment to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 (the NHFIC Act) to establish the Family Home Guarantee.
From 1 July 2021, 10,000 guarantees will be made available over four years to eligible single parents with dependants (predominantly women) to build a new home or purchase an existing home with a deposit of as little as 2 per cent, regardless of whether that single parent is a first home buyer or previous owner-occupier.
The Family Home Guarantee recognises the importance of housing in providing a foundation for social, economic and emotional wellbeing.
By establishing the Family Home Guarantee, the Government is providing a pathway to homeownership for single parents with dependants who have struggled to save enough for a deposit while paying rent and/or restarting their lives, allowing them to purchase a modest home sooner, subject to an individual's ability to service a loan.
The amendments to the NHFIC Act operate at a high level and will be supported by amendments to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Investment Mandate Direction 2018.
Schedule 3 to the Bill will exempt eligible payments made by the Australian Government to Thalidomide survivors from income taxation and from the social security and veterans' entitlements income test.
The Australian Government's 2020-21 Budget measure, Support for Australia's Thalidomide Survivors, will provide $44.9 million over four years (and $3.9 million per year ongoing) to Thalidomide survivors.
Schedule 4 to the Bill provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by the February and March 2021 storms and floods, which had a devastating impact on communities in Australia.
Schedule 4 provides that qualifying grants are Category D grants provided under the joint Commonwealth-State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018, where those grants relate to the storms and floods in Australia that occurred due to rainfall events between 19 February 2021 and 31 March 2021. These include small business recovery grants of up to $50,000 and primary producer recovery grants of up to $75,000.
These grants provide support in addition to other assistance that the Australian and State Governments have provided to assist communities as they begin to build and recover following these devastating events.
Impacted small businesses and primary producers are encouraged to apply for these grants. Further information on disaster recovery assistance is available on the Disaster Assist website.
Schedule 5 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include Alliance for Journalists' Freedom Ltd, The Andy Thomas Space Foundation Limited, Youthsafe, RAS Foundation Limited, The Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas, and The Great Synagogue Foundation Trust on the list of gift deductible gift recipients (DGRs). Schedule 5 also extends the specific listing of The Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation, and Sydney Chevra Kadisha. DGR status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for donations of $2 or more that they make to these eight organisations.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
SYDNEY HARBOUR FEDERATION TRUST AMENDMENT BILL 2021
The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was established in 2001 by the Howard Government, as a transitional body to rehabilitate prominent former Defence sites on Sydney Harbour and open them up to public access and for the benefit of current and future generations.
In that time quite a bit has changed for the Trust. Its portfolio has grown, its life has been extended and it has successfully opened-up all of its sites to the public, with only some small areas still closed.
The Trust is now increasingly focused on the day-to-day management of the sites and the longer-term planning and actions to protect, preserve and enhance the sites consistent with the requirements of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act 2001.
Recognising this, in 2019 the Government announced an independent review into the Trust's future arrangements to ensure that the right arrangements are in place for the important sites the Trust manages.
The report of the review was published in June 2020, making 21 recommendations, and finding widespread support for the work of the Trust.
The Government agreed immediately with the central finding of the review that the Trust should become an ongoing entity, retaining responsibility for the sites, rather than handing them over to the New South Wales government and local councils for ongoing management.
The 2020-21 Budget provided $40.6 million in funding over four years for the Trust to support its work in rehabilitating its sites, and providing valued community spaces, facilities, and attractions. This is in addition to the $9 million made available to the Trust on release of the review report, to keep its sites safe and accessible.
The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021 is the next major step in the implementation. As with the review, the Bill has been framed in consultation with key stakeholders and the wider public.
The Bill takes forward four of the review recommendations as well and other amendments to improve the operation of the Act and to better equip the Trust for its new on-going role.
The Bill implements the central finding of the review - that the Trust become an ongoing entity.
The Trust was originally set up with a mission to remediate the sites and hand them over to NSW and relevant local councils for ongoing management.
The independent review affirmed the community's strong support for these important sites to remain in federal government hands, managed by the Trust on an ongoing basis.
The Government agrees with this proposition, and so the Bill will ensure the sites remain in the hands of the Trust into the future.
The Bill supports the review's recommendation for a refresh of the Trust's membership requirements to ensure it is equipped with the skills and expertise needed for the future.
The Bill also updates provisions regulating the Trust's commercial activities. The primary purpose of Trust sites is to remain open for public access and amenity. But the last 20 years of operations has shown that sensitive commercial activities have a role to play in bringing life and amenity to the sites and contributing to the costs of protecting the sites.
The Bill maintains and strengthens key protections by ensuring long term leases are only available where it is clearly consistent with the objectives of public access and amenity, and the conservation of heritage and environmental lues. As part of this, the community will get a direct say in any such proposals.
To continue to support the Trust in its new ongoing role, the Bill also modernises the language of the Act and includes amendments related to a review of regulations under the Act. Which are due to sunset and anticipated to be remade later this year, following community consultation.
Overall, the Bill supports the recommendations of the independent review, and the Government's commitment to ensure it has the right arrangements in place to protect the special sites managed by the Trust into the future.
WATER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF WATER COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2021
In September 2020 the Government announced its intention to create the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. Today, on behalf of the Government, I am very proud to introduce this Bill.
W ater is a shared responsibility
Water in the Murray-Darling Basin is a finite resource.
Water is essential for the health and wellbeing of the Basin's 2.2 million rural and regional people.
Water is essential to support our national economy. The Basin contributes $24 billion in agricultural earnings and $8 billion in tourism dollars in a normal year.
Water is essential for the natural environment in the Basin including the 16 internationally significant wetlands and the endangered species that inhabit them.
To ensure a healthy working Basin, water management is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and Basin States. That's why we have a Basin Plan - an agreement between all Basin jurisdictions that we will manage its finite resources in a sustainable way.
In developing this Bill, the Australian Government has worked closely with Basin States to ensure the Bill will have their support before it commences. I thank them for their constructive engagement.
Improving confide nce
Establishing the statutory position of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance is the keystone of this Bill.
This role will combine compliance and enforcement powers currently held by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the assurance role of the current Interim Inspector-General.
In this role, the Inspector-General will listen to the concerns of Basin communities to ensure that their voices are heard when it comes to water compliance.
The Inspector-General will also undertake audits and inquiries and report in a transparent manner.
The Inspector-General will also work with other Basin States to develop more consistent standards and guidelines.
Compliance
Compliance is at the heart of a fair water sharing system.
All participants need to know they're being held to the same standard and that they're playing by the same rules.
This Bill strengthens compliance by enhancing the existing offences and the penalty regime under the Water Act. This includes strengthening penalties for water theft and water trading offences.
Importantly, this Bill recognises that the States are the primary and frontline managers for water compliance.
This does not change.
What this Bill does is enable the Commonwealth to step in and take enforcement action on water theft if a Basin State is unwilling or unable to do so.
The Inspector-General will work closely with Basin enforcement agencies to develop complementary compliance and enforcement policies.
Ensuring independence
The Inspector-General will be operationally independent.
That is, the Bill ensures that the Inspector-General is at arms-length from government and has the freedom to choose how to pursue Basin compliance.
Ethical walls will separate the new regulator from the Department's water purchasing and policy programs.
The Inspector-General will be truly independent with its own work plan, budget, and the ability to enter into its own contracts and appoint its own Authorised Compliance Officers.
Establishing the benchmark
The Inspector-General will work closely with State authorities in developing guidelines and standards.
This will include careful consideration of input from Basin States, such as relevant state standards and policies.
Through the development of standards and guidelines the Inspector-General will seek to improve consistency across the Basin.
The guidelines and standards will clearly articulate to Basin State regulators, communities and other stakeholders what constitutes best practice for Basin water management.
The standards and guidelines will provide the Inspector-General with a framework to evaluate the performance of Basin jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, in delivering the Basin Plan.
Conclusion
Our government is delivering stronger compliance, greater accountability and strengthened integrity through this Bill.
This Bill will enable the Inspector-General to work across the whole Basin - all one million square kilometres of it - to improve trust, strengthen compliance, and increase transparency.
Let's get on with passing the Bill and appointing Australia's first statutory Inspector-General of Water Compliance.
It's what the community expects us to do.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (YOUR FUTURE, YOUR SUPER) BILL 2021
Australia's superannuation system manages $3 trillion in retirement savings on behalf of 16 million people.
Given the superannuation system's size and compulsory nature, every Australian should demand the highest level of accountability and performance from their superannuation fund.
This is why, on Budget night, the government announced the Your Future, Your Super package to ensure that the superannuation system is operating as efficiently as possible, to maximise the retirement savings of all members. The package implements a number of recommendations from the Productivity Commission's 2018 final report on 'Superannuation: Assessing Efficiency and Competitiveness'.
Too many Australians are paying too much in superannuation fees.
At $30 billion a year, the superannuation fees Australians pay exceeds the cost of household gas and electricity bills combined.
Australians today are paying $450 million a year in unnecessary fees as a result of 6 million multiple accounts.
The measures I introduce today have been estimated to save Australians $17.9 billion over the next decade.
The Bill will reform the operation of our superannuation system in three key ways.
Single default account
The Government believes new super accounts should no longer be automatically created every time a worker changes jobs when they do not decide on a superannuation fund. Holding multiple accounts is costly for members. Multiple superannuation accounts held with different funds results in members paying multiple sets of fees and insurance premiums and unnecessarily erodes their retirement savings.
Through Schedule 1 to the Bill, the Government will ensure that a superannuation member's account will be 'stapled' to them as they change jobs from 1 July 2021. At the time of starting a new job, unless a member decides otherwise, their employer will pay superannuation contributions into their existing fund.
Employers will no longer automatically create a new superannuation account in their chosen default fund for new employees when they do not decide on a superannuation fund. Instead, employers will obtain information about the employee's existing superannuation fund from the Australian Taxation Office, if it is not provided by the employee. This reform will ensure that members are no longer accumulating multiple superannuation accounts every time they change jobs.
The introduction of stapled accounts will implement Recommendation 3.5 of the Financial Services Royal Commission and Recommendation 1 of the Productivity Commission Superannuation Inquiry.
These reforms are estimated to boost balances in super by about $2.8 billion by avoiding duplicate fees and lost returns over the next decade.
Underperformance
The Productivity Commission's Superannuation Inquiry emphasised the need to address underperformance.
Schedule 2 to the Bill will require the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to conduct an annual, objective performance test for MySuper products and other products to be specified in regulations.
All products that fail the test will be required to notify beneficiaries in writing. Where a product has failed the performance test in two consecutive years, the trustee will be prohibited from accepting new beneficiaries into that product. The amendments also provide APRA with a resolution planning prudential standard making power.
The introduction of this new test is expected to deliver $10.7 billion in benefits for members over 10 years as members leave underperforming products, some underperforming products improve their performance and others merge with higher performing funds.
Schedule 2 to the Bill will also facilitate the creation of the Government's new interactive 'YourSuper' comparison tool. The tool will provide members with simple, clear and trusted information on MySuper products. The tool is expected to boost retirement savings by $3.3 billion over 10 years through empowering more members to engage with their superannuation.
Best financial interests duty
Schedule 3 to the Bill implements Recommendation 22 of the Productivity Commission Superannuation Inquiry, by amending the existing best interests duty to clarify that this duty requires the trustee to act in the best financial interests of the member.
In addition, enforcement of this obligation is strengthened by:
reversing the evidential burden of proof for trustees;
creating a regulation making power to prohibit certain types of payments or investments;
creating a regulation making power to provide for additional obligations on trustees, which will be used to address any avoidance activity; and
making breaches of the record keeping obligations a strict liability offence.
Importantly, there is no 'mental' element required to be established by either a regulator pursuing civil penalties or an individual pursuing recovery of losses or damages against a trustee or individual director for a breach of the best financial interests duty.
Schedule 3 to the Bill will also remove the exemption that allows trustees not to disclose up to five per cent of holdings as part of their portfolio holdings disclosure, empowering members to make fully informed decisions about their retirement how their retirement savings are invested.
In conclusion, through the Your Future, Your Super package, the Morrison Government is taking the next step in modernising and renovating the architecture of the superannuation system to ensure it is working harder for you.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021
Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Returned from the House of Representatives
Messages received from the House of Representatives returning the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021 without amendment, and agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021.
COMMITTEES
Joint Select Committee on Road Safety
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of Mr Conaghan to the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety.
BILLS
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the Senate of assent to 10 bills, details of which will be incorporated in Hansard.
16 May 2021—Message no. 10—
Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (Act no. 34, 2021).
24 May 2021—Message no. 11—
Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Act 2021 (Act no. 35, 2021)
Migration Amendment (Tabling Notice of Certain Character Decisions) Act 2021 (Act no. 36, 2021).
27 May 2021—Message no. 12—
Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2020-2021 (Act no. 37, 2021)
Appropriation Act (No. 4) 2020-2021 (Act no. 38, 2021)
Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Act 2021 (Act no. 39, 2021)
Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Act 2021 (Act no. 40, 2021)
Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Act 2021 (Act no. 41, 2021)
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Act 2021 (Act no. 42, 2021).
10 June 2021—Message no. 13—
Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Act 2021 (Act no. 43, 2021).
Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:26): I just want to go back to questions we were asking, particularly regarding foreign seafarers and comparing those foreign seafarers with the MCV card as opposed those with the MSIC. I want to draw the attention of the committee to an article on 12 March which went through a particular bust that was done of alleged cocaine importers. But they have the cocaine, so it's not so alleged!
We had the Australian Federal Police Commander Kirsty Schofield, the Australian Border Force acting commander of investigations Garry Lowe and the New South Wales police state crime command director Detective Chief Superintendent Darren Bennett, all of whom appear to have played key roles in busting this group. I congratulate them for the work that they've done. But I want to draw attention to this question of what the circumstances are with these MSICs and MCVs. What seemed to happen in this particular sorry story was that not only was there many hundreds of thousands of dollars in cocaine seized but $100,000 was also located in a shed in New South Wales. Further, they went on to find other evidence which showed that the estimated value of a kilogram block was $230,000 and that those could attract two to three times that amount on the street.
This is probably the critical question, because, again, it comes back to the MSICs, which are required for and expected by employers in the shipping industry. Employers expect workers to have MSICs; they expect their workforce to be able to work in any secure area on and off the port. So they all have MSICs and they're expected to have MSICs; they're part of the conditions of them performing their duties. And because a lot of those employers are also law-abiding, along with their workforce, they're more than happy to have MSICs. It actually goes through detailed requirements requiring checks from various places, which I'm about to ask the minister about. But this raises the serious concern about those who don't have MSICs—these foreign seafarers, who are now doing more and more of the local shipping around Australia's coast and, of course, are plying in and out of our ports around this country.
Regarding the joint agency operation that I mentioned, the article says:
The joint-agency operation marks the third time authorities have nabbed boats attempting to import large quantities of cocaine since the pandemic crisis started. But the method of at-sea transfers isn't anything new.
The at-sea transfer is a well-known method that a lot of organised crime groups use ... what certainly has changed is the way in which we actually have to deal with these sorts of vessel importations when they arrive on shore; there's a real COVID overlay that we have to apply, particularly if crew on the vessels are from a foreign country.
It talks about the complexity but, most importantly, it also talks about the fact this is one of three major busts that have randomly been discovered—and in this particular case by overseas intelligence. It also goes to the point that all of the seafarers that are potentially involved in this particular illegal activity do not have an MSIC pass. They have not been properly checked to see what ASIO might think of them, what information criminal intelligence agencies in Australia might have on them or what information the Department of Home Affairs has regarding immigration checks. So all of these checks and inspections aren't a regular go-to for maritime crew visas. If they were, we would see a situation where the average time it would take to act on them would be like the 80 per cent that take an average of nearly three weeks or 15 working days and some that go to three months and six months. But, somehow in the case of maritime visa holders, they're able to turn around and say that they have the capacity to come up with the answers within 24 to 48 hours.
Often the checks we do on Australian crew are appropriate checks, though there have been some examples where it has not been appropriate. We've had one example where a person working in the industry had been involved in a fight many decades ago at a very young age and every year when he goes to get his card there is a further delay. He's given evidence to the Senate inquiry more than once, and I congratulate him for coming forward and being open to scrutiny from everybody and saying, 'These are the circumstances that I find myself in, and when I try to get my security pass it's delayed and delayed.' And we've seen him miss ships as a result of it.
So we go back to this question about MSIC and ASIC and the two different standards that apply. We've got ammonium nitrate carried around our borders, all around this country. We saw the case where 2,500 tonnes of ammonium nitrate blew a huge hole in Beirut. Most importantly and most horrifically, that ammonium nitrate exploding resulted in not only substantial financial damage but also loss of life, loss of limbs and many injuries. We see examples where ammonium nitrate is now being moved all around this country by foreign seafarers. They don't have to wait 15 working days—which is actually three weeks—or six weeks, or three months or six months; they get their licence within 48 hours.
What's clear in the way this is approached by this government is that there is a failure to properly check the people—potentially the most dangerous individuals—who are potentially plying drugs on our borders. The government argues that that's all too expensive—that it is too expensive to do that. What about the lives that are affected? What about the fact that we don't take action to make sure that drugs and weapons are not imported into this country?
It's appropriate to turn around to make sure that the maritime crew visa is extended to having the same obligations as, or similar obligations to, MSIC. When you're off a ship, as we spoke about this morning in Geelong—two people have left a ship and can't be found. I gather they're MCVs; they're certainly not MSICs, because MSICs require even further detailed checks. We've now got people roaming around the countryside as a result of the inappropriateness of the systems we use to know what is actually happening on ships coming to and from our ports.
Three separate, major cocaine busts—Minister, can you step us through the MSIC, which we got part way through before question time came up, and then the maritime crew visa and highlight the differences between the two?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:35): The MCV currently involves an assessment of the following in relation to a visa applicant: character concerns, including an assessment of criminality; security concerns, on advice from ASIO; risks relating to weapons of mass destruction; whether there are any debts to the Commonwealth; whether the applicant has complied with previously held visas; whether they pose fraud risks; and whether they hold a valid passport.
The ASIC-MSIC background check currently consists of an assessment of the applicant's identity; a full security assessment from ASIO; a criminal history check by ACIC, which involves obtaining a full criminal history of the applicant and assessing it against relevant eligibility; and an immigration check, where required, by the Department of Home Affairs.
Whilst there is a degree of overlap between the MCV and ASIC-MSIC checks, they are undertaken for different purposes and in relation to different risks. An MCV check is tailored to a temporary visa for entering Australia; the ASIC-MSIC checks are more detailed assessments of people with an ongoing need for unsupervised access to the secure areas of Australia's ports and airports.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:37): You raised, in the case of maritime crew visas, that there is an assessment of character. Could you step me through what the assessment is of the character of the individual and how that's formulated? Who's contacted? Do they ring up the captain, like Captain Sal—
Senator Sterle: Captain Salas.
Senator SHELDON: Captain Salas—how could I forget?—and wait for an email from him that he sends off to head office? What's the process that's applied to these checks that you say are appropriate?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:37): I'm advised that strict qualifying criteria apply to all online applications to maintain the integrity of the department's border management and to enable the department to control volumes of applications. Pre COVID, around 280,000 MCVs were granted per year. Applicants must be outside Australia at the time of application, but the application may be finalised when the applicant is onshore. Applicants are checked against a central movement alert list, which checks biographical data, such as name or passport number, for matches against specific people or documents of concern. It will refer an MCV application with either a MAL match or a potential match for manual processing. Applications are also checked against the safeguard system, which is a rules based risk-profiling system that alerts processing officers to risks and suggests potential treatments, such as further document fraud checks, site visits or interviews. It may also refer an application to MGPC for manual processing.
Checks against these systems run automatically, several times, in application processing so that applications are frequently checked against the latest contents of the risk systems. Discretionary checks can also be performed by the processing office. If an applicant does not meet the relevant requirements after a manual assessment, the application is refused and the applicant is advised. An application which has been automatically or manually granted may be ceased under subclause 33(b)(3). The decision-maker may make a written declaration, for the purposes of this section, that it is undesirable that a person or any persons in a class of persons travel to and enter Australia or remain in Australia.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:39): Looking at this question, then, on the MCV, maybe in layman's terms I might understand it and—heaven forbid!—anyone else listening might understand it. Why does it take six weeks to do an investigation of the average person who gets an MSIC or ASIC card, and why does an MCV take only 24 to 48 hours? It's clear to me that most normal-thinking persons would say that one is more thorough and one is less thorough.
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:40): During 2020, AusCheck processed 85 per cent of the 59,814 ASIC and 14,941 MSIC applications received within 15 business days, including the time spent with external checking partners. This represents almost a 10 per cent improvement in processing times over 2019, where 77 per cent of applications were processed within 15 business days. An ASIC or MSIC background check consists of verifying an applicant's identity, a criminal history check, a national security check and a migration status check where required. Where a complex criminal history is returned, AusCheck may be required to contact local jurisdictional courts to seek additional information to ensure accuracy within the assessment process. These complexities may require an additional processing time and are beyond AusCheck's control.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:41): Thank you for that answer. I want to go to one part—the migration status that may be required to be checked. On what basis is it required or not required to be checked?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:42): If you are an Australian citizen, it wouldn't need to be checked. If you're not an Australian citizen, there would be a check to make sure that you have the appropriate visa.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:42): If they're Australian citizens, there isn't a migration check full stop. Is that what happens? Do I understand it correctly?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:42): Yes.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:42): So we don't do a migration check on them. We don't put it through the system. What are the other reasons why it takes just 24 to 48 hours in comparison to doing what are lengthy investigations—I'm not saying inappropriate investigations but they are lengthy, sometimes too lengthy, investigations—into Australian crews?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:43): While an MCV can be granted in 48 hours, it is important to note that the MSIC and MCV schemes operate for two different purposes and undertake different checks. The MSIC scheme operates for the purpose of accessing security zones, whilst the MCV operates for the purpose of immigration, entry and stay rights. Where a foreign seafarer requires unsupervised access to a maritime security zone, they must have an MCV and MSIC. Any evidence of people accessing a maritime security zone without holding an MSIC or being supervised by an MSIC holder should be reported to the department for investigation. During the 2020 calendar year, AusCheck processed 85 per cent of ASIC and MSIC applications within 15 days.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:43): What's becoming clear is that we have a situation where we've had three major drug busts, with kilos upon kilos of cocaine coming into the country, and on those occasions we've identified that it was on foreign crewed ships. We've got ammonium nitrate flowing around our borders and taken from coastal port to coastal port by foreign crews. We've got people that are on MCVs that are given what appears to be the tick and flick and then we have Australian seafarers who have a thorough check—and a thorough check is not inappropriate. In actual fact, we're in agreement with the government that the thorough check should take place. What we're in disagreement about is that the vast majority of people who are actually plying on our coastal ships and coming into our waters and our ports are not checked in an appropriate fashion for being terrorists or checked for criminality, because there is no sensible way, on the descriptions we've just had, that there could possibly be the same detailed checks that take place for those particular crews. You'd think that there would be high danger areas about which you'd make these considerations.
As has been suggested in an amendment from Labor, we should look at important areas where there's vulnerability, and of course the MCV is one of those very fundamental areas where there is vulnerability. We should be turning around and making sure that those people are held to account, if they're doing something wrong. Many of them aren't, but there are enough doing something wrong to see thousands of kilos of cocaine over a period of time, over years, cross our borders. As we saw in that example I gave just a few minutes ago of Port Botany in March this year, it's coming from people that are going out to these foreign crewed ships and bringing in multi amounts of cocaine and illegal-gotten gains and money onto our shores.
It's clear we must make sure we have a proper and robust system. What I'm not clear on is if the government agrees with the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection's 2017 finding that there are 'features of flag-of-convenience registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorist groups may seek to exploit'. The report says:
Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make FOC ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups.
This means that FOC ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling, and facilitating prohibited imports or exports.
Does the government agree that the department of immigration is right?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:47): It's imperative that the government puts measures in place to prevent serious crime for the safety and security of all Australians. This bill was developed in response to a number of independent reviews that recognised the critical vulnerability created by serious and organised criminals exploiting the ASIC and MSIC schemes for criminal purposes. The government acknowledges that flag-of-convenience ships can also pose a risk to the maritime environment that can be exploited by organised crime groups. The government regularly reviews the aviation and maritime environments to address all vulnerabilities and to strengthen aviation and maritime security.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:48): Minister, following from your answer there, you said that there is monitoring by the government at the appropriate security levels that should exist at our ports. When was the last time the MCVs were monitored, and what reports were given about the deficiencies and efficiencies of the MCV monitoring?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:48): I'm advised there's been no specific review, but the government is regularly updating and considering all of those visa settings.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:49): Now we learn that there's no review of our borders when it comes to MCVs; three ships are coming into our country and there is no review on the MCVs when people are throwing off drugs into sister ships and coming into our ports!
There has been no review of the MCV. Doesn't this just demonstrate the importance of making sure that they get off their backsides, start turning around and taking this seriously? If you throw your mind back, a lot of this was thrown up over a period of time under the guise of doing something for national security, and then under the guise of doing something for serious crimes. Now they're turning around and saying: 'Well, in actual fact, we're not worrying about the ones that are the worst. We're not worrying about the people actually committing the crimes on these foreign vessels, these foreign crews.'
It seems absolutely logical that the government should be doing a proper investigation, and it's important, in light of what we've been discussing with our amendments, that the MCV, which hasn't been reviewed, gets reviewed. The MCV, which has seen multiple players involved in drug importation, doesn't have the same requirements as ASICs and MSICs. And it's not because the ASIC or MSIC should be changed—in fact, we've already indicated the importance of ASICs and MSICs in the past; it's about how you turn around and make our borders safe. Making it safe isn't saying, 'We regularly review whether we should have a review.' It is actually about doing the reviewing. We've got an example of a huge importation of cocaine that slapped you in the face in March. An extremely good job was done by joint forces dealing with that particular incident, but the people were on MCVs. There weren't appropriate checks.
I want to turn to one other issue before I may well come back to the MCV question. At one point last year there were eight Rio Tinto ships off the coast of Queensland. Four were Australian vessels with Australian crew; the other four were flag-of-convenience vessels with foreign crew. Why are these crew not required to hold an MSIC?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:52): The reason is because only anyone seeking to have unescorted access to secure areas of airports or seaports needs an ASIC or an MSIC, regardless of their nationality.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:52): Thank you, Minister. Well, doesn't this go to the heart of things? What has been suggested here is that we should go to the criminals and ask them, 'Do you want an MSIC or an ASIC?' And when they say, 'No,' we do nothing. The whole idea of having people go through security checks is to have an appropriate security check. The people who are actually involved in criminal activity don't ask for MSICs. You'd be surprised the things that criminals do get up to. They won't even abide by regulations by asking for an MSIC, because they're going to walk off unescorted. Heaven forbid! Next they will be importing hundreds of kilos of cocaine, and bringing in guns and weapons and various other threats to this country.
It seems absolutely illogical there would be a situation where we have, in the case of Rio Tinto ships off the coast of Queensland last year—as I said, four were Australian vessels. And to the credit of both the crew and those companies that ran those vessels, they made sure that people had MSICs, because they wanted the extra check. They wanted it to be safe. They wanted it to be secure. They wanted people to actually work efficiently on their ports. These are all things that are of high merit.
When you go to the other four ships, the flag-of-convenience ships, they were doing the exact same types of work for Rio Tinto, they were doing the exact same work, but, funnily enough, those companies don't want or require MSICs to be taken out. In actual fact those crew members don't want MSICs taken out either—maybe because it takes a little bit of time or maybe because they're criminals that can't turn around and be held to account in this country under the system that we're applying at the moment, unless they apply for an MSIC, which requires a more rigorous approach to the oversight of those plying our borders all around this country. Is the minister telling the parliament that every single foreign crewperson who is not required to have an MSIC is never left unattended in secure areas of ports?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:55): We have these screening processes for people with MSICs because they have unescorted access to secure areas. Where there is evidence of someone illegally accessing those areas, of course that should be reported, but the whole purpose of the scheme is to make sure that those who do have access to these particularly sensitive and particularly secure areas are given particularly rigorous background checking.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (18:55): Minister, I was hoping not to go down this path, to have to regurgitate, but, with the greatest respect, we have a different minister at the table, so I think it is very important we take a few steps back so you can get a handle on what is going on. What we know in this nation is that when foreign ships come in with foreign crews—foreign flagged vessels or flags of convenience—within 24 to 48 hours an email is sent off to the ABF that says, 'This is who is on the ship.' Then the ABF go off and they have a little background check. They make sure that no flags come up. What the minister was trying to tell us is that everything is tickety-boo; everything is Mickey Mouse.
The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee had five inquiries into this. I also spoke to the Greens and the crossbenchers when this bill was before us months ago, back in March. It was around the time when that big heap of cocaine fell off the mothership and was picked up by the small fishing vessel. They said, 'Hang on, we've got to look a little bit further into this, because we have a very filthy stain on our maritime history that goes back only a few years, and it is a ship called the Sage Sagittarius'. You should know, Senator Seselja, what happened on the Sage Sagittarius under the leadership, or the captainship, of Captain Salas, a Filipino. On its way to Australia, not far out of port, one of the crew members fell overboard. They went missing—tragic, terrible. As the ship was coming into Newcastle—I thought it was Newcastle, but I'll stand corrected if it was Botany or whatever it was—just prior to it coming into the heads, within hours, another crewman went headfirst down into the bottom of the ship—dead.
The Japanese who owned the ship thought: 'What are we going to do? There's something mysterious going on on this ship.' I hope you are taking it in, Senator Seselja, because I'm going put the same questions that I put to the previous minister, who was given the wrong information and, I believe, didn't provide the right answer to the Senate. I'm not suggesting for one minute they purposely misled the Senate, but the Senate was not told the truth. So have a good listen here. What happened was the Japanese got the undercover detective or inspector and put him on the ship disguised as a seafarer. They went off. They left Australian shores. Chair, you will remember this vividly. It headed back to Japan. Just as the ship berthed and they were unloading, somehow the undercover detective fell into the conveyer belt and was killed—two deaths and one missing overboard.
The worst part about this was that before Captain Salas left our shores he admitted to gun running and illegally selling alcohol. Senator Sheldon asked questions of ministers and department officials: how rigid and how solid are these background checks? We expect that they are rigid and they are solid. How the hell we can find that out in 24 to 48 hours still baffles me. What we have worked out here, Minister, is that if someone has been caught doing something illegally and the name on the passport matches the face and it brings up a red flag then—yes, aren't we great?—we can stop this. The truth of the matter is that you, the government, have no idea if criminals are mixing on these ships if they haven't been caught mixing before. How the hell can we in this chamber delay the passage of legislation because we want to have a greater look into this to see that you want to do this properly? At the same damned time, you would have thought Labor concocted this, where a big heap of cocaine went off the side of the ship so we could say: 'See? There you go. It happened.' But there it is. I asked the previous minister: Who were the seafarers on that ship? Do we have the names? Are there investigations? I am still waiting for an answer. I'm hoping someone will come back to me.
Also, Minister, when I asked the minister who was previously in the position you're in, with the advisers there in the box, I clearly said, 'I don't hold these advisers culpable,' because I'd said very, very clearly that there is a minister in this place who no longer has the portfolio, Minister Dutton, who knows every filthy, sneaky, dirty little thing that happened on the Sage Sagittarius, yet he's been conveniently transferred to another portfolio. You would think that he would pass on the info all the way down the chain so the new advisers and the department officials get to know what he knows and what we, the Senate committee that did the inquiry, know.
So you see our frustration here, Minister. When we said to Minister Cash earlier on, 'Can you guarantee us, 100 per cent kosher, that you will know if anything has gone wrong and that, if there is criminality or a criminal conviction or if there are accusations around these foreign seafarers coming in, you would have a red flag that goes up?' the minister said very clearly—and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong—'No, we had nothing on Captain Salas; there were no dramas.' Captain Salas admitted gun running. Captain Salas admitted bootlegging and selling alcohol. Captain Salas left our shores.
Minister, here's the crunch. Be very, very careful, please, because I don't want to see you getting done for something that you might innocently walk into. In his absence, the New South Wales coroner were doing an investigation in Sydney, and they couldn't find Captain Salas. The ABF couldn't find Captain Salas. The AFP couldn't find Captain Salas. The state jurisdictions couldn't find Captain Salas. It was a couple of years in between the two deaths and the missing seafarer that went overboard and when this New South Wales Coroner's Court was going on. At the smoko break, they were going to pull up stumps and say, 'We can't go any further because we can't find Captain Salas.' But, lo and behold, in the audience there was a journo who wrote for one of the News Corp rags up on the Sunshine Coast somewhere, Owen Jacques. Owen Jacques was in the room. Owen Jacques went up to the prosecutor at the smoko break and said, 'I can tell you, sir, where Captain Salas is.' All our agencies and our spooks and everyone else couldn't tell us, but Owen Jacques could tell us. You know why, Minister? He went to that magnificent thing called the internet, he punched out whatever it was that he punched out, and, lo and behold, there was Captain Salas. They could tell you the ship he was coming on and what port he was going into. I believe he was going into Gladstone. It also showed that he had been in and out of Gladstone and Weipa on a number of occasions. Minister Cash was advised that there was nothing on Captain Salas and that's why his name never popped up and they couldn't find him.
So I very, very carefully ask again: how the hell can we and the rest of Australia, without the help of Owen Jacques, believe this government that your 24-hour or 48-hour faxes with your stringent border or background checks on these seafarers can make the Australian population—all 25 million of us—really confident that you know what's coming in this nation and who's coming in this nation? How can you tell us that, Minister, when the previous minister sat where you are, stood up, and answered that that couldn't happen because they didn't have anything on Captain Salas? The rest of the world that followed this inquiry knew what was going on with Captain Salas. Owen Jacques, the reporter, knew where Captain Salas was. So, Minister, I ask you one more time, following on from the questions that Senator Sheldon asked: can you stand up here in front of this Senate and categorically tell us that you, the government, know every single person coming on our shores and know that they are the face on the passport and they have no criminality because your checks are rock solid and nothing will get past you?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (19:04): Senator, given you've already asked the question of Minister Cash and the answer's been given, I don't intend to add anything to the answer.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (19:04): That's a shame, because I still say the Senate was misled in its answers. Take it however you want. Push it further up the chain. I'm happy to confront any committee in this Senate to put forth my case, and the appropriate minister can defend themselves, because I look forward to it.
Let me bring you to another debacle. I can't believe this myself. It seems like every time we talk about the transport security amendments in this place, something turns to custard. Today we have news breaking that two Asian crew members have snuck off a cargo ship docked at the Geelong port. So before I go any further—and I'm going to go further—can someone please tell me: is the Geelong port an MSIC port or is it one of those ones that falls through the gap and you don't have to have MSICs?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (19:05): I'm advised that the Geelong port, I think it is, would be a secure area for the purposes of an MSIC, based on risk assessments at particular times, depending on what ships are coming in.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (19:06): This makes it worse, then. What we're well aware of—the whole world knows, and, if you haven't known, you're going to know now—is that two Asian crew members snuck off the cargo ship docked at the Geelong port. This was more than 60 hours ago. I'll go back to when this email came through, so it's probably about 62 hours. They've snuck off a ship called the Glorious Plumeria 60 hours ago and disappeared. I would then ask: Minister, while you have listened to my case—previous ministers have listened to what the senators on this side have been putting—how can anyone now stand up without cracking up or falling into a hole because they've been caught out fibbing? Minister, tell us that there's an MSIC port and two Asian crew members have snuck off. Were they escorted off by MSIC people? I don't know. Enlighten us, please.
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (19:07): I'm advised that, in relation to the specific case, the ABF will investigate.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (19:07): I was ready for that piddly little response, because I was—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Brockman ): Senator—
Senator STERLE: I withdraw 'piddly'—'pathetic'. Sorry, I respect you, Temporary Chair Brockman, as the chair. I was expecting that pathetic response. Here we go, Australia—25 million Aussies: 'Nothing to see here.' At two in the morning, they snuck off the ship in an MSIC port, where they're supposed to be escorted because 'We've got eyes on everything; no-one gets past us.' I'll raise another one here. I want the 25 million Australians in this nation to see through the bulldust that comes from that side of the chamber. You talk up a big fight on security. You're full of bulldust. I was rather restrained there for you, Temporary Chair Brockman. Here's another one. What we're very clearly told—because Senator Sheldon and myself, and our good mate and the Chair and Senator Barry O'Sullivan, lived and breathed this stuff for a couple of years, so the government departments couldn't wait to tell us. As part of the you-beaut, tickety-boo, 'I wouldn't lie to you' email 48 hours or 24 hours out, we're told—I don't know if you know this, Minister, but you will in a minute—that the captain keeps all passports secured in a safe on the ship. I'll give you the opportunity, Minister, to consult with the officials in the box there. Am I right?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (19:09): Anyone seeking to have unescorted access to secure areas of airports and seaports needs an ASIC or an MSIC, regardless of nationality, as I've pointed out. Labor is clearly, I think, in this filibuster, seeking to muddy the waters—and no surprises there—because they don't want to support this legislation. There's no Australian government requirement for all Australian seafarers to hold an MSIC. An MSIC ensures the holder has been background-checked and it allows the holder to be unescorted inside a maritime security zone.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (19:10): I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you, Senator Seselja. I know it's not in my character, but I am starting to feel sorry for you, because you're only reading what's being handed to you. I understand you have many strengths in this building; shipping, or foreign shipping, is not one of them.
Let me tell you this and get this very clear. As you said, this is an MSIC port. These people did not have MSICs and nor did I even try to attempt to mislead you by saying they had MSICs. But, you see, what I did say, Minister—and I really would like you to have a really good think before a piece of paper flicks over that is just completely off the planet—was: a fax would have come in, or is supposed to have come in, with all the names—48 or 24 hours out to sea—of who was on the Glorious Plumeria. As I said to you, Minister, we know this—the world knows this; Australia knows this; everyone knows this. As to the receiving ship, as to a maritime crew visa—for you, Minister: not an MSIC; a maritime crew visa for a foreign seafarer—the passports are to be kept securely locked in a safe in the captain's quarters or on the ship somewhere. That is fact, Minister. So, while your people are having a look there, I ask you once again: could I have got this wrong?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (19:12): That is correct.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (19:12): Thank you, Minister. So, Minister, while I am feeling sorry for you, and I do appreciate your honesty, I have to raise this for the world and for the 25 million Australians to know, because what we have been told, very, very clearly, is that, as to the two Asian crew members—who snuck off the Glorious Plumeria, they think, around 2 am on Sunday, and the ship sailed at 3 pm today—their passports were missing from the security box/safe or whatever it may be.
So I come back to this: how can we, as concerned Australians, who all want to unite to do everything to stop the insidious trade of drugs and weapons and all that into our nation, take this government seriously and, with our hand on our hearts, say: 'You've got it all worked out; nothing's going to get past you'? This is before I even start talking about where the freight moves, because it ain't the MSIC cardholders running around the port moving these drugs; these are going on the backs of trucks and in containers. So I come back to my question: Minister, how can we take this government seriously, as to you having a handle on this? And how is this legislation going to stop that sort of criminal behaviour?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (19:13): I thank the senator for the question. In terms of the specifics you're talking about, the ABF will of course investigate those specifics, and I wouldn't make any further comment in relation to that, on the government.
But, when it comes to our record, this is a government that has had a record that is the envy of those opposite when it comes to securing our borders. There's no doubt about that. We could go over the years and years of history to show that it is a coalition government that takes these issues seriously and it is those opposite who operate an open-borders approach—there's no doubt about that. When it comes to securing our borders or dealing with serious and organised crime, we've demonstrated our bona fides. We've seen in relation to Operation Ironside just this week that organised criminals are taking advantage, and we are doing everything we can to stop them. Serious crime is a major threat to our way of life, and that's what this legislation is about. It's about saying that those who are going to have unescorted access to secure areas will have to undergo these kinds of serious checks.
It's interesting that the Labor Party seek to delay this legislation, that they seek to filibuster, that they seek to talk about anything other than the actual legislation that is before the Senate. They haven't been able to explain why they don't believe we should be delivering these reforms. They'll point to all sorts of other things that they might like to improve that they didn't improve when they were in government eight years ago. Well, that's fine. Have that debate. But it's transparently clear that this is simply about them not wanting to bring this to a vote. They don't want to see it come to a vote because they don't want to be on the wrong side of this. So they need to now make the argument as to why they're going to vote against this—or are they not? Are they just going to draw it out and draw it out and then maybe eventually vote for it? Are they going to have a bet each way? That's what they seem to be doing here, because they're throwing up a lot of red herrings that aren't about what this legislation is actually about.
This legislation is actually about having proper security vetting for those who have unescorted access to these areas. We've explained the differences and we've explained the different checks through the detailed questions that were asked by Senator Sheldon. We can see what's going on. Thank you for the lectures. When it comes to border security, we will compare our record to yours any day of the week, absolutely any day of the week. You keep referring to the 25 million Australians listening. That's optimistic! But regardless of who is listening and how many are listening, any of them would know that this Liberal-National government has an enviable record on keeping our borders safe. Those opposite, when they were last in government, couldn't be trusted, and it was one of the reasons the Australian people got rid of them.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (19:16): I would like to correct the record. I don't feel sorry for you. Now we're going to have some real open debate here, because you've just proved, Minister, that your pay packet will guide you, not common sense. Whatever you get paid, you'll parrot the line when you've got no proper answer. So let's come back to this. I want to use your words, Minister, not mine. I wrote them down.
I asked you about these two Chinese people that scurried off this ship at two in the morning. They disappeared. It was nothing to do with MSIC. They would have had maritime crew visas. You couldn't answer that. You hid behind Border Force: 'We'll have an inspection.' Yes, okay. Then you used the words 'unvetted access to these areas', so I assume you mean the port where the two Chinese seafarers scurried off. How good is this! If I want something off a ship, I've only got to walk in at 2.00 am, because no-one's watching and no-one's there! Is that what happens on our ports, Minister? You want to start going to the bottom of the barrel and talking about the difference between organised crime and those poor devils who want to seek a better life in Australia. You got into the gutter, Minister. Do you want to get into the gutter with me? I'm happy to take that challenge up with you.
You also used these words, Minister—you're referring, I assume, to all seafarers, but in particular to the two Chinese whose passports were missing out of the safe. I don't know how they got access to the safe. Is anyone going to ask how they got access to the safe? Is anyone dragging the captain in to ask what's going on? You said this: they'll undergo these serious checks. Oh, shoot! Serious checks! You're telling us you have serious checks when you've got two Chinese that have scurried off an MSIC port. Hollywood can't write comedy, but the Brits are funny people. They could write this! You can puff and blow as much as you like, Minister, but, if you want to take on someone who's been working in this area for the last eight years, who's done all these inquiries, then get your facts right. If you can beat me with the facts, I'll be the first one to put my hands up.
You say we're filibustering. We're the ones that have seriously said that we want to do this and we want to do this properly. I'm asking the same questions because two Chinese, under your watch, Minister, are now roaming around our nation with their passports. You have no idea who they are. You have no idea how they got off the port. You have no idea who's connected. There are a series of questions that the media have asked Border Force too, and I'm going to start reading them because, you know what? I'd love to know if you can answer them. These are the questions: who are the men you're now searching for? We don't have any names. While you're in the gutter, Minister, why don't you drag yourself up for a little bit, get your head above the line and start listening to this? A lot of people will be thinking about this. What are the personal details of these people? What is their description? Do you know? We just know they're two Asians. Can you provide photos of them? Hey, how's this one? You haven't got their passports. This'll be interesting. So how the hell are you going to know what they look like? Oh, my goodness! This is going to start hurting my head. Do you have an answer? Do you think you have an answer? Do you think you can find two Asian people in Australia with no passports? Do you know who you're looking for?
Progress reported.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Brockman ) (19:20): I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
China
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:20): Earlier this year, I spoke of an iron curtain falling around our region, from Mandalay to Moresby and from Manila to Melbourne. Communist China is intent on domination, not through traditional means of military warfare but on three fronts: economic, political, and cultural oppression, within a matrix of cyberwarfare. While China has continued with its wolf warrior diplomacy and while territorial concerns continue to be raised, including in seas off Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, the Chinese Communist Party government and its military arm have been quietly making strategic acquisitions of another kind, especially in one of our oldest allies, the Philippines.
Some of these were laid bare a few weeks ago when President Biden expanded the scope of Executive Order 13959, addressing the threat from securities investments that finance certain companies of the People's Republic of China, originally signed in November last year by President Trump in order to take additional steps to protect the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. This expanded executive order increased the list of Chinese companies banned from United States investments from 31 to 59. This is a list of Chinese companies that undermine the security or democratic values of the United States and its allies.
Tonight I want to speak about one of those prohibited companies, China Telecom, and its empire building in the Philippines, one of our oldest allies. According to the United States Federal Communications Commission, the Chinese Communist Party government has substantial control over China Telecom. China Telecom describes itself as a 'main force for building a cyber power', and it is bound by China's National Intelligence Law article 7, which states, 'Any organisation or citizen shall support and assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work in accordance with the law, and keep the secrets of the national intelligence work known to the public'.
Particularly of concern is China Telecom's 40 per cent share in Dito Telecommunity, a multibillion-dollar telecommunications company established in the Philippines. Many are concerned that Dito Telecommunity is a Trojan horse for spying, including on the armed forces of the Philippines and its allies the United States and Australia. Asia-Pacific consulting firm Creator Tech recently released a study into the new telecommunications operator. They said:
China Telecom reports to the Central People's Government in China. This partner of Dito, which describes itself as 'a main force for building a cyber power,' is China's preferred third mobile operator put forward by China's leaders upon the request of President Duterte. This raises serious questions on cyber security, citizens' privacy, and national interests. These will have serious repercussions on multiple fronts
Creator Tech also noted this new venture was not happening in isolation. For example, the Chinese Communist Party government also has a stake in the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines, or NGCP for short, the corporation in charge of operating, maintaining and developing the country's state owned power grid. It is co-owned by the State Grid Corporation of China.
Also concerning are proposals in the Philippine Senate, including Bill No. 2094, which would allow 100 per cent foreign ownership of public utilities, including telecommunications and transportation. Filipino lawmakers are rightly concerned that this could allow China to own infrastructure which is crucial to the Philippines. When we consider how many Australian companies house parts of their businesses in the Philippines, such as call centres, this should ring alarm bells with cybersecurity experts.
Communist China is on the march. We must be awake to the Philippines being one of the first dominoes at risk of falling to the nefarious influence of that evil regime in China. Whether in Manila, Maroochydore or Mareeba, we must be awake to the threat of communist China to freedom.
Far North Queensland
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (19:25): Far North Queensland is facing a housing crisis. People are sleeping in cars. They're unable to get rental properties. We've got single parents unable to get homes to live in. We know that overcrowding in Indigenous housing is getting worse. But, instead of doing anything to fix this crisis, the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, told the ABC recently that he doesn't hold a building licence. That's what he said—that he doesn't hold a building licence. It sounds an awful lot like, 'I don't hold a hose.' It was clear that the member for Leichhardt didn't like being asked why the promise he made to deliver $105 million of remote housing to Far North Queensland hadn't been delivered on. It is one election promise not delivered on, but there are so many more. Not one single house has been built with that $105 million, and people are still living in overcrowded housing in Leichhardt.
Mr Entsch has a knack for promising big and failing to deliver, and then blaming everybody else for his failures. We have seen the same thing with insurance in North Queensland. For years, people in North Queensland have been facing skyrocketing insurance premiums. Some people have given up, choosing to risk having no insurance at all in a cyclone prone region because they cannot afford the cost of rising insurance. Many people are underinsured because that is all they can afford. For so long the member for Leichhardt has been promising to fix this problem, and the government has had eight long years to do it. But, after eight years and numerous inquiries, reports, discussions, speeches and press conferences from the government, we have got a budget handed down that has promised to make an intention to have a reinsurance pool—so not an actual commitment but a commitment to intend to do something.
There are people right now who can't afford insurance, and this government is telling them that they need to wait even longer for this commitment to be delivered—again, lots of photos and headlines but scant on the detail. There are no guarantees of reduced premiums, and there is no clear idea as to how to ensure any savings are going to be passed on to consumers. And it won't even start until the next election. We know that Mr Entsch and the Prime Minister like to come to Cairns and make big promises. But, when the details come out, that's when Far North Queenslanders understand that this is a government that takes them for granted.
Then there's the promise to fix congestion on the Captain Cook Highway and to build the Cairns Western Arterial Road. Before the last election the member for Leichhardt stood on the Captain Cook Highway and said that he would bust congestion. This is a stretch of road that all Cairns residents know about—especially the residents of the north side of Cairns, who sit in their cars every morning for an hour driving at snail's pace just to make the short journey to the CBD. The member for Leichhardt announced to the community in early 2019, before the election, that this was a game-changer infrastructure project. There were lots of photos, lots of headlines and lots of promises, but how far have we come on this important election promise? Of this congestion-busting promise on the Captain Cook Highway, construction has not started and congestion has not been busted. While you're sitting in your cars in traffic in Cairns, Mr Entsch is asleep at the wheel.
When it comes to the CWAR funding in the latest budget, what we know is this: it's another election and another roads announcement. When we asked officials during the Senate estimates process how long it would take for this funding to be delivered in Cairns, we found out that it is several years away. Most of the funding will not be delivered until 2025-26. You will have to vote for this government twice before that road is even built. This is another classic example of the member for Leichhardt talking big but glossing over the details and the actual delivery—always there for the photo op but never there for delivery.
And these are just the local issues. In the past few weeks, on national issues alone, Mr Entsch has supported the government watering down ARENA so it will no longer be investing only in renewable energy. He stood by and said nothing when Minister Pitt vetoed a windfarm in Far North Queensland that would have created 250 local jobs. And he failed to support the Biloela family—two girls born in regional Queensland. He's failed to back them and instead blames the lawyers and the parents. This is a government that is lazy, plumped up from the pandemic— (Time expired)
Pensions and Benefits
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:30): I rise this evening to talk about the government's 'dobseeker' hotline. There is no limit to the ways in which this government do their very best to make the lives of people on income support a nightmare, from robodebt to mutual obligations. We now have 'dobseeker', a hotline for employers and job providers to dob in a person who, according to them and a lot of anecdotal evidence, refused to take a job they'd been offered. Not only is this an abuse of power that will hurt the most vulnerable; there is no evidence to support the anecdotal claims of so-called job snobs and people refusing to take work.
The employment service system is rife with bullying, harassment and people being ignored or treated very poorly by their job service providers. But, instead of dealing with that, the government has empowered employers and job providers with the means to intimidate and bully jobseekers. There are currently 245,400 jobs available, with 1.14 million people looking for work. Anybody can do the maths on that. The problem is not the so-called job snobs; it's actually the lack of available work. Minister Robert is so keen to demonise and humiliate jobseekers that a couple of weeks ago, just after estimates, when we were asking about the 'dobseeker' line, he proudly announced that there were hundreds of people who have been dobbed into this twisted hotline. Remember that someone making a phone call to the 'dobseeker' line does not mean that the jobseeker is guilty. When you have 1.14 million people looking for work, a couple of hundred phone calls is nothing other than an attempt by the government, once again, to demonise jobseekers. There was absolutely no need for him to make the outrageous claims that he did.
So many in this place have a lot to say about those on low incomes and how we need to be inflicting mutual obligations on them, but not a lot is said about the dodgy job providers and exploitative employers. I'm not for one minute saying they all are, but there are a lot of dodgy service providers. We hear crickets from the government on the employment programs and providers who were paid a lot of money to find these jobs that in fact don't exist when we have 1.14 people million on JobSeeker and youth allowance but only 245,400 jobs available.
Of course, businesses are going to be getting swamped with applications. There are 1.14 million people looking for work who have to submit 15 job applications per month. That adds up to millions and millions—over 15 million—of job applications per month. That's going up to 20 million in July. So you can imagine that people are desperate to find work and desperate to get applications in and so employers are dealing with a lot of job applications. This paper pushing for the sake of it only serves to depress and stress out jobseekers. It is completely unmanageable for employers and a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy for the public sector, businesses and small-business owners.
It's because of the government's ridiculous mutual obligations that businesses are having to deal with this many applications, and, of course, it's ridiculous for people on income support. The employment service system is not fit for purpose, with a major problem being the fact that job service providers have to do the compliance on these mutual obligations. They are the ones that have to enforce compliance rather than assisting people into fulfilling employment pathways. The complaints process for the jobactive system is so poor and opaque that the only way most people can get an outcome if they have a bad experience with providers is to go to their local members of parliament or local senators. But employers and job service providers can just call a hotline to get some help and make a complaint. Try being a jobseeker who wants to complain about their employment service provider and the lack of support they are getting and—oh, no—there is very little response. The government can spend millions of dollars pursuing the illegal robodebt scheme with next to no consequences. (Time expired)
Medicare
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (19:35): When a party is devoid of a positive policy platform, it reduces itself to scare campaigns—unsubstantiated scare campaigns. That is the hapless state in which the Labor Party finds itself. With nothing to offer, Labor regularly reaches into its bag of deceit and pulls out a new 'Mediscare' campaign. Devoid of facts, devoid of any moral code, Labor seeks to scare our fellow Australians with campaigns suggesting that Medicare under the Liberals, which have a record of economic management allowing Medicare to not only be sustained but see real growth, is somehow under threat. I'm not sure who the brains trust is within Labor, but having failed with it twice, one wonders why they think the Australian people won't see through the dishonesty a third time. Labor operatives are authorising dishonest advertisements depicting the Prime Minister with a pair of scissors, cutting up a Medicare card. Why do Labor need such visuals? If they quoted actual figures, their narrative would disappear without trace.
The latest Liberal budget increases Medicare expenditure yet again year in, year out over the budget cycle. Labor's last budget had Medicare expenditure at $19 billion per year. Today it sits at $30 billion, representing a substantial increase in expenditure since Labor lost the support of the Australian people. Bulk-billing rates today stand at 88.7 per cent. This represents a 6.7 per cent increase from the 82 per cent over which Labor presided. The compare and contrast, the juxtaposition, of Labor's record to Liberal achievements is stark, telling and explodes Labor's myth telling. Labor's continual misrepresentation, distortion and scare tactics are a fact void, while being a treasure trove of rhetoric—albeit empty rhetoric. The Labor brains trust appears to believe mere repetition obviates the need for evidence. Repetition does not obviate the need for evidence. If anything, it demands, requires, indeed, insists on the provision of evidence to support the rhetoric. The people of Australia deserve nothing less.
Recently, our hapless friends in Labor were asserting that we were cutting Medicare rebates for hip arthroscopies. The fact that this procedure hasn't been listed for six years, because there was insufficient clinical evidence to support the public listing of the procedure, is wilfully and deceptively airbrushed over by Labor, hoping people won't be across the detail. We on this side are across the detail, but we're aware that some specialists have been inappropriately claiming other Medicare items for procedures not supported by clinical experts, so we are tightening the guidelines to protect Medicare and preserve Medicare for those in genuine need. So, while Labor supports the defrauders of Medicare, the Liberals support the true friends of Medicare—namely, the Australian people. What Labor won't tell us is that the changes to funding, according to Dr John Hall from the Rural Doctors Association, are 'a game changer for rural communities'. Any change, any reform, any refinement is cynically labelled by Labor as a cut, irrespective that the alterations were suggested by medical experts and will see extra expenditure.
The facts in Tasmania show us that we have a bulk-billing rate under Medicare of over three-quarters of consultations, namely 79.2 per cent. As for co-payments, we have the lowest rate of payment per visit. That's good news in anyone's language, yet Labor continues unabated, unashamed and unrepentant with its tissue of misrepresentations designed to scare the Australian people. To so poorly play on Australians' genuine and understandable concern about the cost of health care identifies the bankruptcy and cynicism of Labor's approach. The Tasmanian people can be assured that, with the sound economic management of the Liberals, Medicare and our health system will continue to be enhanced for their protection and for that of their family.
Chau, Mr Van Kham
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (19:40): If an Australian citizen is imprisoned abroad without just cause it's an attack on the freedom of all Australians. Today I want to highlight the plight of one particular Australian citizen. He is a 71-year-old retired baker. His wife and two sons, who live in Bankstown in Sydney, are desperately worried about his welfare. The reports that have come from inside the prison are that despite his age and frail health the Australian is being subjected to hard labour and is being denied basic health care. In 2019 the man was sentenced to 12 years in prison. His crime was to be a member of an organisation that promotes democracy and human rights. His crime was to disagree with the Vietnamese government. The man is Van Kham Chau. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both called for him to be released from a Thu Duc prison in Vietnam from what they say is surely a death sentence.
He was arrested in Vietnam on charges of terrorism, but the source of this charge was solely due to his membership of a pro-democracy organisation, Viet Tan. Chau's wife, Trang, told the ABC early this year:
My husband went to Vietnam to monitor the human rights situation on the ground there. Within hours of arriving, he was arrested and I haven't spoken to him since. We miss him so much – just to hear his voice, hear that he is OK – would be better than this terrible silence.
I want to add my voice to others in this place who have called on the Australian government to do everything in its power to secure the safe return of Mr Chau to his family in Australia. We know that Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has sought to build his relationship with his Vietnamese counterpart. It will be important for the future relationship of our two countries that we can raise challenging issues like this one. I urge the government to do what it can to press the case for Mr Chau.
On to a further matter regarding the Vietnamese communities, or Australians of Vietnamese descent, who contribute to much of our country. There are some 300,000 Australians with Vietnamese heritage and they are rightly proud of this heritage and proud of their history and culture. That is why it was so disappointing to see that the yellow flag, a strong and beloved symbol for many in the Vietnamese community, was recently desecrated in Sydney. A young man was deliberately filmed ripping the flag off a telegraph pole in Sydney's inner west, stamping on it and yelling that the flag should be burned. The video was circulated on social media in what was a deliberately hurtful act, coming one day after the 30 April national day of mourning to mark the end of the Vietnam War.
Australians should be free to celebrate their heritage and their national days and for their flags to be flown without fear of desecration. I note that members of the Vietnamese community in Sydney have taken their concerns to local police and to the Department of Home Affairs, as is their right. I share these concerns and would not want to see these kinds of acts continue to cause fear and hurt amongst the Vietnamese community. It is evident this young man knew what he was doing. It is clear that others deliberately spread this provocation on social media to further inflame the situation. It will ultimately be up to our independent legal system to determine whether or not this act constitutes a crime, but regardless of the outcome I think we can all agree that there is no place for wilful harm like this in our democratic and multicultural society, a democracy that supports the right of everyone, no matter where they were born or where they trace their heritage, to celebrate their national symbols in a climate of tolerance and respect.
Liberal Party of South Australia: Membership
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (19:44): I rise this evening to speak in relation to the need to ensure that Australia's democracy remains a pluralistic, liberal and inclusive democracy which values freedom of thought, worship, association and speech as fundamental rights. There has been much interest in the media regarding a story about people of the Christian faith being denied membership of the Liberal Party in South Australia this week. I don't support this decision. In my view, it sets an undemocratic and dangerous precedent in politics and says to the world at large that exclusion of Christians is okay.
But there is a much larger proposition at play here, and it's one that is worth considering. The first organised Roman persecution of Christians was ordered by Emperor Nero in 64 AD. He blamed the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome. From the seventh century in the Middle East, large communities of Christians were forbidden to display a cross and were ordered to convert to Islam. And during the 1920s, pursuant to the orders of Lenin, Christians of the Russian Orthodox Church were targeted. Lenin was seeking to send a blunt message, and remove the religion as a competing doctrine to communism. And we would be foolish to think that the persecution of Christians is a matter that has been consigned to the history books. Sadly, around the world, that persecution is alive. In fact, so far in 2021, 13 Christians have been killed worldwide for practising their faith; 12 churches and 12 Christians have been attacked.
Now, Australia is a country founded on Judeo-Christian values. Over the past two years, state parliaments across the country have been passing radical social policy laws, laws which many Christians understandably believe are direct attacks on their faith. Religious freedom is under attack in state parliaments, and is systematically being set aside in favour of a new social-justice identity-politics style of ideology. In fact, wokeness is beginning to function as the new religion, as the values that have served us well are placed under attack and being forfeited day by day.
The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act recently passed in Victoria represents an attack on religious freedom in the most egregious form in Australian legislative history. Similar bills have been introduced in Queensland and the ACT, and South Australia is likely to see its own version later in the year. Euthanasia legislation has been passed in Victoria, in New South Wales, in Tasmania and in Western Australia, and a similar bill has just been passed in my home state of South Australia. Now, 63 per cent of South Australians rejected the introduction of a late-term abortion bill in February 2021, yet South Australian state parliament passed that bill to allow abortion to the moment of birth.
Christians are Australians too. They make up 52 per cent of our population, and they deserve a voice inside the machinery of politics. In fact, it was Sir Robert Menzies, who was himself a Christian, who, in 1960, said:
If I were, as I am not, an atheist or an agnostic or some other such unhappy person I would still take the Bible with me to a desert island for two reasons. One, that I would have a noble piece of literature to accompany me and two, because given ample opportunity to study it I might cease to be an atheist or an agnostic.
Christians should neither exclude themselves nor be excluded from party politics, as was the case in South Australia last week. The Christian faith values family, industriousness, community and justice—the very same values that are held dear by the centre Right of politics in this country. So, to the Christian community of South Australia, I want to apologise for the events of last week. There are many like-minded people in South Australian politics, like myself, who value you, your communities and your contributions to our state. If we are to ensure that Australia remains a truly inclusive democracy, then Christians cannot be allowed to be thrown to the lions in the area of politics anymore. Menzies would be appalled.
Regional Australia
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (19:48): I rise to thank regional Australia. Our regional industries got us through the biggest economic shock since the global financial crisis. Our agricultural and resource sectors have supported us through it. It is also a credit to the communities of regional Australia, who have come together and who have faced lockdowns and quarantines, even though many of those areas have not had a whiff of COVID. So thanks to regional Australia.
But regional Australia and regional jobs are clearly not a priority for Labor. If you look at the budget-in-reply speech delivered by the opposition leader, there was not one word about agriculture. There was not one word about regional infrastructure. In fact, the word 'regional' was only used twice, and one of those occasions was to accuse the Nationals of over-delivering for the regions. I will take that; thank you very much.
The increasing divide between Labor and the regions is nowhere more apparent than their lack of support for the coal industry and the resources sector in key regions, including the Hunter in my state. After their humiliating loss two years ago in Central Queensland, the member for Grayndler had to cave-in and accept that Australia should continue to support and export our high-grade coal.
The Hunter Valley is home to the highest quality coal in the world. This high-energy, low-emissions coal is in high demand, particularly for modern coal-fired power plants being built around the world, including in nations with a net zero carbon target. They need our coal to reduce their emissions. Our coal is also playing a crucial role to help developing nations power up and bring their populations out of the dark. I would rather they burn our cleaner coal than someone else's dirty coal.
The Hunter is also so much more than coal. The Hunter has a vibrant agricultural sector and some of the best wineries in Australia. It supports a quality thoroughbred industry and has a booming tourism sector. The Nationals know this. We support this and we are working with those industries to ensure their ongoing success. We know there are challenges. We understand there are workforce issues, not just in agriculture—we are working towards an ag visa—but also workforce shortages across tourism, meatworks and dairy that need to be addressed. We know there are internet and communication connectivity issues, particularly around the key tourist destination of Pokolbin. We know that getting the design of local infrastructure right is vitally important.
Our people on the ground in the Hunter, the recently elected state member for the Upper Hunter, Dave Layzell, and our candidate for the Hunter, James Thomson, are working with their communities to identify solutions and to bring ideas to their respective parliaments. Both of these men are locals, both have been preselected by grassroots members of the National Party and both will do their utmost to bring to the fore issues that are faced in the Hunter, so that we can continue to deliver for the Hunter.
I remind the chamber what our government has already done for the Hunter. It includes funding a detailed business case for the Lostock to Glennies Creek Dam pipeline for water infrastructure and providing nearly $5.5 million under the Roads to Recovery program to the Hunter. We also know that Newcastle is the gateway to the Hunter, so that's why we're supporting a $15 million business case for the Sydney to Newcastle faster rail. There's $55 million for the Newcastle Airport upgrade to connect the people of the Hunter and the north of New South Wales to the rest of the world. We believe in the Hunter; we know the Hunter is a vital and vibrant place. Unlike the Labor Party, we don't turn our backs on the Hunter, or the jobs that support the Hunter.
Asylum Seekers
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (19:53): When Priya and Nades Murugappan arrived in Australia in 2013 it should have been the beginning of a new chapter in their lives. Fleeing persecution and violence, they should have found that safe place across the sea that Australia has been for so many people over so many generations. They should have found our two major political parties, institutions that, while differing about their vision for Australia, were united in recognising the reality of this country—founded on stolen land, which has come to be called Australia—that each generation of people that comes from across the sea calls Australia home and builds a life. They build the country with vibrancy, energy and determination. We become so much stronger as we embrace the diversity. That's what they should have found here. That's what they had every right to expect. After all, the second verse of our national anthem states 'for those who've come across the sea, we've boundless plains to share'. Their two incredible daughters, Kopika and Tharunicaa, should have grown up able to access the very best of education, to make friends, to laugh, love, play and be safe. That's what they should have been able to do. Instead, the reality for this family has been the best part of a decade being mashed, divided, separated and mistreated by a system which was created—and is, to this day, sustained—with the bipartisan support of both major parties and which is designed to dehumanise families like theirs, to subject them to such pain and cause in them such fear that those fleeing war and violence would rather stay in those spaces than attempt to come here and make their life and their home in Australia.
This inhuman, immoral, cruel system of mandatory offshore detention, boat tow-backs, temporary protection visas, and the reduction of human life to numbers and monikers like 'illegal maritime arrival' is now something that both sides of politics have come in on and supported. Regardless of the decision made today—and let's be really clear: the only thing that has changed today is that the Australian government, having bowed to the profound pressure placed upon them by the community, have decided to change the nature of the cage in which this family is kept. The call to return to Biloela goes unheard tonight, yet there is backslapping and celebration in the offices of both Labor and Liberal, when the reality is that the Liberal Party locked them up and would do so again and that, if they arrived here today, the Labor Party would lock them up as well. This is the reality. What is needed is freedom not just for this family but for every human being that was cast off to Manus and Nauru—permanent protection, permanent security, and the ability to live your life and build your home here in Australia.
Agricultural Shows
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (19:58): I'd like to pay tribute to the 50,000 Australians who volunteer every year to put on agricultural shows. It has been a tough year for those involved in preparing for, and putting on, agricultural shows. With COVID last year, 500 agricultural shows across Australia were cancelled and that meant no income for those show societies and no income for lots of the showies—the show men and women who put on various amusements that we all love to take our families to in side-show alley and other amusements at shows. It's a great Australian tradition of going to the show or the Ekka or whatever it's called, getting a dagwood dog, getting a show bag, seeing some cattle on show and, if it's your ilk, to go on some of the various rides that are there as well. It was a great enjoyment to take my own family last week to both the Yeppoon and Rockhampton shows. They were spoilt because we had an LNP stall at those shows, so they got to go to both and they loved it, having missed out last year. So I do want to pay tribute to all those people who do that. It was a tough year. The government did help throughout this process, and I want to congratulate the government on having already provided $34 million of assistance to 378 show societies to help them get through the last year. I believe there's another $700,000 in supplementary funding about to be awarded to around 110 shows. That has helped make sure that we can put on shows again and enjoy this great Australian tradition once more.
But I did speak to a number of showies last week, when I was at the Rockhampton and Yeppoon shows, and there are some more challenges emerging for those involved in shows. It's something I think we need to turn our attention to. The showies I spoke to last week are very concerned about the withdrawal of insurance services from their market. Apparently, there have traditionally been only two major providers of public liability insurance to those who run amusements or various rides in sideshow alley, and in recent months they have both pulled out of the Australian market, so the two providers of public liability insurance are no longer active in Australia. What that means is that those who operate rides or other amusements at agricultural shows are no longer able to do so if they are not insured. Already this has seen rides taken out of service. I spoke to one showie, who has parked one of his star attractions—the Star Flyer, I think it's named—in a shed somewhere in Queensland because he hasn't been able to get insurance. As more and more of these insurance contracts come due in the months ahead, we might face a situation where sideshow alley is no more. I want to make sure that we do not see sideshow alley disappear from the showgrounds of Australia.
I thank the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Michael Sukkar, for speaking to me about this this week. I've raised this with him, and I know he's already across and aware of these things and in discussions to see what we can do to keep sideshow alley alive. I also want to thank the Showmen's Guild of Australasia and their president, Mr Lewis Osborne, who I've been in touch with. He's provided me with much information about the current situation; it's an issue I've raised down here in Canberra this week. On their behalf, I'll be taking up this cause to make sure that we can see a solution here for many of these dedicated Australians who bring so much joy, often to country towns whose people don't have access to the Dreamworlds, Movie Worlds and major amusement parks of others but, for one short period every year, get to go on a Ferris wheel, a roller-coaster, a ghost house or some other ride. We want to make sure that kids right around the country continue to have access to that.
Most importantly, we want to make sure that the agricultural societies continue to be able to sell and market their own shows, because it's so important that we show the entire country how important our agricultural sector is and how much it provides to our country. The shows that are put on around the country are a great way of doing that every year.
Asylum Seekers
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (20:03): I'm not going to mince my words here tonight. The treatment of Priya, Nades, Tharnicaa and Kopika has been nothing short of depraved A three-year-old child—who just turned four, actually, on the weekend—is in hospital because of a life-threatening blood infection. It should never have come to this. Her parents repeatedly asked for her to be taken to the hospital, to be told 'no', 'no', 'no'—over and over. This is the heartbreaking story of a family that is just seeking safety in this country, but this is also a story of a heartless and immoral government that locks up innocent people, including children. Because of immense community pressure, this cruel government has been forced to reunite the family in Perth, but they're still in detention, and there is no word yet on their freedom and their return to Biloela. But this is not the story of just one family; this is the story of so many families and refugees who come to our shores seeking safety but get horror and cruelty.
The meanness of this government as far as refugees are concerned knows no bounds, because their standards are based on cruelty and not compassion, and their policies are based on racism and xenophobia, not respect and acceptance. They will send people back to dangerous situations where there is a humanitarian crisis. We note that Sri Lanka is not a safe place for Tamils. This family were kicked out of their home in Biloela and thrown into offshore detention for no other reason than they were seeking asylum and, shamefully, in this country asylum seekers are not treated as humans.
Let's not forget that governments of both stripes, Liberal and Labor, have shown bipartisan cruelty to asylum seekers. They both have policies aimed at deterring, detaining and deporting vulnerable people rather than providing them with safety. This has caused unimaginable harm to thousands of people, including women and children. Asylum seekers have now seen decades of bipartisan cruelty in the form of TPVs, mandatory detention, offshore processing and being locked up in hotels during the pandemic. They have been hidden away, with no access to journalists and losing all hope. In desperation, they have harmed themselves and committed suicide. They have died because they didn't get medical treatment. Women have been sexually assaulted and raped.
The same systemic racism that has played out so viciously for First Nations people for more than 200 years has also resulted in inhumanity towards refugees. We have become an international shame; a place that puts children behind barbed wire in offshore camps; a place which incarcerates asylum seekers indefinitely, leading to depression, despair and self-harm—a place that threatens to lock up even its own citizens for wanting to come home. That is exactly what the morally bankrupt India travel ban was all about. It's all in the name of some false notion of national security.
There are politicians in this parliament who don't want asylum seekers or migrants to come here because they don't fit their description of what an Australian should look like. Disgracefully, the walls of 'Fortress Australia' are getting more and more impenetrable for those who may not fit this description of white Australia. They are painted as people who are very different to mainstream Australia: 'They're from a different culture,' we're told, 'They're not one of us.' And so continues the othering of people.
Asylum-seeker policies have become more and more cruel, restrictive, punitive and militarised. I am so ashamed of how Australia has vilified, dehumanised and demonised refugees. But I know that more and more people feel the same way. They are horrified at how this family has been treated. They want them to go home to Bilo. They want an end to mandatory detention of refugees, they want to close down detention camps and they want a safe home for refugees in Australia. We can't change history but we can make things right, now and for the future. We want justice for all refugees.
Indigenous Australians
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (20:08): I rise tonight to speak about the changes that the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Ken Wyatt, announced at the weekend relating to much-desired amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, or ALRA, and the Aboriginals Benefit Account.
I was at the Barunga Festival on the weekend with Minister Wyatt; the acting Prime Minister, Michael McCormack; my fellow senator, Malarndirri McCarthy; the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon; and the chair of the Northern Land Council, a long-time friend of mine, Sammy Bush-Blanasi. I would encourage those senators who have not been to the Barunga Festival to do so. Barunga is about 80 kilometres south of Katherine on the Central Arnhem Road. The community absolutely came alive with visitors from across the Territory and across Australia—from other communities as far away as Groote Eylandt and many tourists who were out to experience a piece of Territory and Indigenous culture. It was the perfect environment for such a substantial change to ALRA and the ABA.
There are a number of substantial gains as a result of the reforms. The aspiration of achieving home ownership is something that most of Australia—certainly all non-Indigenous Australians—take for granted. It would be unthinkable if government legislation stopped urban dwellers and the majority of Australia from fulfilling that type of dream. But that is exactly what those in remote Indigenous communities have had to face. For more than three decades, I've seen the impacts of legislative and administrative policies which have hamstrung opportunities in the Territory for Indigenous Australians, and that is why last weekend's announcement by Minister Ken Wyatt on changes to the ALRA to activate the potential of Indigenous land in the NT should be should be warmly welcomed by all sides of politics.
This coalition government, in consultation with the land councils, created a package of generational reforms. The reforms will empower Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to maximise the economic future of their families and communities for generations to come, using funds from the $1.2 billion Aboriginals Benefit Account, or ABA. The ABA receives mining royalties generated from Aboriginal land in the Territory and has grown substantially, as I said, to more than $1.2 billion today. These funds are not contributed by the taxpayer. These are funds earned by Indigenous landholders in the Northern Territory from mining operations that they approve of on their traditional lands. A new body will be formed and will use the ABA funding to seize opportunities to invest in large-scale strategic initiatives such as agriculture, tourism, mining, processing and manufacturing—whatever they choose to do with the money that is theirs. This is in addition to continuing to make smaller grant payments available to support local communities and organisations. This new body will receive an initial $500 million and ongoing funding of $60 million per year to secure a sustainable economic future for generations of Indigenous Territorians. In addition, there'll be other reforms to the ALRA, including business certainty on Aboriginal land by strengthening community entity township leasing, and streamlining arrangements for exploration and mining licences, without lessening the controls by traditional owners. (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (20:13): I welcome today's news that the Murugappan family—four-year-old Tharnicaa and six-year-old Kopika and their parents, Priya and Nades—will be reunited in Perth and will be allowed to live in the community, not behind razor wire in an offshore prison, for the time being. But this is not good enough. Today's decision by the government to bring the Murugappan family from the Christmas Island prison to Perth was nothing but a political decision designed only to deal with the public relations nightmare this case has become for the prime marketer—sorry, I mean Prime Minister—Scott Morrison. The Murugappans are still not allowed to return to their home and their community in Biloela, a community that is desperate to have them back. This decision means that the Murugappans are still in legal limbo, unable to get on with their lives. This decision means that the Murugappans are still at the whim of Australia's sickening and inhumane immigration policy, which put Tharnicaa in hospital with pneumonia. The Morrison government could end this cruelty for the Murugappans today, right now, with just the stroke of a pen, and allow them to go back to their home and community in Biloela permanently.
I note that the Labor Party is calling on the Morrison government to intervene in this case to allow the Murugappans to stay in Australia. I welcome this from Labor. But the reality is that Labor is in lock step with the Morrison government on the cruel treatment of people seeking refuge or asylum. The reality is that it shouldn't be left up to the minister's discretion to intervene in a case just because the politics requires it. The reality is that this country's refugee policies should be humane to begin with. This means no offshore prisons. This means no indefinite detention. This means no denial of medical care to a three-year-old and leaving her with a potentially life-threatening illness.
The reality is that, if the Murugappans arrived in Australia by boat today, Labor's policy would see them imprisoned indefinitely on Nauru or Manus Island. That's not a reality the Australian Greens accept. But that's the reality that the Labor Party accepts. We all know that great quote: 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.' As a senator or member of parliament, that means how you vote, not how big your talk is and not how many nice pictures you take for your social media holding '#hometobilo' signs. I say this to Labor: the standard you vote for is the standard you accept. Labor has voted to keep innocent people like Tharnicaa, Kopika, Priya and Nades locked up in offshore prisons like Manus Island and Nauru.
As First Nations people, we know what it's like to be forced out of our homes. We know what it's like to be stolen from our families and communities. We know what it's like for us and our children to be robbed of our future. As a First Nations person, I say to the Murugappan family: 'You are welcome in my country, no matter if you came here by boat or by plane.' I stand here in this place day in and day out as a First Nations senator surrounded by senators, most of whose ancestors came to this country by a boat. As a First Nations person, I say to the Murugappan family, to Tharni, to Kopika, to Priya and to Nades: 'You are welcome on this land, the land of my ancestors who've been here for over 60,000 years. We won't stop fighting for you and your family and for other people seeking asylum to have a future in this country.' That's the only reality the Australian Greens will accept, and we'll always stand with those that are being targeted by this government.
Dante Alighieri
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (20:18): Italian poet, scholar, writer, philosopher and politician, Dante Alighieri, is one of the founding fathers of the Italian language, along with Petrarch and Boccaccio—the so called 'tre corone della lingua Italiana'. This year marks the 700th anniversary of Dante's passing. Known as 'il somma poeta'—the supreme poet—he is best known worldwide for his masterpiece La Divina Commedia.The Divine Comedy is a landmark of Italian literature and universally considered as one of world literature's greatest poems. Divided into three sections—Inferno, or hell; Purgatorio, or purgatory; and Paradiso, or paradise—The Divine Comedy presents an encyclopaedic overview of the attitudes, beliefs, aspirations and material aspects of the medieval world.
Born in Florence around 1265, Dante grew up among Florentine aristocracy. He received formal instruction in grammar, language and philosophy at one of the Franciscan schools of the city. At the age of nine he purportedly glimpsed the eight-year-old Beatrice Portinari and, struck by her beauty, fell in love. During his teens, Dante demonstrated a keen interest in literature. In 1287, Dante enrolled in the University of Bologna, but by 1289 he enlisted in the Florentine army and took part in the Battle of Campaldino, one of the most important battles in medieval Italy, between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines.
After the premature death of Beatrice in 1290, Dante committed himself to the study of the philosophical works of Boethius, Cicero and Aristotle and earnestly wrote poetry, establishing his own poetic voice in innovative canzoni, or lyrical poems. The Divine Comedy, an imagined journey through hell and purgatory to heaven, is rich in science, astronomy and philosophy and rooted in 13th century Catholicism and Italian politics. TheDivine Comedy is among the greatest works of all medieval European literature and is a profound Christian vision of humankind's temporal and eternal destiny. On its most personal level, it draws on Dante's own experience of exile from his native city of Florence. On its most comprehensive level, it may be read as an allegory, taking the form of a journey through hell, purgatory and paradise. The poem amazes with its array of learning, its penetrating and comprehensive analysis of contemporary problems and its inventiveness of language and imagery.
Hell, the most popular and widely studied cantos of The Divine Comedy, recounts Dante's travels through the different regions of hell, led by his mentor and protector, the Roman poet Virgil. Constructed as a huge funnel with nine descending circular ledges, Dante's hell features a vast, meticulously organised torture chamber in which sinners, carefully classified according to the nature of their sins, suffer hideous punishment, often depicted with ghoulish attention to detail. Sinners who recognise and repudiate their sins are given the opportunity to attain paradise through the arduous process of purification, which continues in purgatory. A shift from human reason to divine revelation takes place in purgatory, where penitents awaiting the final journey to paradise continually reaffirm their faith and atone for the sins they committed on earth. A mood of brotherly love, modesty and longing for God prevails in purgatory. Although in hell Virgil, a symbol of human reason, helps Dante understand sin, in purgatory the poet needs a more powerful guide who represents faith: his beloved Beatrice. Finally, paradise manifests the process of spiritual regeneration and purification required to meet God, who rewards the poet with perfect knowledge.
By choosing to write his poem in the Italian vernacular rather than in Latin, Dante decisively influenced the course of literary development. He primarily used the Tuscan dialect, which would become standard literary Italian, but his vivid vocabulary ranged widely over many dialects and languages. Not only did he lend a voice to the emerging lay culture of his own country; Italian became the literary language in western Europe for several centuries.
Near the end of his life, Dante settled in Ravenna, where he died on 14 September 1321. The Divine Comedy caused an immediate sensation during his life, and Dante's fame has been celebrated across the centuries. Many scholars have examined the structural unity of the poem, discussing the relationship between medieval symbolism and allegory within the poem's three sections, and have explored Dante's narrative strategy. Others have marvelled at the seemingly inexhaustible formal and semantic richness of Dante's text. With its various enigmatic layers of philological and philosophical complexities, The Divine Comedy has been scrutinised by critics, literary theorists, linguists and philosophers, who have cherished the immortal work precisely because it translates the harsh truth about the human condition into a poetics of timeless beauty.
Dante helped to give shape to and stabilise his vernacular as a medium of literary expression. As an exponent and user of the dolce stil nuovo he shaped a rubric of diction that influenced poets well into the Renaissance, starting from Petrarch. His moulding of terza rima had a lasting and fruitful influence on many authors. He was among the great pioneers in the sonnet form, and his practice with regard to structure, form and diction made their mark on later writers like Vittoria Colonna and Michelangelo.
Dante's words also fed the creative imagination of visual artists, who have sought to illustrate his text through a wide variety of media. Almost immediately after his work was completed, images were created to accompany his masterpiece. More than 40 illuminated manuscripts of The Divine Comedy were produced before the advent of the printing press in the late 15th century. When the potential for faster reproduction of books, including illustrated books, became a reality, Dante's imagination, sometimes intertwined with the imagination of an artist rendering a visual interpretation of his words, reached an even larger audience than before. For instance, in the 1480s, the same decade he painted some of his most famous works, Primavera and The Birth of Venus, Botticelli undertook the task of painting not only hell but the entire The Divine Comedy.
Italy celebrates the supreme poet's genius every year on 25 March on Dantedi, the national day dedicated to Dante Alighieri. It is a date specifically chosen because it is recognised by scholars as the day the poet started his journey in the afterlife in The Divine Comedy.
In addition to poetry, Dante wrote important theoretical works, ranging from discussions of rhetoric to moral philosophy and political thought. He was fully conversant with the classical tradition, drawing for his own purposes on such writers as Virgil and Cicero. But, most unusual for a layman, he also had an impressive command of scholastic philosophy and theology. His learning and his personal involvement in the heated political controversies of his age led him to the composition of De Monarchia, one of the major tracts of medieval political philosophy.
In 2021, Anno Dantesco, the Year of Dante, Italy is commemorating the 700th anniversary of his passing in Ravenna, with a number of events taking place across the globe. In particular, Accademia della Crusca, the world's leading authority and research centre on Italian language, is also celebrating Dante's 700th anniversary by publishing a new word or expression coined by the poet for each day of 2021, accompanied by an explanation on its website.
I, too, have had the privilege of studying Dante's work, both in high school and as part of my university studies. It remains for me one of the seminal works not only of Italian literature but also of the history of world literature. And so, 700 years on, I would urge people to go back, as I will to my dog-eared copy of La Divina Commedia, and once again relive the mastery of this giant of literature. He truly is the supreme poet.
Victoria: Floods
Australian Defence Force
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (20:28): I rise tonight to speak on, among other matters, the circumstances inflicted on those in my home state as a result of last week's weather events. Sadly, in Victoria last week heavy rain and strong winds lashed my home state, taking both lives and livelihoods. Whilst most of Victoria was affected in some manner, none was more so than Gippsland, an area well known to most Australians owing to the devastating toll that bushfires have levied upon the region in recent times. This time, though, it was flood that wreaked havoc upon a most idyllic corner of our country, known locally as 'God's country'. Rain falling at a level unseen in quite some time caused rivers and creeks to burst their banks, flooding towns right across the region.
In Traralgon, to the east of the Latrobe Valley, floodwaters have damaged dozens of homes and businesses, some irreparably. Whilst the rain may have, for the most part, subsided, an immense task still lays ahead for Gippslanders, and yet some are still yet to have electricity reconnected, to have communications restored or to be provided with ready access to safe drinking water. Nonetheless, times like these, as devastating as they may be, provide the opportunity for Australians to display the mateship for which we have become famous. In particular I want to thank the emergency services personnel and volunteers who have worked tirelessly to assist those in need over recent times. Communities are not merely homes and shopping strips; there is much more to them than that, especially in regional Victoria. A community is made up of the bonds between us, and it is in the willingness of those who lend their shoulder to the wheel that we see community in action. Without those in our communities serving their fellow neighbours, rescue and recovery would simply not be possible. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to everyone who has done their bit.
As the water subsides the people of Gippsland will need support from not just Victoria but right around the country so that they can get back on their feet, just as they did when those devastating fires hit around 18 months ago. Houses need to be rebuilt, businesses need to be restocked and, most regrettably, loved ones need to be mourned. We must be there for them. I welcome the recent announcement of the Victorian government that it will provide financial support to those in need. I also welcome the declaration made by the Insurance Council of Australia which will allow claims from people living in affected areas to be prioritised. With the recovery bill estimated to be in excess of $1 billion, I hope the people of Gippsland can count on the federal government to do their bit to help Victorians recover from this devastating weather event.
On another matter, some weeks ago I had the privilege of participating in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, joining alongside the dedicated men and women of the Royal Australian Navy. I travelled to see HMAS Stirling in Western Australia and embarked upon HMAS Collins for a brief ocean foray as part of a training exercise alongside HMAS Rankin. As one would expect, the standard of professionalism with which our sailors and submariners carry themselves is without parallel. I was thoroughly impressed with the commitment they demonstrated to their duty and the skill with which they applied their craft.
As Senator Hughes and I journeyed together to the bottom of the sea, the crew of HMAS Collins participated in a series of practice engagements with the crew of HMAS Rankin, carrying among its complement members of the other place. It's fair to say Team Red, as in Team Senate, won on the day! I'm pleased to report that the Collins crew performed well in serving a worthy opponent to their equally talented rivals on the Rankin.
The program performs a valuable role in building mutual understanding between not just ADF personnel but also members of this place, here at Parliament House. Since its beginnings in 2001 the success of the program has been built on offering a unique opportunity to engage firsthand with the men and women of the ADF. I say thank you very much to the Department of Defence and the Royal Australian Navy for their very warm welcome and insights into the ADF. I would also like to thank those aboard our submarines for the dedication they have in not only protecting our waters but also advancing our national agenda abroad. Finally, I would like to particularly place on the record my thanks to Captain Gary Lawton, the commanding officer of HMAS Stirling; Captain Doug Theobald, commander of the Submarine Force; and Commander Michael (Max) Power, the commanding officer of HMAS Collins. I salute all of them.
Oil and Gas Exploration
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (20:33): While world leaders gather in the United Kingdom this week at the G7 conference to discuss, amongst many things, the importance of climate change and decarbonising our economy, what does our Prime Minister, Mr Scott Morrison, do? He sneaks off and does a videoconference, a direct call, to the oil and gas industry annual conference—the APPEA, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, conference—and announces that 80,000 square kilometres of our oceans will be new acreage put up for the fossil fuel industry, to help our gas-led recovery. That's all the world needs to know. That's who Mr Scott Morrison is, but that's not who this country is. I've only got three words for the Prime Minister: WTF? Seriously? In this age of climate emergency, facing an extinction crisis, we get politely invited to a world summit to discuss how we can engineer and act and get out of this mess we find ourselves in, and, in the middle of that, this government announces 80,000 square kilometres of new ocean permits for the fossil fuel industry. At the same time, we've got the Beetaloo Basin being opened up—a bigger carbon bomb than Adani—and public money being put into it. I don't know why we even get invited to these summits, considering the travesty that is our lack of climate policy in this country. Some of the new permits are just five kilometres off precious places loved by Australians, like the Twelve Apostles in the Otway Basin off the coast of Victoria—five kilometres off one of Victoria's most prized tourism areas. It's a precious coastal ecosystem, loved by most Victorians, and we're opening it up for seismic testing and oil and gas drilling? You've got to be joking.
It's no wonder that Australians want to vote for change. I'm going to announce tonight, having just chaired and initiated a long-ranging Senate inquiry into the impacts of seismic testing on our oceans, that I will be introducing a bill in this place to ban all new offshore oil and gas acreage for seismic testing and for oil and gas drilling. If you don't think that's possible then just look across the ditch at New Zealand, because that's exactly what they did. They banned all new fossil fuel exploration that risks our oceans. How is it that, at this point in history, we can be making 80,000 square kilometres of our ocean available to explore for the same product that is killing our oceans—burning fossil fuels and causing rising emissions, warming oceans and ocean acidification? It is madness. It is sheer lunacy, and I say to Australians: you can protest, you can agitate, you can disrupt, you can defend and all those things are important, but every environmental problem is first and foremost a political problem, and this is a political problem of the highest magnitude.
Given the fact that a government would be doing this for the petroleum and fossil fuel industry in a time of climate emergency because of their close, cosy relationships with big donors in the fossil fuel industry and given, of course, the politics in this place of the National Party, who, by the way, in recent days, warned the Prime Minister not to lock in any binding emissions targets while he's at the G7—'Don't commit your country to climate action'—it's no wonder that former Prime Minister Mr Malcolm Turnbull called these people 'the terrorists within the Liberal Party' and said that they will blow things up when they don't get their own way. Call it a coincidence, but the timing of this offshore oil and gas acreage for the fossil fuel industry in the middle of the G7 stinks, too. I have no doubt at all, from my time spent in this place, that that timing is not a coincidence. It is designed to send a direct message to the donors to the Liberal Party and the National Party: 'All is okay. We will continue with business as usual. While I might be over here making vague promises to the world about Australia being responsible and being part of a global solution to tackle the greatest challenge of our time—climate change—I'm going to sneak off and present to the oil and gas industry 80,000 square kilometres of our oceans for them to go and explore for fossil fuels'. Well, it's not going to cut it.
I have seen in the last five years the changes to the oceans. I have seen things I never expected I would ever see while I was on this planet, let alone in this parliament, and I know a lot of other Australians have seen this too: in the Great Australian Bight and off the east coast of Tasmania, with the loss of our giant kelp forests. Half the coral cover is gone in the Great Barrier Reef after three mass bleachings in five years. Australians know what's causing this, and they are marching and voting with their feet. They are paddling out at beaches all around this country and protesting this age of fossil fuel exploration—this time in history when we must say, 'No more.'
We have to have a plan for transitioning and decarbonising our economy, and that plan is a positive one. It involves new industries, new job opportunities, new research and development and new entrepreneurial spirit. Mr Keith Pitt said in his media release today that this year's release provides opportunities for COVID recovery and for 'access to reliable and affordable energy both now and in the future'. The most reliable and affordable energy, and the energy solution for Australians and everyone around the world, has to be in renewable energy, from electric vehicles through to virtual power stations being run by millions of households with solar panels, with batteries and with systems to trade their power. That is the future: a decentralised, decarbonised economy that all Australians can rely on and participate in. They're just some of the many solutions available for the industries of the future. Agriculture, seaweed farming, industrial hemp—the opportunities are limitless if we change our mindset.
Instead, the government are opening up 80,000 square kilometres of our oceans, including off the coastline of my home state, Tasmania, and off the coasts of Victoria and Western Australia, even after we've been exploring these oceans for nearly 50 years, providing fodder for more profits for a few fossil fuel interests who are fighting a rearguard action at this time in history. They are trying to lock in as quickly as possible whatever they can because they know that the curtains are coming down. They know that the curtains are coming down very rapidly. They are in a sunset industry. It makes me furious that this government not only doesn't respect the international community's wish to get a global agreement on decarbonising our economies but also doesn't respect the wish of the Australian people. All surveys unanimously show that the Australian people care about climate action and want meaningful climate action, not opening up of our oceans to oil and gas companies. (Time expired)
Marine Environment
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:43): I rise to speak this evening about the Australian giant cuttlefish and the environmental health of South Australia's Upper Spencer Gulf. Discussions about Australia's marine environment often tend to focus on spectacular attractions, notably the wonders of the Great Barrier Reef or the annual migration of humpback whales along our eastern and western seaboards. However, with more than 34,000 kilometres of coastline, small offshore islands and more than a thousand estuaries, our coastal and marine environment is truly vast.
But all too often the sea the taken for granted. It is a sad fact that the marine environment is treated as being of secondary importance relative to other priorities: big energy and resource extraction projects, industrial-scale commercial fishing, port infrastructure development, and other coastal land development and usage. I've previously expressed strong concern about threats posed by petroleum and gas exploration and development to the environment of the Great Australian Bight. Tonight, however, I want to focus on an area of our marine environment that to me, personally, is quite special—South Australia's Upper Spencer Gulf.
I grew up in Whyalla, and the beaches and bays of the gulf are well known to me. The upper gulf's marine park protects some of the most important fish nurseries in South Australia, including significant mangrove forests, seagrass meadows and areas where whiting, squid and snapper gather to spawn. Dolphins congregate in the upper gulf to feed and breed. Arguably, the giant Australian cuttlefish is an iconic species in the region. It is the world's largest cuttlefish species. It grows to some 50 centimetres in body length and over 10.5 kilograms in weight. Owing to diminishing numbers, the giant Australian cuttlefish is listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's list as a vulnerable species. A striking feature of the cuttlefish is its ability to put on a spectacular display of changing colour in an instant. Each winter, through May to August, many thousands swarm into the rocky areas off the Whyalla coast, especially around Point Lowly and Fitzgerald Bay, to mate and lay their eggs. It is the only known location that this mass gathering happens in the world. It's a unique annual event and something that in recent years has become a significant tourist attraction, with Whyalla's annual Cuttlefest celebration. It's a remarkable phenomenon that is now under threat.
At the end of last month, a controversial fish-farming scheme to produce yellowtail kingfish in Fitzgerald Bay moved forward following a decision of the Whyalla council. On 31 May, the council granted the Clean Seas company access to Point Lowly Marina—a decision which will enable them to establish a 4,245-tonne capacity fish farm in Fitzgerald Bay under existing leases granted by the South Australian state government. Clean Seas is already the largest farmer of yellowtail kingfish outside Japan. It has a hatchery at Arno Bay and fish farms at Port Lincoln, both on the Eyre Peninsula. The new site, which is planned to be stocked with kingfish as early as September, will further increase the company's production capacity. Clean Seas previously farmed fish in the upper gulf, and many locals have strongly opposed the plan due to fears that waste from the farm could cause nitrogen blooms and impact on the giant Australian cuttlefish population. More than 600 locals have put their names to a petition against giving Clean Seas access to the marina. A key factor underlying the concerns is the very slow rate at which the waters of the gulf flush into the Southern Ocean. Nick Antonio, a Whyalla resident and campaigner against the kingfish farm, has highlighted Clean Seas' previous failed aquaculture venture in the upper gulf, saying:
"We experienced nitrogen plumes on the bottom of the ocean bed, and we also had a lot of washed up pens and debris, damage to the marina … last time was just a complete and utter failure for Clean Seas …
"I cannot [understand] how they can be licensed to farm 4,245 tonnes of fish in a gulf that [is only flushed out] every 18 months," …
Since the Whyalla council decision, the Conservation Council of South Australia has issued a report that expresses grave concerns about the kingfish aquaculture expansion in Fitzgerald Bay. The Conservation Council argues that the sheer mass of nutrients that will be generated is at a sufficient level to destroy seagrasses, which is something that occurred with nutrient discharges off the Adelaide coastline. The Conservation Council warns that the current SA Water quality guidelines are inadequate and outdated, and a process to replace them with more stringent trigger values is still incomplete. Northern Spencer Gulf ecosystems, as assessed by the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority, are in decline and should be managed for recovery, not further compromised by large-scale aquaculture projects. Significantly, previous decline and recovery of the giant cuttlefish coincided with the arrival and departure of kingfish aquaculture, taking into account a two-year lag from the cuttlefish life cycle and gulf flushing times.
The Conservation Council has warned that information provided to dispel concerns about the risks to cuttlefish population from aquaculture is 'incomplete, unreliable or misrepresented'. Significantly, the risk assessment that supported the South Australian approval of the project excluded many stakeholders and remains secret. It relied on modelling that, at the time, was not made available for independent scrutiny. The Conservation Council concludes that the kingfish aquaculture expansion will likely result in unacceptable levels of nutrients and damage to an ecosystem that's already stressed. The giant cuttlefish population is likely at risk and a further assessment is urgently required with reference to updated water-quality guidelines. There's also an unquestionable need for greater transparency and the opportunity for concerned stakeholders to provide input before the project proceeds.
In considering how we got to this situation, I don't blame the Whyalla council. The council had little choice because the council only leases the local marina from the state government. Minister Corey Wingard told the council that if it couldn't come to a working agreement to allow Clean Seas access to the marina that the government would take back control of the marina. In those circumstances, the council took the view that it was best to give conditional approval and to seek to impose a set of conditions and monitoring arrangements that would hopefully enable effective scrutiny of the environmental impacts, especially on the vulnerable cuttlefish population. So there you have it: Minister Wingard ignoring the will of the local community at Whyalla—basically, a minister bullying the council. I will just warn him: the people of Whyalla don't forget.
Meanwhile, it's highly likely that the damage that will be done will be done long before the monitoring provides a clear picture and a remedial plan can be implemented. The fact is that the South Australian government allowed the project to proceed. Indeed, it actively supported it and encouraged it, with completely inadequate considerations of the environmental impacts. The processes of environmental assessment and approval were insufficiently rigorous, lacked adequate consultation with relevant experts and stakeholders and lacked transparency. Opaque and closed decision-making processes often favour vested interests and rarely serve the common good.
When it comes to protection of fragile ecosystems, for state governments 'out of sight' means 'out of mind'. The South Australian Minister for Tourism and the Premier of South Australia, Steven Marshall, need to think seriously about this decision and how it will negatively impact the tourism brought in by the CuttleFest. We're about to think about devolving responsibility to the state governments in relation to environmental approvals, and this sort of process shows those here exactly why my starting point in respect of that legislation is a big no.
Meanwhile, however, state governments, such as South Australia's administration, should be subject to much, much closer scrutiny as they are clearly failing to discharge their environmental responsibilities properly. In the first instance, the so-called Clean Seas project in the Upper Spencer Gulf should be put on hold pending a new and independent environmental review via a transparent process and involving all stakeholders and relevant experts. In getting these matters right, I hope it will not be too late to protect the unique ecosystem of the Upper Spencer Gulf and its remarkable inhabitants. Thank you.
Ipswich Events Centre
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (20:53): Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath, you and I have many things in common and one of those things is our love for a great show—one of those great Queensland agricultural shows, which we have the honour of visiting across the length and breadth of Queensland. Whether it's in the beautiful town of Tully, or Marburg, nothing beats a great show.
On 14 May 2021 I was fortunate enough to attend Ipswich show day in the great Queensland city, Ipswich. I was representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael McCormack, in opening the Ipswich Events Centre. I should say that, while it was my obligation, my role and my responsibility to open the Ipswich events centre, I actually delegated that responsibility to someone who deserved that honour of opening the events centre far more than I did. That was a lady by the name of Elizabeth Jordan. At the age of 109, she is the longest serving exhibitor at the Ipswich Show by a country mile.
Just reflect on this: the first time that Elizabeth Jordan, aged 109, visited the Ipswich Show was when she was a child. So we're talking about someone who's been going to the Ipswich Show since about 1920. She was there on Ipswich Show day on 14 May 2021 for the opening of the Ipswich Events Centre. The way we did this was Elizabeth Jordan was the one who declared the centre open and I got the honour of pulling the ribbon. I pulled the ribbon for Mrs Elizabeth Jordan, aged 109, as she opened the Ipswich Events Centre.
I'd like to pay tribute to a number of people who advocated for the federal government to provide funds for the Ipswich Events Centre. These include past and present members of the Ipswich Show Society—and I will have more to say about them in the next few minutes; my colleague from Queensland Senator Pauline Hanson, who was a fierce advocate for construction of the centre; the previous Leader of the Government in the Senate, former Senator Mathias Cormann, who was also involved in discussions to fund the Ipswich Events Centre; and the current Mayor of Ipswich, my good friend Lord Mayor Teresa Harding, who was also involved.
The Ipswich Events Centre cost a total of $8.9 million and supported the creation of 497 jobs during construction. It not only provides a great meeting point and a great place for people to display their wears at expos et cetera; I in fact attended a small business expo in the centre a few weeks after the opening of the centre; it also performs an invaluable role as an emergency evacuation centre for the people of Ipswich. But a building is just that—it's just bricks and mortar. What provides the heart and soul of this building are the members of the Ipswich Show Society. I would like to pay tribute to the current executive team for their efforts in making sure that Ipswich had its show this year, in 2021. I pay tribute to Mr Darren Zanow. I also pay tribute to the vice-presidents, Andrew Cooper, Denise Hanly and Ross Young. I pay tribute to all of the members of the Ipswich Show Society Committee past and present and all the volunteers, whose invaluable efforts helped make the Ipswich Show a great success in 2021.
Apart from Mrs Elizabeth Jordan, aged 109, opening the event centre, the other great thing that occurred that day was the unveiling of a plaque commemorating Ipswich Show Society life members who sadly passed away during the course of 2020. I want to pay tribute to each of those life members who are now commemorated on that plaque in the Ipswich Events Centre: David Rodger, who served the Ipswich Show Society for 62 years; Vivian Zanow, with 54 years of service to the Ipswich Show Society; Sydney Haag, with 52 years of service; and, of course, David 'Rusty' Thomas, who provided leadership to the Ipswich Show Society and became a life member after 52 years of service. Those four great Queenslanders sadly passed away in 2020, and their service to the Ipswich Show Society and to the Ipswich community is commemorated on that plaque.
I pay tribute to all of the people who are involved in the Ipswich Show Society. I thank them for their endeavours and say to each one of them: you provide an outstanding example for all Australians of what it takes to make this country the best of all countries in the world to live.
Human Rights
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (20:59): I rise tonight to speak about human rights, as is my habit every Tuesday night in sitting weeks. The Australian Greens believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected and protected in all countries and for all people.
I want to start in Myanmar. The tragic deaths and devastating blows to democracy and human rights that have followed the coup are well known. I salute the brave people of Myanmar who continue to advocate for freedom, democracy and human rights, at massive risk to their own lives and freedom.
Given their courage and conviction, it has been appalling to see the Australian government refusing to impose sanctions on the leaders of the coup and the military owned companies who are funnelling money to support them. Countries around the world, including the US, the UK, countries in the EU, and Canada, have imposed sanctions on the leaders of the coup—but not us. We, in contrast, are failing the people of Myanmar. We've had 370 civil society organisations in Myanmar calling on our government to urgently impose sanctions. These are the people on the ground that our government should be listening to.
The Australian government argues that it's following the lead of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, but that is a complete cop-out. I recently attended an online meeting of the International Parliamentarians Alliance for Myanmar, where politicians and former politicians from ASEAN nations told us that waiting for ASEAN to lead is not a good idea and that countries like Australia should be pushing ASEAN to act.
The Lowy Institute recently concluded that ASEAN has international support to deal with the crisis in Myanmar, yet has not proved capable of effectively managing the cunning of the generals or the grievances of the Myanmar population, and they noted the continued reluctance among ASEAN members to embrace temporary punitive measures. Our former ambassador to Myanmar, Nicholas Coppel, has called for targeted sanctions, noting that:
… while our neighbours in Asia will not join the chorus they will not be surprised that we speak out … and it will give more leverage to the less confrontational style of ASEAN.
But no—our foreign minister tells us that it's not in our national interest to impose sanctions. For the life of me, I cannot see how acting to support democracy and human rights in our region, in a country which has such strong personal and business ties to Australia, can be against our national interest. How can it be against our national interest to support our Burmese population here in Australia, who are working so hard to support their communities against the imposition of totalitarian, violent military rule?
The tragedy that's occurring on the ground in Myanmar is reflected in a statement by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and a number of other bodies who have called for the safe and unconditional release of the President of the Myanmar Emergency Medicine Society, Professor Maw Maw Oo, following his arrest and detention on Monday 12 April 2021. It has been nine weeks since that professor was arrested, but he still hasn't been charged, and his family and friends have been threatened by the military if they advocate on his behalf.
We're also incredibly concerned about the more recent arrests of other doctors, including Dr Htar Htar Lin, who was the national COVID lead for Myanmar before the coup, as well as surgeon Dr Maung Maung Nyein Tun and physician Swe Zin Oo, both from the Mandalay General Hospital. As the International Federation for Emergency Medicine said in a recent statement:
The principles of international humanitarian and human rights law which safeguard medical neutrality in situations of conflict must be respected and upheld. The UN Security Council Resolution 2286 … strongly condemns attacks against medical facilities and personnel in conflict situations.
I also want to highlight the plight of journalists in Myanmar. A recent Guardian article summarised it, saying: 'Many Myanmar journalists are in hiding or have managed to flee the country although most continue to cover the junta's crimes. Since Min Aung Hlaing seized power, Reporters Without Borders has recorded the arrest of 86 journalists and, as of 26 May, 49 of them are still detained.' One reporter working inside Myanmar spoke anonymously to the Guardian, saying: 'Everything has been messed up by that crazy, stupid and shameless military coup. Our lives are not safe; we have to worry for each other much more than ever. The junta military is no longer an army; it's just a gang of thieves and murderers led by their gangster, Min Aung Hlaing.'
Let me reiterate our call for the government to impose targeted sanctions against those generals who have led the coup. For those of you struggling for justice in Myanmar, who face being shot at when you protest, and for the many who are advocating around the world, here in Australia and in other countries, we hear you; we see you. Know that your voice is powerful and heard here in the Australian parliament and elsewhere. We will keep working with you to pressure the Australian government to take action. They must listen to the voices of those on the ground as well as advocate for those who are unfairly detained. They should impose targeted sanctions urgently.
I now want to move on to the situation in Guatemala. Human Rights Watch have summarised what's going on in a recent letter:
President Giammattei and his coalition in the Guatemalan Congress are working to remove the last few independent judges and replace them with allies in an apparent effort to halt an anti-corruption drive that has implicated many senior politicians.
They went on to say:
Legislators are also attempting to block funding to the country's human rights ombudsman, whom they have tried to remove from office several times, in reprisal for his promotion of sexual and reproductive rights, including LGBT rights.
Similarly, Amnesty International, in a recent statement, said:
As a result of our work monitoring the human rights situation in the country, we have documented and reported the improper use of criminal law and other legal mechanisms against human rights defenders, prosecutors, former prosecutors, judges, magistrates, former employees of the International Commission against Impunity (CICIG), and defense lawyers, who have been in charge of processes that demonstrate significant advances for justice and the guarantee of human rights.
The Australian Greens also note with particular concern the recent arrest of members of the Ecological Movement of Guatemala. We call on our government to make representations to the Guatemalan government to release these political prisoners, respect human rights and to immediately cease using arrests and undermining the legal system to attack political opponents.
Tonight I also want to speak out in support of Mohammad El Halabi, who was arrested and imprisoned by the Israeli government five years ago today. Mr El Halabi was the manager of operations in Gaza for World Vision, which supported programs for farmers, fishermen and children traumatised by war. In 2014 Mohammad was named a humanitarian hero by the UN humanitarian heroes program, which recognises everyday people doing extraordinary things. In that same year, he visited Australia and spoke at an event here in the federal parliament.
In 2016, Mr El Halabi was arrested by the Israeli government on charges of diverting aid funds, particularly Australian funds, to Hamas. In response to those charges, World Vision commissioned an externally conducted forensic audit. The audit, which was completed in July 2017, found no evidence of diversion of funds and no material evidence that El Halabi was part of, or working for, Hamas. Subsequent investigation by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, independent auditors and more investigations by World Vision have found no evidence that any money was diverted. But for the last five years Mr El Halabi has been cruelly imprisoned by the Israeli government.
The ABC reported a year ago that he had been beaten so severely, he had lost some of his hearing. The state has imposed unprecedented security restrictions which prevent him from properly cross-examining prosecution witnesses, bringing some of his own witnesses out from Gaza to testify and even keeping copies of court transcripts. He has already had 151 court hearings. His most recent case has been postponed at the request of prosecutors. We echo the calls from the UN Special Rapporteurs, who say that Mr El Halabi's arrest, interrogation and trial is not worthy of a democratic state, and that Israeli authorities must grant him the full rights of a fair trial, or else release him unconditionally.
Israel has a new government as of this week. I call on our government to make immediate representations to them to immediately release Mohammad El Halabi.
Moranbah Mine Disaster
Asylum Seekers
Senator WATT (Queensland) (21:09): I rise initially to speak about two matters involving Central Queensland that have occurred in recent times. Just this week we saw the report of the Queensland Coal Mining Board of Inquiry into a shocking workplace incident, the Grosvenor mine explosion. This is an underground coalmine where, as a result of methane gas leaks, we saw an explosion that left five workers seriously injured—burned. They very narrowly avoided losing their lives. These workers, and their workmates who were present on the day, will never forget that explosion, and they will never fully recover from the injuries that they experienced.
We all know that mining is a dangerous job, and that's part of the reason why we respect miners for putting their lives on the line to produce coal and other minerals which we all depend upon for our energy and other needs in today's society. So we know it's a dangerous job, but mining is made a more dangerous job when management don't do their job properly, and that's what the finding from this board of inquiry was. This inquiry found that mine management at the Grosvenor mine put workers at an 'unacceptable level of risk' by prioritising mine production and the making of profits over workers' safety.
I and many other Labor members have been very vocal about the fact that we strongly support the mining industry. We support the jobs in it. We support the earnings in it. We support the profits and the exports that are generated from it. But this cannot be at the expense of worker safety, and steps always must be taken by mine management to ensure that workers are safe. It is very clear that, in this particular incident, this did not occur.
One particular feature of the Grosvenor mine is that about 75 per cent of its workforce were engaged either as labour hire or as contractors—insecure forms of work that I and many other Labor MPs and senators have spoken up about for a number of years now. I don't know how many times I've spoken in the Senate chamber about the problems associated with the rampant abuse of labour hire and casualisation in the mining industry in Queensland, and I know it's a problem in the Hunter Valley and other parts of the country as well. Day after day, we see government members and One Nation members come into this chamber and tell us how much they care about miners, but they never lift a finger to actually fix the casualisation and labour hire crisis that we have seen in the mining industry for so many years. Unfortunately, in this case, at the Grosvenor mine, workers again paid the price of being engaged through labour hire arrangements.
One of the findings from this inquiry into the Grosvenor mine explosion was that labour hire workers did not report safety concerns, in many instances, because they feared they would lose their jobs. This is exactly the point we have been making for years: one of the problems with labour hire and casual employment, as we have seen occur so often in the Queensland mining industry, is that workers do not have job security. They can't afford to take out loans; banks won't give them loans, because they haven't got permanent employment; in many cases they get paid less than the permanent workers they work alongside; and, because they don't have job security, they are too fearful of reporting safety concerns because they're worried that they'll get sacked if they speak up.
I've got to tell you: I've met miners across Queensland who haven't spoken up about safety concerns because they are so concerned about losing their jobs. That is not the way that any workplace should be, whether it be in the mining industry or another industry. It's about time this government and its allies in One Nation actually delivered on the claim that they stand for mining workers. They don't stand for mining workers and, as a result of that, mining workers like those at Grosvenor mine are exposed to unsafe conditions which they just should not be put in.
Labor's policy, on the other hand, is very clear. Both before the last election and in the last few months, we have been clear that a Labor government would introduce a very simple policy that would apply to mining workplaces and to workplaces more generally. It's a very simple policy with a very simple name: 'same job, same pay'. If a labour hire worker is engaged at a mining workplace or any other workplace, they will have to be engaged on at least the same pay and conditions as a permanent worker. That's what you would see under an Albanese Labor government, and it is a far cry from what we see under an LNP government aided and abetted by One Nation. These people like to dress up as miners. They carry on all the time about how they're the friends of mining workers, but, time after time, we have called on this government and One Nation to get behind our proposals to even the playing field for labour hire workers. And, time after time, the government are missing in action. They'd rather just dress up like miners than actually do something to really help them.
I saw Senator Davey in here earlier talking about mining and how Labor doesn't support mining. How about you start supporting mining workers, rather than dressing up like them and smearing a bit of fake coaldust on your face like some of your colleagues do? If you actually support mining workers—and the same goes for One Nation—you'll do something about casualisation and about labour hire. Instead, you'd rather continue to ignore this problem, which results in people not having job security, which results in people being so concerned about keeping their jobs that they won't complain about safety issues and which, at its worst, results in some of the issues that we saw at the Grosvenor mine explosion. This was a preventable explosion. The management knew that there were gas leaks and that action needed to be taken. But action was not taken, and workers literally paid the price with burns and other injuries that they will never fully recover from. It is unjust. It is unfair. And it's about time this government joined with Labor and did something about it.
The second thing I want to talk about concerning Central Queensland is something that has actually been dragging on for years but has really come to a head over the last few days, and that's the circumstances surrounding the Murugappan family, the Tamil family who had been living in Biloela for a number of years. I haven't had the good fortune to meet this particular family because they've been locked up by this government for the last couple of years, but I have been to Biloela on a number of occasions—including a couple of weeks ago, after the Callide Power Station explosion. We're talking here about a family: a mum, a dad and their two little girls, who were actually born in Australia. These two little girls didn't come to Australia by boat. These two little girls never broke an Australian law, but have been treated like criminals by this government for the last couple of years and locked up in detention on Christmas Island.
I and many other Labor MPs—right up to our leader, Anthony Albanese—have, for a long time now, been calling on this government to let this family return home to Bilo. We have been consistently ignored by this government, who have decided to try to punish and make an example of this family—including two little girls who were born in Australia—so as to send a message to people overseas who haven't looked at smuggling anyone into this country for a number of years. Let's be serious. Do you seriously think that allowing this family to return home to Bilo—to a community that loves them, to a community in which they fully integrated, to a community where dad was working in the meatworks, mum was volunteering for St Vincent de Paul and their two little girls were running around and playing in the streets with other kids born in Australia, to a community that respects them and had integrated them into their community—would actually encourage people smugglers to start smuggling people to Australia again? Give me a break! Everyone knows that is total crap from this government. Everyone knows that this decision was only designed to try to look tough in the eyes of certain parts of the public. Where is this government's humanity? Every now and then, the government should think beyond its slogans and actually think about doing the right thing. Unfortunately, it took one of these little girls getting seriously ill and needing hospital treatment that she couldn't get on Christmas Island before this government was prompted to take any action.
As I said, I've been to Biloela on a number of occasions. On at least two occasions, I've met with the supporters of this family in the community. I've met with the mayor. I've met with the supporters of the family. I particularly want to single out Angela Fredericks, who has done an incredible job over a number of years to stick by this family and be their advocate. We're finally starting to get some action from this government, but it's not good enough. I was very disappointed in question time today to hear Senator Cash rolling out the same old lines about stopping boats and people smugglers and things like that, rather than thinking about this family and this community who want to be reunited.
It's not good enough what this government has done. We need to see this government take more action, and we need to see the Murugappan family returned home to Bilo. This government has spent $6 million in taxpayers' money detaining this family on Christmas Island over the last couple of years. Just imagine how much better that money could have been spent, rather than wasted punishing a family, causing untold cost to this particular family, and depriving Biloela of a family they love. They should be returned home. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (21:19): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I ask: what's happening to our country? On COVID, due to the overseas deaths early last year, I was cooperative and supportive from the start. On 23 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, on single-day sittings in this Senate, we gave the government a blank cheque. But I added, on behalf of constituents, that we would hold the government accountable and we expected data and a plan. I mentioned the most successful nation was successful without crippling its economy because it did not cripple its economy. I mentioned ivermectin. Yet we never heard back—no data and no plan. Like people across Australia, I now have important questions.
People are feeling scared. Some are terrified, lost, hopeless, daunted and confused. People are feeling unsafe because of the vaccine side effects. People are feeling insecure because crucial, universal human needs are not being met—needs like security, health, reassurance, trust, confidence, support, leadership, honesty, competence, care, freedom, ease, calm and direction.
Where's the plan for managing the virus and our economy? There's clearly inconsistent behaviour across our states, and the national government has revealed no plan. Queensland, Victoria and WA have deepened fear and insecurity to win elections and to control people. Governments have abandoned the people and removed accountability. I asked the Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department to confirm my list of strategies that should be part of a plan for managing the virus. Isolation is one. Testing, tracing and quarantining is another. Then there are restrictions, cures and prophylactics, vaccines, personal behaviour, and health and fitness. That's seven I've raised with them. They've agreed with all seven. But we only see three in use, and then only partially, with crude and limited impact on the virus and a huge economic and social cost.
In response to my question in Senate estimates in March, I received data on the severity and transmissibility of this virus. The mortality is known by the health authorities to be low to severe. In fact, Senator Rex Patrick didn't even know he had the virus. Others with comorbidity, though, can die. Just like with the flu, there's a huge range of symptoms. So why do the Chief Medical Officer and the health department not publicly separate out each of the group's mortality rates? Is it because people need to be kept in fear?
Now our taxes are being given to big pharma for unproven and risky vaccines. Let's consider some of those risks and facts. There have been deaths from the vaccine. Thousands of people overseas have died from it. There have been a wide variety of side effects from the vaccine, such as blood clots. The health minister, Mr Hunt, had cellulitis, reportedly a known vaccine side effect, and was hospitalised. The Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department refuse to declare the vaccine as 100 per cent safe.
So my first question is: how did the vaccines get provisional approval? They said there were no alternative vaccines available. But wait—once the first was approved provisionally, the others faced an approved alternative. So how did the others get provisional approval? The vaccines fail to prevent transmission of the virus. The vaccines fail to stop someone getting the virus and getting sick. Intergenerational effects are not known at all. The vaccine's effect against mutations is still unknown. The dosage is unknown. Vaccine frequency, number and time between jabs are still all unknown. Are people going to be jabbed forever? The vaccine fails to remove restrictions on our lifestyle. The vaccine fails to open up international borders.
The vaccine makers all lack integrity. They have been fined billions of dollars—not hundreds of millions but billions of dollars—for misrepresenting their products. The health minister himself said, 'The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.' I am not a lab rat. Australians should not be treated as lab rats. This is the first time in history that healthy people have been injected with something that could kill them—and yet, on ivermectin, this is the first time that sick people have been denied medicine that is safe and successful for COVID, as multiple overseas jurisdictions prove.
Let's move on to ivermectin. I took it successfully in 2014 for something else. Some 3.7 billion doses have been given over six decades. It is prescribed for many ailments. There's no risk. It's safe. It's cheap because it's off patent. It's affordable. It is being used successfully overseas to treat COVID en masse, regionally and nationally. There are 250 medical papers in support of ivermectin—proven successful with COVID. In times of emergency, when four vaccines are provisionally approved, and adults are vaccinated—and now kids, despite the early warnings, and now pregnant mothers, apparently—why isn't a proven, safe and affordable treatment like ivermectin provisionally approved? If no-one has made application, why didn't the government get off its hands and do it? The government has blood on its hands.
My second question is: why have four unproven, untested and risky vaccines been given provisional approval, yet one known, safe treatment has not been given provisional approval, despite extensive medical papers and successful widespread use overseas? What happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to Australia? I received a letter from the Therapeutic Goods Administration last week threatening me because I shared some facts publicly. I dared to ask questions. I have a duty as an elected representative to share the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration calls that 'advertising'—in an effort, apparently, to control me. I have a duty to the people of Australia to promote debate and understanding for informed debate. Without that there can be no informed consent, and without informed consent there can be no vaccination or treatment. People are free in our country to make what they want of the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration seems to think that discussing facts and data is advertising. Whose side is the TGA on—the people or Big Pharma?
My third question is: what are the connections between Big Pharma, Monash University, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Gates Foundation, Google and Facebook? Think about this. Google's parent company is Alphabet. It owns YouTube, which took down one of my videos on the topic. Google owns 12 per cent of Vaccitech, which created the AstraZeneca vaccine. Aren't these conflicts of interest? Another possible conflict of interest is surely Sequoia Capital, a venture fund known for making millions from early funding of Google, YouTube and Apple. Sequoia owns 10 per cent of Vaccitech. I have no financial or other ties with vaccine makers, ivermectin or drug companies. My interest is ensuring that we protect people's health and safety—our nation's health and safety. So what happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to our country?
Coercion seems widespread and primed for stronger, wider, more extensive coercion. Let's have a look at some of the types of coercion: letters from so-called authorities intimidating people; threats to doctors; threats to employees of withholding employment or livelihood—a basic means of survival; media intimidation from the legacy media; journalists labelling and misrepresenting people. It's no wonder that mainstream media is rapidly becoming the legacy media. There is also government funding of media companies on vaccine propaganda. But I do want to single out one journalist. Adam Creighton, in the Australian, has done a fabulous job of exposing and sharing the facts.
We move on now to what the government is calling a 'digital certificate'. Is that going to become a digital passport? Will there be the withdrawal of people's basic access to amenities, transport, travel and jobs unless they get the jab? Will there be the withdrawal of livelihood—the ability to live? This is not a digital passport; it's a digital prison. Social media threats: Facebook and YouTube take down posts and threaten shutdown. Always, beneath control, there is fear. So my fourth question is: of what are authorities afraid? Clearly, it's not the virus, because they have no plan. They're afraid of people, the truth and freedom. Freedom is so easily squashed.
The key question is: why is there no government action to approve ivermectin? I call on the government not to wait for an application for approval and to get on with the job of inquiring about, and investigating, ivermectin and approving it. Australians, I call on you to decide for yourselves. Compare ivermectin and the vaccine. Consider the actions of federal and state governments. What happened to basic freedoms? What happened to Australia? Are you willing to help us bring back Australia?
Senate adjourned at 21:29