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 returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by public meetings—
today and Tuesday, 10 August 2021, from 4 pm.
Wednesday, 4 and 11 August 2021, from midday.
Thursday, 5 and 12 August 2021, from 3.30 pm.
Job Security—Select Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), from 1.30 pm, on Thursday, 5, 12 and 26 August and 2 September 2021.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—
private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by a public meeting on Thursday, 5 August 2021, from 3.30 pm.
private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Thursday, 12 and 26 August and 2 September 2021, from 3.30 pm.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—public meetings from 11 am on Monday, 9, 23 and 30 August 2021.
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
COVID-19: Parliamentary Procedure
The PRESIDENT (12:01): Unfortunately I have to once again inform the Senate of revised arrangements for the chamber and Parliament House due to the COVID-19 outbreaks across the country. The Speaker is making a similar statement to the House. As senators would be aware, the Speaker and I issued a statement last Monday on temporary changes to building operations at Parliament House based on the COVID-19 situations in Queensland and NSW, travel restrictions and designated hotspot areas. I will not restate all the details, but these are significant changes to the operation of parliament and requirements of those in the building, and I appreciate the understanding of senators and staff in implementing and respecting these. I urge all senators and staff to constantly refresh themselves with the measures we have instituted. They have been imposed for the safety of all—in the ACT, where we meet, and in our home communities, when we return. They are designed to allow the parliament to meet and fulfil its essential role but to do so safely. They also represent the first time we have gone substantially over and above the general requirements in place in the ACT.
In particular, with the delta variant of COVID-19 in the community, the use of masks is particularly important. Building occupants, including senators, should wear masks in all common areas and wherever else possible when doing so does not directly impede their work. I would also like to remind senators that, to reduce the risk of the transmission of COVID-19, everyone is also requested to maintain appropriate hand and respiratory hygiene, minimise gatherings with other building occupants and ensure physical distance is maintained throughout the building. All senators and staff must abide by ACT Health directions. If any building occupant has spent time in a nominated Queensland local government area on or after 21 July, you must isolate until receiving a negative test and follow the ACT stay-at-home directions, including those relating to mask wearing, work and movement. Physical distance requirements in the chamber and other meeting rooms are again in place.
Finally, I cannot stress enough how important it is that, with the COVID-19 situation evolving so rapidly around Australia, those who have travelled here regularly check the exposure locations from their home jurisdictions or any areas you have been in, at least over the last 14 days. Senators and staff will be informed of any change regarding arrangements at Parliament House, and the Department of Parliamentary Services will continue to provide regular updates regarding appropriate health measures via information circulars. I thank senators for their understanding, and I particularly thank Commonwealth and ACT health officials, who we have worked very closely with over the last few weeks to bring this parliament together.
PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS
Australian Greens
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:04): by leave—I inform the chamber that this week I will represent the Australian Greens as acting whip and acting leader of business.
BILLS
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:04): The legislation before the parliament today, the TEQSA charges and cost recovery bills, is legislation that the Labor Party does not support. The bills seek to establish a new charge to recover the costs of TEQSA's regulatory activities for higher education providers, moving TEQSA's operations from partial to full cost recovery. As we have seen in this chamber, there have been a concerning number of laws passed where the government leaves out
considerable detail, and, in this case, it has left out of the legislation considerable detail on how the cost-recovery framework will operate. This avoids the transparency that should be required of governments. It avoids proper transparency and accountability, and buries the detail of these charges in regulations.
In principle, Labor opposes this legislation because now is not the appropriate time to move to full cost recovery for higher education providers, providers who have been forced to bear the brunt of the COVID pandemic—most of them, and for the most part, without any government assistance at all.
Labor senators found during the most recent round of Senate estimates that the TEQSA has not done any modelling on the impacts this shift will have on individual providers. For small to medium providers who have been heavily impacted by lockdowns, the lack of international students has increased levies by up to 700 per cent, and this represents an existential threat to these providers—that is, a threat to their very existence and survival as businesses. This is not good enough. But it is just another in the laundry list of examples where Prime Minister Morrison and his government have attacked Australia's world-class higher education providers, providers in our nation that had been crying out for assistance—when they needed it the most. They have sought assistance from the government. They've received none. They've been abandoned. And now we see this legislation before us.
Prime Minister Morrison's budget had not a dollar extra for Australia's universities. Instead, our universities got a big cut. Real funding for higher education will fall by some 10 per cent over the next three years. This is not something our nation can afford. The budget papers confirmed that, because of the Job-ready Graduates Package, Commonwealth funding for universities will be lower, and student debt levels will rise.
All this is taking place after tens of thousands of Australian students started university this year facing fee hikes, with many having had their fees doubled and many of them offered places and accepting those places before the fee changes came in. This is manifestly unfair. All of this is at a time when our universities have faced revenue losses of around $3 billion—$3 billion in revenue—because of the loss of international students et cetera. The Australian economy has lost some $9 billion in decreased revenue from international students. These impacts are profound right across our education sector, yet the government has chosen not to help universities but to attack them yet again.
This government, the Morrison government, changed the JobKeeper rules three times so that they could make sure that universities could not get support. Right in the middle of the universities' crisis, the government cut support that was meant to keep Australia's world-class research alive. Then in the 2020 budget the government provided $1 billion to partly cover the impact of falling international student revenue. But this year the government cut that funding, despite the fact that the federal government has mismanaged the vaccine rollout. Our country still has no idea when international students will be able to safely return, no idea of when international students will be able to enrol at Australian institutions again nor, frankly, any idea of where our international standing will be relative to other jurisdictions which international students will have started to go to instead of Australia. As a result of all of this incompetence coming from this government, 17,000 Australians have lost their jobs—jobs that are needed to educate Australians in critical areas that we need in the future.
So why does this government feel that now is the time to levy further fees on our universities? We're talking about academics and tutors who have lost their jobs but many other workers too: admin staff and everyone who keeps a university and running. All of these Australians have bills to pay, mortgages, families et cetera. Why has Mr Morrison stood by? Why is he happy to see tens of thousands of livelihoods destroyed? If he really cared about keeping Australian jobs, he would be helping universities, not hurting them. Why does he not think that these Australian families deserve support? This budget provided no meaningful assistance for public universities; instead, it is seeing a 10 per cent real funding cut over the coming years. Emergency funding to keep researchers in their jobs was cut off while the crisis was and is very far from over. But, I guess, what else can Australians expect from this out-of-touch and in-crisis government? This is a government that thinks a university is good enough for their kids but not for yours—not for the hundreds of thousands of Australians who would like a place in Australian universities. This is a government happy to sign students in every electorate across the country into our lifetime of big debt.
During the last parliamentary sitting period, the budget papers confirmed for the first time what the government has refused to admit: this government, the Liberal government, is saving money by jacking up fees. Here on this side of the chamber, in the Labor Party, we do not want Australia to be like America, where Australian young people would have to have a lifetime of debt in order to get an education. This is not the future that Australians deserve. Currently in our nation we are talking about our children, our young people, graduating university with debts of around $60,000 just for a basic degree. All at the same time as they're trying to find work, save a deposit for a house or even start a family. Shame on this government.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:14): [by video link] I speak to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. I will state at the outset that the Greens will not be supporting these bills that impose yet another charge on higher education providers. Since the coalition have been in power, they have been on a relentless mission to attack the higher education sector. The bills establish a new charge to make registered higher education providers bear the costs of TEQSA risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities. These include: concern management and resolution; stakeholder communications and engagement; risk assessment inquiries; business support; and guidance notes. These activities do not currently attract a charge and they should not attract a charge. TEQSA has an important oversight role when it comes to monitoring the higher education sector and should absolutely be fully funded to perform its vital functions, but this funding should continue to come from the Commonwealth.
The two proposed bills represent a really worrying continuation in this government's larger pattern of defunding the higher education sector and then shifting the costs of providing higher education away from the Commonwealth. Education is a public good and it should be fully publicly funded. Universities and other higher education providers are still reeling from not just round after round of funding cuts but also the huge impact the pandemic has had on the sector. The government refused to help the struggling higher education sector, deliberately changing the JobKeeper rules three times to exclude universities and denying them any further form of substantial support. This has led to tens of thousands of university staff losing their jobs. On top of that, the government pushed through with their so-called job-ready graduates legislation, which has condemned students, young people, to decades of debt. It has also condemned universities to less funding. It has condemned researchers to go without. It has condemned us to exactly the opposite of what we need at the moment, which is to fully fund our universities and to look after and care for our young people, academic staff and researchers.
Shifting the costs of TEQSA's monitoring and regulatory functions to higher education providers is not only wrong in principle; it will also overburden a sector already in strife on so many fronts. This is part of an ongoing pattern of the Commonwealth shirking its responsibility to fund the delivery and administration of higher education. This is clearly the kind of self-defeating public policy that we should all be voting against.
Shifting more costs to higher education providers has another worrying consequence: the charges will impact on the quality of education that students receive. This has been raised time and again by student groups who have provided submissions on other costs and charges bills. As the University of Sydney stated in their submission on the charges and cost-recovery proposals:
Every dollar that Australia's public universities and other not-for-profit higher education providers must spend on regulation and compliance is a dollar that they cannot invest directly in their core education or research activities.
It is our collective responsibility to fight back against every bit of funding taken away from higher education. And we should not stop at that but also build a movement for free TAFE and university. That would make higher education accessible to all without the heavy burden of years of debt.
If the Liberals have their way, universities will be funded only to the extent they are able to contribute to the profit driven economy that benefits the elite, the billionaires and the corporations and contributes to obscene accumulation of wealth by the few. Although the Liberals being hell-bent on bleeding the higher education sector to death does not surprise me, it saddens me to say that both the Liberal and Labor parties have treated universities and TAFEs as piggy banks that can be used on a whim to draw funds away. Pro-market, neo-liberal policies have treated universities and TAFEs as corporations and not as the social institutions they are that contribute immensely to our society. It is clearly impossible to defend public education without a fundamental break from this problematic view.
It is a nice surprise today to see that Labor will not be supporting these bills that impose yet another levy on a sector that is already reeling from the pandemic and many other funding cuts. The Greens want to make university and TAFE fully funded and free for all. We have a vision for universities and TAFEs to be spaces of learning and creativity that serve a central role in communities across the country as forces of good.
I will be asking my colleague, Senator Nick McKim, to move a second reading amendment calling on the Morrison government to fully publicly fund higher education, because what we should be looking at is how we can guarantee lifelong learning to all Australians in these challenging times, and that means free higher education for all, increasing funding per student so staff can provide the best learning and teaching environment, supporting students by guaranteeing livable income for each and every one, and providing job security to academics, researchers and staff. Yet, sadly, here we are with the Liberals cutting much needed funds from universities at a time of such uncertainty where we are just emerging—I would say we are not even emerging at this point; I'm in New South Wales and people are suffering—from the global pandemic and millions of others across Australia are suffering as well. The nature of work is changing and the future of many jobs is precarious at best, and at this time to cut further funding from higher education is truly disgraceful. The Greens will oppose these bills, and, as I said earlier, my colleague Senator McKim will be moving a second reading amendment which highlights this worrying pattern of defunding higher education and reaffirming it as a public good which should be publicly funded.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (12:22): I too rise to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Treasury Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. These bills represent a minor but nonetheless important change to the system which regulates education providers. They give effect to the government's decision to implement increased cost recovery for TEQSA, announced in the 2018-19 budget. Understandably, we've delayed the introduction of increased cost recovery on several occasions due to external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic. But, at the moment, our TEQSA cost recovery levels are very low at around 15 per cent of the total costs, which are borne ultimately by the taxpayer. The taxpayer bears the burden of funding the vast majority of these regulatory activities—those activities which enable providers to operate in the Australian marketplace, and they deliver value to students. Recovering a greater level of the true costs will involve increasing TEQSA's application based fees. This increase will be enabled by new fees determination to be issued by TEQSA. It will also mean introducing a new annual charge on higher education providers to recover the costs of risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities. The new annual charge will be the subject of these bills.
With the passage of these bills the regulator will seek stakeholder feedback on draft cost-recovery implementation statement consistent with existing Commonwealth practices—very important. Any costs with these will be phased in over a period of three years to help mitigate, importantly, the impact to providers.
Firstly, with regards to the charges bill, this bill will enable a new annual charge to be collected from registered higher education providers to recover the costs of TEQSA's risk monitoring, compliance monitoring and investigations, compliant management, stakeholder engagement and other regulatory oversight activities. These costs are not currently covered and are borne by the taxpayer. The annual charge will be phased in over three years, commencing on 1 January 2022. Twenty per cent of the related costs will be recovered in 2022, 50 per cent in 2023, and 100 per cent by the time we get to 2024. The amount of the annual charge will be prescribed by the regulations setting out the formula for charge, to be made by the Governor-General through the Executive Council.
Now to the cost recovery bill. This bill will amend the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency Act 2021 to enable TEQSA to levy the annual charge created by the charges bill. 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.
As I said at the outset, in the grand scheme of things, the changes that are made in this bill are relatively minor, but they are reasonable changes to the regulatory framework around education. I'm proud to be a part of a government that is interested in making sure that we deal with the minor things just as we focus on dealing with major impacts. We have a strong record on education at all levels. Every Australian, I'm proud to say—and we all should be proud—has equality of access to education, whatever the level, whether their age or their ability, and our plan for education delivers for everybody, for every Australian.
Our guaranteed funding commitment invests $315 billion in schools over the next decade to 2029. This increases average funding per student by 60 per cent over the decade. We have replaced Labor's multiple secret funding deals with a single needs based national model of schools funding. Australian government funding for schools is now based on students' needs. This is very important. Our agreement is fair and, importantly, it provides certainty.
No matter where a student goes to school, they will get the funding and support that they need for the very best possible education. We are ensuring that our record funding commitment gets better results for Australian students, parents and teachers. We're backing the implementation of NAPLAN to ensure parents and teachers get transparency on student progress. We're improving teacher quality by testing trainee teachers to ensure that they are in the top 30 per cent for literacy and numeracy before they can teach.
Our government is also committed to a national centre of excellence and research for teaching. We have also secured the agreement of states and territories to work with us to improve results—and we have to see improved results. We have a lot of work to do in this regard. There is some serious work to do on the curriculum, and I've been quite vocal about that in recent months, but I'm confident that we will get there.
The Morrison government is also backing parents who choose the school that best meets the needs of their child, including Catholic and independent schools. We back choice as a government as far as parents considering where they'll send their children for their education. In total, an extra $4.8 billion of funding will be available to non-government schools over the next decade. Parents need to be able to decide on what is best for their own children, and we're empowering them to do that.
This extra funding is not at the expense of government schools. From 2017 to 2029, Australian government funding for government schools will increase by 72.1 per cent per student on average, and non-government schools will increase by 53 per cent per student on average. Secure, long-term funding is being provided for all students based on need. We've also committed to the National School Chaplaincy Program on a permanent basis. We hear from schools and school communities across the country just how important and vital this service is in providing that support to students. There will be a particular new focus on an antibullying program through that. This means that school chaplains can provide pastoral care, run programs such as breakfast clubs and coordinate volunteer activities for over 3,000 schools. School chaplains will also be trained to combat cyberbullying so that they can better identify and support students who may be victims. This is important work, and we certainly value the role that chaplains play. We know the positive impact that they have on kids, and we're backing them as they do that important work.
After school I went on to complete a trade in electronic servicing. I know how valuable that was for me. That skill of troubleshooting a problem is a skill that I apply even here in this job today. That skill of going back to the very root of an issue is something I've been able to carry right through my entire career. There is no doubt that all of us bring into this place experiences that we had and learned and gained from right at the very beginning of our career. I'm quite passionate about apprenticeships and about seeing them continue to be a great pathway for students as they embark on their careers. This is why I'm proud to be part of this government, which is committed to seeing 100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships, with a 50 per cent wage subsidy for businesses who employ them. This is fantastic. This is in addition to the 180,000 existing apprenticeships and traineeships that are already being protected.
The new JobTrainer fund will create up to 320,000 free or low-cost training places for school leavers and jobseekers. We're supporting young Australians into work as well. The JobMaker hiring credit will encourage businesses to hire young Australians. This credit will be payable for up to 12 months and immediately available to employers who hire those aged 16 to 35 who are on Jobseeker. It will be paid at a rate of $200 a week for those under 30 and $100 per week for those aged between 30 and 35. New hires must work for at least 20 hours per week to be eligible. Treasury estimates that this will support 450,000 jobs for young people. Further, the Youth Jobs PaTH program, a great program, supports 15- to 24-year-old jobseekers who move from welfare to work, providing them with the necessary experience to be able to progress through their careers. More than 110,000 young people have participated in at least one element of the Youth Jobs PaTH program, with 68,000—importantly—taking up a job placement.
We're also backing those heading to university under the Job-ready Graduates Package of reforms to higher education. The government's university funding of $18 billion in 2020 will grow to $20 billion by 2024. It's a package that will create up to 30,000 new university places and 50,000 new short course places by 2021, and provide additional support for students in regional and remote Australia. Further, in 2021 an additional $1 billion has been allocated to support the vital research activities of Australia's universities. The record funding in education is something I'm very proud of as a coalition senator here in this place, seeing the budget and seeing what the government has committed in this area. A commitment to education is the only way that we're going to be able to provide the very best opportunities for not only individuals but also, importantly, the nation collectively. If we are going to compete on a global scale, we need to have the very best opportunities for education. That's what this government is committed to doing, and it's providing that.
An additional $1 billion has been allocated to support vital research activities in universities. We can be proud of the quality of the research that's occurring in our universities. I've spent time over the recess seeing some of the work that's being done in our universities in Western Australia, through the cooperative research centres, in battery technology and new forms of energy such as hydrogen. Fantastic opportunities exist. As Australians, we can be very proud of the groundbreaking research that is being undertaken in our universities across this cooperative setting where we've got industry working together with the research institutions. This cooperative model is ensuring that we're able to get that research in action. We're able to see progress through to action and investment on the ground. We've got opportunities to delve into new areas of development, to move into new possibilities for the energy space and for batteries and the new opportunities that will create.
I'm very proud to see record levels of funding in education, and our achievements here are very clear. We'll always need to do more, and we accept that. We always work collaboratively with the sector to work out how we can do more and how we can do better as a nation. We all take up that challenge. I know that the university sector and all sectors of education are rising to that challenge and working cooperatively across governments to ensure that we're providing the very best opportunity for people to get ahead, particularly young people. Every day we're listening and we're prepared to make the reforms that will deliver better outcomes. We're working very hard. We're listening every day to the feedback, and we're responding to that. We're prepared to make the reforms, the necessary reforms, that will deliver on better outcomes.
These bills that we're discussing here today, these bills that are before the Senate, are very important. They are part of our plan. They are minor in the changes that they're making, but they are nonetheless important. It's important that these stakeholders and the providers of education are the ones that are actually bearing the costs of the delivery of these regulations and ensuring that cost recovery is there and the charges are made and, importantly, those that have been sent a bill are required to pay it. This bill ensures we have the capacity to do that. That's why I commend these bills to the Senate. Thank you.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:36): I'm pleased to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021.
Labor cannot support either of these bills. The bills, if passed, would enable the establishment of a new charge levied on higher education service providers aimed at recovering the cost of the regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. In doing so, these bills would alter the current arrangements for the agency in which only partial cost recovery is provided for, instead seeking to recover the full cost of the agency's regulatory activities.
Unfortunately, the devil in this case is not in the detail because these bills provide a distinct lack of detail on just how the proposed cost-recovery framework will operate. Sadly, this is increasingly becoming the standard practice of this government: provide a shell of a bill delegating powers to regulations, wait for the bill or bills to pass and then, and only then, reveal the specific set of rules, fees or enforcement mechanisms that will operate by regulation. This makes it difficult for the Senate, in particular, to do its important work, and raises serious questions about transparency and accountability in this parliament. And so it goes that, once again, we are unable to consider properly the specifics of these proposed changes.
Nonetheless, the government has not been able to convince stakeholders of the merits of these bills, nor is the opposition satisfied of their necessity. Labor opposes these bills in part because now is absolutely not the time to be levering additional costs and fees on a sector that has suffered significantly from pandemic-induced border closures and lockdowns. This is certainly not the time to be delivering additional costs on a sector that has not only seen many thousands of job losses, but has been forced to make difficult decisions that have impacted on staff, students and research. This sector has been absolutely left out in the cold by this government. It has been left high and dry when it comes to government support and assistance. Disturbingly, it was revealed during the most recent round of Senate estimates that the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency has not done or sought any modelling on the impacts that this shift will have on individual providers in the sector.
We are not talking about a small shift. This is not some sort of minor regulatory change that seeks to tinker around the edges. We know that, for example, for small and medium higher education providers—remember, these organisations have been significantly impacted and disrupted both by the lack of international students and the ever-receding horizon for a time frame for their return and, of course, by lockdowns—increasing regulatory levies and fees by up to 700 per cent represents a very real and present danger to their very existence. That figure, 700 per cent, is not a rounding error, in case you thought it was, Mr Acting Deputy President Brockman. It is a substantial and potentially devastating increase. A fee change, indeed, an increase, of this nature and its impact should have been modelled by the government or its agency in advance of seeking to bring about this change. The fact that this hasn't occurred is simply not good enough. Unfortunately, it is in no way surprising, because, sadly, we can add these bills to the seemingly endless list of examples of the Morrison government's seeking to undermine and attack this nation's world-leading higher education providers. These institutions have been repeatedly crying out for assistance and support for 18 months, but instead of the offer of a helping hand to bolster our nation's centres of knowledge, research and development, all we see from Mr Morrison and this government is kick after kick right in their time of need. They have been abandoned yet again by the Liberal Morrison government.
In this time of need you'd think that maybe, just maybe, the Australian government would deliver support in the budget for our universities, but did the budget have any extra dollars for our universities? No. Actually, they got a cut. In fact, real funding for higher education will fall by a staggering 10 per cent over the next three years. Just think about that. At a time when it couldn't be clearer that investing in higher education, research, development and building our nation's collective knowledge would provide the best pathway for success in this globalised and challenging world, this government, the Morrison Liberal government, seeks not to invest in the people and places that provide this essential service but, rather, to attack and gut them. It is astonishing, short-sighted and damaging to our nation's future and future potential. Not only that, but this year's budget papers have also confirmed that, due to Job-ready Graduates, funding provided by the Australian government to universities will be lower and student debt will rise. Remember that this is happening at the same time that many tens of thousands of students across Australia face fee increases at the start of this semester. And they are not small increases. For some students this hike amounts to a doubling of their course fee.
What about the current state of play for the sector as a whole? What we're seeing is that universities collectively are suffering a loss in revenue of some $3 billion. The impact that this is having on our economy as a whole has been quantified as being somewhere in the order of $9 billion lost due to the collapse in international student revenue. Faced with this dark, cold, harsh reality, one might be forgiven for thinking that our government would seek to help our universities, our researchers, our teachers and our students to ride through this rough time. You might think that, but sadly and unbelievably, it is not the case. Instead, the Morrison Liberal government has sought not to help our universities but to hinder them, to launch attack after attack, cut after cut, dagger after dagger. Perhaps the most obvious example would be the fact that the government proactively changed the JobKeeper rules on not one but three occasions in a very deliberate and targeted effort to guarantee that Australian universities could not access much-needed support to retain critical jobs in the sector.
Added to that, right in the middle of Australian universities' hour of need, Scott Morrison's Liberal government cut support meant to ensure this nation's world-leading research is kept alive. Labor acknowledges that the government did provide in the 2020 budget extremely modest support—$1 billion across the entire sector. This was meant to partly allay the impact of falling revenue from international students. However, this year the government decided to cut that funding, presumably on the basis that the pandemic is over and international students will return. Well, that hasn't happened, has it? Instead, thanks to the Prime Minister's botched vaccination rollout, we're no closer to knowing when our full international student cohort will be able to return.
What is the direct result of all of these deliberate attacks on this most pivotal of sectors right when it needs help the most? The answer is more than 17,000 Australians jobs lost. To really rub it in the government thinks, by prioritising these bills, that now is the time to levy yet further fees and charges on our universities and consequently on our students. It is extraordinary: 17,000 jobs have already been thrown on the scrap heap. How many more will it take for the government to be satisfied that its cuts to our nation's knowledge capacity are enough? These are academic jobs—tutors, teachers, lecturers and researchers—and the flow-on consequences are vast. We have seen administrative staff and many other vital support roles that keep universities going impacted too. These are all people with families and bills to pay, yet our Prime Minister has proactively sought to throw on the scrap heap these people's livelihoods and jobs.
If this government really cared about protecting Australian jobs, we would be debating in this place right now a bill to support this sector and every single Australian who works in it, not these bills that are designed to impose higher costs and rip more away from an already struggling yet essential component of this nation's economic fabric. What is it about our Australian universities and the people who work within them that Mr Morrison finds unworthy of providing the same support and protection that has been afforded other workers?
We've already seen that the budget provided no meaningful assistance for Australian public universities. It also provided a real cut in funding of over 10 per cent in the coming years. On top of that, the emergency funding meant to keep researchers in work was axed, despite the fact that this crisis is far from over. In fact, the impact of this crisis has been felt more harshly and for an ever-increasing length of time due to this Prime Minister and this government's ineptitude and failure when it comes to quarantine and the nation's vaccination rollout.
Students, workers and the entire sector dread what will come next from this government. After eight long years of attacks—first from Mr Abbott, then from Mr Turnbull and now relentlessly from Mr Morrison—this government thinks your ability to obtain a university degree should be dependent on your ability to pay. This Liberal government are happy to consign Australian students to a lifetime of debt. Indeed, this year's budget papers have confirmed for the first time—in writing, mind you—something the government has refused to admit in public—that is, this Morrison Liberal government is saving money by dramatically hiking fees on students and transferring responsibility for the nation's debt from the Commonwealth to Australian students.
The Australian people don't want this country to become like the USA. They don't want Australian kids to be saddled with a lifetime of debt to just get an education. Labor certainly don't want that either. That's why we've been calling for support for the sector—to support jobs, staff, students and Australia's amazing world-class higher education institutions. That's why we oppose these bills and every one like them. This government has sought to drive the knife into Australian universities and students over eight long years. Enough is enough.
We're now at the point where we're talking about our kids graduating from university with a debt of $60,000 just for a basic degree. This simply shouldn't be. How are young Australians supposed to save up a deposit for a home, let alone find a job and pay the bills with this lifetime of debt hanging over their heads? It's shameful and disgraceful that these bills will also only make it worse—worse for students, worse for staff, worse for academics, worse for researchers. This will further erode and undermine one of Australia's greatest success stories—our high-quality, world-leading Australian public universities and higher education providers—which we should be proud to support, proud to encourage, and grow not attack. It is for these reasons that Labor will oppose these bills and I urge the Senate to reject them.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:51): I move the second reading amendment standing in the name of Senator Faruqi:
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate is of the opinion that:
(a) the Morrison Government is on a relentless mission to decimate the higher education sector;
(b) these two bills represent a worrying continuation in the Government's larger pattern of defunding the higher education sector and shifting the costs of providing higher education away from the Commonwealth; and
(c) education is a public good, which should be publicly funded".
For the assistance of colleagues, this amendment was circulated during the last sitting.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Brockman ): Senator McKim, do you wish to make a contribution?
Senator McKIM: No.
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (12:51): Let's be clear in the chamber today: the only thing the Morrison government is cutting are the taxes of hardworking Australians. Our legislated stage 3 personal income tax cuts put more money into the pockets of hardworking Australians. 'Each-way Albo' has been forced to execute something of a policy bellyflop rather than a backflip—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Brockman ): Senator Small, please resume your seat. Senator Brown?
Senator Carol Brown: I would ask that the senator refer to members of the other chamber by their title.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, you are correct: we should always refer to those in the other place by their correct title. Senator Small.
Senator SMALL: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will gladly reflect on the policy bellyflop that the Leader of the Opposition has executed in rolling the shadow Treasurer in the other place, with the Labor Party now adopting a fifth position when it comes to this government's income tax cuts. Why do I focus on the relevance of these income tax cuts? The relevance is that this government believes that services delivered in the Australian community should, where appropriate, be funded closest to the source of the cost being incurred. We're not going to take tax money off the tradies out there in suburban Australia, who are building houses as quickly as they can on the back of this government's HomeBuilder stimulus, and funnel it instead into the university sector.
Despite the hysteria from those opposite and on the crossbench the claims of incredible austerity and desperate times in the university sector are not supported by the statistics we see in the media. Here are some cold, hard facts. In 2020, arguably one of the most economically dire periods for this nation and indeed the world, Monash University reported an operating surplus of $259 million. And they're not a stand-out performer. The University of Melbourne reported an operating surplus of $178 million. Indeed, it spreads further. The University of Queensland reported an operating surplus of $83 million. In my home state of Western Australia, the University of Western Australia reported an operating surplus of $58 million. South Australia was right up there: the University of Adelaide reported an operating surplus of $41 million and Flinders University reported an operating surplus of $35 million. And so it goes.
This government is unashamedly on the side of hardworking Australians rather than having those taxpayer funded institutions pocketing millions of dollars when it comes to cost recovery and taxation arrangements. You might think that that's somehow blindingly obvious, but apparently to those opposite this is an unprecedented crisis for the sector. We've heard complaints today that they were denied access to JobKeeper. That's not a new narrative but it is simply not supported by the data. Because even if we were to consider universities entitled to the charitable threshold of a 15 per cent revenue reduction, when you report an operating surplus of $259 million, it stands to reason that you should not be—and were not—given a penny.
What do these bills before the chamber actually do? Well, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency bills give effect to the government's decision to increase the cost recovery for TEQSA, which was announced in the 2018-19 budget. As my colleague Senator O'Sullivan rightly pointed out, we delayed the onset of these increased cost-recovery arrangements on several occasions due to external factors, not least of all, COVID-19.
The cold, hard reality is that the university sector can afford the gradually phased increase in cost recovery that these bills represent. Let's not forget, we're starting from the incredibly low threshold of 15 per cent of TEQSA's costs being recovered from the sector, with the taxpayer, therefore, bearing the burden of funding the other 85 per cent of TEQSA's activities. Those pennies have to be earned here. They don't rain down from the imaginary money tree that those opposite love to shake. We've seen it again with their proposal that they're going to give $300 to every Australian who chooses to do the right thing, to act in the national interest, to protect the vulnerable in the community and get vaccinated. We won't stand for it on this side of the House. That's why these bills will increase the cost recovery of TEQSA gradually to 90 per cent of the regulatory costs, and some 75 per cent of funding that body overall.
It is incumbent upon a responsible government like the Morrison government to find ways to reduce costs to the taxpayer. It's that prudent approach that allows us to proceed with things like stage 3 income tax cuts, which will mean more of the money that hardworking Australians earn stays in their pockets. What does cost recovery for TEQSA mean? It means increasing the application based fees to recover the true cost of those activities from the sector. That increase to the application based fee will be enabled by determination issued by TEQSA. Far from cries that that somehow is negligence on the part of the government, I would contend that it is, in fact, the most prudent approach, where TEQSA works closely with the sector to develop a cost-recovery model that achieves the outcomes that we seek to yield for the taxpayer without undue distortion to the sector.
Increasing that new annual charge on higher-education providers in terms of risk monitoring and regulatory oversight is a new annual charge. However, as I say, that's also based on the draft cost-recovery implementation statement, which is consistent with the Australian government's cost-recovery guidelines. That's not negligence; that is prudence. And it is exactly the behaviour that Australians have come to expect of a responsible government.
No constituent sector, body or organisation has ever welcomed the introduction of a government charge. So it stands to reason that the higher education providers have criticised this new charge, which is being phased in, as we've heard. But what we're not hearing is that it's estimated the vast majority of providers will pay an annual charge of between $25,000 and $35,000 a year once fully phased in, in 2024. When universities are running on an operating budget each year of billions of dollars, the impost of a $25,000 to $35,000 fee to reduce the burden on the taxpayer—those hardworking Australians who have to fork out to provide the services that we all enjoy—is not the end of the sector. It is not a drastic cut. It is not austerity. It is, in fact, responsible government.
The charges bill, which, as I just mentioned, will levy registered higher education providers to recover the costs of the risk monitoring, compliance monitoring and investigations aspects of TEQSA's work, is not unique. Many other statutory authorities and government agencies levy the sectors that they operate in to reduce the cost of that compliance and oversight activity on people who derive no benefit whatsoever from the sector. Arguably, just as a senator mentioned earlier, investment in higher education is a public good. But there are many Australians who do not benefit from a tertiary education and who should therefore not be expected to fork out every year their hard-earned pennies to pay for this organisation. The amendments, which do require this annual fee to be paid as and when it falls due, also attract penalties for late payment. Failure by a higher education provider to pay the charge will constitute a breach of its conditions of registration. That puts these organisations—put on a pedestal by some, but held to account by this government—on a level playing field with everyone else that interacts with the Australian government. And make no mistake about it, this is a government that is committed to supporting higher education.
We have provided substantial financial support to higher education providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notwithstanding the JobKeeper debate, these are organisations that did benefit from government stimulus spending, that have faced some challenges with our closed international border and that were rightly supported by this government through that period. However, on the back of that recovery—and we know that Australia's economic recovery has been stronger than anywhere else in the developed world economies and that we are a nation that has seen more people in work, as recently as in July, than at the onset of the pandemic—the claims of tens of thousands of job losses and breadlines because of austerity in the higher education sector simply are not borne out by the statistics that we see in this place. So this government, as a responsible government, will reduce the accreditation fees for small higher education providers, with a sliding scale of reductions that allows providers with a student load of less than 500 full-time equivalent to receive a maximum reduction of some 70 per cent. I think that's in keeping with the fact that this is a government that consistently supports the little people. But, where there is capacity to pay, as $259 million surpluses clearly demonstrate, we will burden—we will reduce the burden on smaller Australia, those aspirational Australians who have to fork out for all of this, and instead charge those that can afford to pay.
Along with all this other additional expenditure, along with reducing the burden on Australians, this is a government that will make additional investment in research and short courses because we consider that these measures have already provided and continue to provide significant coherent, targeted and time limited support to the Australian economy as we deal with the pandemic. That's why I support these bills as the actions that a responsible government takes, and I commend them to the Senate.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (13:03): Senator Small made some Freudian slips in his remarks about the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. He said that the Labor Party puts the tertiary institutions on a pedestal. He said that some of these organisations will have to face the burden, and then of course had to correct himself to say that the organisations will relieve the burden. He told you everything about the way in which this government approaches higher education. The Labor Party will oppose these bills, which go well beyond the question of funding. These bills raise questions beyond the mere questions of raising additional fees for registration. These are issues that are raised not just about the recovery of the cost of TEQSA.
TEQSA, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, regulates higher education. In February this year the government passed the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, a bill that provides additional powers for TEQSA to set those standards. I raised a number of concerns about those new powers and now, when we look at the measures that have been taken over the last two months, we can see why people have expressed concerns. TEQSA sets standards and has oversight of the minimum arrangements for higher education institutions that must be satisfied in this country. Whether they meet these standards determines whether they can call themselves a university in this country. If you change TEQSA, you can change the higher education system. This government is clearly intent on changing that system. The recent announcement by TEQSA suggests that this regulatory agency is taking its cue from the government. The government's intentions are evident from the composition of the Higher Education Standards Panel, which advises TEQSA. TEQSA's willingness to fall into line can be guessed at by its announcement last month elevating Avondale University College to the status of a university. I'll have more to say about that in a moment.
First, I want to look at the Higher Education Standards Panel. Membership of the panel matters because it determines how the standards in this country are interpreted. If you look at the members of the panel, a pattern emerges. They include Mr David Perry, the Vice-President Academic of Alphacrucis College; Ms Adrienne Nieuwenhuis, the Director of the Office of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of South Australia; and Ms Kadi Taylor, the Head of Strategic Engagement and Government Relations at Navitas. Navitas, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is a global company that operates several non-university higher education providers in Australia. Alphacrucis College in Sydney is another one of those non-university providers, although it aspires to having itself recognised as a university. Its vision statement on its website proclaims its goal to be 'a global Christian university, transforming neighbourhoods and nations'. So the membership of the standards panel now includes three representatives of private providers, a representative of the Australian Technology Network and a representative of the Regional Universities Network but no representative of Australia's most research-intensive universities—the Group of Eight.
I'm wondering how this relates to the government's intentions, which it says are to defend and advance research in Australia. How does this relate to the government's plans for TEQSA as set out in these bills? TEQSA's functions are guided by the 2015 higher education threshold standards framework and the provider category standards legislation, which was introduced last year in conjunction with the various cuts to university funding. These sought to define higher education standards in this country. The government claimed that the legislation, which was passed in February in the Senate, was based on recommendations of the review of the higher education provider category standards by Professor Peter Coaldrake, who is now the director of TEQSA.
The minister's recent statements, however, indicate that he is moving in a contrary direction to the government's own legislation. Under the new legislative criteria, from 1 January 2030, to be a registered Australian university a higher education institution must conduct research that leads to the creation of new knowledge in at least three—or 30 per cent—of the broad fields in which it delivers courses of study. It was pointed out at the time that some existing institutions might not meet that standard—the implication being that universities, defined as institutions conducting research, teaching and learning, and civic engagement, may no longer be recognised. The distinction between universities and private institutions—Alphacrucis College, for example—would begin to be blurred. It would be a creeping privatisation of the higher education system. That's where the minister seems to be headed not only with his appointment to the standards panel but also with his joint announcement with TEQSA on the creation of Avondale University College.
What do we know about Avondale? Avondale has expanded beyond its origins as a Seventh-day Adventist Bible college. Does it conduct sufficient high-quality research to justify its new status? I presume so, or why would Professor Coaldrake sign off on it?
The creation of a new university is a rare event, and the public is entitled to know more about TEQSA's reasons for its decisions. Avondale has not yet been through a round of assessment under the Excellence in Research for Australia; that's the metric that's applied by the Australian Research Council. According to its website, Avondale offers PhD and masters of philosophy degrees. Research specialisations are in education, arts, nursing, ministry and theology. This tells us that some research has been done but it doesn't tell us how much. Given the unease in this sector about long-term implications of change to provider standards, TEQSA should set out explicitly the reasons for granting Avondale university status. So I'm looking forward to Professor Coldrake's detailed answers as to how TEQSA reached its conclusions without undertaking a detailed ERA review, not only with regard to the breadth of the research being undertaken but with regard to its quality. Australia has not been overwhelmed with stories of Avondale's cutting-edge contributions to new knowledge yet its new status implies it is already operating at a level comparable to our universities.
The government is presiding over the unravelling of the system. This goes beyond any arguments about the merits of having specialised institutions such as research-only institutions or teaching-only institutions. While the government remains on its present path, we are likely to lose significant parts of the university system that we now have without gaining either excellence in research at universities or excellence in teaching at universities. This is all because of an ideological agenda to undermine a high-quality university system based on public provision.
The government has been wary of declaring its agenda explicitly, but the minister started to come clean in a speech to the Universities Australia conference in May. He acknowledged that the loss of international students during the pandemic had disrupted universities' revenues. He then went on to announce his priorities for higher education. He spoke about 'commercialisation' of research, he spoke about 'student experience' and he spoke about 'freedom of speech'. This government talks a lot about commercialising research without showing much understanding of how research actually operates.
If we don't invest in basic curiosity-driven research, there will be nothing to commercialise. This minister's reference to the 'student experience' was in a section in his speech that was, on the face of it, a call for a return to face-to-face learning on campuses. Face-to-face learning has taken a bit of a hit during the pandemic, for obvious reasons, but the minister's real motive in drawing attention to the experience of domestic students was to take another swipe at vice-chancellors, vice-chancellors who have reminded him there has been no permanent guaranteed funding for research, and there is a funding crisis created by the loss of international students. The universities were being told that no help will be forthcoming in the immediate crisis. The bills before us, which add to the cost burden, are another reminder. The bills will increase the funding crisis facing universities by making TEQSA rely on collecting fees for its activities.
Finally, we have the minister's comments on freedom of speech. The minister and his allies—the right-wing think tanks and culture warriors of the media—talk a lot about the supposed threat to freedom of speech on Australian campuses. This threat is confected, as the former Chief Justice Robert French found when he reviewed the matter. This has not deterred the minister from complaining that universities are too slow to implement policies to uphold free speech and academic freedom which are now a legal requirement yet he does not see the contradiction between this attitude and the way he allocates research grants. The Australian Research Council is being used to smear the reputations of highly reputable, highly decorated academics in this country. I will have more to say on that matter in another speech.
So far as this bill before us is concerned, we can see that this is obviously the wrong time to move towards full cost recovery for TEQSA. Mr Tudge conceded in his speech that higher education has been one of the hardest-hit sectors in the pandemic. Now we have another blow to the sector.
The bills establish new charges for cost recovery for TEQSA's activity, and it's another move characteristic of this government. The amount and the means of paying the charges will be left to regulation. Transparency and accountability have been shunted aside yet again. When the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee wrote to the minister asking why it's considered necessary to leave key aspects of the new charges to delegated legislation, he replied in a now-familiar manner. The charges, he said, were purely administrative in nature. That's not the view of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, of which I'm a member. Significant matters relating to collection and administration of new charges should be set down in primary legislation, and we can't see that that will happen.
What we have here is that the costs are being borne by the lowest-risk institutions: the large public universities, the same institutions that were hardest hit by the loss of international students. In 2020, universities lost $3 billion in revenue, and they had to lay off 17,000 staff. Higher revenue losses can be expected this year. Yet we've been told in debating these bills that we should be allowing full cost recovery for TEQSA. Some of these institutions are being asked for up to a 700 per cent increase in the cost recovery mechanisms being proposed by these bills. These are charges that do nothing to solve the real problems facing our universities. In fact, what we see with these measures is a government that is determined to make things worse. It is fundamentally a government that has no grasp of the real problems facing our tertiary sector and no solutions for how to deal with those problems.
Senator PATRICK ( South Australia ) ( 13:16 ): I rise to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021, and I will start off by expressing my concern, which clearly is shared by Senator Carr, that again the government brings to this chamber half-law for us to consider. They don't put into the bill some of the substantial, or at least important, elements of the laws that are being passed, and that's one of the bases upon which I will not be supporting this bill. Do the job properly, departments. Bring your legislation to your minister with the regulations attached. Ministers, see that your departments do the proper job. Refer your departments to section 1 of the Constitution, which says that it is the parliament that makes the laws. It's parliamentarians, in full visibility of the public, who make the laws, not faceless people in offices into which no-one can peer to look at what they're doing. That is not the way this system is supposed to work. The government needs to up its game on this, and the parliament and the Senate need to stand firm. Every time bills which are half-laws come to this chamber, they ought to be rejected.
Of course, the other problem with this bill is the fact that it raises charges which will ultimately be passed on to students. So here we have a government again slogging students, people who are struggling and trying to get ahead and get educated so they can go off and contribute to our economy and to our society. And what do you want to do? You want to increase the charges.
I get that you have to manage money, but why don't you start with the submarine project, a project that went from $50 billion to $90 billion and to which we've now added another $10 billion because we won't get our submarines in time before the Collins class would otherwise retire? They're due to retire starting in 2026 and we're not going to get our future submarine until 2035, so we've had to pay an additional $10 billion to fill the gap. You have these enormously risky projects that are draining the budget. How did we get into this situation? Go back to 2003 and read the Kinnaird review, which says: 'Buy off the shelf. Build it here in Australia—that's fine—but buy products that you know work.' If you didn't know about the Kinnaird review, go to the 2008 Mortimer review, because that'll tell you the same thing. But what happens every single time is that we have admirals, air marshals and generals who don't have project experience and who don't understand project risk making recommendations to cabinets full of ministers who have even less idea about project risk, project management and the cost blowouts that occur when you take on extremely risky projects.
So that's $50 billion. If you want to find some money for education, sort that project out. But you can't. No-one on the other side of the chamber will look at me while I'm talking about this, because you don't know how to do that. You're incompetent and incapable of doing that. It's the same thing for the Future Frigate project. It went from $35 billion to $45 billion—another blowout that could be paying for education services. Of course, we want trades people and people with engineering degrees to go and work to complete those projects, and they're going to struggle because they're going to get slugged by this new bill.
Why don't you go to Gerry Harvey and ask him for the $22½ million in JobKeeper that he took to make profit, pay higher dividends and pay executive bonuses? Right now he's spending that money on advertising for the Olympic Games. JobKeeper was for a good purpose. It was a wage subsidy for people who were trying to get through COVID-19. It was a good program, but it has been abused. Are you guys on the other side of the chamber going out there and saying, 'You know what? It has been used for a purpose it wasn't intended. We're going to take that taxpayers' money back, because then we can spend it on education'? No, you're not, and the irony of that is that the very people who are going to have to dig us out of the deficit created by JobKeeper abuse are the people you're going to slug with these new charges. It's disgraceful.
The Liberal Party is normally characterised as being the party of business people and good project managers. Well, you're falling way short in that regard. You've got no idea how to deal with some of these projects. Let me give you a hint. You see a naval officer, a general or an air marshal wander past, and they're good people. I would go to war with almost all of them—and I say that as a former serving member of the ADF—because they're highly competent at what they do. But they're not project managers. I wouldn't take a project manager and say, 'Go and be the commanding officer of a submarine.' So why would I take the commanding officer of a submarine and say, 'I'm going to make you a project manager today'? It doesn't make any sense.
So we end up with these hugely risky programs. It is completely out of control. Unfortunately, not only will it affect the bottom line, which you're trying to claw back with these much, much smaller measures—but you slug the little guy—it also endangers national security. I don't know if anyone on your side of the chamber has looked north of Australia for a little while, but there's tension brewing, and that tension will likely manifest itself not in 2035—if we're lucky enough to have our future submarines at that point in time—but much, much sooner.
The response we had last week was the defence minister announcing that we have a 1½-year delay in the Future Frigate program. We're going in the wrong direction. Actually, he then stood up to said, 'Don't worry. We're going to recover that schedule.' That is one of the most naive statements I've ever heard a defence minister make. I can tell you, after being in the project management space for many, many years—in fact, after watching Defence for the last 3½ decades and being a part of it—that they never recover schedule, and that's consistent with what happens in the commercial world. It's clear that Minister Dutton has now started drinking the department's Kool-Aid. If there's one thing I had hoped for, it is that Minister Dutton would look at things very objectively and not end up swallowing all of the rubbish that comes from Defence when they're defending some of their poor projects.
But the relevance to this bill is the fact that it is taking money from the people, from students, through tertiary education bodies to try and balance a budget that is so way out on the other side with things like defence projects and JobKeeper payments that have not been recovered that it's going to make almost no difference at all. Focus on the things that matter and stop trying to rip off students. Stop trying to put hurdles in the way of people who want to get educated. It doesn't even fit in with any of your standard marketing about a smart Australia, because what you are actually doing is dumbing things down and that's not good government.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (13:25): I thank Senator Patrick for his very impassioned and interestingly linked contribution. I did not realise that our submarine procurement strategy was so integrally linked to TEQSA and agency cost recovery charges—but I see it clearly is after that contribution! I rise today to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, and I will stick to the topic. Our higher education sector is a crucial industry for our economy. It services around 1.5 million students at any given time across the country, 31 per cent of whom are usually attracted from international communities. That was pre COVID. Pre COVID, the sector revenue was close to $40 billion. I do note, despite what I have heard from some contributions from across the chamber today, that media is reporting that not all universities are in the negative. We have seen some universities actually reporting better than expected results this year, which is a positive. It just goes to show how agile our university sector has been in responding to the COVID crisis.
In part, the attraction for international students to study in Australia is the consistency and quality of our higher education sector. It is also due to the establishment of TEQSA. TEQSA was established as a result of the Bradley review conducted in 2008 that examined the future direction of the sector, its fitness for purpose and options for reform. The agency that was established in 2011 now registers regulated entities as higher education providers and accredits their courses of study. It conducts compliance and quality assessments and reaccreditation of assessments and courses. It provides advice and makes recommendations to the Commonwealth minister responsible for education on matters relating to the quality and regulation of higher education providers. It cooperates with similar agencies in other countries and it collects, analyses and interprets information relating to quality assurance and the practice of quality improvement in our higher education sector. TEQSA is crucially focused on quality assurance and student outcomes. It ensures that our higher education providers meet minimum standards, promote best practice and improve the quality of our higher education sector.
But this work comes at a cost. Currently the majority of that cost—around 85 per cent—is borne by our taxpayers. Let us remember that not every Australian either has the opportunity or necessarily wants to attend a tertiary education provider. Certainly I'm very grateful for those who choose, instead of going to university, to undertake a trade and help keep our economy going and keep our houses serviced by electricians and other essential service providers. I'm very grateful for those people. I don't see why those people, through their taxes, should have to pay for the privileged few to attend our higher education providers over and above the vast quantities of money that our government provides. Over $20.4 billion from taxpayers in financial year 2021 is going to support our university sector. I thank taxpayers for that. But I do not see why our taxpayers should pay for every nut and bolt that goes through the university sector. That is why it is crucial that we have some cost recovery—
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS
COVID-19: Morrison Government
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (13:30): What a mess Australia is in. We have the very sad occurrence of New South Wales being in extensive lockdown because of the new delta strain of COVID. We've seen deaths in that state, and both in New South Wales and in Queensland we've seen the delta strain now affect much younger people. We've got absolutely appalling vaccination rates in this country. I think we're almost last of all the OECD countries, not that you'd know it when you listen to the government, particularly the Prime Minister.
The government had two jobs. One was hotel quarantine, and I think to date we're up to 27 leaks in hotel quarantine. That rests squarely with the Prime Minister of this country. The second job was rolling out the vaccines, and he's absolutely failed at that, despite him coming up with plan A and plan B, saying people will be vaccinated by Christmas and Australia will enter this fabulous new phase. None of that is true. We are languishing at the bottom of the queue, and it's costing Australian lives. The responsibility for what is happening in New South Wales and in Queensland right now lands at the feet of the Prime Minister, who failed to do those two jobs: vaccine rollout and hotel quarantine. There's now only the ACT and Tasmania that are free of COVID. Every other state has COVID, whether it's safely contained or in freefall like in New South Wales. The Prime Minister seriously has to admit that this is a race. He needs to step up and do the two jobs he was elected to do.
Tokyo Olympic Games
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (13:32): In the national newspapers yesterday, the Prime Minister summed up the spirit of Australians, which comes in all forms in all our people. Our Olympians have inspired us in Tokyo. They have extraordinary talent, strength and fitness that is beyond most of us, but they are just regular Australians like all of us. The Olympics has given us an insight into our Olympians like no other. As the images of families and supporters, who would normally be in the stands but are in their own homes, are beamed back to us we can see that they are just regular Australians achieving extraordinary feats. That's what Australians do. Whether you're an Olympian, whether you work in health care or own a small business, whether you're busy raising a family, volunteering in the community or working nine to five, the same basic qualities which have always driven our national success apply equally. Decency, determination, honesty, passion, grit, ingenuity and innovation have seen us through so far.
When it comes to dealing with the COVID pandemic, it's now time for the home stretch. We need to bring that same spirit, which has served us faultlessly with every great national endeavour we've put our hand to, and turn it toward the vaccine rollout. There have been setbacks, no doubt. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that. He has taken responsibility for them and corrected them. Now our gold medal run to the end of the year has begun and it's up to you. There are vaccines available for everyone who is eligible. There is plenty of capacity and there are plenty of appointments available. The only thing left is for each and every Australian to make a booking and get vaccinated. I've had both of mine, and it's now time for you to do the same. Let's get back to normal life. Let's knock this on the head. Let's go for gold by Christmas. That would be something to celebrate.
Oil and Gas Exploration
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:34): Communities right around this country have stood up and said, 'No more oil and gas drilling, no more seismic testing off our coasts'. In this time of climate emergency, when we need to be transitioning to clean energy, at a time when we know that our oceans are broken and in need of significant repair and our care and attention, this is not the time to be exploring for oil and gas off our coasts. Right now, off Tasmania's coast, ConocoPhillips is preparing for a massive seismic survey in deep water 10 kilometres off the west of King Island. The King Island community, the King Island mayor, fishing stakeholders and crayfishing stakeholders have all expressed their significant concern, and this chamber, when we had motions, passed a motion supporting the concerns of those in King Island and those in Braddon in the north-west of Tasmania.
You might think this issue is funny, Senator Duniam, but I can tell you that in Braddon it's not a laughing matter. People in Braddon do not want to see more oil and gas exploration off their coasts. They do not want to see their fisheries put at risk at a difficult time in history, when they're struggling to regain their markets in the rock lobster industry. We know from recent studies, the first of their kind, off the coast of Victoria, not that far from King Island, that seismic testing has had a dramatic effect on fisheries, including the flathead fishery. Over 99 per cent of that fishery disappeared following seismic testing, and it still hasn't recovered. There are significant uncertainties. This is the time in history to put a ban on all new seismic testing in this country. It's what Australians want. There are better alternatives than oil and gas, and this chamber should show some leadership. (Time expired)
Qantas
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (13:36): [by video link] I rise to congratulate the 2,000 aviation workers and the Transport Workers Union, who on Friday won a monumental case in the Federal Court against Qantas. Last year, while taking $2 billion from the federal government to keep workers in jobs, Alan Joyce outsourced 2,000 ground staff. The Federal Court ruled that Qantas and Alan Joyce had broken the law, and today I'm calling on Alan Joyce to do the honourable thing, for the first time as the Qantas CEO, and resign. If Joyce does not go then Qantas investors should be calling for him and his executive team to go.
While this is a massive relief for those 2,000 workers, one person who will be devastated by this triumph is Senator Stoker. Senator Stoker would act as a mouthpiece for Alan Joyce in this place and has slated those Qantas ground crew, many of whom built that company. They have worked for decades and raised families. So perhaps Senator Stoker can explain why the Morrison government has cut ground crew out of the latest aviation support package, a pretty petty and vindictive act for a government that has outsourced aviation policy to Alan Joyce.
Justice Lee, in handing down his decision said, that:
The key concern of making the outsourcing decision at the time that it was made was because of the vanishing window of opportunity—
caused by the operational disruption of the pandemic. There's a series of clear statements from the Federal Court judge that this matter was premeditated, preplanned and instrumental in those workers being terminated.
COVID-19
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:38): The architect of our Parliament House, Romaldo Giurgola, gave the Australian flag pride of place in his design—a flag the size of a double-decker bus, atop an 80-metre pole, with supports that bring together the House of Representatives and the Senate. The symbolism is clear: the Senate and the House of Representatives hold up our flag, not the other way around. Any person who comes into this place who does not then look up and feel awestruck by where we work and by the responsibility we have as senators has no place being here. The Australian flag flies above us for direction, not decoration. We're directed to remember those who were here first and the millions who have come since—immigrants who have come to this beautiful country of ours to make a better life for themselves and to lift up all Australians in the process, including the Italian-born architect of Parliament House—which I imagine explains why there is all the marble.
We are directed to remember that we represent people, not corporations, yet the winners from 18 months of COVID-crony government are not everyday Australians. The winners from crony government are foreign multinationals—big pharma. Never in the history of this beautiful country of ours has government policy so comprehensively abandoned those we represent in favour of those we do not. When government needs to deploy the military to maintain control of its own people, to effect a social outcome rather than a medical one, there is only one description—martial law. How this government acts in the coming months will decide whether a second description should be added—treason. Dividing Australians by any arbitrary measure, including vaccination status, flies in the face of everything our flag stands for, of everything this nation stands for. We will not be divided. We have one flag, we are one community and we are one nation.
Tokyo Olympic Games
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (13:40): Two weeks of iso was made considerably easier thanks to the Olympics, Tokyo 2020 and 2021, and of course the outstanding Emma McKeon. If Emma were a country, as of today she would be in front of Canada. Today Emma, an individual, would be placed 14th in the world if she were swimming as a country. All of this is packaged in this humble, hardworking, swimming superstar who achieves with minimal fanfare. We need to recognise her family—a proud swimming family. With a pedigree like hers, how could she not have become our most decorated Olympian ever? Her dad, Ron, was an Olympian; her mum, Susie, went to the Commonwealth Games; her brother David was an Olympian; and her uncle Rob Woodhouse was also an Olympian. They were all swimmers. Her sister Kaitlin is an instructor at the McKeon's Swim School in Wollongong. Some Wollongong residents suggested renaming her home town 'McKeonville', but I think the placement of a pool or statue is well and truly in order.
I will take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of another great Australian, Mrs Gina Rinehart. It's through Mrs Rinehart's contribution to swimming, through the Hancock Prospecting Swimmer Support Scheme, that we've seen so many swimmers supported, but it's not just swimming that Mrs Rinehart has supported. She's supported rowing, and how can we forget our two new awesome foursomes in the males and the females. She's supported volleyball—both beach volleyball and traditional volleyball—as well as supporting artistic swimming, better known as synchronised swimming.
Scibilia, Ms Ada
Jones, Ms Nola
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:42): [by video link] Last month, delegates to the Victorian branch conference of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association voted unanimously to bestow life membership on Ada Scibilia and Nola Jones, and I wish to acknowledge them today in the Australian Senate.
Ada and Nola have made significant contributions not just to the SDA but to retail workers and the labour movement more broadly. Joining the union in 1984 at Myer Melbourne, Ada represented members as a delegate. It was from these beginnings on the shop floor that she later came to work as an information officer and organiser and later in the WorkCover team, where I got to know her, before she retired last year. She was elected president of the SDA Victorian branch in 2014. For her part, Nola joined the SDA in 1989 at Target Narre Warren. She became a delegate and continued to work at the same store until retiring in 2018. In that time, Nola was elected a branch conference delegate and to state council. Nola did a fantastic job advocating for members throughout her career. With almost 70 years membership between them, both Ada and Nola have selflessly contributed their time to improve the conditions of working people in retail. I congratulate them both on becoming life members of the union and thank them for their service. May their dedication be an example all workers can be inspired by and seek to faithfully emulate. Thank you.
Senate Procedure
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:44): Can I just say that I think these two minutes are a load of rubbish. Honestly, here we go. The major parties are squeezing the crossbench again because they know we're a threat. We're coming and we're coming hard and fast in the next election, because out there, apparently, the Australian people these days can't tell the difference between who is the opposition and who is the government.
We have no problem with embarrassing you and calling you out. If you make decisions up here, then you should be called out. If you make decisions, and those decisions are so good and you're so proud of them, what is wrong with showing you on the other side what we think on social media? What is wrong with doing that? Aren't those decisions supposed to be the best in the world? I thought you'd be out there like little marketeers, like your Prime Minister, selling yourselves like there's no tomorrow, saying, 'Look what we've been able to achieve!' But oh no, God help us if we ask for divisions these days. God forbid that you should be feeling ashamed of yourselves, which is exactly what happens, and that's why you do not want these divisions in here. It's got nothing to do—except we are calling you out and making you stand on the other side and show us and the Australian public where you stand. Show them that it's really not a democracy up in the Senate but that you're all like little puppets, the lot of you, and that what your leader says is what you do. Then you say, 'How high can I jump, mate?'
So if you want to do that, because you're not independent enough to stand on your own two feet, then at least own it. Own every little bit of it. That means that when we call a division over a motion or anything else, which we should be entitled to do, that should be shown to the rest of the country. I'm certainly not embarrassed about showing it. Yet, when we do it, you don't like it. You don't like it, because you're not all in sync, but you still do what your leader says. Welcome to democracy, Australians. This is what true democracy is—no divisions!
Superannuation
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (13:46): I will quote from a speech by the father of modern superannuation, Paul Keating. It's from a speech he gave in 2007. He said:
In other words, had employers not paid nine percentage points of wages, as superannuation contributions to employee superannuation accounts, they would have paid it in cash as wages.
In other words, the founder of superannuation has admitted that had that money not been paid into superannuation it would have been paid as wages. That is the problem with superannuation in this country. It takes money from the working class through their working life, when they need it, in order to subsidise the wealthy in their retirement. I hardly call that equitable.
Superannuation is not just wage theft; it's also infrastructure theft. Who funded the privatisation of infrastructure in this country? It was superannuation funds in joint ventures with foreign owned organisations. You cannot support infrastructure in this country and superannuation at the same time, because superannuation is the theft of infrastructure that belongs to our children. It should not be in the hands of unelected industry funds and retail funds—I don't want to discriminate between the two. Furthermore, it's about time that industry funds and unions in particular were seen for what they are, which is nothing more than financial brokers for the industry funds. As such, like financial brokers, who are taxed, unions should be taxed. We've got $3 trillion in funds under management. We need to democratise the board positions of superannuation. No more jobs for mates on the boards. It's about time people got elected to boards and were accountable to their members.
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:48): In the early days of the Murray-Darling water extraction was pretty much a free-for-all. It was around the 1960s when water quality became an issue. From 1980 to 1983 we saw the River Murray's mouth close for the first time since European settlement. Then we had the 2001 millennium drought. In 2006 John Howard stood up and, basically, started a serious discussion about overextraction in the Murray-Darling, and he announced a $10 billion plan. In 2007, a year later, the Water Act was passed. It called on the government to produce a basin plan which was to work out how to have a properly sustained river. As part of the work for that plan, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority produced a report in October 2010, which said that we needed to limit extraction by 3,900 gigalitres through to 7,600 gigalitres, depending on the level of confidence we wanted in sustainment. That was politically altered back to 2,750 gigalitres. That's all the recovery we were going to get after that. So South Australia stood up and said, 'No, that's not okay. We need to look after the Lower Lakes and the Coorong and the Murray mouth, and we want an extra 450 gigalitres of what are called efficiency measures,' and that was baked into the plan; it was agreed by everybody.
In 2012, the Basin Plan was agreed to. Nine years into the plan, however, we've only seen delivered two of the 450 gigalitres. Unfortunately, it appears the government does haven't a plan for how to get us the rest of the 450.
Parliament House: Staff
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (13:50): [by video link] This past week I participated in the independent review into parliamentary workplaces, otherwise known to those of us in this place as the Jenkins review. I wanted to put on the record my gratitude to the women who conducted my interview for the professionalism and the sensitivity that they showed, and to acknowledge the work of everyone who is conducting this review and, importantly, to acknowledge everyone who is contributing to this review in terms of their evidence. We know the broader and more inclusive the body of evidence of this review the more effective its outcomes will be. So I wanted to use this opportunity to urge everyone who is eligible who might be considering participating in the review to take part. There's still a small window in which you can do so—to have an interview conducted and put your experience on the record and share your ideas for change. I know these can be really difficult conversations to have—really hard conversations. I do know that. But they are incredibly important if we are to see the change we know this place so desperately needs.
We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to those women whose bravery and courage, in standing up and speaking out about their experiences in this building and these workplaces, means that we have this review in the first place—these women who came forward and said, 'Enough is enough,' and did so at an extraordinary personal cost and with extraordinary sacrifices.
It is past time to change the culture of this place, to undertake the critical work that we know is required to ensure it's a safe workplace and to ensure it's a just workplace for every single person who works here, in every single role. It's absolutely critical work. I urge anyone who can take part to do so and I thank everyone who has contributed.
Forestry
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (13:52): [by video link] Today I want to speak out about the terrible devastation that's occurring in a special patch of forest in Alberton West in South Gippsland, Victoria. I want to give a shout-out to and salute the locals who are bravely protesting to stop destructive logging—locals who are taking on VicForests, the Victorian owned logging agency, that once again is smashing up our forests, once again on unceded Gunaikurnai country.
Australia's got a horrific history of colonial exploitation, and we see today that that devastation is continuing: governments are tearing down precious forests on sovereign, unceded Aboriginal land. There's someone currently in a tree-sit, stopping this logging. There are locals frantically trying to get a legal injunction against this destructive logging. They're out campaigning, protesting and doing everything they can to protect this special area of forest. Most of the forests in this region were cleared over a hundred years ago. Every patch that is left is precious, particularly for the threatened birds and animals that live in these forests, including koalas, greater gliders, powerful owls and lace monitors. These species are recognised under our federal environment laws to be in need of protection. But where's our federal government? Cheering on the Andrews state government—and Labor and Liberal are joined at the hip in destroying our native forests. The Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, is sitting on her hands—the minister for environmental destruction rather than protection.
This is logging that's occurring in the context of a climate crisis, when forests are burning that have never burnt before. And it's not just the forests. We have melting ice caps and rising seas, and still the Liberal Party are intent on supporting their corporate mates rather than local people. We must end the devastating logging of our forests, including this special patch at Alberton West. So I call on the Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, to step up and to act.
Nuclear Energy
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (13:54): It is time that we shake ourselves out of our deep, deep nuclear coma and consider adopting this technology here in Australia, in particular modern small modular reactors. They are not a new concept. They have been used in submarines since the 1950s, but modern designs are incredibly safe, efficient and affordable.
Why should we use them? If we're not kidding ourselves and we actually do want to get to net zero at some stage in the future, and we want to do that without destroying our lives and our economy, then we must consider this as part of our energy mix. Countries with low emissions have either readily available large-scale hydro or nuclear as part of their mix. This is reliable and dispatchable and able to provide firming for our ballooning number of intermittent generators like solar and wind. Small modular reactors are becoming very affordable. Currently they're down to around $60 to $70 per megawatt hour. They produce very little waste, unlike older conventional reactors and intermittent generators, and they occupy far less land. If we look at the NuScale small modular reactor, it's first to receive a US Nuclear Regulatory Committee final safety evaluation report. It produces almost 1,000 megawatts continuously on a site the size of 18 hectares. Now, if we compare that to Sun Cable, it produces 14,000 megawatts at full capacity under ideal conditions, occupying 12,000 hectares, or 47 times the size. (Time expired)
National Security
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:56): More than 100,000 Australians have viewed a video online supposedly showing AFP Commissioner Reece Kershaw plotting a coup against the Australian government. It's a fake—Commissioner Kershaw is not talking in the video and of course there is no effort by the AFP to overthrow the government. But what isn't fake is the threat posed by the creators of this video. This group had commissioned the creation of hundreds of fake AFP badges and planned to recruit individuals to arrest the Governor-General of Australia and replace him with a far-right extremist. The police have arrested an individual involved, and their investigations are ongoing, but the concern is that some of those 100,000 Australians who saw the fake footage may have been taken in by it. It's further evidence of the disturbing rise of disinformation and the radical far-right extremism in our community.
Fascism thrives on the fringes. The antivaccine movement, the antilockdown movement, the Sovereign Citizens Movement—these ideologies are vehicles for the type of disinformation and conspiracy that fuel antigovernment, antidemocratic and far-right extremist sentiments. The end goal of right-wing extremists is to spur the downfall of democracy. They benefit from chaos and distrust, and, if people think this sounds far-fetched, remember the thousands that gathered to assault the seat of a American democracy because they believed an election had been stolen and remember the thousands that gathered across this country just weeks ago united in their belief that the pandemic has killed millions is just fake news.
It is of great concern there are members of the current Morrison government who wink and nudge at these elements in an attempt to curry their favour. Those who play to this audience threaten to legitimise them. In doing so they undermine our democracy and threaten our way of life. Countering this must be a bipartisan effort. (Time expired)
Parliamentary Behaviour
Senator VAN (Victoria) (13:58): I would like to take this opportunity in this first session of two-minute statements—although it looks like I've got one minute left—to address the comments of Senator Lambie earlier. Her histrionics and her ability to throw her hands up and challenge those on this side of the bench and the other is just another example of why these two-minute statements are far better than the notices of motion they replace. Her ability to be able to use an instrument of parliament to showboat, to be able to confect outrage, was terrible.
The crossbenchers have their ability to say what they want to say without debate. Parliament is better off and Australians are far better served by being able to not have to see their parliamentarians vote on things that they can't debate. So, I celebrate this first opportunity to speak, and I look forward to many more opportunities to do so. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: It being 2 pm, we will move to questions.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list, and I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard and make a short statement.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
SECOND MORRISON MINISTRY
TITLE |
MINISTER |
Prime Minister |
The Hon. Scott Morrison MP |
Minister for the Public Service |
The Hon. Scott Morrison MP |
Minister for Women |
Senator the Hon. Marise Payne |
Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Indigenous Australians |
The Hon. Ken Wyatt AM MP |
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet |
The Hon. Ben Morton MP |
Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service |
The Hon. Ben Morton MP |
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention |
The Hon. David Coleman MP |
Assistant Minister for Women |
Senator the Hon. Amanda Stoker |
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development |
The Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP |
Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia |
The Hon. David Littleproud MP |
Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts |
The Hon. Paul Fletcher MP |
Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport |
The Hon. Scott Buchholz MP |
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister |
The Hon. Kevin Hogan MP |
Assistant Minister for Local Government |
The Hon. Kevin Hogan MP |
Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories |
The Hon. Nola Marino MP |
Treasurer |
The Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP |
Assistant Treasurer |
The Hon. Michael Sukkar MP |
Minister for Housing |
The Hon. Michael Sukkar MP |
Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy |
Senator the Hon. Jane Hume |
Minister for Women's Economic Security |
Senator the Hon. Jane Hume |
Minister for Finance
|
Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham |
Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters |
The Hon. Ben Morton MP |
Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia |
The Hon. David Littleproud MP |
Minister for the Environment |
The Hon. Sussan Ley MP |
Minister for Resources and Water |
The Hon. Keith Pitt MP |
Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management |
The Hon. Trevor Evans MP |
Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries |
Senator the Hon. Jonathon Duniam |
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Senator the Hon. Marise Payne |
Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment |
The Hon. Dan Tehan MP |
Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
Senator the Hon. Zed Seselja |
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment |
The Hon. Dr David Gillespie MP |
Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism |
The Hon. Michelle Landry MP |
Minister for Defence
|
The Hon. Peter Dutton MP |
Minister for Defence Industry |
The Hon. Melissa Price MP |
Minister for Veterans' Affairs |
The Hon. Andrew Gee MP |
Minister for Defence Personnel |
The Hon. Andrew Gee MP |
Assistant Minister for Defence |
The Hon. Andrew Hastie MP |
Attorney-General |
Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Industrial Relations
|
Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash |
Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General |
Senator the Hon. Amanda Stoker |
Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations |
Senator the Hon. Amanda Stoker |
Minister for Health and Aged Care |
The Hon. Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services |
Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck |
Minister for Sport |
Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck |
Minister for Regional Health |
The Hon. Dr David Gillespie MP |
Minister for Families and Social Services |
Senator the Hon. Anne Ruston |
Minister for Women's Safety
|
Senator the Hon. Anne Ruston |
Minister for Government Services |
Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme |
Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing |
The Hon. Michael Sukkar MP |
Assistant Minister for Children and Families |
The Hon. Michelle Landry MP |
Minister for Home Affairs |
The Hon. Karen Andrews MP |
Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience |
Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon. Alex Hawke MP |
Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon. Jason Wood MP |
Minister for Industry, Science and Technology |
The Hon. Christian Porter MP |
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction |
The Hon. Angus Taylor MP |
Minister for Resources and Water |
The Hon. Keith Pitt MP |
Assistant Minister for Industry Development |
Senator the Hon. Jonathon Duniam |
Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business |
The Hon. Stuart Robert MP |
Minister for Education and Youth |
The Hon. Alan Tudge MP |
Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services |
The Hon. Luke Howarth MP |
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I congratulate Senator McKenzie on her reappointment to the ministry. I advise the Senate that the updated ministry list reflects the updated ministry announced by the Prime Minister on 2 July 2021.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. Why did Mr Morrison repeatedly tell Australians that getting vaccinated is 'not a race'?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:01): [by video link] Giving the opportunity for all Australians to access a vaccination is extremely important. The Prime Minister has continuously reinforced that. We have, as we said we would, continued to accelerate the vaccine rollout as more vaccines become available, and we've continued to open up the number of access points for vaccines, in conjunction with the states, with the growth in vaccine supply. As of last week, we have vaccinated in excess of one million Australians. In fact, we have vaccinated more than one million Australians over the last two weeks—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: The point of order is on direct relevance. I asked a very simple question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health as to why the Prime Minister repeatedly told Australians that getting vaccinated wasn't a race.
The PRESIDENT: I'll let you remind the minister of the question. It was quite specific. As long as the minister is specifically talking about the vaccine rollout, I don't believe I can instruct him about how to answer the question. I'm listening carefully, and I've reminded the minister of that. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK: As I said at the outset in my response to Senator Wong's question, the Prime Minister has repeatedly reinforced the importance of Australians getting vaccinated. That is at the heart of the four-point plan that the government has released, in conjunction with the states through national cabinet, to allow Australians to have more access to freedoms as we increase the vaccination rollout. The Prime Minister has always reinforced the importance of vaccination and will continue to do so.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: I raise the direct relevance point again. I anticipate what your ruling will be. I will ask you, perhaps, to go away and get advice from the Clerk as to whether simply mentioning 'vaccinated' means that your test of direct relevance—being 'any discussion of the vaccine rollout'—is met.
The PRESIDENT: I will happily seek advice from the Clerk on the direct relevance test. I'd just remind senators and the minister that a narrow question requires a narrow answer, but I do not believe I can instruct him on the terms on which he answers. I'll come back to the chamber. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK: The Prime Minister has at all times stressed the importance of vaccination. He continues to do so. It is extremely important that as many Australians as possible get vaccinated. The government has worked to continue to increase supply and the number of access points so as to allow Australians to get vaccinated, and we'll continue to do that. We've released the data to advise Australians on the availability of vaccines over the course of this year, and, of course, the four-point plan that was worked through in national cabinet is all about getting Australians vaccinated as soon as possible so that we can allow more freedoms to Australian people.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:04): The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the vaccine rollout is not a race, and his own backbench has admitted that 'he shouldn't have said that'. With millions of people in lockdown across Sydney and South-East Queensland as we speak and, tragically, 15 deaths from COVID-19 this year in Sydney, does the government regret Mr Morrison's repeated statements that the vaccine rollout is not a race?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:04): [by video link] The Prime Minister can speak and has spoken for himself with respect to this matter. But, as I just said to the chamber, in relation to this question the Prime Minister has always reinforced the importance of vaccination. The government have continued to reinforce the importance of vaccination, and we will continue to do so. We know that getting a high proportion of Australians vaccinated is one of the paths out of this pandemic. If we look at the circumstances in international jurisdictions, we see that the pandemic is becoming one for those who are not vaccinated. Vaccination is clearly extremely important. The Prime Minister continues to reinforce the importance of vaccination and getting Australians vaccinated as soon as possible. The government will continue to work to ensure that that's possible.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:06): With around 10 million people in lockdown across Sydney and South-East Queensland, can this minister explain why it has taken so long for Mr Morrison to go from, 'It's not a race,' to, 'We're making a gold-medal run'?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:06): [by video link] I think Senator Wong misrepresents the words of the Prime Minister in his opinion piece earlier in the week. He was talking about the spirit of the Australian people working to get vaccinated and understanding what the targets are for Australians to be vaccinated so that they can enjoy more freedoms. We make no apology for that. It only reinforces the point that Australians need to get vaccinated.
We continue to increase the capacity of the vaccine rollout. As I said earlier, over a million people have been vaccinated in the last two weeks. The vaccination process is doing what we said it would do: it's continuing to increase in pace as we increase supply and capacity. We continue to increase the number of outlets that are available for Australians to access the vaccine. We paid particular attention to those areas of the country that are under stress, like New South Wales. We'll continue to do that to ensure that Australians can get vaccinated— (Time expired)
COVID-19
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:07): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister please advise the Senate how the Liberal and Nationals government is implementing its plan to transition Australia from the COVID-19 pandemic and build a stronger and more secure nation?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:07): I thank Senator Brockman for his question. I know his enduring work and interest in relation to Australians seeing through the short-term challenges and immediate challenges our nation faces and also the importance of continuing to build a stronger and more secure Australia in the long term.
Our immediate focus as a government continues to be dealing with the immediate health and economic crises but also on setting out a pathway to the return of more normal life. It's built on the clear premise that, by getting people vaccinated, we can make current approaches to lockdowns, border closures and restrictions ultimately a thing of the past. It's not necessarily eliminating safeguards and precautions that have to be taken in relation to infectious diseases but being able to move forward. Just last week the national cabinet agreed, in principle, to our updated four-step plan to chart our path out of the pandemic and the targets we need to reach to get there. It is a uniquely Australian plan, based on clear medical, scientific and economic evidence.
Today we've shared that expert advice from the Doherty institute and the Commonwealth Treasury with Australians. It's a plan that gives every Australian a goal to work towards as a way out of this pandemic. It ensures that, as we get through each phase that we as a country need to reach with the vaccination target on average and for each state and territory, we also know the different steps that can be taken in changed management approaches to COVID-19, whilst still keeping Australians safe. For example, once we get 70 per cent of eligible Australians vaccinated, we'll move to the next phase, where lockdowns will be less likely, restrictions can be eased and many freedoms can be returned. Those steps will be enhanced even further at the 80 per cent stage, as the Doherty institute evidence outlines.
Australia is in a unique position amongst nations of the world, having had the ability to work through such an expert scientific approach that can enable us to work through our vaccine rollout and continue to manage the pandemic in ways that can best position our country for the future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, a supplementary question?
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:09): Can the minister please outline the supports the government has put in place, including with the states and territories, to support Australians and businesses affected by lockdowns?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:10): The immediate challenges remain real for many Australians, particularly those facing lockdowns in greater Sydney, in South East Queensland, and others along the way. We are directly delivering financial support to impacted individuals and to businesses. People who have lost more than 20 hours of work in the previous week during a lockdown can claim $750. People who have lost between eight hours or a full day of work to 20 hours can claim $450. These are equivalent levels of support we provided with JobKeeper last year but in a more targeted tailored program that can effectively reach those who need it most. In fact, it's a program that Premier Dan Andrews has likened to being an updated version of JobKeeper. Individuals who currently receive an income support payment through our social security safety net will also receive an additional weekly payment of $200 if they have lost more than eight hours of work, whilst we have plans and operations in place with states and territories in relation to cost-sharing support for small- and medium-sized businesses, all of it designed to help ensure we get people through these difficult times so they come back strongly afterwards.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:11): Can the minister please update the Senate on the progress of the vaccination rollout, and the steps the government is taking in cooperation with the states and territories as part of the national road map?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:11): I want to thank the millions of Australians who are turning out to get vaccinated. With numbers growing each and every day, we now know that around 12.6 million doses have been administered across Australia and more than a million doses a week are being administered. We have acknowledged there were early challenges to the program in terms of expected deliveries that didn't arrive, in terms of changes in advice from medical experts but, nonetheless, we saw a total of 4.5 million vaccinations administered last month, which was more than double what was achieved in May when 2.1 million doses were administered. This steady increase in supply, coupled with a steady increase in distribution outlets, is ensuring that we have the strongest possible position for Australians to be able to get vaccinated, to know that the supply and the outlets will be there for them, and that we can reach the 70 and 80 per cent targets outlined by the Doherty Institute to safely proceed to the next stages of pandemic management.
COVID-19: New South Wales
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:12): [by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. In late June the Prime Minister said in response to the Delta COVID-19 outbreak in Sydney, 'I commend Premier Berejiklian for resisting going into a full lockdown.' Does the Morrison government stand by this commendation?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:13): I do commend NSW for the work that they have done in managing COVID-19. Clearly, throughout the pandemic, they have done an exceptional job. The Delta variant, however, has presented a range of new parameters for us to deal with. It moves much more quickly and, as we've learnt more about it, it's been clear using the health advice and the scientific evidence that we've had to change our approach. The New South Wales government and the Prime Minister have both acknowledged that. The government will continue to adapt its approach to COVID-19, as we meet all of the challenges that come towards us through the pandemic, as we have done through the pandemic so far.
As has been said on a number of occasions, there is no rule book to this pandemic. We know that new variants will come and they will change the way that we have to approach the pandemic. We will continue to meet those challenges. Australians can be confident of that. But the thing that we need to concentrate on right now is to continue to increase the pace of the vaccine rollout. That's where the government's focus is, that's why we've released the plan that we have to allow the economy to reopen, that's why we are increasing the number of points where Australians can access vaccine and that's why we are working with the New South Wales government to increase the capacity in those areas of concern in New South Wales. We will continue to do that. We will continue to meet the challenges that this pandemic throws up to us all. We will continue to support Australians as they need to be supported and we will continue to increase the capacity of Australians to get access to a vaccine because we know that is one of the most important pathways towards a more normal life for all Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:15): As a result of Mr Morrison's bungled vaccine rollout, the Business Council of Australia has estimated that the Sydney lockdown is the costing the economy $257 million a day. Does the Morrison government regret supporting a delayed lockdown in Sydney?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:15): [by video link] The Morrison government will continue to act on the health advice in support of the management of this pandemic. We will continue to work with the states and territories to support them with their management of the pandemic, as we have done all the way through, through the formation of the national cabinet and the decisions that have been made there. The advice that we have received in respect of the management of the current outbreak in Sydney with the delta variant is that the lockdown is appropriate. It needs to be appropriately managed because of the speed at which the delta variant works. Of course having appropriate management of the local community and the lockdown also removes the possibility of longer lockdowns, which would have an even worse economic outcome. So we will continue to work in— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:16): Mr Morrison's mismanaged vaccine rollout has tragically led to the deaths of 15 people from COVID-19 in Sydney. Will the Morrison government apologise for Mr Morrison's wrong advice to the New South Wales Premier and for failing to protect the people of Sydney from this devastating COVID-19 outbreak?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:17): [by video link] I simply do not accept the allegation that's been put forward by Senator Keneally in her question. The decisions with respect to lockdown in New South Wales are decisions of the New South Wales government. They have responsibility for those matters under their public health responsibilities. It is absolutely tragic that we've lost a further 15 lives to this current outbreak, to this new variant, and I extend my condolences to every one of those families that are involved in that loss of life. But the suggestion that the vaccine rollout is responsible for this current outbreak is simply not true. I reject completely the premise of the question that's been put to the parliament. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Economy
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:18): [by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Minister, the Prime Minister's press conference on the modelling by the Doherty institute left a lot of unanswered questions, showing only a set of slides. Will the government release the modelling by the Doherty institute in its entirety, including any technical papers and reports? If not, why not?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:19): [by video link] My understanding is—and I don't have a brief on this with me, unfortunately—that it is our intention to release the modelling from the Doherty institute. I can't give any further advice with respect to the technical papers, but my understanding is that it is the government's intention to release the modelling from the Doherty institute so that Australians can understand the rationale behind the decisions that have been made as a part of the plan to reopen the economy.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:19): [by video link] Could the minister take that on notice and confirm whether the technical reports will also be released? The government is aiming for 70 per cent of the adult population to be vaccinated for phase B, which actually equates to 56 per cent of the entire population. The Grattan Institute predicts that if we start lifting restrictions at around that range there could be close to a million cases of COVID. Have you looked at the Grattan Institute 's modelling, and are you concerned? (Time expired)
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:20): [by video link] I'm happy to take on notice the part of the question that I wasn't able to answer for Senator Siewert previously, with respect to supplementary work.
The government has made its decisions based on the modelling from the Doherty institute. That modelling is based on those people who are currently part of the recognised vaccine rollout. I haven't seen the paper that was done by the Grattan Institute, but the government, through national cabinet, commissioned the Doherty institute to do the research that was required to provide the benchmarks for opening the economy. I've indicated that it's the government's intention to release that information, and that information is based on the current parameters of the vaccine rollout. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:21): [by video link] The TGA approved the use of Pfizer in children aged 12 and over. Children are an essential part of any vaccine strategy. Why didn't you include children over 12 years of age in your vaccination targets, and are you going to?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:21): [by video link] That information, from my understanding, will be included in the data from the Doherty institute that is being released publicly so that Australians can understand what the basis is for the targets that have been set, bearing in mind that it is only in recent times that there has there been an approved vaccine in Australia for children between the ages of 12 and 16. The Pfizer vaccine is now approved for children, and my understanding is that the data being submitted to the Australian government for the Moderna vaccine is likewise seeking approval for those over the age of 12. All that information will be available once the Doherty information is released, and I understand it's being released very soon.
Independent Review into Circumstances relating to the Death of Ann-Marie Smith
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:23): [by video link] My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Reynolds. Last week Rosa Maione pleaded guilty to killing Ann-Marie Smith. Ms Smith was an NDIS participant in Ms Maione's care, but suffered extreme neglect. She ultimately died in what South Australia Police described as 'disgusting and degrading circumstances'. Ms Smith's death led to an independent review, known as the Robertson review, which reported in August last year and made 10 recommendations. Minister, how many of these recommendations does the government support, and how many have been implemented to date?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:23): I thank the senator very much for his interest in this case. It is now more than a year since the absolutely tragic death of Ann-Marie Smith. No Australian should ever have to die the way this lady did. The death does continue to sadden and shock many people across Australia. As the senator said, in August 2020 the support worker alleged to have been providing support to Ms Smith was arrested and charged by the South Australia Police and has now pleaded guilty.
In May 2020, the NDIS commissioner appointed the Hon. Alan Robertson SC to conduct an independent review into the NDIS commission's regulation of Integrity Care, the provider concerned. The review was made publicly available on 4 September 2020. In August 2020 the NDIS commission revoked a registration and issued a banning order against Integrity Care, the provider of support to Ms Smith. In addition to this the commission has taken a number of other regulatory actions in relation to Integrity Care and Ms Smith's former support worker. In relation to the Robertson review itself, the government is fully supportive of the review and all its recommendations. In fact, we have a bill in this place at the moment which the community affairs committee is currently taking evidence on. So we are absolutely and resolutely committed to delivering quality and safe NDIS services to all participants to meet their needs but also to support them to live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a supplementary question?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:25): One review recommendation, Minister, was for the NDIS to establish a community visitor scheme. That would allow vulnerable participants to have face-to-face contact with an independent person who can ensure they are being cared for and their rights are respected. A similar scheme already exists for older Australians receiving home care packages. When will the government implement this recommendation? If not, why not?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:26): Thank you again, Senator, for that question. This is an issue that I'm very familiar with, and the South Australian minister has also raised this issue directly with me for obvious reasons. It is something I'm hoping the community affairs committee will also look into, and I understand that they did take evidence in relation to this issue—the balance between the right of privacy and the right of entry, and how to deal with that situation. So I very much look forward to the community affairs report on the legislation. But we clearly have to get the balance right between a person's right to privacy in their own home and how we ensure they are best protected.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a final supplementary question?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:27): Minister, the review also recommended that each vulnerable participant have an individual within the NDIS who is responsible for their safety and wellbeing—a single point of contact, if you like, when things go wrong. I don't think we need to wait for any other inquiry or community affairs review of any type. Will the government implement this recommendation? If not, why not?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:27): I thank Senator Griff for that question. In relation to that matter, it's something I'm seeking further advice on from the NDIA and also the commission. Again, like many things with the NDIA, if you move one lever it impacts other aspects of the implementation of the scheme. Senator Griff, I'll take that aspect on notice and get back to you as soon as possible.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:28): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. The Prime Minister has announced that Australia will enter its next phase out of the pandemic when 70 per cent of the adult population is vaccinated. On what date will this target be reached?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:28): [by video link] The government deliberately has not established a date for that to occur because that particular matter is in the hands of Australians. But what we will do is continue to encourage Australians to come out and get vaccinated. We will also continue to increase the number of avenues through which they can access a vaccination. As we have had access to more vaccine we have increased the number of avenues for Australians to get vaccinated—whether it be through the state clinics that we were operating, where we're supporting the states by provision of vaccines; whether it's through the GP respiratory clinics that are now providing vaccinations services; whether it is through the GPs, who are doing a magnificent job of providing vaccines for Australians; or by growing the number of access points across the country through pharmacies. We will continue to provide access to Australians to the vaccine and we will continue to increase the number of outlets available as we continue to grow the supply. We deliberately haven't put a date on that. We want Australians to come out and get vaccinated as soon as possible. The point of setting the targets, using the advice of the Doherty institute, is so that Australians understand the thresholds that are required for them to enjoy more freedoms and for the country to continue to work its way through this pandemic. It is not the right thing for us to attempt to set a date for this, but we will continue to do everything we can to encourage Australians to access a vaccine.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:30): Don't the 10 million people who are now in lockdown across Sydney and South-East Queensland, who have been let down by Mr Morrison's broken promises, deserve to know when this target will be reached? Isn't being upfront with 10 million Australians in lockdown the Australian way?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:31): [by video link] I don't at all accept the characterisation that has been placed on this matter by Senator Watt. Australians all understand the importance of beating this pandemic, of beating this virus, but they also understand that they have a choice to come out and get vaccinated. What we will continue to do is to encourage them to do so by providing them with good advice with respect to the vaccines. What we'll also continue to do is to increase the number of points that are available to them to access the vaccine. The important thing is to ensure that Australians understand the targets that are there to allow us more freedoms under the transition plan that's been announced, which has been worked on very co-operatively through national cabinet, and to provide opportunity for Australians to both access and— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:32): The Morrison government's own COVID response plan includes measures 'encouraging uptake through incentives'. Why is the Morrison government prepared to publicly consider discounts and frequent flyer points, when it has ruled out any other direct financial incentives?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:32): [by video link] We've ruled out the plan that's been announced by the Leader of the Opposition because it's a bad plan. As it was described to me this morning, it's all bubble and no thought.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Colbeck, please pause for a moment. Pause the clock. I appreciate that the chamber is robust, but I'm actually struggling to hear Senator Colbeck. We do need to change our regular behaviour and be a touch more compliant with the standing orders about interjections during a remote session.
An honourable senator interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I appreciate the chamber is more quiet than normal, but the chamber needs to be especially quiet because I need to be able to hear the answer. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK: We will continue to encourage Australians to come forward and take a vaccine. Part of the reason that we set out the four-point plan was so that Australians understood what the thresholds were to enjoy more freedoms. We will continue to support them by providing greater access to vaccines through both supply and access points, because we know that all Australians understand the importance of getting a vaccine so that we can all enjoy more freedoms and get out of this pandemic.
COVID-19: Income Support Payments
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Senator McKenzie. As we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic, many people are becoming increasingly affected by their inability to work, because of lockdowns and movement restrictions. Can the minister please outline what financial support the Liberal and National government is providing to people who've lost hours of work in areas that are currently locked down, including Commonwealth hotspots in and around Sydney?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:34): I thank the senator for her question and for her advocacy and passion for her home state of New South Wales. I think everyone in this chamber stands with those who are experiencing lockdown in New South Wales right now. COVID-19 has had an unprecedented impact not just in Australia but around the world. More than four million lives have been lost, and we're facing the largest global economic impact since the Great Depression. In the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic, the Australian spirit has shone through. Early and decisive actions in 2020 saved lives and livelihoods. We closed our borders, we established the national cabinet, we as a federal government invested $291 billion in direct assistance to individuals and businesses to cushion the impact and we know that these measures have had a significant impact on all Australians and have ensured that we've been able to weather this storm together. When we look globally, not all countries can say that.
The Liberal and Nationals government has stood side by side with all members of the Australian community throughout the pandemic and will continue to do so as the delta variant wreaks havoc in so many of our states and communities. As the virus evolves, so does our government's response because there is no guidebook for COVID. That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that's delivering targeted, localised, individual support payments to those who live or work in a Commonwealth declared hotspot. There are two tiers of payments. If you have lost more than 20 hours of work as a result of the lockdown, you are eligible for $750 payments. If you've lost between eight and 20 hours as a result of that declaration, you're eligible for $450. If you're on income support payments and have been working, you are eligible for a $200 payment if you've lost more than eight hours of work. I would recommend that those who are in those areas apply online to keep Services Australia's phone lines open for those—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Hughes, a supplementary question?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:36): On 28 July Prime Minister Morrison announced an expansion of the COVID disaster payment. Can the minister provide details on the increased financial assistance being provided through the scheme and how this will affect communities in lockdown?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:37): If people have lost hours due to the impact of lockdown, I do encourage them to apply. Log on to Services Australia or myGov and apply for these income support payments. We've rolled them out in Victoria and we're rolling them out in South Australia. They're assisting people in New South Wales right now and will continue to do so as that lockdown is extended, and they will be available to Australians in those Commonwealth declared hotspots in South-East Queensland. We know that this is tough. Being locked down is tough. You have to shut your business, you can't go to work, you have to homeschool your kids. It doesn't just impact your financial situation; it also impacts your mental health situation, so we have a raft of payments in addition to this. The pandemic leave payment assists you, so if you're caring for someone with COVID, or indeed you catch COVID, we will be standing with you to ensure that you have financial support.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Hughes, a final supplementary question?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:38): Can the minister outline the standard process for the COVID-19 disaster payment that will be undertaken for future lockdowns, should these occur?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:38): As this pandemic has rolled through the world and, indeed, our nation over the last 18 months, state and federal governments have had to adjust their responses accordingly. We've used science, we've used data, we've used evidence. We've used the advice of our medical officials, which is exactly what we should be doing. We should be taking the politics out of our COVID response, and that's why I look forward to those opposite supporting Australians to get vaccinated as fast as possible. That's how we can get out of being locked down, actually stopping these lockdowns by ensuring that Australians aren't just getting Pfizer, aren't just getting Moderna, but are lining up to get AstraZeneca. I look forward to Labor Party senators tweeting, putting in their newsletters and making sure at their local branch meeting that they're encouraging Australians of all ages to adopt the medical advice: get vaccinated and access AstraZeneca.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie, time for the answer has expired. Senator Lambie.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Wong! Senator Lambie is on her feet.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, Senator Lambie is on her feet. Order!
Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:39): My question is for the Attorney-General, Minister Cash. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is under way and people are ready to make submissions. They are awaiting further instructions. They want to be called to give evidence at the hearing, but before they can do that a lot of them need funding for legal advice. It has been three months since the Prime Minister announced the royal commission. When will people know what the plan of attack is here?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:40): I thank Senator Lambie for her question. I also thank Senator Lambie for working constructively with me in the lead-up to the announcement of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Senator Lambie, you are correct: on 8 July 2021 the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was established by letters patent following agreement from the Governor-General and a period of consultation—which you and I consulted on—in relation to the terms of reference. As a government we've provided $145.3 million for the royal commission over two years from 2021-22, including to support families and advocacy organisations to participate in the inquiry. We are also committed to establishing the independent National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention—and you and I have discussed this. The royal commission will be required to deliver its interim report by 11 August 2022 and a final report by 15 June 2023.
In terms of engagement with the royal commission, which is what you have referred to, it will be up to the royal commission to determine the most appropriate ways to engage with people about their experiences, balancing that with the need to complete the inquiry in a timely manner. I think you and I discussed that the letters patent recognise the need to establish accessible and appropriate trauma-informed arrangements for people engaging with the inquiry. The royal commission is now accepting submissions from all interested people and organisations. It is, as you know, independent from government and will determine how all hearings should be run.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:42): The tender for the government's legal advice helpline opened only two weeks ago. The royal commission was called before Anzac Day. Why can't the department or the government walk and chew gum at the same time? You decided you were having a royal commission back in April. Why couldn't you have asked for tenders back then, even before you got anything signed off? Why are we so far behind?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:42): You and I will have to disagree in relation to why we are so far behind. Again, I thank you for working constructively with me on the terms of reference of the royal commission. In terms of what support will be available for people who want to engage with the royal commission—and, as I said, it is for the royal commission to determine how those people will be engaged—the government recognises the importance, as you and I have discussed, of the fact that those engaging with the royal commission do need to be professionally supported. Counselling and support services will be available to assist people calling or engaging with the royal commission, including before, during and after a person participates in a hearing or a private session. A legal financial assistance scheme—again, you and I have discussed this—will also be available to people called as witnesses to the royal commission.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:43): Can you guarantee that the thousands of us who have spent years fighting the department and who have thousands of pages of documentation will have funding to use our own lawyers if we get called up by the royal commissioner? Can you guarantee me that there will be no more psychological harm done to any of us or our children?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:44): Again, I thank you, Senator Lambie. You raise a very good point in terms of the fact that—as I referred to in my previous answer—support does need to be made available to people who are engaging with the royal commission, particularly in recognising the types of experiences that these people have had. That's why, when we set up the royal commission, one thing we were very clear about was recognising the importance of ensuring that there are mechanisms in place for those engaging with the royal commission so that they are professionally supported. Again, as I've said to you, if there are any ways that you feel that these—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, on a point of order?
Senator Lambie: Yes, Mr President. To save everybody some hurt here, we just want to know that, if we get called up in front of the royal commissioner—
The PRESIDENT: What's your point of order, sorry?
Senator Lambie: My point of order is that I asked: will we have funding to use our own lawyers? That is what I would like answered, please. We need to know this now.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, I have allowed you to—
Senator Lambie: Sorry, Mr President, there are a lot of people hurting out there because of this. I'm going to stop it now.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie—
Senator Lambie: One question: can we use our own lawyers?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, please resume your seat. I allowed you to restate part of the question. I wasn't sure what you were doing. I allowed you to restate part of your question. You have reminded the minister of the question. She has 16 seconds remaining to answer.
Senator CASH: As I said, Senator Lambie, a legal financial assistance scheme will be available to people called as witnesses. An independent legal advisory service and counselling and support services will also be made available to people engaging with the royal commission. Private sessions will also be available for individuals who wish— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:46): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister confirm the Morrison government's 70 per cent phase b target includes only Australians aged over 16 and, as a proportion of the population, is only 56 per cent?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:46): [by video link] As I indicated to the chamber earlier, the advice on the targets is based on the modelling of the Doherty Institute. It's not a number that has been chosen by the Prime Minister or, for that matter, any of the state premiers and national cabinet. It's based on research by the Doherty Institute on the thresholds required to start reopening the Australian economy and community during the pandemic. The thresholds that have been put forward are based on the research. As I indicated to Senator Siewert earlier, that research is going to be released publicly so all Australians—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order?
Senator Wong: Mr President, my point of order is on direct relevance. It was a very simple question. It's clear from the Doherty research released—and I assume this minister is aware of it—that the 70 per cent relates to the population over 16 and if they are included, in fact, the threshold is 56 per cent. We're asking the minister to confirm that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Colbeck, on this occasion the question was specific and factual in nature. To be directly relevant you must address the facts in question, so I remind you of the question. It was a specific question seeking a fact. You've had 50 seconds. I remind you of the question that was asked.
Senator COLBECK: The thresholds are based on the Doherty Institute research that has been publicly released. The research is based on the vaccination profile of the population that was assessed by the Doherty Institute. I am happy to confirm the numbers that are in the Doherty Institute data.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order?
Senator Wong: I repeat my previous point of order.
The PRESIDENT: And I would have supported that point. The minister in the last sentence said he was confirming numbers contained in the modelling that was referred to in the question. I asked the minister to restrain his comments to the facts sought, but at that point in my view he was being directly relevant with that phrase he used.
Senator COLBECK: The reason we're releasing the Doherty Institute data is so that all Australians understand completely the parameters for the opening of the community. That's why I'm very comfortable in confirming that information and that data presented by the Doherty Institute. It's important that all Australians understand that the decisions that the government is making in conjunction with the states to open the economy and to open the community are based on research, as has been accessed by the government. So I'm very comfortable in confirming the figures in the Doherty Institute data.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck. Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question?
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:49): Ten of yesterday's 13 new COVID-19 cases in South-East Queensland were children under the age of nine. Children under the age of 16 are still not able to access vaccinations. When will parents be informed about their children's eligibility for the vaccine?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:50): [by video link] In fact, the minister for health in the last day or so has actually confirmed access to vaccine for children between the ages of 12 and 16 based on certain health conditions. That process is being commenced and is being supported by the advice of ATAGI. We have one vaccine that currently has approval for use for children between 12 and 16, and that is the Pfizer vaccine. The minister for health yesterday announced a number of parameters where children with certain health indicators can in fact start to access a vaccine. There are no vaccines at this point in time in Australia that have been approved for use for children under the age of 12. So we will continue to follow the health advice and support Australians— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question?
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:51): Can the minister confirm the Morrison government is confident that vaccinating just 56 per cent of the population will protect Australians and allow for reduced restrictions?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:51): [by video link] That is the advice from the Doherty Institute. That's why we're following the advice from the Doherty Institute. That's why we commissioned the work in the first place, so that we could understand and make the appropriate decisions on the thresholds that were required for governments, through national cabinet and at a state level, to make their decisions in relation to reopening the economy and the community.
We all want to see the back of this pandemic as soon as possible. That's why we continue to work every day to ensure availability and access to vaccines and to grow that availability and access. The decisions that are being taken are based on the research that's been commissioned by the government at the request of national cabinet to support the reopening of the Australian economy. We will continue to follow that advice.
COVID-19: Employment
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:52): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. In light of the unprecedented economic situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and these ensuing waves, can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberals and Nationals in government are securing Australia's recovery by continuing to support small and family businesses right across Australia to get through the current COVID-19 lockdowns?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:53): I thank Senator Davey for her question. Mr President, as you know, there is no doubt small and family businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. Since the outset of COVID-19, the Morrison government has backed small and family businesses with unprecedented levels of support. Of course, we will continue to do so. We also know—if you just look at the numbers in the Senate here—that there is still a lot more work to do.
We've now seen recent COVID outbreaks in Victoria, in New South Wales and in Queensland. What that says to us is we're not out of the woods yet. In terms of New South Wales, the business support package in New South Wales, which we partnered with the New South Wales government to deliver, now provides a template for further support measures that will help small and family businesses get through the pandemic. In New South Wales, again in the partnership with the New South Wales government, we're delivering between $1,500 and $100,000 per week for qualifying businesses that have seen a significant downturn in their revenues. Smaller businesses and, in particular, small and micro-businesses—those that only have a small number of employees—will receive a minimum payment of $1,500 per week.
Mr President, as you know, in your home state of Victoria, we also partnered with the Victorian government in business support during their recent lockdown. And we of course stand ready to work with the Queensland government, as we did with the Victorian and New South Wales governments, to provide the economic support for small businesses to get them through the lockdowns. We've done this before and we know that businesses will come through this and will get back to doing what they do best, which is employ Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Davey, a supplementary question?
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:55): Can the minister outline to the Senate how the government is supporting our sole traders across Australia throughout these lockdowns?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:55): What we saw last year with the onset of COVID-19 was the Morrison government providing crucial economic support to sole traders to keep their businesses going. We utilised measures like JobKeeper and, of course, when I was the employment minister, allowed owners to meet their mutual obligations by working in their business. That was so important so they didn't need to close their business down. This helped around 690,000 sole traders around Australia and it meant that they were able to continue in their business. They could hibernate their business if necessary and then, as restrictions eased, they could get back into business. Of course, this time round, it is no different. For sole traders who are currently affected in Queensland: from Saturday, you will have the ability to apply for the COVID disaster payment. Services Australia will open applications on Saturday 7 August, and claims will start being processed from Sunday 8 August. You just need to go through myGov.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Davey, a final supplementary question?
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:56): Can the minister also advise what individual Australians can do to support our small and family businesses and sole traders, and to contribute to our economic recovery?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:56): Across Australia, it doesn't matter where we are, supporting our small and family businesses and, in particular, those affected by the lockdowns is just so important. So many businesses are still able to keep their presence going by the internet, so I would say to anybody across Australia: if you do know a small business that is affected by the lockdown but they are still able to keep going, it is just so important that we're out there and we are supporting them. Australians are obviously doing everything they can to help get through this difficult pandemic. However, what we want in particular for our small and family businesses is for them to be operating freely under circumstances as close as possible to normal. Of course, the best way individual Australians can support our small and family businesses and contribute to our economic recovery is to get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible. Getting vaccinated is our path back to normality and the key to our recovery.
Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:57): My question is to the new Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Senator McKenzie. How many discretionary grant programs is the minister responsible for in her new roles of Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience and Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:58): I do thank the senator for his interest in how our government is supporting those communities right throughout rural and regional Australia recover from natural disasters, respond to what is—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, on a point of order?
Senator Farrell: A point of order, Mr President. It was a very simple straightforward question: how many discretionary grant programs is the minister responsible for?
The PRESIDENT: You have reminded the minister of the question. I will take the opportunity that, while I won't judge direct relevance in 15 seconds when the minister is introducing her answer, I will remind the minister it was a very factual question and doesn't provide much room for commentary in order to be directly relevant. Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr President. Senator Farrell—through you, Mr President—I was absolutely going to outline all the grant programs that our government is very proud to be able deliver to the communities who've been affected by flood, by bushfire—
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, I have Senator Farrell on a point of order.
Senator Farrell: I appreciate that this is the first time the minister has had to answer questions since her coming back to the position—
The PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator Farrell. I ask you to come to the point of order.
Senator Farrell: but I don't want to know all of the programs that the government has in the grant area. I want to know how many this minister is responsible for.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, I do allow flexibility in making a point on direct relevance, but I do ask that senators draw it to that. Senator McKenzie, this was a factual question asking about programs, not rationale or commentary around the programs. The minister's entitled to list programs and be directly relevant or answer in a form that Senator Farrell would seek, but it's not a place for commentary around programs.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr President. I will go through the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements—the disaster resilience Australia package—where the minister is responsible for the measure but the decisions are delegated to the National Recovery and Resilience Agency. That's $2.1 million for this financial year. The disaster risk reduction package is a package to reduce the risk and impact of disasters on Australians, in line with our Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. It has co-funding, obviously, with the Australian and state and territory governments. Approval for these reports by the minister for emergency management and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency will trigger payments for 2021-22 to the states and territories in June 2022.
Then we have the Emergency Response Fund. This funding is actually to fund emergency response, natural disaster recovery and preparedness initiatives. That is also within the purview of the NRRA. Then we have the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants program, a $280 million grant program over the next three years, which is actually to assist those communities that have been impacted by bushfires. The Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience—that would be me—is the decision-maker. The Local Economic Recovery Program— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (15:02): Is the minister responsible for any other grant programs in her new roles as Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience and Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education, bearing in mind my first question related to discretionary grant programs?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:02): There is the Local Economic Recovery Program. Whilst it is within my purview, the coordinator-general and state governments are the final decision-makers on that one. There are the restocking, replanting and on-farm infrastructure grants. The minister is only involved in a funding decision if there's a change in the national partnership agreement. Resilient kids—what a great program! Senator McDonald and I were able to announce $2 million for mental health support for schoolchildren who've been in flood affected communities. Those decisions are part of the national partnership agreement. There is $9 million over the next three years for economic diversification. Again, that is covered by the national partnership agreement, as are the telecommunications and energy improvement grants. Management of disaster risk, again, is under the national partnership agreement reallocation issues. The recovery and resilience grants—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (15:03): If there are some other programs that the minister didn't get to answer, I'd be happy if she were to table the documents. I have a further question. How much budget allocation has been provided to the minister, discretionary or otherwise, in her new roles as Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience and the Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:04): I will have to get back to you with the totality of the budget allocations. Obviously, my last three weeks, as you can see from the brief time we've had to spend together outlining the programs that I'm responsible for and who makes decisions—I've got a lot more to go through, about which I'm happy to give you a private briefing, if that would assist you.
But I think the heart of your question, Senator, might actually been going to ministerial discretion in a Westminster democracy. As I've said on the public record, ministerial discretion is absolutely key to how our government functions. Ministers should take the advice and recommendations of departments and agencies and then exercise ministerial discretion appropriately, and my ministerial discretion, in other programs I've administered, resulted in a fairer outcome for Australian taxpayers. (Time expired)
Senator Birmingham: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
COVID-19: Economy
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:05): For the benefit of the Senate, on behalf of Senator Colbeck, I can provide some further information in response to the questions asked by Senator Siewert about the publication of the modelling conducted by the Doherty institute. I can advise the Senate—and, through the Senate, Senator Siewert—that that modelling is all published and available on the PM&C website. There are three particular documents available there: Doherty modelling report for national cabinet 30 July 2021; Addendum to Doherty modelling report for national cabinet 30 July 2021; and Findings and implications of the Doherty institute COVID-19 modelling: presentation.
Independent Review into Circumstances relating to the Death of Ann-Marie Smith
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (15:06): During question time I took a question on notice from Senator Griff, and I would like leave to table the response.
The PRESIDENT: I don't think you need leave as a minister, Senator Reynolds. I will take it as tabled.
MOTIONS
Taxation
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:06): I seek leave to move a motion relating to tax policy in Australia as circulated in the chamber.
Leave not granted.
Senator McKIM: Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to tax policy in Australia may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
The Australian Greens are disappointed and saddened in the extreme by the recent policy capitulation of the Australian Labor Party—namely, that, should they win government at the next election, they would not repeal the stage 3 income tax cuts, they would not make any changes to the current negative gearing arrangements and they would not repeal the capital gains tax concession. This absolute capitulation means that, whether it is the Australian Labor Party or the Liberal—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, I remind you, and any other senators who may speak in this debate, that the purpose of moving the motion and speaking to it is to inform the Senate of why the matter is urgent, not going to the subject of your motion.
Senator McKIM: Thank you, Deputy President. This matter is urgent because this is a very recent utter policy capitulation by the Australian Labor Party that will have a massive negative effect on everyone except the absolutely wealthy and superwealthy in this country, and it means that, whether it is the LNP or the ALP that sits on the government benches after the next election, we will see spiralling economic inequality in this country. The rich will get even more rich, and for everyone else the task of making a good life will be made even harder. This cave-in sells out working people by putting nurses and teachers on the same income tax rate as managers and consultants who earn up to $200,000—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, resume your seat, please. I have already drawn to your attention that the purpose of this debate is for you to explain to the Senate why the motion is urgent. That's what you need to go to, not the substantive matter of your motion.
Senator Whish-Wilson: Point of order, Deputy President: Senator McKim did follow your instructions and say why it was urgent.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, please resume your seat. It's not a debating point. I am simply explaining the standing orders that require senators to go to the matter of why it's urgent.
Senator McKIM: It is an urgent matter because the Australian Labor Party's policy capitulation sells out working people by putting nurses and teachers on the same income tax rates as managers and consultants on up to $200,000 a year. It sells out anyone who is struggling with the cost of housing by continuing to allow property investors to rack up their third, fourth, fifth, 10th or 20th investment property with the help of a massive public subsidy. This is urgent because these decisions mean cuts, into the future, on essential services like health and education.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, please resume your seat. The purpose of the standing order that you're using is for you to explain to the Senate, not to go to the heart of the motion of why it is the Senate must entertain your urgency motion today. I would ask you to reflect on that for a moment and to go to that substantive matter, not the matter of the motion. Thank you, Senator McKim.
Senator McKIM: The sentence I was uttering when you interrupted me, Deputy President, literally started with the words 'This is urgent because'. That is exactly what I am doing. It's urgent because it will mean house prices continue to spiral out of control, making more older women homeless and forcing young people—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Minister?
Senator McKim: Oh, please.
Senator Birmingham: Deputy President, on a point of order. I am concerned that Senator McKim is either acting in defiance of your rulings or is not understanding your rulings. The motion before the chamber is one to suspend standing orders. The debate, that you have been seeking to inform Senator McKim that he should be undertaking, is one about why it is that the motion itself needs to be considered now and warrants the suspension of standing orders. Just framing his statements with the words 'This is urgent because' and then going on to debate the policy substance of the motion he seeks to have debated is not mounting a case in relation to the suspension of standing orders. Thank you, Deputy President, for your ruling, but I would certainly urge all senators to understand the nuance of what the question before the chair is and relevance to that particular question.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. Senator McKim.
Senator McKIM: On the point of order, if you were to accept the proposition put to you by Senator Birmingham, you would effectively be saying that in order to stay within the bounds of the standing orders no reference at all can be made to the substantive issue. That is, patently, a ridiculous proposition that Senator Birmingham is putting and would constitute an unnecessary restraint on this debate, and I urge you to reject his point of order.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, I have ruled. It is a rule; it's not a debating point. Of course you can reference your motion, but what I've heard you speak to since you got to your feet is only the motion, and you have not referenced why it is that this motion is so urgent that we have to stand aside the business of the Senate for today and deal with this motion. That's the issue at heart. It's not for you to immediately go to the motion but to explain to the Senate what's urgent about it. I would ask you to respect my ruling and to explain to the Senate, without a great reference to the actual motion, of why it's urgent that this matter be dealt with now.
Senator McKim: We need to suspend the standing orders because it is urgent that we bring this motion on for debate—because of the impact of the Australian Labor Party's policies, which will mean that young people, whether they be renters or prospective homeowners, will need to spend more and more of their income in putting a roof over their head. So why has Labor caved to give tax cuts and tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, resume your seat. Senator Scarr.
Senator Scarr: On a point of order, Deputy President. You've been quite clear with respect to the application of the standing order. I have been listening to Senator McKim very closely. I have not heard him say one point in favour of the matter as to why this must be discussed now as a matter of urgency. It is all about general policy points.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Scarr. Senator McKim, you started off well, about explaining to the Senate why the matter was urgent, and then you did go back to the substantive motion. I'd ask you to continue in the vein of explaining to the Senate why the motion you've moved, that the Senate deal with the matter now, is the urgency.
Senator McKIM: It is urgent. We need to suspend standing orders because the planet is cooking. Neoliberalism is taking over in this country because every time the Labor Party caves in the Liberals take the win and move the contest further to the Right. Climate change is critical. It is an urgent issue and it should be debated as a matter of urgency by the Senate. This kind of approach by the Labor Party is how we've ended up in the neoliberal mess that we're in on tax, on housing and on public subsidies for fossil fuels. They're very uncomfortable about this in the Australian Labor Party—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: A point of order on relevance. Senator McKim is now not only refusing to debate the reason for suspension; he's actually even gone beyond the substantive motion. We've gone even further—and he's laughing! We all understand why you're doing this; it's a bit of a stunt. I want to express some of our concerns about the treatment by those two male senators of the Deputy President in this discussion. I want to register that.
Honourable senators interjecting —
Senator Wong: Here we go again. I am registering—
Honourable senators interjecting —
Senator WONG: You always interrupt us, don't you? Senator Hanson-Young could teach you something.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, I was allowing you some leniency to get back to explaining to the Senate the urgency of the suspension that you've sought. Please continue.
Senator McKIM: The urgency, Madam Deputy President, with the absolute greatest of respect to you and your position; Senator Wong and hers; and anyone else in this chamber, is simply that the debate that we are seeking to bring on relates to critical and urgent issues in the Australian public conversation and the point that whenever Labor adopts a small-target strategy the Liberals take the win and move the goalposts further to the Right. That is the urgency of this matter. That is why it should be debated by the Senate today. The Australian people want the Australian Labor Party to stand for something and to stand up for them on these urgent issues that urgently need debating in the chamber today, which is why we should suspend the standing orders to bring on this debate. The only hope for people who want to address spiralling economic inequality in this place is to vote Green, because that is the only language that the Australian Labor Party understands. We in the Australian Greens will fight economic inequality in this country, and we invite the Australian Labor Party to join us and not capitulate.
Senator BIRMINGHAM ( South Australia — Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate ) ( 15 : 17 ): I move:
That the question be put.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:22): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:22]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:26): The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:26]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:24): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Health (Senator Colbeck) to a question asked without notice by Senator Wong today relating to the COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
In doing so, I might make the point that it's very interesting that, after a six-week recess, the very first thing the Greens decide to do when they come into the chamber is to attack the Labor Party. They don't worry about attacking this government for the terrible things it is doing to Australia. No. For the Greens, it's always about political stunts targeted at the Labor Party, because we know that it's the Labor Party who they consider to be the real enemy.
But, unlike the Greens, Labor is actually here to defend Australians, no matter where they live, from the incompetence, the bungling and the shambles that we have seen from this Prime Minister and this government in the management of COVID-19. When COVID started and particularly this year, the Prime Minister had two jobs: to get the vaccine rollout working and to build purpose-built quarantine. We know that he has grossly failed in those two jobs. When it comes to vaccine rollout, we are the last in the developed world. When it comes to quarantine, it will be months, if not years, before we have purpose-built quarantine stations—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr.
Senator Scarr: Madam Deputy President, I can't recollect the word 'quarantine' even being used during the whole of the question time that we've just been through, so I query whether or not Senator Watt is in order in the comments he's making.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Scarr. It is a wide-ranging debate. Senator Watt has referred to the vaccine rollout, and that's been the substantive part of his argument, but I will certainly listen closely, and, if he doesn't stick to the debate in the rest of his time, I will call his attention to that matter.
Senator WATT: I can assure Senator Scarr that there is plenty to talk about when it comes to this government's vaccine rollout failures, but it is worth mentioning in passing that it will be months, if not years, before they build purpose-built quarantine stations. As a result, we have seen 27 leaks from hotel quarantine. That is the result of this Prime Minister's failures to do his job. Now, because the Prime Minister failed to do his two jobs—vaccine rollout and quarantine—we see 10 million Australians in lockdown across Sydney and across South-East Queensland. Of course there are many more Australians who are suffering outside of the lockdown areas as well. These are the Australians who are paying the price for this Prime Minister's and this government's failure to do their job: to get the vaccine rollout working and to build purpose-built quarantine.
Why are we here? Why are we now at a point where 10 million Australians are in lockdown, with millions more outside lockdown areas also being impacted by this government's failures? If you want one sentence to explain why we are in this situation, it is a sentence that we heard over and over again from this Prime Minister, and that sentence is: 'It's not a race; it's not a competition.' How many times did we hear that from this Prime Minister and other ministers from this government as Labor was appealing to the government to do more vaccine deals, to get more vaccines out to Australians, to build purpose-built quarantine and to do all of the other things necessary to protect the Australian public from the delta variant that we have now seen raging across so much of Australia? But no: every time Labor tried to suggest things that the government could be doing, just as we're doing today when it comes to incentives, we were told by the Prime Minister and his minions, 'It's not a race; it's not a competition.'
Well, how wrong they were! I can tell you it was a race. It was always a race. It was a race for the 10 million Australians who are now in lockdown across Sydney and across South-East Queensland. It was a race for the businesses who are losing money as a result of these lockdowns. It was a race for the workers who are losing their jobs because of the lockdowns, because this government didn't get vaccines out and didn't do its other jobs. It was a race for the families, like mine and millions of others in South-East Queensland and Sydney, who are now homeschooling and who are now unable to do the various things that they would normally do with their families. It was a race for many other people, millions of other Australians outside the lockdown areas, who are also suffering because this Prime Minister and this government didn't do their job and get vaccine deals done and get vaccines into people's arms.
Only last week, before the lockdowns started in South-East Queensland, I was back up in Cairns and Port Douglas meeting with tourism operators. They were telling me that, after hitting very high hotel occupancy rates of around 85 per cent in May, as soon as the lockdowns started in Melbourne and Sydney, their occupancy rates crashed to 30 per cent. Why was that happening? Because we didn't have vaccines in arms, and we therefore had to have lockdowns the minute the variant started taking control. It was the same on the Gold Coast and in other tourism areas as well. Hundreds and thousands of bookings were cancelled, putting businesses and jobs on the line, because this government couldn't do its job.
So it is a race. It is a race for the people in lockdown. It is a race for the businesses and workers outside lockdown areas, who are suffering. It is a race for the aged-care workers and the disability workers who can't get vaccinated. It was pretty interesting that even Minister Colbeck wouldn't associate himself with the Prime Minister's remarks. Imagine Richard Colbeck being too embarrassed to stand with you. (Time expired)
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (15:35): Senator Watt asked the question 'Why are so many people in this country in lockdown?' The reason is the delta variant of COVID-19. That's the reason they are in lockdown, not for any other reason. We're seeing all over the world the devastating impact of the delta variant. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and throw bricks at those on the field who are making difficult decisions, who are taking advice from the people they should be taking advice from, the independent experts—the scientific experts and others—and making calls on the run. It's easy to stand on the sideline and throw bricks at people who are making difficult decisions in difficult times. The fact of the matter is that when you look at the most recent results of the vaccine rollout you see they are quite staggering. They are quite incredible, actually, when you consider that the first one million doses were issued in 45 days and we've now reached a position where more than a million doses of a vaccine, whether it be Astra Zeneca or Pfizer, are being given every six days. It took 45 days for a million doses and now it's taking six days for a million doses. The rollout has progressively increased. It took 45 days for one million doses, 20 days for two million doses and 17 days for three million doses. You can see the increase in the doses which are being provided.
We are now, thankfully, in a situation where almost 80 per cent—probably now over 80 per cent—of over-70s are protected with a first dose of a vaccine. Over 80 per cent of the most vulnerable cohort in our community are protected with at least one dose of a vaccine, and 41.98 per cent have received a second dose. More than 65 per cent of my cohort, the over-50s, are protected with a first dose, and 26.67 per cent have received a second dose. We've seen a phenomenal increase in the rollout of this vaccine in the context of a global pandemic, a once-in-100-years global pandemic, with different variants of the virus developing over time and posing new challenges, and the delta variant has presented a number of unique challenges through the speed of its spread.
I say to those opposite: not only should you not be throwing bricks at our Prime Minister, you should not be throwing bricks at the Premier of New South Wales either. That Premier is on the field making decisions in real time, taking advice from everyone who she considers is appropriate to give her advice. Sometimes the result is not perfect. It wouldn't be perfect no matter who was in the position of Premier of New South Wales or Prime Minister of Australia. That's the factor of the actual situation which we're facing at the moment. It's a dynamic situation, a once-in-100-years situation, a global pandemic.
The best and most reasonable way of assessing the success or otherwise of the federal government is to compare the situation in Australia to that overseas. Who in this place can legitimately say, who can reasonably say that Australia hasn't done better than any other country in the world on the two key measurements of protecting lives and protecting livelihoods? We've done better than any other country on the face of the Earth, and if those opposite can think of somewhere else that has done better on protecting lives and protecting livelihoods, then tell us who it is, because I don't know who it is. This country has done an exceedingly good job, and I pay tribute to all of our decision-makers. I don't care which party they come from. These people are in the field making decisions in real time in a challenging situation, a one-in-100-year global pandemic with different variations of the virus developing all the time, and making the best decisions they can in good faith when they're confronted with those circumstances. I think Australians are getting more confident in the vaccine. I was so pleased today that the Chief Health Officer of Queensland has reflected on her opinion with respect to AstraZeneca, and hopefully we'll have more and more vaccines issued.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Scarr, your time has expired. Senator Chisholm.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:40): Let's compare ourselves to what's happening overseas. What Senator Scarr didn't do was to compare us to overseas when it comes to the vaccine rollout. We're actually 36th out of 38 members of the OECD, so we're coming almost last when it comes to our vaccine rollout. There are two things that we learned in question time today, and one is that they still won't set a deadline for the vaccine rollout. We know why: because every time they have set one, they've missed it, so they've given up on it and they won't provide those incentives. We saw a pitiful display from the senior levels of this government today when Labor put forward a practical solution. They were happy to take pot shots at it without putting forward any practical solutions themselves. But they won't set a deadline, and we saw that in the answers given in question time today. We know why they won't set a deadline. It is because they originally said four million Australians would be vaccinated by the end of March, and they failed to meet that deadline. Mr Morrison has said that all Australians will be fully vaccinated by October. Obviously, we're going to miss that deadline. He said they would vaccinate the first priority group by Easter—and they've missed that deadline—and that they would vaccinate six million Australians by 10 May. When it comes to vaccines, they've actually given up. They aren't setting any deadlines because they know they can't meet them, and they aren't creating the incentives for Australians to go out and get vaccinated. Even when the Labor leader put forward a substantial suggestion today, the government have done nothing but take pot shots at that suggestion, which is so disappointing. They show no ability to adapt or to be nimble and actually deliver for the Australian people.
The second thing that we learned from question time today is that they still won't accept responsibility. Anyone who saw Four Corners last night would have seen that the program laid out that the government are responsible for the failure to deliver. As Kevin Rudd said, they wouldn't pick up the Alexander Graham Bell and talk to the head of Pfizer to try to get more vaccines delivered to this country. COVID-19 is having a devastating impact on South-East Queensland at the moment. We've seen what's happening in New South Wales, with 10 million Australians locked down. We've seen the damage these lockdowns have done economically as well. I think the RBA estimated that about $300 million a day is being taken from these economies because of what is going on in locked-down communities. These lockdowns are absolutely because of the failure of the vaccine rollout. We saw that in the release of the Doherty Institute's report today. It talks about what we could achieve if we actually had the vaccine rolled out, as compared to what is happening in other countries.
As Senator Watt said, it also goes to the quarantine facilities because they did have two responsibilities: one was around vaccines and the second one was around quarantine facilities. They also haven't delivered on those facilities. About a month ago the federal Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, and I went to Toowoomba, where we met with the proponents of the Wellcamp proposal around the quarantine facility. They said they could be operating within 12 weeks. They could set up a purpose-built quarantine facility within 12 weeks, yet the government keep moving the goalposts and changing the rules to rule out doing some sort of deal with the proponents in Toowoomba. What they've instead said is that they will look at doing something at Damascus, near the Brisbane Airport, but that won't be operating until next year. We've seen all of these leaks out of hotel quarantine facilities—I think we're up to 28 now—yet we haven't had one leak out of Howard Springs, in the Northern Territory. The Toowoomba proposal would be similar to the Howard Springs facility, so it shows you that these facilities that are purpose built can work and deliver and, if we actually had that facility, we might not be having the lockdown that we have in South-East Queensland this week.
This question time is the first question time we've had for about six weeks, but we still had the same old excuses from the government. They won't set a deadline on getting Australians vaccinated and they still won't accept responsibility for the failure of the vaccine rollout. When you look at the devastation that this is causing across Australia, it is Australian families, Australian workers and, indeed, those kids who are now doing homeschooling who are paying the price for the incompetence of this government. So I would say to the government that they need to get their act together, they need to start setting deadlines that they will stick to and they need to ensure that the Australian people have confidence that the vaccine rollout is going to be available, that people will be able to get their shots and that they will then be able to avoid lockdowns so the economy can return, as much as possible, to normal. Again, there was a failure by this government to answer any of those questions today.
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (15:45): I rise to respond to some of the extraordinary comments made by those on the other side. I will reflect on how incredibly fortunate we are that we are going through a global pandemic and not a war, because Australians expect their leadership, their politicians, their representatives, to stand together and find solutions to difficult times. And yet, once again, we have listened to the opposition describe a complete lack of understanding of the realities of the world. They have an inability to stand shoulder to shoulder in difficult times and, instead, take every opportunity to throw stones. There has been no manual to the COVID pandemic. Instead, we find the opposition trying to find ways of demonstrating how clever they would have been with the benefit of hindsight—just brilliant!
One of the senators just spoke about the 27 leaks from hotel quarantine, but there have been no leaks from the federally operated Howard Springs. They also mentioned that there has not been a fast enough rollout of the vaccine. So I would like to speak about what's been happening in my state, the great state of Queensland. The greatest impediment to vaccinating Queenslanders has been our own Labor state government. In fact, Queensland Health did not order any AstraZeneca vaccine doses in July and only 1,000 doses in May. How extraordinary is that? With the Queensland Chief Health Officer making extraordinary pronouncements about AstraZeneca in the face of worldwide recommendations to take advice from your medical practitioner, we had no AstraZeneca doses ordered in July. So Queenslanders are not being given the opportunity to consult with their doctor on what decision is best for them. In fact, I think the vaccine hesitancy in Queensland can be sheeted back to some of this messaging.
Queensland has the second lowest rate of fully vaccinated people, at just over 18 per cent, and the lowest rate of people who have had one dose, at just under 37 per cent. Anecdotally, in my home city of Townsville, some young people are saying they've tried six times to be vaccinated and been turned away due to a lack of supply of Pfizer even when they had consulted and were happy and able to have AstraZeneca. Queensland Health stats for yesterday, Monday, show that 591 people received a dose at the new Townsville vaccination station but that not one person received the vaccination from hospitals and health centres across the entire Townsville region—not one person. The Ayr population is 8,700 people, but just 796 shots have been provided in total and none were yesterday. Ingham has 4,300 people. Just 677 shots have been provided and zero were yesterday. At Charters Towers, population 8,100, just 627 total doses have been administered and none were yesterday.
The opposition is also going to talk about consulting with tourism operators in Cairns and Townsville, the very areas that were on their knees because the state government refused to increase the number of people allowed into a space from one person per four square metres to one person per two square metres, as it was on the mainland, if you were going out on cruise boats or other charter vessels. This meant these businesses were unviable for far longer than they were in other states.
They also talked about homeschooling and how difficult that is for parents—and it is! The reason we know that is because we have geographically isolated children right across this nation, which Labor never ever seems to reflect on or remember. But what Labor have come up with is a 'cash for jabs' program. This is Labor's latest version of pink batts or school halls, another example of Labor taking Australian taxpayers' money but not improving the safety or the position of Australian people.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (15:51): Before I make a few comments about what happened during this debate today, I want to say it seems absolutely outrageous that we have poorer people not being vaccinated. The country's highest vaccination rates are in the wealthiest pockets of Sydney and Melbourne, while poorer parts of Sydney's west and south, the hit hardest by the latest outbreaks, have had some of the lowest coverage in New South Wales. Let's go a bit further. Parts of outback Australia are also lagging behind, with fewer than 10 per cent of the population in some regional areas being fully vaccinated more than five months into the rollout.
Has there ever been a more damaging display of negligence in Australian history than the Prime Minister's vaccine 'stroll out'? More than 10 million Australians are in lockdown across Sydney and South-East Queensland. Lockdowns are costing the Australian economy nearly $300 million each day. While countries around the world are opening up, Australia is shutting down. This is because of the Prime Minister's insistence that the vaccine rollout is 'not a race'.
Prime Minister Morrison had two jobs this year: a speedy rollout of the vaccine and effective quarantine, and he has monumentally failed at both. Having failed, the Morrison government must now ensure it does not also fail to support Australian people without work, particularly those in sectors that have been hardest hit, such as aviation. Unfortunately, this is precisely what is happening. Aviation workers have been through 18 months of hell, and today they have received the latest kick in the guts. Australia's highest paid CEO, Alan Joyce, has announced he will be standing down 2,500 Qantas and Jetstar workers without pay. The Morrison government has had more than 18 months to come up with a plan for the survival and recovery of Australian aviation, to keep the skill sets there that are so vital.
The Qantas announcement also came just hours after the government had announced a program to provide COVID support payments to some aviation workers. The payments will only go to 50 per cent of stood-down pilots and crew. There are no payments for any other aviation workers. Our Prime Minister may not be aware, but there are thousands of other aviation workers who keep our planes in the air, including many who live in his electorate raising their families and supporting their communities. Prime Minister, how about you start listening to those people from your own electorate! Thousands of ground crew have been carved out of Mr Morrison's aviation support, many of whom will now be stood down by Qantas without pay, without any plan from the government and without any plan on how to put food on the table.
It just happens that the same workers who have been abandoned by the Morrison government have also been illegally abandoned by Qantas. The Federal Court on Friday found that Qantas had broken the law when it outsourced 2,000 ground handling jobs year. It was a massive victory for those 2,000 essential workers and the Transport Workers Union. But how did the Morrison government respond to the decision? It turned around and cuts ground staff out of the aviation support package.
So who is really calling the shots in this country when it comes to aviation? Alan Joyce received $2 billion from the Prime Minister. He asked for it and he got it. Alan Joyce asked for that money to have no strings attached so that he could outsource 2,500 jobs. And the Prime Minister gave that to him. The vindictive Alan Joyce wanted to take revenge on those workers for beating him in court, and the Prime Minister cut them out of the aviation support package. How's that for the 'spirit of Australia'?
Quite clearly we've seen a number of examples of the horrific nature of what's been happening with this rollout. We see less than five per cent of home-care workers now covered by vaccination. Of course, the government's response is: 'It's not a focus.' Well, 85 per cent of our aged Australians are supported by home-care workers. It's another failing by this government, because it has not got the vaccinations in place. 'It's not a race.' They're not—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Sheldon! The question is that the motion moved by Senator Watt be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
COVID-19: Economy
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:56): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians (Senator Colbeck) to the question asked of him by Senator Siewert today relating to COVID-19 and the economy.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:56): [by video link] I want to speak on the motion to take note of the answer from Minister Colbeck to my questions around the Doherty modelling around vaccination rates and how it relates to the phases of transition out of the current situation. I was extremely disappointed in the minister's answer, for a number of reasons. He had clearly not acquainted himself with the Grattan Institute report, which is very important to this discussion. We know that shifting from an effective strategy of zero community transmission to one of removing restrictions and opening up our borders, based on high levels of vaccination, is one of the most important decisions that this country will make. Setting too-low targets, risking surging hospitalisations and the deaths of thousands of people, is deeply concerning. We need to make sure that we are properly basing our decisions on the scientific modelling that needs to be used to inform our target decisions.
What the minister was basically saying in answer to my questions was that the Doherty institute has done the modelling, and that's it. Well, the Grattan Institute has done some modelling too, and I'm sure other institutes have as well. How about we look at that? The Doherty institute's modelling is based on the people who are currently eligible for vaccination, those above the age of 16. If you compare the two models, Grattan suggests that a vaccination target of 80 per cent of the whole population—in other words, including children aged 12 and up—is necessary to avoid overwhelming the health system and to stop infections and deaths. If you look at its modelling, the 80 per cent that the government is using, that national cabinet has decided on, is based on people aged over 16 and is actually a population target of 65 per cent. If you go to looking at the 70 per cent, as I said in my question to the minister, that relates to 56 per cent of the entire population, if you include children over the age of 12.
My question to the minister then was: why aren't you including them? His answer was, 'We're including some children who are vulnerable and are now eligible.' That is good, but it's not just the vulnerable children who need to be vaccinated to make sure that we are not opening Australia up with wildly optimistic targets that will risk our health system and, most importantly, risk people's lives and increase the number of deaths that occur.
But we also need to remember long COVID. Even if some people thought we should accept some people catching COVID, nearly a million people, under a 50 per cent scenario, are predicted to catch COVID. Not only would that have a very large impact obviously on our health system but it would risk a lot of people having long COVID.
We have seen from the outbreaks in New South Wales and in Queensland that children are now catching the Delta variant. They are transmitting the Delta variant. It is very important that we have vaccination targets that will actually ensure we get to the point where we can safely transition out. The Doherty Institute modelling does not talk about getting to the point where we fully open our international borders, which the Grattan Institute does. The government need to ensure that they are taking into consideration all of the modelling that is occurring and that they have a good look at the Grattan Institute modelling. I can't believe the minister had not looked at alternative modelling to ensure that we are making these decisions, which we all agree are some of the most important that a government and a parliament will make, to not only transition out of lockdowns but transition to what people regard as normal.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting—That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday 5 August 2021, the full Doherty Institute modelling, including technical reports, used to inform the vaccination targets announced on 30 July 2021 under the national plan to transition Australia's national COVID-19 response.
Senator McMahon to move on the next day of sitting—That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, and for related purposes. Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021.
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting—That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minster for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 5 August 2021, the modelling and any modelling report provided to the Australian Government by the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity concerning COVID-19 infections and vaccinations to define target levels of transition to Phase B and Phase C of the four step national plan to transition Australia's COVID-19 response.
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting—That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Water, by no later than 10.30 am on Monday, 9 August 2021, the Government's current plan to achieve the full 450 GL of 'efficiency measures' in the required statutory time frame.
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting—That there be laid on the table by the Commissioner of Taxation, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 12 August 2021, the list of all employers with an annual turnover of greater than $10 million that were paid a JobKeeper payment, and the number of employees paid, the total amount paid and any amount returned.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting—That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on 12 August 2021:
(a)all records, including invitations, emails, briefings and other documents, held bythe Australian Government in relation to the participation of Untung Sangaji intraining at the Jakarta Center for Law Enforcement Cooperation (JCLEC);
(b)all communications between the Australian Federal Police and Untung Sangaji;and
(c)any advice that the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Home Affairs orthe Attorney-General's Department have provided to the current or previousministers about the risks of providing training at JCLEC to individuals who havecommitted human rights violations.
Senator Cash 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 counter terrorism, and for related purposes. Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021.
Senator Waters to move on 4 August 2021—That section 7 of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, be disallowed.
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting—That the Senate—
(a)recognises the importance of Australian stories on Australian screens in buildingour national identity and celebrating our diverse culture;
(b)notes that:(i)according to Screen Australia's annual report for 2014-15, the Australianscreen industry was worth $3 billion and supported approximately 25,000jobs in creative industries,
(ii)COVID-19 resulted in production being temporarily halted across Australiaand saw a 32% reduction in expenditure on Australian titles in 2019/20,
(iii)the number of Australian children film and television productions has beenin decline over the past 5 years,
(iv)despite our unique Australian brand, Australian producers have acompetitive disadvantage with scripted drama, so content quotas are theonly way to ensure that Australian stories continue to be shared andcelebrated,
(v)the way Australian stories are accessed has changed, with audiencesincreasingly using streaming services as their predominant way to accessdrama, and
(vi)these streaming on demand services have little regulation, no Australiancontent obligations and thus showcase relatively few Australian stories;
(c)criticises the Government's relentless attack on Australian film and television andtheir attempt at halving Foxtel's local content spend from 10% to 5%; and
(d)urges the Government to accept the industry's pledge to 'Make it Australian' as thissector is too important to lose.
Senator Watt to move on 5 August 2021—That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 9 August 2021, the ACIL Allen report on the Industry Growth Centres.
Senator Watt to move on 9 August 2021—That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, by no later than 9.30 am on Wednesday, 11 August 2021, the decision briefs and merit assessment packs prepared by the Department of Industry Science, Energy and Resources with respect to the Translation and Integration funding streams of the Modern Manufacturing Initiative.
Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting—That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 9 August 2021, the following documents discussed during a hearing of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (the committee) on 19 July 2021:
(a)any email or document setting out the list of 'top twenty marginal seats' to be'canvassed' for projects as part of the Urban Congestion Fund (UCF), as referred toby Mr Brian Boyd of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) on page 5 of theHansard of the committee's hearing on 19 July 2021;
(b)any spreadsheets created by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport andRegional Development for the purpose of setting out proposed UCF projects, asreferenced in paragraphs 2.30 to 2.32 of the ANAO's report, Administration ofcommuter car park projects within the Urban Congestion Fund;
(c)any spreadsheets created by, originating in, or shared between the Prime Minister'sOffice and the offices of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and RegionalDevelopment or the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, setting out proposed UCFprojects, as referenced in paragraphs 2.30 to 2.32 of the ANAO's report,Administration of commuter car park projects within the Urban CongestionFund; and
(d)any maps and attached schedules referred to by Mr Boyd of the ANAO on page 8 ofthe Hansard of the committee's hearing on 19 July 2021, setting out whereprojected UCF expenditure would take place and the party affiliation of the seats inwhich that expenditure would occur.
Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting—That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and for related purposes. Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021.
Senator McKim to move on 18 October 2021—That section 7 of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, be disallowed
Senator Brown to move 15 sitting days after today—That section 7 of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, be disallowed
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:01): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 3 to 5 August 2021:
Senators Keneally, Ciccone, Kitching, Green, Bilyk, McAllister, Sheldon, Ayres, Dodson, McCarthy, Gallacher, Mariel Smith, Walsh and Polley for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:02): by leave—I withdraw business of the Senate No.1 in the name of Senator Kitching, and general business motion 1169 in the name of Senator McAllister.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:02): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 3 to 5 August 2021:
Senators Waters, Siewert, Rice, Thorpe, Steele-John and Faruqi for COVID-related reasons.
Question agreed to.
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (16:03): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 3 to 5 August 2021:
(a) Senator Colbeck, for returned international traveller quarantine compliance;
(b) Senators Bragg, Fierravanti-Wells and Stoker, for COVID-19 travel restrictions;
(c) Senator Molan, for medical reasons; and
(d) Senators Abetz, Antic, Fawcett, Griff, Hanson, Henderson, McLachlan, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Rice for today, proposing a reference to the Economics References Committee, postponed till 5 August 2021.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senator Patrick for today, proposing a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, postponed till 4 August 2021.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 6 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) for today, proposing a reference to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, postponed till 4 August 2021.
General business notice of motion no. 1185 standing in the name of Senator Rice for today, proposing the introduction of the Human Rights (Targeted Sanctions) Bill 2021, postponed till 9 August 2021.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) for 4 August 2021, proposing the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021, postponed till 25 August 2021.
The PRESIDENT: I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
COMMITTEES
Reporting Date
The Clerk: The following committees have lodged extension notifications, as shown in item 10 on today's order of business:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Budget estimates 2021-22—from 13 July to 13 August 2021.
Economics References Committee—Foreign investment proposals—from 5 to 20 August 2021.
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Media diversity—from 4 August to 15 November 2021.
Oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo Basin (interim report)—from 3 to 24 August 2021.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—Family and partner reunion visas—from 10 August to 25 November 2021.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Budget estimates 2021-22—from 13 July to 10 August 2021.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Road transport industry—from 8 July to 25 August 2021.
The PRESIDENT (16:05): I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator.
BILLS
International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2021
First Reading
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:05): At the request of Senator Kitching, I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to enable Australia to impose sanctions to promote compliance with international human rights law and respect for human rights or to deter significant corruption, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator URQUHART: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator URQUHART: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I am pleased today to rise to speak on the International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2021.
The world is at a tipping point in the struggle against creeping—or in some places marching—authoritarianism.
In Australia, we live with the benefits of a stable and prosperous democracy—its superiority over any other model of political and economic organisation may seem self-evident.
But this is actually not the case for many people in many parts of the world.
Democracy and personal liberty cannot be taken for granted, anywhere or at any time.
They must be defended, and if I may put it this way, they must be aggressively defended, in all of our countries.
The practical application of human freedom, through political participation and democracy, is a universal idea central to our humanity.
And so are human rights.
While these notions have their origins in Europe and North America, they are not 'Western' in essence; they are universal, and just as applicable in the developing world as they are in the developed.
As the United States' Declaration of Independence expresses it:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…"
We must remind ourselves that these are quite radical ideals—throughout history, they have not been the norm.
For evidence of how fragile democracy is, we need only to look to certain parts of the world, where in recent years we have seen a slide back to authoritarian governments.
So in that context, the fault lines are there for all of us to see.
Many of the great democracies—the Free World, if you like—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Japan, New Zealand and, of course, our Alliance partner the United States of America, respect human rights, the rule of law, the protection of private property rights and the right to speak out about political issues without fear of a knock on the door at midnight.
Now of course we don't always do this perfectly.
The Declaration of Independence, from which I quoted earlier, has not always guaranteed the United States is free from error, or the oppression and dispossession of its own citizens.
Yet its ideals have lit the way to freedom. One only has to look at the t-shirts of those marching for freedom recently in Cuba and Hong Kong—they were t-shirts adorned with the American flag, the Stars and Stripes.
However, no less a figure than Dr Martin Luther King Jr invoked that very phrase -"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"—in the struggle for civil rights that led his nation to a more perfect Union.
Therein lays the genius of democracy—our willingness to accept imperfection, to own our mistakes, and then use them as an example of how to be better.
The Authoritarian World—and I won't name individual countries—does not respect anything other than the maintenance and projection of power. And it has ever been thus.
Without the protections and due processes of democracy, even the most prosperous businesspeople can lose everything overnight, the most innocent citizen jailed without cause.
The most seemingly powerful official can be sent straight to jail—after a show-trial—if she or he falls foul of their authoritarian ruler.
In the Authoritarian World, the average citizen lives looking over their shoulder, watched by facial recognition cameras, judged by a police state, randomly punished in the most brutal prisons imaginable, all while these abuses are aided, abetted and covered up by a controlled media.
As Democratic Senator for New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said:
"If the newspapers of a country are filled with good news, the jails of that country will be filled with good people."
It is not wrong to say that one side—for all of our faults, which are many—is good; and to say equally that to deny basic human rights and due process to any person is evil.
Evil is a word that some are uncomfortable with, in our modern age.
But in a modern age of regimes that torture, jail and murder their own citizens, break their spirits, take away hope and humanity, it is a word without which we cannot do.
And I'm idealistic enough to believe that you support good and oppose evil.
Even if it costs you.
Even if it hurts.
History will judge us.
Future generations will judge us.
And whether it be The Republic of Conscience as imagined by Seamus Heaney which makes clear that we are self-aware beings capable of self-examination; whether we are guided by the Bible, or the Torah, or the Quran or the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita; whether it is what we see in our daily dealings with other human beings, we learn to distinguish what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and immoral, and indeed, what is good and what is evil.
And if we don't call out evil where it lurks, if we don't fight back when given the opportunity to diminish and defeat evil, then who are we? Can we say that we are different from that which we fight to defeat?
And it is for that reason—the lack of respect of rights of their fellow human beings—that we observe the phenomenon of those who've gamed the authoritarian system by stealing or engaging in the most heinous human rights abuses and corruption, seeking the safety of the Free World's jurisdictions.
They seek to protect themselves and their ill-gotten gains with the very protections they deny the victims of their regimes.
Buying property in London or Sydney or Paris or Vancouver is safe.
Our system of land title gives as close to absolute certainty that no-one can steal your property from you.
In the Authoritarian World there is no such safety.
If those with power want to take, he or she can just take.
And there might be the occasional fig-leaf of pretend process but the outcome is the same.
Which brings us to this bill:
The International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2021.
This bill is inspired by Sergei Magnitsky, an employee of hedge fund manager Bill Browder, who was murdered by Russian crooks connected to the highest levels of the current Russian regime, and died in a Russian prison, with reports of torture.
He was murdered because he had uncovered what were successful attempts to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from the Russian state.
Mr Browder, a prosperous man who could have continued a quiet comfortable life, was so outraged and saddened that he has dedicated his life to what are now called around the world "Magnitsky laws".
Local proposals to do the same were driven by many but no-one more notable than my friend Michael Danby, the former member for Melbourne Ports.
Backed by the then Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, he obtained Caucus support for the bill, and introduced it into the House in December of 2018.
This bill lapsed at the dissolution of the 45th Parliament in 2019.
Since then, I've been pleased to see our Senate Leader, Senator Wong, and Liberals, notably Senator James Paterson and The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, support Magnitsky legislation.
I also note strong support amongst my crossbench colleagues.
Magnitsky laws have taken on an encouraging, but what I consider, slow, new life in the 46th Parliament.
On 3 December 2019, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women, Senator the Hon Marise Payne, asked the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into the use of targeted sanctions to address human rights abuses.
As I had been discussing Magnitsky laws with Michael Danby since I had seen Bill Browder being interviewed on 7.30 in February 2018, I was encouraged to give notice on the following day to introduce:
A Bill for an Act to enable Australia to impose sanctions to promote compliance with international human rights law and respect for human rights or to deter significant corruption, and for related purposes. International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2020.
What better way to acknowledge Michael Danby's role in originally bringing Magnitsky legislation to the Australian Parliament than by placing an updated version of his bill back on the notice paper in a display to the Government that combatting the obscenity of human rights abuses globally is a desire of every single representative in this place.
In a process that took just over a year, the Joint Standing Committee, on 7 December 2020, tabled its report, titled:
Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the Global Magnitsky movement?
Throughout this time, we were fortunate to hear, and receive input from, a number of local and international experts, including the founder of the Global Magnitsky Movement Bill Browder, prominent international lawyers Geoffrey Robertson QC and Amal Clooney, and former Canadian Attorney-General, Professor Irwin Cotler.
I'd like to put on record my thanks and appreciation to the committee members and secretariat staff for their hard work in producing such an important document.
The unanimous report's first recommendation reads:
"The Sub-committee recommends that the Australian Government enact stand-alone targeted sanctions legislation to address human rights violations and corruption, similar to the United States' Magnitsky Act 2012."
So in the spirit of this recommendation, by introducing this bill here today I hope to start a process that leads to creating an Australian Magnitsky law.
This bill has three main objectives.
Firstly, it prevents prescribed foreign persons who are deemed to have engaged in gross violations of human rights and corruption from visiting Australia, as well as investing and spending money here through the imposition of financial and trade sanctions.
On the advice of the Minister, the Governor-General can target individuals with immigration, trade and financial sanctions.
Secondly, the imposition of sanctions on these corrupt individuals and human rights abusers puts their names into the public domain for all to see.
This means they become pariahs amongst the international community whose validation they so desperately seek.
Thirdly, the widespread publicity of their crimes will act as a deterrent to other individuals living under authoritarian regimes who are encouraged or aspire to engage in similar behaviour.
Without this legislation, not only are we an outlier amongst similar democracies, but we may also become a honey pot for channelling ill-gotten gains as more and more countries implement their own sanctioning legislation.
In a world of growing authoritarianism, this becomes a weapon for democratic pushback.
A strong and clear message will be sent to lower ranking officials and criminal thugs that their crimes—whether on behalf of, or protected by their superiors, will not be immune from international consequences.
This says to them:
"Your stolen money is no good here. No matter how you steal from your people, there will be no shopping trips to Paris, no harbour-front mansions in Sydney, no skiing in Aspen, no nest-egg in a Western bank. And like King Midas, they'll have lots of gold but no way to enjoy it."
It says to them:
"You can't travel here. Go find a resort in the country you've ruined and polluted and corrupted and tyrannised. There's no escape on offer here."
It says to them:
"You are so beneath contempt, you are so loathsome that we have judged you and we will say so in public and encourage other free countries to do the same so that door after door is shut in your face."
This says that Australia will not be a fence for stolen goods, nor a hollow log for stolen money.
While Australia does have broad sanctioning powers under the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011, these lack the ability to specifically target the assets of human rights violators, or their families, living in Australia.
These sanctioning powers will apply to countries which are ruled by authoritarian regimes; in countries with a rule of law there are justice systems which would deal with human rights abuses and corruption.
Magnitsky laws have passed in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union and various other European jurisdictions.
I am also in regular contact with Japanese and New Zealand legislators who hope to enact their own version of Magnitsky.
By introducing this Bill today, I hope it becomes a catalyst for all Parties to come together with us to introduce these important laws in a multi-partisan way.
The recommendations in the Joint Standing Committee's report are very good and strong and many could be incorporated in this Bill, not to mention a draft bill provided by Geoffrey Robertson QC that has many useful sections.
In moving a motion at Labor's Special Platform Conference earlier this year I said that:
"...condemning the abuses is not enough. So long as governments fail to take meaningful action to hold those responsible to account then these atrocities will continue, and we only need to look to history to see where this ends. When human rights are destroyed in one part of the world, they invariably affect the rights of people in other parts of the world."
This legislation is a real and tangible way we can take action—not just rhetoric, not just political posturing.
So, in closing, what will be the effect of this?
Will it encourage better behaviour in the authoritarian world?
We cannot be certain.
But we do know they don't like it.
They really, really don't like it.
Because they complain and complain and complain about it.
It was central to one country's list of grievances presented to the United States.
And it sends a message to all those who yearn to be free but are so afraid of what will happen to them if they speak out.
It says to them so very clearly:
"You do not walk alone. The world is watching. We want for you the freedom we enjoy. And we will no longer turn a blind eye to those who profit from your misery."
And I know another effect.
We'll be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be proud that we stood up for the values we hold dear.
Turning good words into good deeds cannot always happen in this building.
I hope the Government, whose members have been very supportive of this kind of proposal, and the cross-bench who have been equally supportive, can join with Labor to stand with the oppressed and not the oppressors, to oppose the perpetrators, not perpetuate the oppression.
Thank you.
Senator URQUHART: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:06): At the request of Senator Rice, I move:
(1) That the Senate:
(a) notes that on 8 December 2020 the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade tabled its report titled Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the Global Magnitsky movement?, and recommended that the 'Australian Government enact standalone targeted sanctions legislation to address human rights violations and corruption, similar to the United States' Magnitsky Act 2012'; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to respond to that report's recommendations as soon as possible, and introduce an Australian Magnitsky Act.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on 11 August 2021, a government response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
COVID-19: Vaccination
The PRESIDENT (16:07): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 12 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 following letter has been received from Senator O'Neill:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Prime Minister's failure to deliver a speedy effective rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, meaning Australians remain dangerously exposed today to the highly infectious Delta variant with the lowest vaccination rate in the developed world.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers for today's discussion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:07): Australians are paying the price for Mr Morrison's complacency. Today, as we meet here in the Senate, millions of Australians—those in New South Wales and in Queensland—are in lockdown, and there are two reasons why. Mr Morrison failed to listen to warnings to establish safe, fit-for-purpose national quarantine, just like he failed to listen to bushfire warnings two years ago. The other reason is he completely failed to deliver a plan to get us out of the pandemic.
Whilst governments around the world raced to secure supplies of vaccines to inoculate their populations, Mr Morrison's government had a 'wait and see' approach. Reports from industry publication BioPharmaDispatch have indicated that last year it was an open secret in the pharmaceutical industry that there was exasperation over the Morrison government's lack of urgency in securing vaccine supplies for Australians. They reported that whilst other countries rushed to do deals, the industry was constantly told that the Morrison government was 'not ready to procure or engage in discussions about procuring the vaccine'. Can you believe that? Other countries are off doing deals, and our government is telling the pharmaceutical industry constantly that they are 'not ready to procure or engage in discussions about procuring the vaccine'. It was a 'wait and see' approach, business as usual. Even under President Trump, the American vaccination program was called Operation Warp Speed. There was no Operation Warp Speed for this Prime Minister. He preferred 'wait and see', because, remember, it's not a race.
Of course, he only said it's not a race as an excuse for the growing delays in his vaccine rollout. And he needed that excuse. He needed that excuse because, last year, he said Australia would be at the front of the international queue. Do you remember that? 'I promise Australians we're at the front of queue.' And when he said to Australians we're at the front of the queue, he knew that many other countries had ordered their vaccines months ahead of us. He said Australians would be at the front of the queue even though he only got around to ordering Pfizer in November, months later, months after other countries had ordered theirs—and then he only ordered enough for five million Australians!
Prime Minister Morrison has made so many excuses but all roads lead back to him. He put all his eggs in one basket, the AstraZeneca basket. He did that despite it being well-established that best practice is to have a range of options. It's more than that; it's common sense. Mr Bowen, the shadow health minister ,was saying in the middle of last year that the world's best practice was to have four to six vaccine deals. But, as per normal, Mr Morrison was too arrogant to listen, always insisting he knows best. And when it became clear to everyone that he had once again dropped the ball and failed to deliver, he said it's not a race, it's not a competition. But Australians know it's always been a race to beat this virus. Until we have Australians vaccinated, lives, jobs, the economy and the recovery are at risk.
And while Australians ran the ever greater risk of infection with COVID-19 the government's response to that risk was infected by Mr Morrison's complacency. Now lockdowns have been made necessary by his failures. They're costing the economy around $300 million a day. This is the price small businesses and working Australians are paying for Mr Morrison's incompetence. His incompetence hasn't been limited to the vaccine rollout and quarantine; he has pressured premiers not to go into lockdown when clearly they needed to. As recently as June, Mr Morrison publicly pressured the Premier of New South Wales not to go into lockdown at the start of the outbreak—even though, at the time he said this, there was already ample evidence from around the world of the dangers of the delta variant, which was also the driver of the outbreak in New South Wales. And remember what he said? 'I commend the New South Wales Premier for the fact that she hasn't gone to lockdown in Australia's biggest city.' And yesterday he said, 'The only way to get on top of these things and ensure you don't have longer lockdowns is to move quickly.' As always with Mr Morrison, his story changes from week to week. You can't rely on him; he just blows with the political wind. He was dead against locking down Bondi—and now the rest of Sydney and beyond are paying the price.
We know that there are chronic problems with the supply of vaccines under this government, but there is more that we can do to encourage all Australians to sign up to get vaccinated. Today, continuing his approach of offering constructive solutions to the COVID crisis, Mr Albanese put forward another positive proposal—a one-off payment of $300 to all Australians who are fully vaccinated by 1 December. That's a good idea not just because it provides incentive to get vaccinated but also because it delivers a critical shot in the arm for businesses and workers who are struggling from ongoing lockdowns costing $300 million a day. It's a simple, practical idea that could make a big difference.
We know that this government have already been considering what incentives they could offer. This was indicated in their own COVID response plan. Their Chief Medical Officer, Mr Kelly, said:
We really do need to look for incentives—as many incentives as we can—for people to become vaccinated.
There was a obviously a little footnote to that: 'unless Anthony Albanese proposes it!' 'We really do need to look for incentives—as many incentives as we can—for people to become vaccinated.' That's based on the simple reality of how hard it is to get that last surge of vaccines that we will need if we are to avoid or minimise the risk of future lockdowns, and we know from the government's own backgrounding of the media they were considering giving people Frequent Flyer points and discount vouchers, so you'd think they'd have little to quibble about with Mr Albanese's proposal. Yet, just as he arrogantly dismissed Labor's proposals for wage subsidies before he finally introduced JobKeeper and just as he arrogantly dismissed Labor's calls for more vaccine deals, which he clearly should have done, Mr Morrison has arrogantly dismissed this idea today. You see, with this bloke it's always politics first. He's much more interested in scoring political points than doing the right thing.
The core proposition Mr Morrison seems to be putting forward is financial incentives don't work. That's big news to everybody here and big news to anyone who's ever had a job. It's an extraordinary and a bizarre claim, and it is so because what he says changes depending on his political circumstances, because can anyone imagine the leader of the party that claims to be about enterprise saying that financial reward is bad? You see people understand incentives do work. Mr Morrison knows incentives work. There are two possible explanations for him being so arrogantly dismissive of the idea to give financial incentives for Australians to be all vaccinated by 1 December. Is it just that they're so stubborn about playing politics that if Mr Albanese says it they dismiss it, or is it that they don't have enough vaccine supply to get Australians fully vaccinated by 1 December?
Today Mr Morrison claimed he wasn't going to offer financial reward. He said, 'That's not the Australian way.' Well, this bloke is in no place to define the Australian way, because, I tell you what, most Australians think our way is to be straight with people, to own up to your mistakes and to put the country's interests ahead of your own personal political interests. So just for once could Mr Morrison put politics aside, because, yet again, what we see is he's still more interested in his short-term political interests than the national interests, more interested in scoring political points than helping people, more interested in making excuses for his own failures than winning for Australia. The result is nearly half our country is in lockdown, and the result is that in the race to be vaccinated against this deadly virus Australia is last in the developed world.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (16:17): Those opposite—you guys seriously must be hating on the Olympics, you must be hating the fact that we're doing so well and that Australians are being represented by these fantastic athletes that are continuing to do our country proud, because there is seriously nothing you guys can't knock down, discredit and quite plainly misrepresent when it comes to our great nation. Why do you hate Australia—seriously? This persistent cry from those opposite about the vaccine rollout, all whilst out there contributing and aiding and abetting and pushing it along with—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McGrath ): Order, Senators!
Senator HUGHES: vaccine hesitancy—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, order!
Senator HUGHES: confusion, misinformation, continuing to spread that. You guys need to have a really, really good hard look at yourselves and start to get on board with 'Team Australia'—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order on my left!
Senator HUGHES: because, quite frankly, you're just making it up. And this claim that we're at the bottom of the world ranking when it comes to vaccination rate is actually wrong. But I understand for those of you opposite that maths isn't exactly your strong suit. Perhaps for that lesson when they taught you how to read graphs you might have been absent or chatting away or looking at what the big government and the unions were supposed to tell you to do and what you needed to think, because when you see countries like New Zealand underneath our vaccination rate that means that Australia's not at the bottom.
Perhaps this inability to read graphs and interpret data is why you guys are unable to recognise a really important graph that continues to show Australia at the bottom, but, in this instance, it's at the bottom of rates of death by COVID. I would have thought that was a pretty good graph to be at the bottom of, but I'm not sure you guys have even seen it, let alone can understand it. Can you imagine where we would be had we not had the failure of the Andrews government last year? He absolutely was culpable for hundreds of deaths. There has been unbelievable success when it comes to the COVID death rate across Australia. Of course, you guys aren't interested in any of that. You aren't interested in the economic success and the lives and livelihoods that were saved. There has never been a scare campaign you didn't like.
I go back to the vaccine rollout. If the ALP are to have any integrity—and I guess I need to spell that word for them—they need to stop their disgraceful misinformation campaign around AstraZeneca. If it weren't so serious, it would be entertaining. The member for Maribyrnong, the man whose leadership aspirations remain strong—the beating of the drum for Albanese—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator O'Neill, order!
Senator HUGHES: Before question time today the member for Maribyrnong proudly tweeted a photo of his second AZ shot, showing his support for this effective Australian-made vaccine. The Doherty Institute has confirmed that AstraZeneca is just as effective as Pfizer. I ask the opposition leader: is it purely a bid to create a point of difference between you and the member for Maribyrnong that you continue to withhold support for AstraZeneca? Is that why when you're asked to support this Australian-made vaccine you avoid responding, you worm and weasel your way around the question?
This is bad and irresponsible behaviour from the man who apparently aspires to put himself forward as the alternative Prime Minister of this fantastic nation, but he's not happy just feeding into this vaccine misinformation campaign; he's now out there ensuring the ALP goes to the next election with many vaccine scaremongers, misinformation merchants and, quite frankly, fantasists as candidates. With the preselection of Dr Michelle Ananda-Rajah in the seat of Higgins the ALP have now confirmed what we all already knew—they are more interested in political point-scoring, driving division and wedges between Australians, and scaring vulnerable cohorts. Shame on all of you.
Of course, the absolute worst of these scaremongers and spreaders of misinformation is none other than the Queensland Chief Health Officer, who has now been rebuked by pretty much every epidemiologist in the country and, in fact, by pretty much everyone with a medical degree—so that wouldn't include some of the commentators we regularly see on the ABC. If the Queensland Premier is so wedded to reward her—a woman who has shown a complete lack of compassion at every opportunity, has divided and destroyed families, has kept them apart and has spread misinformation but has never seen a film star or a footballer she wouldn't give a special exemption to at the first opportunity—let's just make her governor now. Get her in there. Get her out of the public view. Get her out of giving information to Queenslanders about what vaccine they should get, because she clearly doesn't know what she's talking about. She is making ridiculous and, quite frankly, stupid claims.
Unlike those opposite, with all this in mind, the grown-ups are actually here working towards increasing vaccination rates because we know that's how the country will open back up. Perhaps Senator O'Neill would be better off spending her time on her internal preselection rather than bothering to spread this pathetic propaganda. For those who are actually interested in the reality of the vaccine rollout—how many jabs have actually been given to Australians—more than 12 million jabs have now been administered. We also know now that more than one million jabs are being administered into the arms of Australians every single week. So we've done 12 million to date and will be doing over one million per week going forward. But those over there are not happy.
Like every country around the world, we have had some bumps along the way because these are unprecedented times. I know those opposite have perfect 20/20 vision. Had we all listened to them when they had nothing to say—of course, they have every criticism in the world after—everything would have been great. Imagine how good things would be with the $387 billion of new taxes they wanted to introduce! Thank God they didn't get the opportunity after the last election. But every country around the world experienced a couple of bumps with the vaccine rollout. The pace picked up as it was rolled out. It was slower at the beginning, and then it continued to grow exponentially.
There were some issues. The PM has acknowledged this. He doesn't hide. He doesn't weasel his way around why he won't support AstraZeneca. The PM has actually acknowledged that there were some issues at the beginning, and some were well and truly out of our control. I realise those opposite don't acknowledge that. When Victoria had problems, that was the PM's issues, or there was no issue because it was Dan Andrews. But now that it's in New South Wales it's all Gladys's fault, and what's not Gladys's fault is Scott's fault. You guys just can't quite get it together. But we've seen these issues resolved. We've seen supply increase. There's actually an excess supply of AstraZeneca, to the point that we're sending it overseas—to the point that the Queensland chief health officer decided that she didn't even want it. They've kind of changed that position now.
AstraZeneca is available, and we have seen over 4½ million vaccinations given in July. For those that don't understand how the rollout has exponentially increased, the 4½ million vaccines that were delivered in July is more than double what was delivered in May. So there's May, then June, and then we have July, for those who weren't paying attention in school. Within those months, we saw an over-doubling of the number of vaccines being delivered, from 2.1 million to 4.5 million.
Those opposite like to talk about supply issues and stagnation in the vaccine rollout. They're fundamentally living in the past. Let's face it: they always do cling to those old days. There's the disgraceful behaviour of the chief health officers in Queensland. There are all the little cash-for-comment epidemiologists popping up on the ABC—half of them without relevant qualifications; they're not even epidemiologists—talking down AstraZeneca, and then those opposite race out to secure them as candidates. But, aside from all of that, there is no supply issue. I would say to those opposite: 'You need to stop scaring people about AstraZeneca. There's plenty available. We make it here. Why don't you support Australian jobs?'
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:27): [by video link] I wish to contribute to the debate on the Prime Minister's failure to deliver a speedy, effective rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, meaning Australians remain dangerously exposed today to the highly infections delta variant, with the lowest vaccination rate in the developed world. As people have called it, this is definitely a 'stroll out' of vaccines across this country. We were in an excellent position just before the rollout occurred. We could have been so much further ahead if the government had not squandered our advantage in this stroll-out of a vaccination process. Billions have been spent on trying to get this rollout fixed. There's been contract after contract, and yet we are still seeing the lowest vaccination rates in the developed world.
The Morrison government's rollout to date has been characterised by chaos and incompetence. We've witnessed a rollout that has been plagued by constant supply issues, poor messaging and a lack of transparency. We try to get the information that Australians want, but we can't. We've seen that through the COVID committee time and again. Every step of the way we have had to beg for data, information and action from this government. Across Australia, people have been left confused, angry and disappointed.
The vaccination targets that were released last Friday raise even more questions. If we are going to get 80 per cent coverage by March 2022, we need to include children over 12 years. The TGA has already approved the use of Pfizer for kids over 12, so why weren't kids over 12 included in the vaccination targets?
It just boggles the mind that we have not included children over 12 in those targets. The government is aiming for 70 per cent of people aged 16 and over to be vaccinated, but this equates to only 56 per cent of the entire population. The Grattan Institute predicts that, if we reopen at 50 per cent vaccination coverage, then we will see nearly 900,000 cases of COVID. Our hospitals, and our ICU wards, will be overwhelmed. We can't afford to play these sorts of politics with people's lives.
As the government fails to meet its own targets for vaccinating vulnerable populations, we've also seen vaccine inequity emerging. As of 1 August 2021, only 24 per cent of First Nations peoples have received at least one dose of a vaccine. This is unacceptable, when everybody agrees that First Nations communities are particularly vulnerable and when they were supposed to be prioritised. If this is what the government calls prioritising, I'd hate to think what the situation would be if in fact they hadn't been prioritised.
Scientists have been warning us for a long time about the emergence of variants, yet we seemed unprepared when delta hit us in this country. We still haven't adapted. We don't have fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities or the ability to produce mRNA vaccines here yet. We need to be doing better. We need to understand that we are in a race, a very fierce race, to ensure that we get 80 per cent of our entire population vaccinated as soon as possible. We have no proper dates, no proper time line, for when we will see the targets under the government's new approach, its new plan. (Time expired)
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (16:31): I think the Australian people are now very well aware that Mr Morrison had two critical jobs. Mr Morrison and his government and all the people who are sitting on the treasury benches had two critical jobs, which were to deliver vaccinations for Australians, and quarantine that didn't leak, and they have failed absolutely on both fronts. Today I'm really pleased that we can actually put the facts on the record in this place—what the Australian community have been experiencing, suffering and worrying about in the period since this parliament last sat, particularly the people in the great state of New South Wales that I'm so proud to represent here. So many, so many in my community, so many across Sydney, locked down; businesses gone, never to come back—a total failure in governing this country, because the government forgot to do two critical things: get the vaccine out and sort out quarantine. They failed on both.
Today's matter of public importance, though, has a particular focus on the impact of the government's failure, the Prime Minister's failure, to deliver a speedy, effective rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. I have to wonder what on earth Mr Morrison—the man who was supposed to be in charge; the man who'll be in front of a microphone again tomorrow, delighted by the sound of his own voice—was doing in June last year, June 2020, when Pfizer came knocking on Australia's door. Mr Morrison was probably standing in front of a microphone back then, like he will be again, instead of doing his real job, his day job—actually doing the work of government and considering carefully what needs to be undertaken for the people of Australia—and thinking about the future and taking seriously the responsibility for getting vaccines against this COVID-19 outbreak across the world, a one-in-100-year event.
What's happening now is wholly attributable to this glorified ad man, who, along with his team, didn't take note of the advice that he was given. He talks about health professionals and following the health advice, but he didn't take the right advice at the right time, and every single one of us is paying for that now. The consequence, in quite a different reality from the world that Senator Hughes seems to reside in, is that people who have had good faith in the Australian government to date have lost that faith. They have lost that hope. They're all over Facebook on the Central Coast, where I wish I could go home to. I can't, because we're in lockdown, and I've had to do 14 days iso just to come here and do my job—and that's nothing in comparison to the imposition and the suffering that's going on right across Sydney right now. People have lost hope. People are despairing. Mental health crises are on the rise.
There are people like Nadine Morris, who wrote today on the Facebook page of the member for Robertson, Lucy Wicks:
Your "assurance" doesn't mean much when so many people have booked through the federal system … what a joke, I'm beyond furious, this whole situation is a big fat joke. How are we so far behind in this country, I'm embarrassed to be Australian right now. Still in hard lockdown a year and a half into this pandemic with no end in sight.
That's what Australians are thinking about this government and its failures to deliver a speedy, effective rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations. Valerie Dressler writes:
What double standards. One day they are telling people to get out and book in for their vaccine and the next they cancel your appointment.
Danny Long says:
This sends a really bad message—basically you don't matter. There's a few people I know who have been cancelled because of this. All of them have said they won't be trying again.
There, in microcosm, is exactly described the chaos of this government's attempt at a vaccination rollout. Don't buy the vaccines, don't get in a race to deliver them, don't tell people the truth about what's going on, stand in front of a microphone every day and pretend that you're governing a country when you're not really doing your job, and watch the whole thing go to hell in a handbasket. Watch businesses go down the drain, watch families lose their housing because they can't pay the rent, watch kids who can't go to school, and watch mental health crises emerging up and down the streets on which we live. That is what is happening because the vaccines were not purchased when they should have been and because there has been such terrible messaging in the way that this government has gone out to the community.
Julie Redfern says:
Surely this is NOT ok! We are being told we are in a government enforced lockdown until people are vaccinated BUT now the government is cancelling appointments of people booked for vaccination! What a mess …
Janelle Holman calls it like it is:
That's BS, Lucy Wicks MP, I had a booking for my vaccination at Gosford Hospital, it was cancelled today! There's a history of blood clots in my family and I'll be supervising HSC students in Sydney!
We're all interconnected. There are people who need Pfizer. They can't take AstraZeneca. And every time the government says, 'Sign up, get ready, get your jab,' people are taking the government at their word and finding the whole system is failing them.
Gemma Hall says:
So tired of our so called Ministers who don't fight for us at all … why are we the continually sold out region????
People are sick and tired of not being able to get access to a vaccine that the government keeps saying is available. It's not available. There are a number of GPs—very few—on the Central Coast who are able to deliver it, and the ones who had Pfizer have had it removed. So many people are so anxious about this, and it's because of the constant failure of this government to do the right thing—failure to own up to the problems which the government itself and failure to give the Australian people an even chance.
How bad is Australia's record internationally?
The Grattan Institute have been very, very clear over many years in giving frank and fearless health advice to governments of all persuasions. They do their research and they put their reputation on the line every time they put out a report about health. Stephen Duckett said that the government's vaccine strategy is amongst 'the worst in the world'. There are a lot of people in the Australian community who do not listen to politics. They say it doesn't matter. But they're figuring out it matters. I've heard from people who've said they're embarrassed about Australia's stance on this, because we are, in fact, the worst in the world. The numbers don't lie. At the end of last week, Australia had inoculated the third lowest proportion of its population of any OECD nation. We are falling far behind countries like Costa Rica, Mexico, Colombia and almost all of Europe.
We have had contributions like that of Senator Hughes, who tried to indicate that Labor politicians like me, on this side of the chamber, standing up for our communities, holding the government to account and telling it like it really is, haven't got pride in this nation. I've got pride in this nation. I've got pride in the people who want to do the right thing. I've got pride in all the people who want to sign up and get their AstraZeneca or their Pfizer dose. I've got pride in the doctors who are helping them make the decision about which vaccine is best for them. I've got pride in all of those people who have already gone and got the jab. I've got pride in my own family, in my own kids, who could see the writing on the wall and who knew that they could not take a chance and wait for this government to deliver Pfizer into our community. They're in their 20s and they went and got the AstraZeneca jab. They weighed it up, they spoke to a good doctor and they went ahead. But they shouldn't have been in that position. They wouldn't be in that position if this government had actually delivered an effective and timely rollout. It's a disaster. Mr Morrison should be ashamed of himself. (Time expired)
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (16:41): What a dismal, disappointing afternoon we are having here. At Australia's time of greatest need, what do we hear but negative rock-throwing? What do we hear but from an opposition who are very, very happy to be in a nation that has had the lowest infection rates, the lowest death rates and the most extraordinary financial response to this pandemic of any country in the world and that has managed to save lives and save jobs with its programs. Yet now we're going to listen to an opposition who, with the benefit of hindsight, can tell you exactly what was going to happen. With the benefit of hindsight, and without having any manual, as wasn't provided to any government in the world, they are going to tell us exactly what they would have done and how the government, without any of the benefits of hindsight and this mythical manual, could have done so much better.
I'll tell you what has happened in my state of Queensland. When the Pfizer vaccine doses started arriving earlier this year, they were poorly administered by Queensland Health. There were so many that were going out of date they had to start throwing up tents and hoping people would walk in off the street to commence their vaccinations, despite the federal government providing the vaccines and the ammunition to inform people. I was aware of people who walked in, having seen it on the street, and got their vaccination within 30 minutes. How many of those vaccine doses were destroyed after going out of date? How many people in Queensland were not encouraged to be vaccinated early? How much vaccine hesitancy was the result of the words of the Queensland government, which was only keen to be a roadblock in the way of the federal government's successful rollout?
Let me tell you about what happened in Burketown in the far north of the state. When I arrived, the public health system had flown up six people to vaccinate a community of 300 people and, in the two days they were there, they vaccinated 50. In that time communities were left exposed because of the lack of practical administrative processing. Queensland Health admin officers in Townsville were being vaccinated but not the doctors and nurses at the hospital.
These are the kinds of practical implementations that Queensland Health has failed on. The greatest impediment to vaccinating Queenslanders is our own Labor state government. Queensland Health did not order any Astra Zeneca in July and only ordered a thousand doses in May. Queensland has the second-lowest rate of fully vaccinated people, at just over 18 per cent, and the lowest rate of people who've had just one dose, at under 37 per cent. It is extraordinary that the opposition would continue to lay all this blame at the feet of the federal government, despite the millions of doses that have been provided to state governments to get into the arms of its population.
The latest thought bubble that has come from Mr Albanese is 'cash for jabs'. The best incentive that we can provide to get vaccinations is that it could save your life and the lives of your loved ones. It's not something that people put a price on. Australians know that, and they know that their taxpayer dollars are best spent supporting those who are doing it tough, who've lost their job or lost work due to another round of lockdowns. Instead, Labor is proposing payments to people who have already been vaccinated or have already decided to get their vaccinations. Research has highlighted that financial incentives have little to no impact on vaccination rates. Suggesting that people be paid to get vaccinated will alter their risk perception on what decision they should be making. It will also remove the personal responsibility from Australians to understand what is the right thing to be doing. At some point, we as a nation have to make the decision about what actions we personally are going to take. Senator O'Neill was talking about her pride in this nation, but I can't help but wonder how much further ahead the people of New South Wales might be if she spent more time picking up the phone to help people understand how to book a vaccination and what options they have to make that decision for themselves and their families and less time reading Lucy Wicks's Facebook page. I put to so many people the question: Have you been able to get a vaccine? So often, the answer is, 'Yes. I rang the hospital, but I couldn't get an appointment. I rang my GP and I got one,' or, 'I went to see my pharmacist and I got one.' There are many examples of people taking their own personal responsibility to go ahead and take the actions to become vaccinated, because they know that that is the right thing to do.
Senator Siewert raised questions about children over the age of 12 being vaccinated. From 9 August this year around 220,000 children aged between 12 and 15 who are at a high risk of illness if they contract COVID 19 will be able to receive a COVID vaccination. This includes:
children with specified medical conditions that increase their risk of severe COVID-19, including severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, cardiac and circulatory congenital anomalies, neuro developmental disorders, epilepsy, immuno-compromised and trisomy 21
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
all children aged 12–15 years in remote communities, as part of broader community outreach vaccination programs that provide vaccines for all ages—
over 12. This follows a review of the Pfizer vaccine for use in children aged 12 to 15 by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.
One of the things that Australia has done very well is not rush. We've not rushed decision-making and approvals because Australians are telling us they don't want that to happen. Australians are telling us that they have questions about the vaccination and they want to feel confident, and so this rollout has allowed people to know that, for those people who want the vaccination, the vaccination is available to them. We cannot put a price on Australians' safety. We know that we have a plan to get back to normal life and a target of getting 70 per cent of eligible Australians vaccinated, so lockdowns are less likely, restrictions are eased and many freedoms are returned. This plan is working. Already, more than 12 million doses have been given, and that has ramped up to more than a million doses per week.
Regardless of what rocks the opposition is going to continue to throw, what criticisms they have, what benefit of 20/20 hindsight they have, what secret manual they have that apparently nobody else in the world has, in Australia the plan is working. Australians are able to get access to vaccinations, they're able to consult with their doctor and they are able to visit a range of different sites, whether hospitals, GPs, community pharmacies or other primary healthcare providers. So I beg the opposition not to continue this horrible, negative, anti-Australian, antisafety messaging but to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the government, to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the communities of Australia, particularly those regional and rural Australians, and to support this incredibly successful vaccination rollout that is speeding up with every day that goes past. The rollout is ensuring that Australians will be safe and that we will continue the extraordinary economic recovery that we are having.
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (16:52): [by video link] I rise to contribute to this important discussion on the matter of public importance. We've known since the start of the pandemic that First Nations people have an increased risk of adverse effects from COVID-19. We've known since the start of the pandemic that we're walking into a crisis. We are no strangers to dealing with deadly infectious diseases to which we have no immunity. We survived disease brought by the colonisers, like smallpox, which killed hundreds of thousands of my people. Our people, communities and organisations mobilised our COVID-19 responses early and effectively. Remote communities organised big return-to-country reparations efforts to keep people well on country. Our self-determined organisations produced health promotion materials in language to keep our communities safe and healthy. The botched vaccine rollout—and, yes, it has been botched and still is being botched by Mr Morrison, the so-called Prime Minister—has been marred by inconsistent messaging and inadequate vaccine numbers. Mr Morrison's failure to secure enough vaccines has led to serious and valid concerns about how low rates of immunity are affecting Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia.
As I mentioned, our people know how to keep our communities healthy. In Victoria, my home state, Aboriginal health services have helped get 58 per cent of First Nations people vaccinated. This confirms that we've always known self-determination works. When First People are in the driver's seat, we achieve great things, and yet just last month the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation was excluded from a meeting of the National COVID Vaccine Taskforce. If that's not telling you that First Nations don't matter to the Morrison government, then I don't know what is.
First Nations health services need to be included in the conversation. We have solutions, and, resourced properly, we can keep our communities safe. We can look after one another. We just need the vaccines to be able to do it. The Morrison government has said since the start of this pandemic that vaccinating First Nations communities was a priority. Well, start acting like we are the priority: get everyone vaccinated and get your plan sorted out to save people's lives.
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (16:55): [by video link] As this parliament meets again, Australia's largest city is in lockdown, and, over the last few weeks, most of the eastern seaboard has been in lockdown. It is an anxious time for millions of Australians, including millions of Sydneysiders, who are either stuck in their homes, risk the virus when they travel to the supermarket or work in essential jobs around the city where they are doing the right thing for the country and the right thing by Sydney, but are facing the constant risk of escalating the coronavirus pandemic. It is clear to the people of Sydney and it is clear to the people of Australia, that the Morrison government's vaccine rollout has been an abject failure. That failure is the reason we have the lockdown. Plenty of people on the other side of the Senate have criticised state governments for the lockdowns, but the lockdowns are a necessary public health response when the vaccination rate is so low. Without vaccination, there is no measure that's available other than the lockdowns.
This is Scott Morrison's lockdown. It was his hubris, his utter failure of leadership that created this crisis. All of his press conferences look like a list of things that he should have done in 2020. Only this Prime Minister would so abjectly shrink from the work required to solve this national crisis. It requires three things of him. It requires grasping complexity, it requires casting aside ideology in favour of pragmatic solutions and it requires being honest with the Australian people in the national interest. No wonder he is so uniquely unsuited to this work. Just when we needed it most, we have a prime minister who is utterly incapable of doing his job.
Nowhere is this failure more apparent than his consistent refusal to condemn members of his own backbench for undermining public health measures. The soon-to-be-former member for Dawson endorsed a selfish, dangerous anti-lockdown protest in Sydney and Melbourne on his social media pages and hosted his own protest in Mackay. He claimed that the coronavirus is no more dangerous than the flu and it only kills the elderly. He even went so far as to tell a small crowd: 'At some point in this fight, civil disobedience is going to have to be done,' and that they are 'going to have to prepare for that at some stage'. It was self-indulgent, extreme narcissism, yet neither the Prime Minister nor the Deputy Prime Minister have taken a single step to condemn him. Nor did they condemn Senator Rennick when he attacked public health measures, saying, 'You can't protect the weak by destroying the strong.'
Senator Canavan also joined in. He told the ABC that he doesn't think the lockdowns are the right response, that they're causing untold damage to people's mental health, their business, their employment situations and their marriages. Not content with pretending to be a coalminer, now he's an epidemiologist. He is a one-man careers fair. He's had more imaginary careers than Paul Hogan had real ones. Last week, Senator Canavan made the bizarre decision to appear on Steve Bannon's podcast, which has been furiously pumping out vaccine and COVID misinformation to the far-Right internet—probably sourced from Russia somewhere, but damaging to our democracy and damaging to public welfare.
Senator Canavan, Mr Christensen and Senator Rennick show everything that's wrong with the modern National Party. They're more concerned with prosecuting culture wars than representing the people they should be representing. The saddest part of Senator Canavan's appearance was when, given the opportunity at the end of his podcast—I couldn't bear to watch it—after talking about his big role in the international resistance to communism and whatever other garbage it was he was going through, he spelled out his Twitter account and asked people to follow him. He literally spelled it out. For goodness sake, instead of protecting the health and livelihoods of Australia, he is begging for followers on far-right podcasts! We need a serious effort from this Prime Minister, we need serious accountability, we need serious answers. Australians have done their job. Victorians have done their job. The people in New South Wales have done their job. We just wish this Prime Minister would do his. (Time expired)
Senator VAN (Victoria) (17:00): I'd like to thank Senator O'Neill for this MPI. I always love it when Labor get their MPIs up in the ballot. It's like they're delivering us a Dorothy Dixer every single time—and this is just another example. What rot we see in this MPI! How Senator O'Neill could possibly write that down is beyond anyone. But let's have a look at why. The vaccine rollout is continuing to gain momentum. More than 12 million doses have been administered, and we're now hitting more than a million doses administered each week. If you look at the starting point from when we started rolling out this vaccine, 160 days ago, Australia is actually ranked around 14th from that time. Why was it late? Because we built in that safety factor of seeing how it affected other countries. And why could we do that? Because we didn't have COVID at the time. So we built in extra safety measures. Now we're rolling it out, and 80 per cent of over-70s and 65 per cent of over-50s have had their first jab. If we look at the whole eligible population, 40 per cent have had their first jab and 19 per cent have had their second. The rollout continues apace, and it will continue to do so.
As the Prime Minister said, there have been a number of setbacks in the vaccine program. As a government, we've taken responsibility for this. No-one could have foreseen the challenges that AstraZeneca has brought, but it has saved countless lives nonetheless. The UQ vaccine fell out. It was a very good candidate but it had false positives so we had to take that out of the list. Now we have other vaccines, and the amount of vaccines is growing every week.
The government is taking responsibility for these steps, but we also take responsibility for a number of other things. As some of my colleagues have said, we have the second-lowest death rate in the OECD. We've protected the jobs of over three million Australians on JobKeeper and we've got more people back into work than were out of work before COVID hit. All these facts are lost on those on the other side. They don't seem to grasp what's important to Australians, and that is protecting their lives and protecting their livelihoods.
Currently we have two vaccines on offer that we know are safe and provide effective protection against COVID-19 and it's subsequent variants. To ensure Australians are protected against the delta variant, we all have a responsibility to promote the vaccines and reduce vaccine hesitancy. What doesn't help in delivering a speedy and effective rollout is when Labor's candidate in the seat of Higgins spreads mistrust around the AstraZeneca vaccine and promotes vaccine hesitancy even further. What doesn't help the rollout is when the Queensland Labor government's chief health officer continues to criticise the AstraZeneca vaccine when we know it is safe; it has been approved for use by the TGA and we know it will help keep Australians safe. You only need to look at the UK's rollout. The effective vaccination rate of their population is 57 per cent. And their death rate has dropped from over 1,000 a day; the last number I saw was 24 a day. So AstraZeneca is very effective in protecting life.
We need the Labor Party to stop doing everything it possibly can to undermine the rollout and promote vaccine hesitancy.
Even just today, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, explicitly refuses to endorse the AstraZeneca vaccine. What is his thought bubble of $300 a day going to do to people's minds? It will make them think, 'Oh, I'll just wait a while until I get my vaccine, because I'll get 300 bucks if I wait.' We want people to go and get vaccinated now, so these little thought bubbles that wander out from those opposite need to stop. They need to get behind our vaccine rollout. They need to roll up their sleeves and do the work that parliamentarians should. So the answer to those questions is that they just don't care. They're very happy to play politics with the vaccine rollout, and I think Australians have seen through their political aims. (Time expired)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ): Senator Steele-John? I'm sorry. We're not able to hear you, Senator Steele-John.
Senator Siewert: [by video link] Can you hear me?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can hear you, Senator Siewert.
Senator Siewert: [by video link] We can hear Senator Steele-John online, if that helps the technicians.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We'll just wait for a moment to see if I can get an indication of whether that does help. Are we able to fix this issue? We'll just wait for a few more seconds to see if the technicians can fix this issue, but otherwise we will have to move on to the next agenda item. I'm sorry, Senator Steele-John. I think we'll have to move on. I'm not getting any indication from the technicians that they're able to correct the issue. Senator Hanson-Young?
Senator Hanson-Young: Given we can't hear or see Senator Steele-John here in the chamber, I think it's only right that we now do move on. But, just to be clear, we've already had a number of Greens senators speak to this topic, and I know full well that Senator Steele-John would have been highly critical of the government's rollout of the vaccine to date and critical of their lack of support to people. I'm sure that, in his three minutes, he was going to put the case very eloquently that we need to do better to keep Australians safe.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. I apologise to Senator Steele-John. The time for the discussion has expired.
DOCUMENTS
Australian National Audit Office
Consideration
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:09): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (17:10): [by video link] I wish to speak to Auditor-General report No.47 2020-21: performance audit: administration of commuter car park projects within the urban congestion fund. This is the report that the ANAO has done in regard to the spending of money from the Urban Congestion Fund for commuter car parks. Before I speak about the political corruption involved in this rort, which was made very clear in this report, I want to start by talking about the appalling waste of public funds that we're talking about overall. We're talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars building car parks on the total pretence that this will address urban congestion. Urban congestion is a real problem and for the sake of livable cities it needs to be addressed, but there are so many flaws in the government's approach to tackling it.
This is the first layer of corruption that this government has presided over. I want to cover this in some detail because most of the commentary so far on the rorting of this program and how it has been pork-barrelling focused on marginal and targeted seats has just accepted that building car parks is a valuable way of tackling urban congestion. But the only tangible evidence that the department of infrastructure was able to provide to us as to why they thought building car parks would address urban congestion was an Infrastructure Australia paper from 2018. Even though they referenced that paper, the analysis in it did not give them the justification that they needed. Basically, Infrastructure Australia said that building car parks at outer suburban stations which serve low-density regions could be useful but that we should also improve other public transport access to stations—commuter bus services, walking and cycling, making it easier for people to drop people off—rather than building expensive car parks as the first option.
There are huge problems in getting more people on trains by building more car parks. Station parking very often gets filled very quickly—by about seven o'clock in the morning—and often it's local workers and tradies who fill the spaces rather than people catching the trains. Parking is horrendously expensive to build and is a massive waste of valuable space close to stations. You just cannot provide enough car parking for the thousands of people—or tens of thousands of people—who will be catching trains from a railway station each day. Feeder bus services, which I mention, are much more effective.
In Victoria, where the majority of these car parks are proposed to be built, car parking is not discussed by the Victorian government's strategic transport planning, the 2012 rail development plan for Melbourne or the Department of Transport's 2019 strategic plan. Basically, this federal government ignored state priorities in creating this rort. Other options that should be considered are active transport, improving public transport, more bike paths, more walking paths and more end-of-trip facilities for bikes. We need to make it genuinely easy for people to get to the station in ways that are non-polluting and that don't require hundreds of thousands of dollars—or millions of dollars, which is required to build these car parks.
The department of infrastructure justified building these car parks by saying, 'We did a benefit-cost ratio analysis and it was all positive.' But if you look at the benefit-cost ratio that they did, it was absolutely dodgy. It was an absolutely appallingly weak piece of analysis. The entire basis of their analysis was that there was a broadbrush, generic assumption that removing vehicles would have an incredibly high value per kilometre for other cars travelling on the roads. If you have awful assumptions, you end up with awful analysis—garbage in, garbage out. The benefit-cost ratio is wildly inadequate for a program worth $650 million. I undertook much better transport planning work when I was a strategic planner at the City of Hume before I was in the Senate. So that's the first rort. Rather than doing good policies, this government insisted on building car parks that are hugely problematic, ineffective and wasteful.
Now let me just quickly address the second layer of corruption. This whole program started with a wish list of 20 electorates, and then the list expanded. So, right from the start, the rort was baked in. This was pork-barrelling. This was determining where money was being spent on the basis of buying votes rather than good public policy. It was purely about putting projects in marginal electorates. It was run out of the minister's office, with the knowledge and cooperation of the Prime Minister's office. The sheer outrageous audacity of this corruption is incredible. This isn't just a small bit of corruption. This is corruption. This is an appalling waste of public money, and the Senate needs to consider its consideration.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ): Senator Rice, your time has expired.
Senator RICE: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:16): I understand that there is a request to seek leave to allow Senator Steele-John to speak. However, I haven't had a response from him as yet.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ): He's appeared on the screen. Is leave granted to go back to the MPI for the last contribution, by Senator Steele-John?
Leave granted.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John? It doesn't look like the issue has been resolved. Do we have any indication from the technicians of whether they're able to resolve the issue quickly? I'm sorry, Senator Steele-John. We will have to definitely say that the time for the discussion has expired and proceed back to documents. We will, of course, look into that issue to try to rectify it so you're able to make contributions.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs References Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:18): In respect of the Final report on the Australian government response to the recommendations of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report: The number of women in Australia who have had transvaginal mesh implants and related matters, I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Senator Siewert would like to speak to the document.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:18): [by video link] In relation to the Community Affairs References Committee report Number of women in Australia who have had transvaginal mesh implants and related matters, the final report on the government response was tabled by the government in July. First off, I would like to say thank you to the government for coming back to us with reporting on how these recommendations have been implemented. I'm not quite sure if it's a first, but it's certainly very much appreciated, because the 2017 Senate inquiry into transvaginal mesh implants was a very important inquiry. We heard from so many women who had been living with significant negative consequences of having these implants. It's estimated that between 10,000 and 15,000 women may have suffered side effects from mesh devices. Many women who have had transvaginal mesh implants have had devastating complications resulting in ongoing emotional trauma, embarrassment, shame, depression, debilitating pain, recurring infection, loss of employment and poor quality of life.
The women we heard from during the inquiry process experienced starkly different outcomes. Not only have these outcomes been severely adverse but most of the women who gave evidence have experienced great difficulty finding medical practitioners who would accept that the symptoms they were experiencing were as severe as they claimed, and said, or that they weren't mesh related. Their struggles to cope with their symptoms and to find support and treatment had so far gone unrecognised on many occasions, and they had far-reaching and devastating impacts on their lives and the lives of their family.
Many women who received mesh implants suffered for an extremely long time. Others continue to be in constant pain. It was absolutely heartbreaking to hear the experiences of so many women and that they've been ignored for so long. These women were let down by the system. The system failed them. The way many women were treated when they were trying to get treatment and support when they had such bad outcomes is absolutely appalling and an indictment on the medical practitioners and the system involved in that treatment.
We heard a lot of harrowing evidence during the inquiry. So many women have been so adversely impacted. There was a clear pattern of poor process and advice which led women to having severely impacted lives. The class action against Johnson & Johnson has resulted in compensation for some women, but the suffering continues. I've been contacted by so many women suffering debilitating and long-term injuries who cannot even access the disability support pension.
The committee made 13 recommendations that aimed to address the needs of women with mesh related complications and to improve the regulation process so that this sort of system never happens again. I'm very pleased that the government has progressed 11 out of the 13 recommendations.
Recommendation 11, which the government has not accepted, needs attention. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments commission the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care to undertake an audit of transvaginal mesh procedures undertaken and their outcomes since the introduction of the devices for use in the Australian market. We need this data collection. We need an audit of the procedures that have been undertaken. It is appalling that this hasn't happened.
The federal government needs to continue their leadership on this issue, because they have reported on the implementation of so many of our recommendations. They need to show leadership and ensure that this audit can take place. It is absolutely essential that the women that have been impacted by transvaginal mesh continue to be supported and helped in whatever way possible.
I'm very pleased, as I said, that the government has reported on the implementation of these recommendations. I wish they would do the same with so many of the other community affairs reports. I look forward to the implementation of recommendation 11. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Motion to take note of document no. 7 moved by Senator Urquhart and debated. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of documents nos 10, 14, 23 and 25 moved by Senator Urquhart. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of document no. 15 moved by Senator Hanson-Young and debated. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:24): My understanding is that Senator Steele-John is now good to go, so I seek leave for him to make his multi-delayed three-minute contribution on the matter of public importance.
Leave granted.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (17:24): [by video link] There is a lot of talk in this place and in the media about what it will take to change the way that we manage COVID-19 in the community to open up.
I've got to say that right now I am furious. Young people are at risk and disabled people are at risk all because the Morrison government has failed, failed and failed again. This is not good enough. Only a fraction of disabled people are currently vaccinated. It is absolutely heartbreaking to hear of COVID-19 cases making their way into group homes with individuals who are not fully vaccinated. Even for those who are in the front of the queue for the vaccine there is the struggle to find somewhere accessible where it can be administered. Disabled people are feeling scared. We are feeling isolated. We are terrified that, as corporations push to open up our country, we are the ones who will be left behind to die.
It is outrageous that young people do not have a time frame to receive a vaccination. This slow, delayed rollout is causing longer and longer disruptions to our lives. We do not have access to the mental health supports that we need. All the while, house prices go up and the climate crisis continues to loom over our generation. This government's failures are stealing some of the best moments of our youth while at the same time their failures in relation to climate change steal our future.
The Greens will not risk the lives of young people, of disabled people, of the immunocompromised. As we move to change our response to the pandemic, we will ensure that the voices of at-risk community members are centred and that their wellbeing, their safety, is and continues always to be at the centre of everything we do. I thank the chamber for its time.
COMMITTEES
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Additional Information
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:27): At the request of the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Henderson, I present additional information received by the committee as listed at item 14 on today's order of business.
DOCUMENTS
Western Sydney Airport
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:28): I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Leppington Triangle.
'Leppington Triangle' land—Order of 12 November 2020—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts (Mr Fletcher), dated 3 August 2021, responding to the order and raising a public interest immunity claim, and attachments.
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:29): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:30): I present a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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—
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AMENDMENT (STANDARDS AND ASSURANCE) BILL 2021
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is 20 years old and needs modernising to ensure Australia can meet current and future environment and heritage protection challenges.
The final report of the Independent Review of the EPBC Act was released on 28 January. The final report is far-reaching, with key reform elements including increasing efficiency by streamlining environmental approvals, to be underpinned by strong, legally enforceable national environmental standards and supported by strong assurance.
This will provide confidence that environmental assessment and approval systems are delivering outcomes for the environment, for business and for the community.
I again thank Professor Samuel for his dedicated work in undertaking a comprehensive and thorough process over a period of 12 months.
The Morrison government is committed to maintaining strong environment protection and ensuring the EPBC Act is serving its intent to both protect the environment and grow our economy. This is essential to support our COVID-19 recovery.
We have an opportunity to deliver key reforms that support clear and consistent protection for our environment while also unlocking job-creating projects.
All states and territories have joined the Australian government in recognising the need for change recommended by the independent review and elsewhere.
Together leaders have agreed that the immediate priority for reform is to implement single-touch environmental approvals, underpinned by national environmental standards that reflect the current requirements of the EPBC Act.
In August last year, I introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill into the parliament.
The purpose of that bill is to ensure that bilateral agreements and the accreditation of state authorisation processes, which give effect to single touch approvals, are legally robust and durable.
This is an essential step in implementing the commitment made by national cabinet.
The bill I introduce today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021, further demonstrates that the Morrison government is stepping up to, not away from, its environmental responsibilities.
It has always been the intention of the government that bilateral agreements with the states and territories will be underpinned by strong, Commonwealth-led, national environmental standards. The bill delivers on this commitment by establishing a framework to make legally enforceable, national environmental standards.
Standards will provide greater clarity for proponents and the community, as thousands of pages of rules will be distilled into clear and concise requirements.
This will increase efficiency for proponents and support improved community understanding of the EPBC Act.
The government's amendments to the EPBC Act will require the interim standards to be reviewed within two years.
This review point is an opportunity to ensure that we are getting the balance right between developments that are necessary for our economic recovery and protecting the environment.
I have made a commitment to stakeholders that this is a starting point, and I am determined to use the interim standards and the goodwill of all stakeholders around the table to drive change. This process will continue immediately following the passage of the legislation.
National environmental standards are a fundamental change to Australia's national environmental law. In the first instance, the government is prioritising the development of interim national environmental standards for matters of national environmental significance, reflecting the existing requirements of the EPBC Act. This will make the Commonwealth's existing rules clear.
These interim standards will ensure that Commonwealth requirements and obligations are upheld—regardless of who makes project approval decisions.
This is the first step. Bilateral agreements underpinned by the interim standards will harmonise environmental approval requirements across all jurisdictions.
What is expected of me as the Commonwealth environment minister when making approval decisions under the EPBC Act will also be expected of state and territory decision-makers under bilateral agreements.
This framework will pave the way for future change. Over time, as more information becomes available, the standards will be reviewed and refined to have greater specificity and will more clearly and consistently set out the limits that define acceptable impacts on environment and heritage matters and the outcomes that need to be supported by decision-makers.
Bilateral agreements with the states and territories will be underpinned by national environmental standards. States and territories that want to be accredited under the EPBC Act to make approval decisions will need to demonstrate that their systems can support the national environmental standards.
States and territories will have flexibility to find the best possible way to deliver these outcomes.
The bill will also allow the minister to determine which decisions under the EPBC Act the national environmental standards will apply to. This mechanism will allow the standards to apply to a range of different decisions under the act over time.
Once a decision has been determined to be subject to the national environmental standards, the person making the decision must be satisfied that it is not inconsistent with the standards.
The amendments allow the national environmental standards to be applied at a systems level, by setting out a range of factors that can be taken into account in determining whether a decision is not inconsistent with the standards.
These factors include, for example, policies, plans or programs of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory, or the funding of activities related to the environment or the promotion, protection or conservation of heritage, by the Commonwealth, a state or a territory.
There may be circumstances where it is in the public interest to make a decision that is inconsistent with the national environmental standards.
The amendments provide the minister, and only the minister, with the ability to do this. States and territories will not be able to make decisions that are inconsistent with the standards.
To ensure these decisions are transparent, the amendments will require the minister to publish a statement setting out the reasons why the minister was satisfied that the decision was in the public interest. The statement must be published on the department's website as soon as practicable after the decision is made.
Environment Assurance Commissioner
To provide oversight and confidence that single touch approvals systems are working as intended, are upholding the requirements of the EPBC Act and are achieving the national environmental standards, the bill also establishes a new, independent, statutory position—the Environment Assurance Commissioner.
The Environment Assurance Commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General, will be independent and will not be subject to directions by the minister.
The Environment Assurance Commissioner will monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements, as well as the Commonwealth environmental assessment and approval processes under the EPBC Act.
As the audits are directed to the effectiveness of environmental assessment and approval systems, an audit could, for example, examine the effectiveness of accredited state or territory systems for making and enforcing approval decisions in achieving the national environmental standards.
The Environment Assurance Commissioner will not have a role in monitoring or auditing individual decisions. It is not a second decision-making body, and it is not a replacement for, or a precursor to, legal review processes for decisions.
The Environment Assurance Commissioner will be housed in the department and will be supported by dedicated resources. In addition to the preparation of annual work plans, the commissioner will have the capacity to proactively conduct unplanned audits where necessary.
The operation of the Environment Assurance Commissioner will be transparent. The commissioner's annual work plans and audit reports will be published on the internet, and the commissioner's annual reports will be tabled in the parliament.
By putting in place clear rules to support strong environmental outcomes and establishing assurance mechanisms to provide confidence in the overall environmental regulatory system, we are ensuring that the highest national environmental standards are met, regardless of who approves a project.
While the review concluded that the EPBC Act needed fundamental reform, it also recommended that this be pursued in staged tranches, taking time to deliver well-considered adjustments.
I have committed to working through the full details of the recommendations of the review. We will do this in consultation with business, industry, environment groups, farmers, Indigenous Australians, and states and territories to deliver lasting reforms to national environmental law.
With the streamlining bill and this bill, the government has commenced the first phase of reform, introducing amendments to establish the central pillars recommended by the review. These include the delivery of robust single-touch approval agreements that are underpinned by national environmental standards and subject to strong and independent assurance.
The Australian government is committed to delivering the reforms needed to improve the act, in a methodical, well-planned way.
Further phases of reform will build on these efforts and our ongoing discussion with stakeholders.
This process is too important to stall because not everyone can agree on where to start.
The fact is, we need to start.
We need a staged process, and we need reform.
I have presented the government's reform agenda in good faith and as environment minister I am confident that by starting this process we can deliver strong protection for Australia's unique natural environment. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Incorporation:20210803:Bills subdebate heading 31 bills G-G assen t
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the Senate of assent to the bills.
REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Industry Research and Development (Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program) Instrument 2021
Industry Research and Development (Temporary Refinery Production Payment Program) Instrument 2021
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:31): I seek leave to move business of the Senate notices of motion (4) and (5), in the name of Senator Rice, together. I understand this has been agreed through the whips process.
Leave granted.
Senator McKIM: I move:
That the Industry Research and Development (Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program) Instrument 2021, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2021L00610].
That the Industry Research and Development (Temporary Refinery Production Payment Program) Instrument 2021, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2021L00202].
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (17:32): [by video link] I want to start by reiterating the urgency of what we are debating here tonight and reiterating the context—that we are facing a climate emergency. We are moving to disallow these two regulations because the last thing that we should be doing in a climate emergency is handing over over $300 million in subsidies to fossil fuel companies—to the oil industry. Handing over subsidies to fossil fuel companies is the exact opposite of what we should be doing in a climate emergency.
The Liberal government's refusal to act on climate is horrifying. When we are on a trajectory that is currently taking us above 1½ degrees of global heating, the science tells us we need to go further and we need to go faster, because even an increase of 1½ degrees could have devastating impacts and we are almost certainly likely to go past that threshold. The context is that 2020, as well as seeing the start of the global pandemic that we have, was the equal hottest year on record. The planet is now more than a degree hotter than it was in 1821, and, with over a degree's warming, we're likely to have passed crucial tipping points for our coral reefs. They are going to die, including the Great Barrier Reef. We're likely to have passed crucial thresholds for Arctic sea ice and the west Antarctic glaciers, and the Amazon rainforest.
The context of this disallowance is summed up by a quote from a piece in Nature in 2019 entitled 'Climate tipping points—too risky to bet against':
If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization. No amount of economic cost-benefit analysis is going to help us. We need to change our approach to the climate problem.
The authors of this paper said:
In our view, the evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute.
So we are facing a climate emergency. We must act. We must act now. But, in the face of this emergency, what is our government, who should be keeping us safe, doing? It is the same thing they've tried doing with the pandemic: they are putting their heads in the sand, they are complaining about the economic cost and they are pretending that we can just live with it. That is why they are still doing the same thing they have always done, which is handing out taxpayer funds—the money from you and I—to their fossil fuel donors.
Let me remind those listening of a bill that the Senate debated in June 2021, the Fuel Security Bill 2021. That bill created a program that would pay up to $2 billion to fossil fuel refineries, subsidising the production of polluting petrol and diesel—that is, $2 billion, with no guarantees that a single cent would go to workers, and $2 billion without an actual plan for fuel security. In fact, the Liberal Party even opposed an inquiry into this bill, something as simple as hearing from witnesses and providing just a bit more detail about their massive cash splurge and why they thought that it was appropriate. But then again, this government is particularly averse to transparency.
Let's be clear. We want and need meaningful, genuine action on fuel security. Imagine our country so fuel secure that we could be powering new jobs in green manufacturing and exporting energy to other countries. But what we should not be doing is shovelling money out the door to fossil fuel companies, while the government refuses to take meaningful action. The government could have introduced an electric vehicle strategy that would have given us genuine fuel security by fast-tracking the shift from polluting and diesel vehicles to abundant renewable electricity powered vehicles. Instead, what we have over and over again is a blank cheque for oil refineries.
The governments' inaction is even more horrifying when you look at it in an international context. As the Australia Institute recently summarised, Australia has the highest—the highest—per capita pollution in the OECD. It emits more greenhouse gases than 40 countries with bigger populations, including the UK, Italy and France. It's the largest exporter of coal and liquefied natural gas and, according to Australia Institute research, it's the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels, only behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. But rather than plan a just transition from these industries, the Australian government continues to expand fossil fuel extraction and exports. In the most recent financial year, Australia's federal and state governments dished out a staggering $10.3 billion to subsidise fossil fuel use and production. It's therefore unsurprising that the Australia Institute continues, when Australia was ranked last for climate action out of 193 United Nations member countries in The Sustainable Development Report2021. It ranked second-last on climate policy in the most recent Climate Change Performance Index, beaten only by former President Trump's USA. That's the context in which we are considering these two regulations that we are moving to disallow today.
The actions of the Australian government are appalling and are even worse when seen in the international context. Rather than taking genuine action to address the climate emergency, the government are expanding subsidies to make the situation worse, which brings me to the disallowance motion before the Senate. We are voting on two regulations today. The first of these is the Boosting Australia’s Diesel Storage program. It will provide funding of up to $260 million over three years. The second one, the Temporary Refinement Production Payment Program, has already shovelled out $83.5 million in the run-up to the passage of the Fuel Security Bill 2021, so we are today retrospectively saying that this was okay. The Greens oppose both of these measures. This is over $300 million being handed to some of the biggest polluters in the Australian economy, just at a time when there is not money being spent. We do not have the equivalent money being spent on how we shift our transport systems, how we shift our fuels to renewable fuels, to clean, green fuels. That's what we should be spending money on. We, as Greens, are absolutely opposed to both of these measures. This is not what a government that is concerned about keeping the community safe, that is concerned about our future, should be proposing. It is yet more funding for polluting fossil fuels, yet more funding for fossil fuel producers being shovelled out the door.
We've got a situation now with this global pandemic where people do not feel safe, and they want their government to be taking action to make them safe, to make us as safe as possible. Our safety is not being guaranteed in this pandemic, but the safety of the future is not being guaranteed either. We have got a Morrison government that is risking people's current situation and risking the future. I feel particularly for young people, people who are looking down the barrel of what the world's going to look like in their future, who are looking at such an uncertain future and who are looking at the most dire consequences of the level of global heating that we are currently facing. Look at the fires that are being experienced in the Northern Hemisphere, in their current summer. Look at the fires that we experienced in the summer of 2019-20. Look at the sea level rise that is being baked in. Look at the impact on Australian agriculture and the fact that in the areas where we now grow most of our wheat, under four degrees of global heating, which is what we're headed for, we won't be able to grow any food at all.
This is not fanciful, this is not extreme; this is what the science is telling us the situation is now with our climate crisis. What people of Australia and people of the world want is their governments to be taking action. They want their governments to be facing up to the problems that we are facing and to say, 'These are pretty disastrous circumstances that we're looking at, so what are we going to do about this situation? What action can we take so that we can all be working together to be slashing our carbon pollution as quickly as possible?' And the good news is there is so much that we can be doing. There is so much positive news about the actions that we can be taking to be reducing our carbon pollution. I only wish that our government could see the potential opportunities, could see that Australia could be a green industry powerhouse, that we could be exporting renewable electricity, that we could be supporting 100 per cent clean, green fuels to rest of the world, as well as fuelling our transport and our industry here in Australia. But instead of taking these opportunities, of acknowledging that climate emergency, that global heating, is a huge problem that needs us all to be working together to address, we have got these backward measures.
We have got this continuation of just shelling out money and the government supporting its billionaires, supporting its corporate mates, supporting the vested interests, supporting the oil, coal and gas companies. The government continues to spend our money not just allowing them to continue but actually subsidising their operations and, with the instruments whose disallowance we are debating tonight, subsidising the operations of the oil industry by over $300 million. It is wrong because, meanwhile, the seas are warming and rising, the ice caps are melting, the forests are burning. But this Liberal government are just keeping on shovelling money out the door to fossil fuel companies, like deckhands on the Titanic, because of sheer greed and their refusal to act in the national interests. I hope that the Senate will support this disallowance and take action to say, 'No, this is not an appropriate way to spend over $300 million.' Instead we should be taking this money, if it's on offer, and spending this money wisely, spending this money to help us shift as rapidly as possible to a clean, green future, spending this money as part of Australia facing up to its responsibilities and taking real action on our climate crisis.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (17:44): I rise to speak on the motions moved by Senator McKim in the name of Senator Rice, the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program) Instrument 2021 and the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Temporary Refinery Production Payment Program) Instrument 2021. It is the government's neglect of fuel security over the past eight years that has made these programs very necessary. That is what we're saying, on this side.
Labor has welcomed these recent necessary programs targeted at fuel security and domestic refineries and we will vote against this disallowance motion. While the Greens' decision to move this disallowance reflects their ideological position on fuel security, Labor understands how critical having a domestic refining capability and fuel storage is, both for local industry and jobs and for managing against security risks and fuel shocks. It is for this reason Labor will vote against these motions to disallow.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (17:45): The government obviously will be voting against both of these disallowance motions moved by Senator McKim on behalf of Senator Rice. Through boosting Australia's diesel storage program, the government is backing 10 projects across regional Australia that will support around 1,000 new jobs and a 40 per cent increase in Australia's diesel stock holdings. Diesel is vital to Australia's energy securities. It keeps our economy running. These projects will help minimise shortages of diesel during peak usage periods and drive over $636 million of public and private sector investment into these areas, boosting our nation's long-term fuel security and bolstering our national sovereignty.
On the issue of disallowance of the industry R&D Temporary Refinery Production Payment Program, securing the ongoing operations of Australia's refineries is a key element of the government's long-term fuel security package. The government has very successfully secured the commitment of the refineries, due to this grants program, and support for the infrastructure upgrades needed to produce better quality fuels and through the passage of the Fuel Security Act 2021. The temporary payments cover the first half of 2021, before the Fuel Security Act 2021 payments scheme commences. Withdrawing payments would put the refineries' commitments at risk, along with the future of the current 1,250 refinery workers and the additional 1,750 construction jobs for the infrastructure upgrades. So, clearly, the government will be voting against both of the disallowance motions.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ): The question is that business of the Senate notices of motion nos 4 and 5, moved by Senator McKim on behalf of Senator Rice, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:51]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Askew)
BILLS
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate is of the opinion that:
(a) the Morrison Government is on a relentless mission to decimate the higher education sector;
(b) these two bills represent a worrying continuation in the Government's larger pattern of defunding the higher education sector and shifting the costs of providing higher education away from the Commonwealth; and
(c) education is a public good, which should be publicly funded".
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:55): I continue my remarks from earlier in the day. As I was saying earlier, TEQSA is focused on quality assurance and student outcomes. They ensure that higher education providers meet minimum standards, promote best practice and improve the quality of the Australian higher education sector. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021 set up a framework to recover the costs of TEQSA's operations. These bills are not a surprise. The intention of cost recovery for TEQSA was announced in the 2018-19 budget. Understandably and unfortunately, with the effects of COVID, implementing this change was necessarily delayed, but it cannot be delayed indefinitely and it is now time to look to implement them.
I want to reassure people that the cost recovery is not going to recover 100 per cent of TEQSA's costs. As would be expected, certain costs associated with non-regulatory activities will continue to be fully funded by the government. But those costs associated with applications, risk monitoring and regulatory oversight will be recovered through application based fees and annual charges. Implementation will be phased to increase from the current low 15 per cent cost recovery that we're already at to 20 per cent in the first year, 50 per cent in the following year and 100 per cent in the third year. That way, our higher education providers can adjust to the implementation of this cost-recovery framework.
The bills that are before us today establish the legal framework for the cost recovery and charges but do not set the amount of the annual charge, which will be prescribed by regulation. I heard Senator Kim Carr's contribution to this debate earlier today and his concerns, as well as the concerns of the scrutiny committee, that both he and I are on, about setting aside the charges in regulations. I accept those concerns—in fact, I do share some of those concerns—and I've heard the same concerns from the industry. But I also appreciate the need for continuing consultation on the charges model to ensure that it is not rushed, that it is well considered and that the charges are fit for purpose—that they're not just recovering fees that are imagined or not fair and reasonable. I've also heard the concerns of some in the sector, particularly smaller providers, who are worried about the potential for inequity of the charges model. This is why I commend the ongoing consultation—in fact, I implore those who are going through the stakeholder feedback at the moment and who are designing the final model to take into account those concerns and the concerns of smaller providers, and to consider not only a fair and reasonable model but also capacity to pay, what the likelihood is of providers to pass on fees to their students and the capacity to pay of those students.
There are many factors that must be considered when developing the right model to set these charges. One component to the cost recovery is the annual charge, and certainly this has driven the highest level of correspondence to my office. The annual charges will cover the cost of delivering a range of regulatory activities, including student and stakeholder concern management resolution; stakeholder communications and engagement; the provision of risk assessment; and administrative support, including responding to inquiries, business support and guidance. Importantly for the first item, student and stakeholder concern and management, the draft cost-recovery model indicates it would be divided amongst tertiary providers proportionate to each provider's size by student enrolments. It will not be applied in a postage stamp model. This means that an institution like the Batchelor institute of the Northern Territory, the only First Nations dual sector tertiary education provider in Australia, with 223 students commencing in 2019, will pay vastly different rates to that paid by a large university such as the University of New South Wales, with 59,000 students. The reason for proportional costs recovery is that activities related to student and stakeholder concern are directly related to the number of students. More students means more issues raised with TEQSA and then more work for TEQSA. So that proportional split is fair.
In the current proposal, which, as I said before, is being reviewed, the remaining regulatory activities are proposed to be evenly split. The argument put forward by TEQSA is that these regulatory activities often provide more support to smaller providers who have fewer staff and less capacity to do risk assessments for themselves. This is an area I'm confident that those sifting through the stakeholder feedback will consider when designing the final formula.
The final impact on a provider must also consider the changes to application based fees. As part of the changes facilitated by these bills today, there is capacity for reduced course accreditation for smaller providers with fewer than 500 full-time equivalent students. This means some of our smaller providers but with a large number of courses could save up to $50,000 per year. This is a crucial point. This is specifically designed to address the concerns that have been raised with my office by smaller providers about the potential inequity of the cost-recovery model. At an individual provider level, the percentage change in fees and charges will vary due to the different application based fees. It will also vary year to year based on the fact that it is dependent on enrolment and the student and stakeholder management side of the fees. Some will pay less in accreditation fees. Some of it, as I said, will be based on the difference in student numbers.
There is absolutely no doubt that our tertiary education sector has a quality assurance system that makes us very attractive to international students. We want to ensure that our tertiary sector continues to have a strong international reputation so that, at the other side of COVID, we can bring back those international students to enjoy studying onshore here in Australia.
At the same time, however, I commend our university sector for being able to pivot, for being agile during COVID and for being able to maintain relationships with their current international students through online offerings and other mechanisms to ensure that we remain a primary place of study for international students. As I said at the opening of my remarks earlier in the day, many of our universities, despite fearing the worst, have actually produced financial results this year far greater than they were expecting, which is a testament to their ability to pivot, to respond to the challenges of COVID and to continue to service not only their international students but, more crucially and more importantly, our students throughout Australia who have been impacted themselves by various lockdowns. There have been various impacts in different states. Some of the students who were to commence university this year haven't even set foot on campus, not through any fault of their own but just due to the fact that COVID keeps popping its head up, left, right and centre. I credit them. I credit our universities and thank them all for the work they've done to see us through. I thank our university sector for its ongoing and crucial contribution to our economy.
There is no doubt our tertiary sector has a quality assurance system that is robust and adds to this attractiveness for international and domestic students. We know this sector greatly contributes to our national economy through both import dollars and domestic activity. It's also very important to recognise that our higher education providers also attract research dollars, both domestically and internationally, and they have many other beneficial community associations, through local sponsorship and through local community interactions, that cannot be underestimated.
I reassure our community and the sector that these bills are not a negative. In fact, they should be viewed as an opportunity to ensure that our international reputation for a high-quality tertiary sector will be ongoing and robust into the future in a manner that is fair and equitable, so the burden is not met purely by taxpayers, some of whom have never set foot on a university campus.
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (18:06): I rise in support of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, as the national regulator of our universities, plays a very important role in maintaining the quality of our nation's higher education. Australia has world-class universities, thanks in no small part to the regulating work that TEQSA does. These bills will continue to support this work by enabling TEQSA to charge universities an annual fee for the work that it does. This will take the monetary burden off the taxpayer and create a self-sustaining system between universities and their regulator to keep higher education in Australia strong.
The importance of having high-quality and robust universities cannot be overstated. Higher education shapes the minds of young people and prepares them to be productive and contributing members of society. University students get the opportunity to expand their minds and learn to think critically, which is very important to being a good citizen of the world. Education is often the difference between developed and undeveloped countries. This is why keeping universities operating at a high standard remains a priority for this government. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency is the government's authority for doing this and ensuring continuing high standards at our universities.
The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency does the work of registering higher education providers, accrediting courses where self-accreditation has not been given and regulating providers to ensure they are delivering best practice. Any new provider of higher education must first register and then renew their registration once every seven years. Throughout that time TEQSA conducts regular compliance and quality assessments and also collects and disseminates information relating to higher education and best practice.
Because of the essential work that happens it's important that TEQSA gets the money it needs to function. At the moment this money is coming from the taxpayer. The purpose of these bills is to transition TEQSA's cost recovery to come from universities, as the beneficiaries of its services. At the moment only 15 per cent of total cost is being recovered from the sector. Over the next three years this will transition to 100 per cent so that TEQSA can become a self-sustaining system. It makes sense for universities to pay for the services that they are benefiting from and which they need for their industry to remain strong. In addition, it's government policy that regulators be able to recover the full cost of what it takes to deliver their services, so these bills will see the higher education sector come into line with this.
An example of the important work being done is when TEQSA identified and improved the transparency of the admissions process of universities. There was way too much variety and confusing application pathways, which made it difficult and confusing for potential students to apply. TEQSA was able to address the problem by creating an implementation plan that universities adopted which included standardising admissions information, terminology and thresholds, which streamlined the process. This means that potential students can now easily see the admission requirements and compare universities in order to make an informed choice about where they go and whether they can get in. This is just one example of the important regulatory work that TEQSA does and why it needs adequate funding to be able to fulfil its purpose of protecting student interests and the reputation of Australian higher education.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a difficult time for the higher education sector because of the loss—
Senator Farrell: Point of order, Deputy President: the senator is in breach of standing order 187. You are not permitted to read your speeches in this place.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, I think we're fairly lenient on that standing order, but I do remind senators it is a standing order and I would ask you to speak to your speeches.
Senator RENNICK: That's fine, thanks, Madam Deputy President. I don't need to read a speech to talk about education in this country and what the Labor Party did to education in 1990, with the Dawkins plan. If you want me to go off script, Senator Farrell, I'll do that any time, because I well remember what the Hawke-Keating government did to education in this country. They commoditised degrees in this country and treated our children like commodities. They introduced the HECS debt, basically enslaving our children to debt, just like Paul Keating did when he brought in the foreign banks to this country and let the RBA off their leash and inflated house prices. And now our students go to university and they end up with a massive HECS debt. They've got very little chance of getting jobs because everyone had to get a degree rather than stick with TAFE, and now they're in big trouble because the Button plan destroyed manufacturing. That was the perfect combination. 'Let's destroy manufacturing. Let's prop up the finance industry by giving unmitigated control to the superannuation industry, letting in the foreign banks and letting in foreign debt.' And what have our children got? Nothing. We've privatised all the infrastructure in this country. They've got degrees that don't get them jobs. And now they've got to give up 10 per cent of their incomes, which I spoke about earlier today—and Paul Keating himself admitted it came out of their wages. So I don't need a lesson from you, Senator Farrell, as to how destructive your party—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, I remind you not to reference other senators directly.
Senator RENNICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I don't need a lesson from Senator Farrell as to the destructive nature of what Labor has done to this country. There isn't an industry in this country that hasn't been destroyed by the Labor Party. It's interesting. They talk about casualisation and how wages are casual. I was just reading about how, under the 1983 Prices and Incomes Accord, casualisation went from single digits to up to 25 per cent—thanks to the Hawke-Keating government. And they've got the hide to come in here and talk about casualisation rates in this country. There isn't a thing the Hawke-Keating government didn't destroy. And the little bit that was left when the Rudd-Gillard government got in—what a mess they made with the boat people!
I'm not going to bother talking about this bill, because this bill is all about trying to get education back on track in this country.
Senator Kim Carr: Madam Deputy President, we do appreciate that in a second reading debate we range widely, but there is no relevance whatsoever in this senator's remarks to the terms of this bill. We have got onto boat people and various other things which I suggest you are not contained anywhere in the bill. Perhaps he could draw his attention back to the terms of the bill.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Carr. I have been listening carefully and I was waiting for Senator Rennick to get back onto the bill. But it is a broad-ranging debate and he was speaking mostly about education.
Senator RENNICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I was actually coming back because this bill is a part of the many things that we're doing in the Morrison government to get education back on track in this country so that our children, when they graduate from tertiary education, whether it be from university or TAFE, can get a job. At the end of the day, higher education is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. It is not about propping up academics to write research publications that basically create alarmist theories about the Great Barrier Reef and all that stuff. No, no, no. It is about delivering outcomes—that is, a higher standard of living for our children to make sure that they can stand on their own two feet. I want to acknowledge the great work that Senator Cash has been doing in giving a 50 per cent incentive to the apprenticeship scheme. That's been totally booked out, I understand, totally filled; I think we're extending that. It's great to see that the Morrison government are trying to get people back into apprenticeships. We openly acknowledge we don't want to rely on too much immigration for the sake of filling jobs.
I'm glad to commend this bill to the Senate because I know that this bill is another step that the Morrison government has been taking to clean up higher education in this country. The mess left behind by prior Labor governments, we're still cleaning up, after those horrid neoliberal years under the Hawke-Keating government that left our country desolate. A lot of this stuff, we're only seeing it now, of course. It's very important that we stand up to that. I will leave it at that. Senator Farrell, any time you want me to go off script, you just let me know. I'm happy to talk to you in here about this or about any topic, any time, any place.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (18:16): [by video link] I rise tonight to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. It's always entertaining to follow on from Senator Rennick. I'm going to put facts on the record here tonight. The purpose of these bills is to establish a new charge to recover the cost of Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities for registered higher education providers. This will transition the authority's operations from partial to full cost recovery over the next three years. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, is Australia's independent national quality assurance and regulatory agency for higher education. All providers that offer higher education qualifications in or from Australia must be registered by TEQSA.
These bills will give TEQSA the capacity to collect and administer a new registered higher education provider charge, and authorises regulations to be made to prescribe the amount and the method for setting charges. In what is becoming more and more common by this government, they have excluded the majority of detail about the proposed cost recovery framework from the legislation. Instead, key details will be contained in regulations and a new TEQSA charging guideline. With every chance that this liberal government gets, they want to minimise transparency and accountability. It's a hallmark of the Morrison government. How can we, as senators, perform our job if we cannot properly scrutinise legislation? As such, Labor will be opposing this legislation. Now is not the right time to move to full cost recovery for higher education providers, who have had a tumultuous 18 months. The majority of these providers are experiencing major financial difficulties because of the COVID-19 pandemic and have been largely excluded from any financial support from the Morrison government, and now the government wants to whack them with more fees.
It's interesting to listen to the contributions of the Liberal senators in this place tonight. What they've said is that there's been an acknowledgement that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on tertiary education providers and, in general, university students. But they still want to push through this legislation. Universities faced revenue losses of around $3 billion last year and laid off more than 17,300 staff—that is, 17,300 people who lost their jobs because the Morrison government refused to help. They're not only the researchers, the academics and the tutors but also the cafeteria workers, the librarians, the grounds keepers, the maintenance staff, the admin staff, the cleaners. These jobs are not only in our cities but also in regional areas, where some of our universities are based. That has a direct impact on those regional communities, and there is a flow-on effect, a negative one, throughout our economy. Worse still, higher revenue losses are expected this year as the pipeline of international students dwindles, and uncertainty about our borders reopening remains very relevant here today. Because of the completely bungled vaccination rollout by those on the government benches and their refusal to implement a nationally coordinated quarantine system, these uncertainties are likely to remain for some considerable time.
This is all in the context of the Morrison government providing little if any support to this sector. We must not forget that the government changed the rules three times to exclude our public universities from JobKeeper. Education is our fourth-largest export industry, and it has been completely neglected by the Liberal government. Now they want to add greater costs to higher education, costs which will obviously more than likely flow through to students. Like with Medicare and with superannuation, the Morrison Liberal government will take every chance they get to cut funding from our universities. They have really taken it in their stride, doubling costs for students, cutting government support to education and, in the middle of a pandemic when one of the main streams of income for universities effectively went to zero, they have nothing—nada. Our universities are engines for innovation, and we rely on them to overcome problems in the future. We need just look at our responses to COVID-19 and how important our researchers and academics have been in informing our response to this virus. But right now they feel abandoned and kicked to the kerb by the Morrison government.
The government's proposal to move to an annual levy contradicts TEQSA's guiding regulatory principles to take a risk-reflective and variable-touch approach. University peaks argued that an annual levy means the burden of regulatory cost will be carried by the lowest-risk providers, which are large public universities. Haven't they endured enough? At the same time private providers are concerned that increased application based fees, which will rise by a whopping 700 per cent in some cases, will threaten their financial viability entirely. For smaller providers, it could be their undoing. These institutions have flagged that providers' closure, at a time when the financial viability of many providers is already threatened by this pandemic, will lead to higher cost to the government through reliance on the Tuition Protection Service. The Liberals are just seizing on this as a cost recovery exercise, but what they don't realise is the impact that they will have. They don't care about the students who will have to face US-style debts or they will threaten through the viability of their providers. Let's face it, the Morrison government have no plan for higher education. The Morrison government don't care about this sector, as they have so ably demonstrated during this pandemic. Labor have a plan to boost the skills of our nation. Our $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund can help translate innovation into Australian businesses and into jobs. Labor also understand and appreciate the importance of commercialisation of research, and that is why we will also introduce a start-up scheme that will offer income-contingent loans to 2,000 final-year students or recent graduates to support their participation in accelerated programs. This will help drive innovation and grow much-needed links between universities and the start-up community.
In contrast, in their latest budget, the Liberals cut a further 10 per cent from university funding. The government did bring forward some emergency research funding last year, but that has now stopped. In their biggest attack on universities and students to date, the Morrison government have raised the cost of university degrees for thousands of students—up to $60,000 for a bachelor degree with honours. That is in stark contrast to the nonsense that Senator Rennick put forward in his speech tonight, because he is going to support this legislation. He supports $60,000 bachelor degrees with honours being implemented in this country by this government. At the same time, these students are worrying about trying to save for a deposit for a home, looking for a job and maybe even starting a family. This is also going to have an impact on mature-aged students who are considering going back and furthering their education. This will absolutely place an unfair burden on young people trying to get a leg up. That will be the result of this legislation if it is passed.
What is also invisible in these bills is that there will be less funding for the courses that the Morrison government is trying to promote. Universities will receive 32 per cent less to teach medicine to students, 17 per cent less to teach maths to students, and they will receive 16 per cent less to teach engineering to students. How can they spin that? How can Mr Morrison spin that extra burden being placed on students and on Australian universities?
The cuts to funding for universities have meant that it is harder for poorer Tasmanian students to go to university. Over half of Tasmania's school leavers are not in work, training or further education. Our youth unemployment rate is the worst in the country. And what do we see from the Morrison government? Nothing. There is nothing to support Tasmanian young people and mature-aged students from going to university. In fact, that government are adding to the burden. At the same time, the most common feedback we receive from employers is that they can't find the right school leavers to fill jobs because they simply lack the skills. Now nothing that the Liberals are doing is going to boost the skills of young Tasmanians. We have a potential to be world leaders in renewable energy export and manufacturing, but the lack of a solid plan for jobs and training means that Tasmanians will be left behind by this government. At the very same time, here in Tasmania, the state government is now debating within the Tasmanian community as to whether or not TAFE should stay in public hands. The state Liberal government, in combination with the Morrison government, is disincentivising young Tasmanians from going on to university. If young Tasmanians can't afford to go on to university and pay these exorbitant new costs, then they need to have access to TAFE so that we can skill up young people in this state. After all, we really do need to have the TAFEs and universities working together with the business sector to ensure we have the highly skilled workforce that is needed for our industries and to strengthen our local economies going forward.
If we don't have young people in TAFEs, universities or some sort of traineeship or job, then they end up being idle and getting into mischief. They need to have a future. The door is always opened when people have the opportunity to pursue their educational goals. That is fulfilling for them as individuals and it is fulfilling for our economy, for the health and wellbeing and social cohesion of our communities. That is what's needed. For people to be able to invest in a home, to be a full participant in our community, in our economy, we need to have our community as well educated as we possibly can.
That's the strength of a nation, when they invest in education. More money should be going into education. We should be encouraging more people to study maths, the sciences and engineering. That's what should happen in this country. But what do we see from the Morrison government? We see a lot of spin. We see a lot of smoke and mirrors, the government trying to pretend to be all things to all people. But when you scratch the surface, like with this legislation, you see that this is not in the interests of the Australian community. It is certainly not in the interests of my community here in Tasmania.
I oppose this legislation and implore the crossbench and minor parties to vote it down. This is not in our long-term interests. This is bad legislation. It is doing what the Morrison government always wants to do, tear down our universities. We cannot allow this to happen. Labor will not allow this to happen, and I ask the crossbench to join with us in voting this legislation down. It is too important to our economy. We need to have highly educated people to bring us out of this pandemic. We have never relied on them more than we do right now. (Time expired)
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (18:31): I rise tonight to speak in support of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. These bills, which we are debating here this evening, will give effect to the Morrison coalition government's decision to implement increased cost recovery for the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, which was announced in the 2018-19 budget.
As many of my colleagues have mentioned here this evening, the government has delayed the introduction of increased cost recovery for the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency on several occasions due to external factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic. At present, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency cost-recovery levels are very low, at around 15 per cent of total costs, and the taxpayer currently bears the burden of funding the vast majority of TEQSA's regulatory activities. I should say, here, I will be referring to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency as TEQSA from here on in.
The increased cost recovery for TEQSA will involve increasing its application based fees, to recover the true cost of these activities. The increase to application based fees will be enabled by a new fees determination, to be issued by TEQSA itself, and will introduce a new annual charge on higher education providers to recover the cost of TEQSA's risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities. The new charge is the subject of these bills. Later in my contribution, this evening, I will go into some of those regulatory activities that TEQSA undertakes. It is incredibly important work that TEQSA does regulating our higher education sector in this country. They should be appropriately resourced to do that work.
I have some concerns about how universities are complying with the legislative framework with which they should comply, and I certainly have views on TEQSA's role in ensuring compliance. It should also be noted that TEQSA will seek stakeholder feedback on a draft cost-recovery implementation statement, consistent with the Australian government's cost-recovery guidelines. This will be phased in over three years to moderate the immediate financial impact.
There are two bills that we are debating here concurrently tonight. The charges bill will enable a new annual charge to be collected from registered higher education providers—to those listening along at home, that most usually refers to our universities—to recover the costs of TEQSA's risk monitoring, compliance monitoring and investigations, complaint management, stakeholder engagement and other regulatory oversight activities. These costs are not currently recovered by TEQSA and are borne by the taxpayer. The cost-recovery bill will amend the TEQSA Act to enable TEQSA to levy the annual charge created by the charges bill, which I just mentioned.
TEQSA has an incredibly important role to play in ensuring our higher education system in Australia is of an internationally high standard. Universities play an increasingly influential role in Australia and, having listened to contributions from across the chamber and on my own side this evening, I think we can all agree that universities play an important role. Since the early 1990s the number of students in higher education has more than doubled. Around 40 per cent of Australians now have a bachelor's degree or higher. With the influx of international students coming to Australia to study in recent decades, higher education has also become one of our biggest exports.
Undoubtedly, that industry and the business model universities have developed as a result of its growth are under pressure due to the impact of COVID-19 and the inability of international students to come to Australia since the beginning of 2020. But it's critical that Australian universities maintain strong standards of academic rigour, and TEQSA has a significant role to play here in regulating our universities so they do maintain those very strong standards. Australian taxpayers invest a huge amount of money into our universities and to support Australians to undertake higher education. In return for that investment, the core duty of universities is to provide a relevant, rigorous and challenging education to anyone who chooses to go to university. Some may go to university to pursue higher learning based on an interest, for personal growth or some sort of passion, but in the main most people go to university to learn and train for a career. Those students need our universities to be delivering the highest-quality education, and our nation needs those students to be coming out of university well equipped to join the workforce, fill skills gaps and, hopefully, create and build businesses and job opportunities for others.
I've been a little disappointed by some of the rhetoric on the opposition benches tonight. They were trying to say that these bills are about undermining the quality of what universities are providing to students. I think we can all agree that universities have an important role to play in educating Australians. It puzzles me that those on the opposite side don't understand how these bills that we are debating here tonight, which support TEQSA to undertake its regulatory activities, actually strengthen the quality of the education that our young Australians—or all Australians—are being provided with.
One concern that, unfortunately, continues to arise from our university sector is a worrying lack of commitment to free speech and academic freedom. Again, this is an area where TEQSA has a role to play. Indeed, this government has ensured that TEQSA has a role to play in developing the French Model Code and ensuring that universities are complying with that code. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamentally important to the delivery of a quality higher education. Students at universities, particularly but not only in disciplines such as humanities and the law, must be exposed to a range of different perspectives, including those which challenge their preconceived notions. This is a growing issue and something that I spoke about in my maiden speech to the Senate just over two years ago. Unfortunately, since then we have been hearing more and more stories of university campuses becoming havens to groupthink authoritarianism and cancel culture.
I want to pay credit to the government and the Minister for Education and Youth, Alan Tudge, for recognising this as a major concern. I should note that the education minister preceding Mr Tudge, Dan Tehan, also played a significant role in this piece of work. Both of those ministers have taken steps to develop and implement a model code for academic freedom and free speech for Australian universities—the French Model Code, as I alluded to earlier. Unfortunately, though, we've subsequently seen very poor take-up of that code. It seems that while some university leaders get it, there are many others who don't.
The most recent example is the Australian Defence Force being prevented from setting up a stall at the market day of the Australian National University, just down the road. Senator Seselja, shame! The university has thrown its hands up in the air and claimed there's nothing that can be done about the ADF being banned from their campus, because it was a student union's decision. Yet these student unions are recipients of significant amounts of funding through their universities by virtue of the student services and amenities fee. If students want to protest or make the case against the ADF being able to have a stall at a university, that's perfectly fine; they are more than welcome to do that. But the ADF is a hugely respected institution in Australia. It is highly unlikely that the view that the ADF having a stall at the university equates to supporting militarism, as was claimed by the student union, is shared by all of the students at the university, who pay the student services and amenities fee and fund the student union. In fact, I suspect many students would have relatives and family who have served in our defence forces and have the greatest respect for what the ADF and our defence personnel do to maintain peace and security in our region and ensure that we can go to university and have the freedoms that we do in this country.
Deferring to the power of student union is just one way in which many universities seem to lack a commitment to free speech. In June this year, I was shocked to read comments in a paper from the University of Melbourne's vice-chancellor about the university's plan to further water down its free speech policy. In defending this move, the vice-chancellor referred to the damage and harm caused by questions being pursued on the topics of sex and gender and claimed that the emotional distress and anguish caused by inappropriate words being spoken and written is very real. Such arguments are completely incompatible with both free speech and the pursuit of academic learning. If any point of view can be silenced simply by making a claim that the opinion in question causes someone distress and harm, there is no limit to the number of average people with normal, everyday views that you can silence. All you need to do to shut down debate is claim oppression and have a Twitter account. It's a levelling up of the well-known tactic of seeking redress for being offended. These days, if someone has a different opinion, you haven't just been offended; you've been harmed. Due process, proper scrutiny of claims and any concept of open debate go out the window, as administrators, bureaucrats and, sadly, Australia's universities rush to protect themselves from claims that they have failed to provide a safe environment.
How can a university be committed to free speech and academic freedom while a vice-chancellor is speaking about the damage and harm of questions being pursued and inappropriate words being spoken or written? I raised this question with the department of education in Senate estimates, and I was amazed to receive from the department a response effectively dismissing my concern about the free-speech impacts of the statements by the vice-chancellor on the University of Melbourne's policies. That's why the bills that we're discussing here this evening are so important. TEQSA has an incredibly important role to play, going forward, in the adherence of universities to their free-speech obligations. I certainly hope that TEQSA is prepared to look a little more closely than the department has at the obvious threats to free speech like the ones I have just mentioned here this evening.
In summary, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, are important bills. They will give effect to the government's decision to implement increased cost recovery for TEQSA, which was initially delayed due to external factors including the COVID-19 pandemic. It's incredibly important that we have a well-resourced and efficiently resourced regulatory body for the higher education providers in this country.
In my first contribution in this place two years ago, I raised my concern about the erosion of academic freedom on our university campuses. I mentioned that 10 years ago, when I was studying at university, while my views might have been dismissed by my fellow students—most of them of a different political ilk to me, and they were dismissed on the basis of my own political ilk—at least we were able to have a conversation. I fear that at our university campuses now the conversations, the debates, are not happening. That results in graduates that are only ever provided with one perspective on the world. Isn't the very reason people go to university to expand their horizons, to expose themselves to new ideas? Because it is by exposing yourself to new ideas and to different points of view that you can develop a better understanding of how you think the world operates.
If we want our university graduates coming out of higher education with a sound, robust idea of where their place is in the world and how they are going to impact on their community, then we need bodies like TEQSA willing to ensure that our universities are places that encourage free academic inquiry. If that isn't the case, if our university students can't have the debate, if our universities aren't encouraged to provide students with the opportunity and the space to have that debate, then that is a very sorry state of affairs for free speech in this country and on our university campuses. I feel very strongly about this, as I'm sure you can tell. On that basis, I commend these two bills that we're debating this evening to the Senate.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (18:46): I rise to speak tonight on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. These bills give effect to the government's decision announced in the 2018-19 budget to implement increased cost recovery for TEQSA. They're not new; they're not a surprise. They have actually been paused three times due to the COVID pandemic and its impact on the sector.
What these bills give effect to is the government's decision to implement cost-recovery arrangements for TEQSA. What does this involve? Listening to this debate throughout today, I'm not quite sure that those opposite actually understand that. What we'll be doing is increasing TEQSA's application based fees to recover the true cost of these activities. These fees will be discounted in respect to some of the providers with smaller student loans, ensuring that we reduce the financial barriers to course innovation. Per-hour charges for compliance assessments will also be implemented. These will be waived if no compliance action is taken. There will be a new annual charge to recover the cost of TEQSA's risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities, which are not covered by application based or compliance fees. So the new annual charge is the subject of these bills.
Prior to the COVID-19 fee waiver, which is actually in place until 31 December this year, TEQSA's cost recovery was incredibly low. In fact, it was around 15 per cent of total costs. With these changes, TEQSA's level of cost recovery will increase to around 90 per cent of regulatory costs and 75 per cent of total costs. A small number of non-regulatory activities will continue to be fully funded by the government, which equates to being fully funded by the taxpayer, including those who didn't have the benefit of attending university. These include actions to deter third-party cheating services and to promote integrity in the face of external threats, including cybersecurity and foreign interference. The cost of these activities—around $3.9 million per year—will not be recovered from higher education providers.
As I said, the government has delayed the increase of cost recovery for TEQSA on several occasions due to external factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic. These delays have been occurring at a time when the Morrison government has, in fact, been providing record funding to Australian universities: $20.4 billion in 2021, an increase of 17 per cent, and up from $17.3 billion in 2019. This includes an additional $1 billion boost to support university research, which is flowing to the universities this year. Under our Job-ready Graduates Package, more Australians are studying in our universities than ever before—over 800,000 students this year. It's an increase of five per cent in the total number of students since 2020 but commencements of new students are actually up by seven per cent.
But what's really important to note here is that more Australians are studying courses that are actually likely to get them a job. It's outrageous, I know, that we might want to focus on university degrees that actually ensure that graduates are employable and are educated in fields that the market is actually in search of! When we look at some of those areas, what are the levels of commencements that are up? We are looking at 14 per cent in science, 13 per cent in IT, 10 per cent in engineering, 14 per cent in agriculture, 11 per cent in education and eight per cent in health—all significant increases in new commencements in areas where the jobs of the future will be. Science in particular is well-funded under the JRG package. Funding is up by eight per cent more than the average cost of delivering a science degree and 10 per cent more than the cost of an engineering degree. These are some of the most profitable fields under the new arrangements.
On average, base funding across all fields is 5.6 per cent more than the average cost of teaching a bachelor's degree. So claims that the Job-ready Graduates Package is discouraging enrolments in science and engineering are in fact not correct. As usual, the opposite side haven't quite got those facts correct—what a surprise! The enrolments show that, nationally, enrolments in science are up and enrolments in engineering are up. Thanks to our record investment and reforms, Australian universities are actually in a better financial position than anyone expected. There are a number of indications that 2020 outcomes were better than anticipated 12 months ago.
I will put this in actual figures for those opposite. In 2020, a number of universities reported a surplus: Monash University, $259 million; the University of Melbourne, $178 million; the University of Queensland, $83 million; the University of Western Australia, $58 million; the University of Adelaide, $41 million; Flinders University, $35 million; Edith Cowan University, $24 million; the University of Southern Queensland, $13 million; and Western Sydney University, $13 million. All are reporting a surplus, despite claims to the contrary from those opposite and what was originally being proclaimed by the sector.
During the debate today, we have heard those opposite raise cuts to higher education. As we know, that is simply untrue; they just make it up! Our boost to research funding, which accounts for the decrease in higher education funding as shown in Budget Paper No. 1, was not a bring forward; it was a new, one-off stimulation. And the figures in the budget papers exclude the Higher Education Loan Program outlays. Including HELP outlays, the government's overall funding to universities in 2021 is $20.4 billion. As I said, it's a significant increase. In fact, it's an increase of 37 per cent since 2013. TEQSA's cost-recovery levels are currently very low, at around 15 per cent. The taxpayer currently bears the burden of funding the vast majority of TEQSA's regulatory activities. That includes university graduates but, more importantly, the taxpayers include those who never had the benefit of attending a university. Increased cost recovery for TEQSA will involve increasing application base fees to recover the true cost of these activities. The increase to these application base fees will be enabled by a new fees determination to be issued by TEQSA.
We're looking to introduce a new annual charge on higher education providers to recover the costs of TEQSA's risk monitoring and regulatory oversights. The new annual charge is the subject of these bills. TEQSA will continue to seek stakeholder feedback on a draft cost recovery implementation statement, consistent with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines.
Whilst higher education providers are likely to criticise the new annual charge, it's actually going to be phased in over three years to moderate any financial impact. The charge will be calculated each year for each provider. The amount charged will change each year and depend on a number of factors, including TEQSA's estimated costs for the year in question, the number of registered providers and also the number of enrolled students each provider actually has. If the proposal outlined in TEQSA's consultation were to be implemented unamended, it's estimated that the vast majority of providers, around 80 per cent, would pay an annual charge of between $25,000 and $35,000 a year, once fully phased in—so from 2024 onwards. The annual charge will be phased in, as I said, over three years, commencing on 1 January 2022. So, from 1 January next year, they will be looking to recover 20 per cent of the costs. This will rise to 50 per cent in 2023 and 100 per cent from 1 January 2024.
Having gone through those estimated surpluses of a number of those universities, it's important to note that it's only a small number of very large universities that could see an annual charge of up to around $45,000 a year. The total funds expected to be recovered through the annual charge are currently estimated at around $5.7 million a year, once fully phased in. Plus, just so we're clear, with regard to the charges bill, this will enable a new annual charge to be collected from registered higher education providers to recover the costs of TEQSA's risk monitoring, compliance monitoring investigations, complaint management, stakeholder engagement and other regulatory oversight activities. These costs are currently not being recovered and are being borne by the taxpayer. The annual charge will be phased in over three years. As I just said, 2022 will see 20 per cent, 2023 will see 50 per cent and 2024 will reach the 100 per cent mark. This will be phased in to ensure that the financial impact is moderated. The amount of the annual charge will be prescribed by regulation setting out the formula for the charge, and this will be made through the Governor-General's Federal Executive Council.
The second bill, the cost recovery bill, will enable TEQSA to levy the annual charge created by the charges bill. The amendments will require higher education providers to pay the annual charge as and when it falls due, including any penalties for late payment, and failure by an education provider to pay the charge will constitute a breach of its conditions of registration. I commend the bills to the Senate.
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (18:57): I rise to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021. I am very pleased to be speaking on this this evening, because the university sector is terrifically important to this nation. Prior to COVID impacts, Australia enjoyed 1.5 million enrolled students, of which 31 per cent were international students. In the 2017 economy, this accounted for $38 billion. That is a significant sector for the Australian economy. Not only does it bring dollars to Australia; it brings lifelong relationships.
In fact, I can tell you an interesting story of an engineering firm in the Gatton area which creates stock crushers, crates and other agricultural machinery equipment. They would get students down from the Gatton university. These students would come from all over the world. Now this engineering firm exports to all over the world and, not coincidentally, to the very countries where these students came from. These students went back to their own nations and agricultural industries and talked about the terrific work that was being done by this business. So now they export to probably every country that you can imagine. This relationship with students can't be overvalued. It is terrifically important to the relationships that we have as a nation with a small population. Those students come here, they learn about us, our culture and our values, and then they take those back home, and Australia remains somewhere they speak about as a warm place with great relationships and great businesses. Those opportunities are something that we should value as we export those education opportunities. We also have six top fields of education in Australia: management and commerce, 266,989 students were enrolled; society and culture, 197,988 students; health, 181,453 students enrolled; natural and physical sciences, 88,013 students; education, 86,915 students; and engineering and related technology, 84,875 students. This industry also provides 63,469 jobs in the higher education sector. This is a terrifically important sector.
I congratulate the minister on the changes that were made recently to the structure of fees associated with different university degrees. We made a very conscious decision to realign fees against jobs that were needed in Australia because we know that the amount of HECS debt sitting on the Australian nation's balance sheet has been growing. That's a reflection of the number of students who are finishing but not ensuring a job in their chosen field or generating the income that would allow them to start paying back those fees. If we're going to invest in people and in their education—the most important thing we can do for anybody in their life—then it's important that we match them with an industry that they're going to be able to work in. So I think that is a terrific change. As somebody who has children of university age, who are going through the process, it is something that I have reflected on and watched a great deal. I'm delighted to see more young people enrolling in degrees that will take them to a purposeful life, because that is what we wish for all of our children.
Education provides more than that. It provides the ability for people to transcend wherever they may find themselves starting off in life. Whatever position their families have, whatever their circumstance or geographic location, education can provide them with a pathway to transcend their original life and reach their full potential. Isn't what we want for every person in Australia that they reach their full potential through education, whether it be starting out on distance education, because they're a geographically isolated student, or ending up at a university somewhere in this nation?
In northern Australia we are incredibly fortunate to have some terrific universities. Whether it be James Cook University, the University of Southern Queensland, Charles Darwin University or Curtin University, they are all incredibly valuable education institutions. The JCU medical school in particular populates northern Australia not just with medical students but then rural GPs through its training program. It is recognised as being one of the best in the land, particularly because it achieves its core purpose, which is to educate and then populate medical practices in northern Australia and regional Australia. It does a terrific job in that regard. The other thing that JCU has is that it is the only university in Australia which can claim to be the No. 1 university in the world for a training program, which is the marine sciences faculty. It is No. 1 in the world, the only Australian university that can make that claim. It's something that I am terrifically proud of and something that we have been providing funding and support for over generations. One of my grandfathers was the first chancellor at James Cook University. As a mining engineer, I reflect on the number of mining engineering courses at JCU, and I have made this observation to the faculties there: being so close to the North West Minerals Province and all of those terrific rare earths and that traditional hard rock mining of copper, zinc, lead, silver and gold, all of which are so important in modern economies, we should have more mining degrees at James Cook University.
So northern Australia is somewhere that has some really unique expertise, and I certainly look at the place that northern Australia holds in the geographic centre of relevance, the tropics around the world. Some of the biggest cities and population densities around the world sit within the same band that Cairns, Townsville and Darwin sit in. So our natural expertises in tropical medicine, tropical architecture and mining in the tropics are things that I think we should be continuing to invest in and that northern Australia has a real advantage in. It would be terrific to see us encourage those expertises in those universities, to see more students come to Australia, a stable and welcoming nation with a real expertise in educating people from around the world. In fact, we bring around 3,000 overseas students every year to train in medicine at JCU and other universities in Australia. What a terrific education to be providing, and what a terrific skill set to be sending back around the world.
Listening to some of the debate this afternoon and this evening, I have heard a couple of unusual comments, but, of course, I'm putting it down as just another Labor lie. I will put the claim about reducing uni funding in the same bucket as those other Labor lies, such as the one about the cashless debit pension card. In the Senate vote, it was the coalition that voted against a cashless debit pension card and it was Labor and the Greens that in fact voted for a cashless debit pension card. Yet that is the current Labor lie that they're spreading on social media at every opportunity.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order, Senator McDonald. Senator Chisholm is on his feet.
Senator Chisholm: Point of order, Acting Deputy President: we're dealing with the legislation at hand. This has got nothing to do with the legislation at all, so I don't know what tangent the senator thinks she's on.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, I recognise we do have very wide-ranging debates in this place, but I will point Senator McDonald to the substance of the bills that we are discussing here this evening in making her remarks.
Senator McDONALD: Thank you so much for bringing me back to the piece of legislation, because I was distracted by some of the baseless claims that the opposition has made about university funding. I put them in the same bucket as the lie about decreased Medicare funding which the opposition has also told.
Turning back to this particular legislation, I think it is important that we reflect on why it's important that we look at a cost recovery model for TEQSA. I have spent some time reflecting on the importance of the university education sector here in Australia and why it's important that we have a body that oversees it and holds it to high standards so that it continues to be important in providing education, jobs and a place for our young people to be.
This cost recovery legislation will allow the nation to have better and more direct collection of these costs, as I say. Currently, TEQSA are recouping only around 15 per cent of the total costs of this regulatory activity. Having a pathway through to greater cost collection means that it also allows stakeholders to have a greater sense of ownership and consultation in that process, so the stakeholder feedback on the draft cost recovery implementation statement will provide an avenue for stakeholders to have that.
It will take three years to phase that in, but can I tell you that in other industries I'm involved with this process has allowed industry to come back to government with more modern, innovative and technical ways to be able to assist government with providing a better way to identify the issues that government seeks to regulate, and then a better and often more cost effective way to achieve those cost recoveries.
I see this as a very positive step, and this bill, the cost recovery bill, will amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, the TEQSA Act, to enable TEQSA to levy the annual charge created by the charges bill, and it 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, and this is again an important part of what we're seeking to achieve here, which is to ensure that the Australian education sector, which is so important not just to Australians—be they young Australians starting out on their career seeking to commence their professional accreditation and training or a more mature Australian who is seeking to retrain into a new sector—but also for those non-Australians that I started my speech talking about, who come to Australia and who may work in an industry while they're doing their studies, but at the very least they will be exposed to the great Australian way of life and the great Australians they meet. They will take back with them not just with this terrific education but the Australian values, the Australian way of doing things and Australian friendships that will ensure that Australia Post continues to send cards and parcels around the world at Christmas and other holiday times. So the regulation and the assurance of the quality of the education sector is critical for Australia on so many levels, and it is for that reason that I recommend this bill to the Senate. Thank you.
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (19:12): I couldn't help but reflect on the importance of education as my good friend Senator McDonald, the envoy for Northern Australia, was giving her speech. It actually took me back to some reading I've done recently in relation to Neville Bonner, who was the first Indigenous parliamentarian elected to federal parliament. In fact, this month is the 50th anniversary of Neville Bonner's swearing in as a senator of the federal parliament. He was from my home state of Queensland and from my party, the successor of the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party of Queensland.
When one reads and reflects on Neville Bonner's story, one of the things that leaps out is he managed to attain his position in this place with the benefit of only one year's formal education—one year's formal education! It's told in his story that when he was a young boy growing up outside of Lismore a local police sergeant or detective encouraged his mother to send Neville and his siblings along to the local state school at Lismore. They got dressed, they went to the school and immediately the parents of the white children descended on the school to take their kids out. Neville Bonner said he had indescribable feelings when his opportunity for education was denied to him at that point. That was something he carried with him for the rest of his life. Notwithstanding that, he still managed to achieve election to this place and to serve his party, his country and the people of Queensland.
We should not have a debate in this place on higher education, universities et cetera without certainly my party talking about Sir Robert Gordon Menzies and his role in the university sector. Menzies said:
Our great function when we approach the problem of education is to equalise opportunity to see that every boy and girl has a chance to develop whatever faculties he or she may have, because this will be a tremendous contribution to the good life for the nation.
Before I go into the particulars of the bills I want to reflect on that quote and what it means in terms of my party's philosophy with respect to education and the university sector—the philosophy I subscribe to. First is the concept of equalised opportunity. We often talk about providing equal opportunity—we need to strive to provide equal opportunity to everyone in this country regardless of their background, regardless of their ethnicity, regardless of their gender and regardless of whether they live in the bush, the city, a regional area or the outer suburbs; 'We need to provide equal opportunity to everyone in this country'—but sometimes we neglect to talk about how we go about equalising opportunity, how we go about helping people regardless of their background and how we assist young Australians to make the most of their opportunities and equalise those opportunities. Menzies hit the nail right on the head when he talked about the role education plays in terms of equalising opportunity.
The second limb of that quote is that 'every boy and girl has a chance to develop whatever faculties he or she may have'. There is recognition that there's individual responsibility involved in that. It is up to the individual to make the most of whatever God-given faculties they have—to work and study hard in whatever field and whatever endeavour and to progress their life as far as they can using the faculties they've been given and to the best of their ability.
The third element is that by doing that—by equalising that opportunity and by each boy and girl developing their faculties to the best of their ability—they're contributing a great good to the nation, so there's a contribution to the nation. So there are three elements in that philosophy in relation to the role of education. Those elements were invoked by Robert Gordon Menzies in that quote.
Those on the other side will invoke the spirit of Gough Whitlam—and good luck to them; that's fine—but let us never forget that under Sir Robert Gordon Menzies in this country there was an absolute explosion of the tertiary sector. The University of New England was established. Monash University was established. Macquarie University, La Trobe University, the University of Newcastle and Flinders University—a host of new universities came online. There was also an explosion in the number of university students—from 53,700 in 1960 to 88,230 in 1966, an increase of 35,000 in just six years. There was an extraordinary increase in the number of university students and also in female participation. In 1952, 19.7 per cent of university students were women. By 1966 that had increased to 25.9 per cent. Of course, that was part of the journey of reaching the levels that we see today.
I also couldn't help but reflect upon the speech that Senator Chandler gave in relation to this topic and her great advocacy in favour of freedom of speech on our campuses. It reminded me of a quote by Menzies that the mission of our universities— (Time expired)
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ) (19:20): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Tokyo Olympic Games: Transgender Athletes
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (19:20): Over the last week we've witnessed many moments which capture the essence of the Olympic spirit, moments which inspire and bring joy to the world even during these dark days of pandemics and lockdowns—a 20-year-old Tasmanian taking on the greatest female swimmer ever and winning twice, and Dutch world champion Sifan Hassan tripping and falling in her 1,500 metre heat before getting to her feet and miraculously winning the race.
Last night, we should have had the opportunity to witness another of those unique Olympic moments. Eighteen-year-old Roviel Detenamo could have become the first women in 20 years to qualify to represent Nauru at the Olympic Games. She could have been in Tokyo proving that, if you have the talent and the work ethic, even a teenager from a nation of 12,000 people can make the Olympics and compete on the same stage as world champions from China and the USA. But we didn't witness that, because Roviel was denied the opportunity to become an Olympian, one of the most celebrated and respected titles in the world. That honour was instead given to a 43-year-old biological male, Laurel Hubbard, who was allowed by the IOC to participate in the women's 87-plus kilogram category. Hubbard now has—for life—the title of being an Olympian, solely due to the extreme advantages Hubbard has as a biological male. Nobody can dispute that facts that Hubbard is male, is miles off Olympic standard for a male and yet somehow qualified for the Olympics for the first time as a 43-year-old. The only explanation for that is male advantage, which, by definition, is an unfair advantage in women's competition.
Despite the IOC admitting this week that its trans inclusion guidelines are not fit for purpose, they tried to obscure discussion of these facts through a guide given out to journalists at the event, warning them not to use the term 'biological male' or refer to trans athletes being born male. Extraordinarily, they claimed that there is no evidence that trans athletes who are male have an unfair advantage in female sport. Those who claim that Hubbard taking a female athlete's Olympic spot is inclusive conveniently overlook the fact that there is an Olympic event specifically designed for 109-plus kilogram weightlifters, which Hubbard would be eligible for if good enough. The only thing stopping Hubbard from being included in the men's 109-plus kilogram category was the minor problem of being more than 100 kilograms off the standard required.
Competitive sport, let alone the Olympics, is not a participation exercise, yet what we saw last night was a sub-elite lifter, competing in the wrong sex category and the wrong weight category, displacing a female from one of the world's smallest nations so that the IOC could call itself inclusive. You cannot have a clearer example of why we have separate female and male sporting competition and why it's so unfair to female athletes to allow males into their categories. It has been disturbing to watch activists and sports administrators, including here in Australia, twist and change the very meaning of words to pretend there is no reason why women need to or should expect to have competitive, single-sex sport. First, they claim—without evidence—that it's more inclusive to operate women's sport based on gender identity rather than sex. Then they label it offensive to talk about biological males and females, taking away the language needed for women to raise objections. Now we're seeing them claim that there's no unfair advantage to males competing in women's sport—apparently, unless they dominate every competition they enter. By that logic, we wouldn't worry about drug-testing anyone unless they were to win an Olympic medal. Never mind the obvious unfairness of allowing someone to reach a level of sport well beyond what they are capable of in their own sex category, displacing high-calibre female athletes along the way.
This incredible new standard ignores everything we know about fairness in sport. It must come as a shock to the sprinter disqualified for leaving the blocks a millisecond early or the long jumper who oversteps by a centimetre. Those athletes don't gain a fraction of the advantage of a male competing in women's sports. On the one hand, the IOC knows that starting a race 100th of a second early is an advantage worthy of disqualification, regardless of whether the athlete would have finished first or last. On the other hand, female athletes at every level are being told fairness in their sporting competition is of less importance than being inclusive of males who choose not to play men's sport.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (19:25): Before I start making my contribution around independent assessment, I just want to inform the Senate that Laurel Hubbard, a transgender Olympian from New Zealand, is quoted as saying, 'I just want to be myself. I just want to be me.' I think it's important here in the Senate that we practise tolerance and understand that people who are transgender are just being themselves. It is not an opportunity to come in and push a right-wing agenda without having the decency to reflect on the journey that transgender people make and the courage that they display to be able to become themselves.
Today I rise to talk about independent assessments under the NDIS. On 9 July, there was a communique from the disability reform ministers' meeting in which the now minister, Senator Reynolds, indicated through that communique and also through her own statement that the ministers' meeting had agreed not to proceed with independent assessments. As I understand, it was on the back of the NDIS Independent Advisory Council's advice. I'm really very grateful for the decision of the ministers because it was an issue that was really causing great angst within the disability community. On that day, when the announcement by the federal minister, Senator Reynolds, came out, the disability community breathed a collective sigh of relief because they were united in their opposition to independent assessments.
The introduction of the NDIS in March 2013 was the most significant social policy reform of this century. From the very beginning, the scheme has had at its heart the needs and aspirations of people with disability. However, when the federal government decided to go down the path of independent assessments, this represented a dramatic shift away from the core principles of the scheme. The government's proposal was to make every participant of the NDIS undergo an assessment conducted by a stranger for up to three hours.
The government gave numerous shifting reasons for this dramatic change in policy. The then Minister for the NDIS, Mr Stuart Robert, cited the need for improved flexibility and equality when he announced the trial of independent assessments in August last year. In May this year, the current minister, Senator Reynolds, then claimed that independent assessments needed to be introduced because the NDIS plans relied too heavily on empathy from public servants.
In the lead-up to the recent meeting of the disability ministers, Senator Reynolds shifted to a new reason—that the changes were needed to make the scheme economically sustainable. I do have to give some credit, though, where credit is due, because when Senator Reynolds took on the portfolio of the NDIS, she did undertake to do something that the previous minister, Mr Robert, failed to do—that was, to do some consultation with the disability sector. She halted the trials of the independent assessment while she was doing that consultation. But through that period, the NDIS Independent Advisory Council came to the decision and made the recommendation to the disability ministers that the independent assessments do not proceed and they will not, as I understand it. But we have to make sure that there is proper co-design in any changes or reform going forward— (Time expired)
West Papua: Human Rights
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (19:30): [by video link] I rise tonight on the issue of human rights, as is my habit on Tuesday nights, even when I am here remotely. 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 particularly speak tonight about an incredibly concerning development that we've seen in West Papua. The story broke today in The Guardian about an Indonesia police chief, Untung Sangaji, accused of brutal violence against West Papuan people. He received training from the Australian Federal Police at the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation, or JCLEC. I'd like to quote some of The Guardian's report:
When questioned later about the alleged mistreatment, the officer in charge of the operation, the Merauke police chief Untung Sangaji, reportedly told local media: "In future if there are further acts of treason I will shoot them in the legs … They have insulted the Indonesian nation. Never mind mistreatment, I will shoot them dead if ordered to shoot them … If necessary, we will chop them up."
One of the people who was detained by this police chief, a West Papuan activist, died in custody in an operation overseen by Untung Sangaji. What is very clear from the reporting and should be of concern to all of us here is that this abusive cop maintains a close relationship with the Australian Federal Police.
Sangaji told the Guardian: "We continue to work really closely with the AFP. We have their phone numbers. If they are following a people-smuggling suspect, they call us and we know we have to take the call."
This makes my blood boil, and it should horrify every Australian that our government and our police are funding and training and working hand-in-hand with human rights abusers.
Untung Sangaji has also been associated with attacks on trans people in Aceh. The Guardian article said:
In 2018, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights condemned the violent and humiliating arrests of 12 transgender women in the province of Aceh, saying that Indonesian and Sharia police had acted outside the law and their actions were inhumane.
… … …
Sangaji was a local police chief at the time and, according to reports, police in his team cut the women's hair in public, forced them to wear men's clothes and coached them to behave like "real men".
I feel so much hurt and sorrow for these women for the attacks they experienced. Everyone deserves to be safe and to be able to express who they are. No-one should face these transgender and transphobic attacks. I think in particular we should all remember that transwomen are women.
I'll be using every tool under the Senate's authority to scrutinise the information covered in The Guardian this morning and ensure the parliament brings much-needed oversight to the AFP. Tomorrow the Senate is going to vote on my OPD for all records of Untung Sangaji's participation in AFP sponsored training and to provide all communication between Sangaji and the AFP. I will be demanding a clear guarantee from the AFP that they won't provide any future training to him. If the Morrison government and the AFP do not act swiftly when presented with the clear evidence against this violent cop, it will confirm our government's complete disregard for human rights.
But, of course, the brutality of this one police chief is just one element of the broader issue of the right of the people of West Papua to self-determination and their ongoing struggle for justice against the oppression of the Indonesian government. The Guardian article summarised:
"West Papua is at its worst since the Suharto era, and somehow the world just doesn't notice," says Veronica Koman, an Indonesian human rights lawyer who lives in exile in Sydney.
… … …
"There are at least 60,000 internally displaced people right now in West Papua," she says. "They are mostly undocumented and in the jungle, facing malnutrition, hunger, sickness. [Just recently] a two-year-old boy died."
I want to salute the brave activists who are putting their lives on the line in West Papua and say to them: the Australian Greens see you and we are with you in solidarity. We want to see the Indonesian government withdraw all military troops from West Papua; we want to see full access for UN and other independent human rights observers; and, most importantly, we want to see full self-determination for the people of West Papua.
Bushfires
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:35): I rise tonight to speak about something that may seem a little out of place in the middle of a cold Canberra winter. In my home state of Western Australia, we've just had one of the wettest Julys on record. We're seeing good times out in the agricultural sector. But with good rains over the winter comes the good production, particularly in our bushland and grassland, that leads to potentially high fuel loads come next summer. So I rise tonight to talk about bushfires and the bushfire risk. When my dad was managing the large coastal leases to the west of our farm down in Pemberton, land managers would conduct burning in the autumn and think about what that burning in autumn would do for the next spring in terms of the pasture, the growth and the control of the fire risk in that area.
Earlier this year, I rose in this place to discuss the devastating bushfires that had struck communities in Perth's north-east. In particular, I sought to draw attention to the profound loss and suffering occurring for those people and the bravery of the many firefighters and volunteers who stood on the front line of those bushfires. This was an event that will not and should not be forgotten, just as all the major fires we've endured in this country should not be forgotten. In that same light, we owe it to those who have suffered this loss and those who have risked their lives to act with an air of preparedness. So now is the right time to think about the coming summer.
Last week, I had the pleasure of sitting down with a former member of this place, a good friend of many in this place, former Senator Chris Back, and with him Roger Underwood, someone who has an extraordinary history and track record of land management and fire management, particularly in Western Australia. We talked through some of the issues that confront Australia. We know that often emphasis can be placed on new equipment and aerial firefighting techniques, and all these are valuable and positive. They're good to add to the repertoire. But nothing in the fire mix can do as much as active land management to prevent bushfires and to minimise the damage from bushfires when they occur.
Australia is a continent that must be actively managed, and this is by no means a new concept. Everyone in this place would know that the continent of Australia was actively managed, using fire, by Aboriginal Australians and then by farmers and graziers who took up the land and moved it to a modern agricultural system. These efforts evolved. They changed over time. They were different. But the motivations remained the same. It was about land management, first and foremost, to protect people and to protect the land.
Many do not understand the severe risks that often accompany a lack of consistent land management. The doubling of fuel loads within our landscape can double the rate of the spread of fire. This same doubling of fuel quadruples the intensity of that fire. Low-intensity fires predominantly burn superficial dead layers of fuel, whereas high-intensity fires destroy everything in their path. That is why, again, we must look to actively manage the landscape of Australia. Of all the variables contributing to the fire's ferocity, temperature wind levels and fuel loads, only one is in our hands at the time of the fire, if we have prepared, and that is, of course, fuel loads. This risk triangle can be altered by land managers who proactively deal with fuel load through things like controlled burning. It must become a much more widely used priority of land managers. State governments are the principal land managers in this country, and they must have an increasing focus on this role.
Parish, Mr Kevin Phillip, OAM
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (19:40): I rise to speak on the tragic passing earlier this year at the wonderful age of 89 of my dear friend and local Central Coast luminary Kevin Parish OAM. Kevin was a community activist and Labor stalwart, and a beloved father, grandfather and great-grandfather whose love for others covered all and formed the basis of a life given to others. Kevin grew up in the tiny mid-north coast town of Herons Creek, where he first learned the difficulties and punishments that many commuters face when he had to catch the train from Herons Creek to Taree for school—a round trip of nearly 120 kilometres each day to get to school. It fostered in him a love of trains, which was later matched by his fierce desire to advocate for other commuters to improve their lives and standard of travel and give them more time at home with their families. Kevin learnt firsthand what the tyranny of distance really was, and he resolved to do what he could all of his life to erase it for as many people as possible.
Following his graduation, he moved to Sydney, where he met his wonderful wife, Marie Day, and completed training as a technician with the Postmaster-General's, which obviously later became Telstra. Kevin was a very hardworking, charitable and community-minded spirit. He was a tireless volunteer for the Labor Party and, as a man of the Catholic faith, he worked very hard for the St Vincent de Paul Society and all those he encountered. Kevin embodied the best ideals of both his Catholic faith and the Labor Party. He served faithfully as the president of the ALP's Gosford branch, was a life member of the NSW branch and was a delegate to Gosford SEC and its predecessor, Peats SEC. Kevin was a constant presence in all local Labor campaigns, whether they were state, local or federal, and he was a friend to countless Labor representatives, such as me. We all miss his presence and his advice terribly.
It was in his advocacy for commuters, though, that Kevin really made his biggest impact. He was a founding member of the Central Coast Commuters' Association, later becoming its president, as well as chair of the Commuter Council of New South Wales. Through his advocacy, he was able to push governments to deliver better timetables and services for fellow Central Coast residents, changing the lives of a huge proportion of coasties who commute for work and giving them more time with their families and for recreation. Kevin was awarded an OAM in 2005:
For service to the community through organisations supporting commuters, particularly on the Central Coast of New South Wales.
It was a well-deserved and long-overdue recognition of his constant advocacy.
Kevin is survived by his six children, 10 grandchildren and 18 great-grandchildren, a truly amazing legacy. I pass to them my deepest condolences and I hope his memory remains a blessing for years and years to come. I recall that the last occasion on which I met Kevin was a visit to him in the hospital. In these COVID times it was no mean feat to be able to organise and have one visitor on the day, so I felt very privileged to be with him. While I was there, it wasn't surprising that, from his bed in the hospital, Kevin took a call from a community organisation that he was still doing training for. He was just an indomitable force for good, and there was no-one who needed assistance that Kevin would turn away.
That sort of generosity of spirit is at the heart of the best things in community. Australians really warm to that and we celebrate it. I think that, in these COVID times in particular, where our worlds have shrunk to be way too small, the sense of connection to others is something that we yearn for. Kevin yearned for it, and he sought it out every single day of his life. Vale Kevin Parish, a great Australian citizen who did his best with what he had for his family and everyone with whom he came into contact.
Freedom
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:44): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak tonight on freedom. On many occasions in the last year I have addressed the Senate in regard to freedom as a counterbalance to medical tyranny. And I recently addressed the Canberra Freedom Rally, remotely. The side that is locking people up for the crime of being healthy, arresting protesters, pepper spraying kids, beating up grannies, banning books and electronic messages, censoring social media, sending threatening letters, forcing small businesses to close, urging people to dob in dissenters and banning safe drugs that have worked for 60 years are all on the wrong side of history.
In a frightening development, New South Wales has called in the troops to keep innocent, healthy citizens locked in their homes in what can only be called martial law. Recent freedom marches showed what happens to citizens who exercise their democratic right to protest. People are demonised, hunted down; the media vilifies them to discourage others from questioning the control state. If the government can decide who is free and who is not, then that is not freedom and no-one is free. A crisis will always be found to justify measures designed to protect the government, not the public—a crisis that is as is easy to create as turning up the PCR test from 24 cycles to 42, where a false positive is the most likely outcome, as has occurred.
Actions such as these have created a crisis of confidence in government, and that, fellow citizens, is on the Senate. We are the house of review. We're tasked with a duty to ensure honesty, transparency and accountability in the government of the day. We have failed in that solemn duty, our duty to our constituents. We have failed those who are yet to vote, our children, who are now being injected with a substance that has not undergone meaningful safety testing. The Liberal, National and Labor parties have colluded to waive these measures through this place, reducing the Senate to the status of a dystopian echo chamber.
Each new restriction, although met with rightful public opposition, has not led to a re-evaluation but, rather, has led the government to crack down even further. The Morrison government is behaving like a gambling addict who loses a hand but doubles down instead of admitting error and walking away. With troops now on the streets, it's frightening to contemplate where this will end. Everyday Australians are being deliberately demoralised to extract a higher degree of compliance. When COVID first arrived, there were few masks, and the experts and authorities told us masks were not necessary. Now, those same medically ineffective masks are used to condition people to fear and obedience. Crushing resistance crushes hope, and without hope we have no future.
Is it any wonder that small businesses are closing permanently? Every small business that closes is a family that was being provided for through hard work and enterprise. Who will look after those families now—the government? With whose money? The Reserve Bank, using electronic journal entries, can only create fiat money out of thin air for so long before it runs down our country. The government can only sell bonds until buyers stop coming forward. Then what happens? We will have no tax base left to pay government stipends to people who were once able to pay their own way.
Since when has the Liberal Party, the supposedly party of Menzies, been dedicated to making huge sections of the population totally reliant on the government for survival? The bad joke here is that the excuse used to justify the sudden rush to Marxism—public health—is moot. Death from all sources, including coronavirus and the flu, are at historic lows. Australia's death rate in 2020 was less than in 2019, and 2021's death rate is lower again. We're strangling Australia's economic life and future for no reason. Power has gone to the heads of our elected leaders and unelected bureaucrats, who are exercising powers yet do not feel the consequences themselves.
Never in history has Lord Acton's famous quote rung more true: 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' It's been calculated that the civil disobedience tipping point—which is the maximum capacity of the police to arrest people, of the jails to hold people and of the courts to process people—is in Australia around 100,000 people. Anything more than that and the system comes crashing down. Attendance at the freedom rallies last month shows we're almost there. No wonder the Morrison government has been scared into resorting to the refuge of tyrants—using the military to intimidate civilians into compliance and to mandating injections and threatening to rip away people's livelihoods.
Everyday Australians are seeing through the smokescreens of fear and intimidation. People now see that the costs of the restrictions to family and community exceed the medical cost of the virus. Everyday Australians have spoken. We will not be divided, we are united, we are one community, we are one nation.
East Gippsland: Bushfires
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:52): [by video link] I'd like to take this opportunity to speak on the current situation in East Gippsland regarding the lack of federal government financial support provided to rebuild crucial infrastructure in these communities, 18 months after the region was ravaged by fires back in the year 2020.As reported in the Herald Sun today, just $4.5 million has been set aside for East Gippsland in the first year of the $276 million three-year grant program to support local projects in bushfire-hit communities. Despite East Gippsland being particularly badly affected—with 1.1 million hectares burnt, or more than half the local government area, including 410 homes that were destroyed—it received only a fraction of the $27 million that has currently been made available. This distribution of funds, which were allocated by local government area rather than on a more equitable needs basis, means that many, many people in East Gippsland are going without the assistance that they desperately need and deserve.
It beggars belief that the federal Liberal and National government could continue to drag its feet as these communities cry out for help. Programs designed to help small businesses get back on their feet have been painfully slow to roll out money from the $2 billion Bushfire Recovery Fund. While it's clear that Australians in bushfire affected regions want and need this money, the question needs to be asked: why isn't the Morrison government listening to the needs of East Gippsland residents? This is an insult to hardworking Australians who just want what they were promised by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must explain why, after he and his ministers announced the package as part of the bushfire package back in 2020, they have failed to actively provide funding to these projects on the ground.
It has now been more than 18 months since the bushfire crisis, and those in East Gippsland are rightly angry at the delays in repairing infrastructure in their communities. While I acknowledge that there are many challenges facing recovery, residents in these regions are experiencing ongoing issues which are being made worse by outdated grant rules based on council areas. In fact, it's been so inadequate that local elected representatives from all levels of government, including representatives from the National Party, have written to the Prime Minister expressing concerns about the simplistic local-government-area criteria that are used to determine funding and about the considerable unmet demand for federal government assistance in the area.
Like the local Nationals federal member, Darren Chester, I am bitterly disappointed with the lack of support from the coalition for the people of East Gippsland. I would like also to echo the comments made by Councillor Urie, the mayor of East Gippsland shire, that the $4.5 million allocated is unacceptable, and by local Nationals state MP Tim Bull, who has acknowledged that the Commonwealth has made a clear mistake in its allocation of funding and needs to increase its support for East Gippsland. I urge the minister responsible, Senator McKenzie, the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, to acknowledge the current shortcomings of the program and work urgently towards delivering much-needed support for these communities. These communities deserve support from the government in their time of need to give them a hand up and allow them to get back on their feet.
COVID-19: New South Wales
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (19:56): [by video link] Millions of people are in COVID lockdown this week; many of them are in my home state of New South Wales. Tens of thousands have lost their livelihoods without adequate support from the Morrison government. Marginalised communities are being overpoliced and maligned in south-west and Western Sydney while corporations, billionaires and the wealthiest keep adding to their bottom lines. These are the fault lines, inequalities and injustices that have been exposed and heightened during the last 18 months. Saying we are all in this together again and again doesn't make it true when so many are clearly being left behind and out in the cold.
Western Sydney, home to a large number of essential and frontline workers, migrants, refugees and First Nations people, is one of the most richly diverse areas of this country, and this is precisely why it has been targeted and stigmatised with police operations and a military presence. No other communities in the country have been treated this way during the COVID pandemic. The demonisation has been palpable in the way they have been spoken about and targeted by the police, when in fact these communities have shown up and have some of the highest rates of testing New South Wales has ever seen. We are also now seeing huge numbers of vaccinations in these areas, once the vaccine has been made available, and it has been happening despite the mixed and ever-changing messages on vaccines by the Prime Minister, who not only failed to acknowledge early on in the pandemic that vaccines would be the one way out of this crisis but told us it was not a race. It is a race, Prime Minister; it's the race of our lives.
When COVID spread to the south-west of Sydney in this outbreak, people had to wait up to six hours in line to get a COVID test because the New South Wales government failed to set up enough testing clinics. There weren't enough testing clinics, yet people still turned up to get tested so they could keep themselves and their communities safe. In early July, when vaccination, public health and community engagement should have been the priorities, the New South Wales government decided to send in the police. This was a terrible turn of events. Overpolicing any community, let alone marginalised communities, is a recipe for disaster, and now the military has descended on these communities, creating more fear and anxiety. People are already under immense financial stress and health stress, separated from their families overseas because of border closures which allow the rich, the famous, the well-connected, the Hillsong pastors and the far-Right trolls, but not ordinary people, to come in and leave.
Militarising public health makes zero sense and this is no accident. It is by design, to shift the focus away from the government's failures and onto multicultural communities. With a substantial uptick in police and military presence comes stigma. It would be a devastating result if multicultural communities ended up wearing the blame for this lockdown when, in reality, we are where we are because of Morrison's botched vaccine rollout. Epidemiologist Nancy Baxter, from the University of Melbourne, told the ABC that there is clear inequality in how the police treat people in different areas and reminded us that a lot of essential workers live in south-west Sydney and are required to leave home to go to work.
The government has ordered people to stay home but refused to provide them with enough resources to stay healthy and economically secure. This puts particularly casual workers, losing shifts and work, and people on low incomes in a terrible position. How are they meant to choose between keeping themselves and their communities safe and paying the rent and putting dinner on the table? What a cruel, inhumane choice. Without sufficient support, proper information and vaccinations, millions will get left behind and the most marginalised in our community will be put into further poverty and debt and will suffer greater discrimination, anxiety and stress.
Veterans: Suicide
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (20:00): I was sitting at my desk and saw the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. We don't need consequential amendments because the bill never got up in the first place. So let's have a little chat about that, shall we? I don't want to waste any more time this week or next week on the national commissioner, because it is now nonexistent. The government wants to go hell for leather with its national commissioner legislation over the next few weeks. This is the idea it had when the Prime Minister wanted to block the royal commission on veteran suicide. It was the one he said was bigger and better than a royal commission, the one he said couldn't operate side by side with a royal commission. It's that national commissioner—the one he said was a 'take it or leave it' and 'all or nothing' option. Veterans out there know what I'm talking about out.
That was then, and this is now. Now we've had a royal commission announced. The government has done a backflip, finally, and woken up to itself over its stupidity over veterans in trying to give them something that would have been second-class. It's finally done the right thing. But here we go: it still wants to come back to this national commissioner. It's hanging around like a bad smell. I don't mean that personally to the national commissioner. I'm talking about how, instead of giving us a royal commission, the national commissioner itself was a stupid idea in the first place and very disrespectful. The government just couldn't help itself. The government won't let this idea die, so it is planning to push it through the Senate this week. What for? What is the purpose of it? What does the government think that the national commissioner is going to do that the royal commission won't be able to do? The government say it's so the national commissioner can look at future suicides. But we've got coroners who'll do that. It says it's so the national commissioner can update the parliament on how the recommendations of the royal commission are going, but we've got Senate estimates for that. And—trust me—you need them. The government says it's so we're ready to go when the royal commission recommends it. But we've got to get the royal commission going first, don't we? This is how it works. The royal commission has to recommend it, doesn't it? The royal commission has to recommend that the national commissioner be put in place and exactly what their job will be. That is the job of the royal commissioner.
I tell you what: go and get one of the government's crystal balls, because they are beauties. They must be going cheap as chips. If only we could have one of those magic crystal balls, we would all be rich and none of us would be here, I'm sure. Apparently the government knows that the royal commission is going to recommend that we get a national commissioner. But that's not all. These crystal balls are great, mate—trust me. The government also knows that the royal commission is going to recommend a national commissioner to do what the government wants the national commissioner to do. But it gets better. These crystal balls are worth their weight in gold! The government also knows that the royal commission is going to recommend that the national commissioner be designed in exactly the same way the government wanted the national commissioner to be designed. Apparently the government know everything the royal commission is going to recommend.
But don't worry: it's completely independent. I want you all to know that. Don't hit the panic buttons yet. Why else would the government be saying to the Senate now that it's completely necessary for us to put through this legislation before the royal commission has had time to lace up its boots, let alone put on its socks. But I have a crazy idea. I know it's a long shot. I don't have a crystal ball like the coalition thinks it does. I reckon most of the Senate is going to struggle to polish up the crystal ball enough to see what the government sees. So why doesn't the government just do what the royal commission recommends? Right now we have this bizarre game of 'Who's on first?' going on. The government is recommending the Senate pass what it reckons the royal commission will recommend in the form it recommends the royal commission recommends before the royal commission recommends anything. Are you keeping up with me out there?
Great, because we need to be ready for it to recommend what the government recommends it recommends. Are we all up there yet? Lovely. There is where we're all at. It's great up here. Isn't it fun and games? This is where we're at: it's an absolute circus up here. I tell you what, they treat us like we're a pack of donkeys, and what for? What's the point of all of this faffing around? It is completely obvious to anyone who looks at this for one second that the only reason we're going through this whole charade is so that the Prime Minister can save what face he has left over veterans! He has none left. I can tell you: 'You have none left, Prime Minister. We had to drag you kicking and screaming to get veterans and defence personnel what they deserved, a royal commission.' And now that he's lost that fight, he wants a consolation prize. Well, I'm not interested in helping the Prime Minister. I have no interest whatsoever in helping the Prime Minister save face. What I'm interested in is making sure we give the royal commission clear air to do their job without any influence or interference from this government. I'm putting it out there now!
Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (20:05): [by video link] Thousands of disabled people have already had the opportunity to share their experience with our disability royal commission. This is a vital step in the act and process of achieving the policy changes that we need to ensure that disabled people are safe to live their lives and no longer experience violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation.
Many people have shared their powerful experiences already. But, for some, they have not been able to give the vital information which they hold to the commission because confidentiality provisions are currently not strong enough. At the moment, information given confidentially to the royal commission will not be confidential when the commission comes to an end in 2023, and there are limited protections for people who bravely blow the whistle on their workplace.
I've been strongly lobbying the government to listen to the demands of our community, our demands that we need a strong, secure confidentiality provisions framework built into the legislation. The Liberal government, I am sorry to say, over the past two years have dragged their feet on this question. They've known about this problem since 2019 and have promised changes over the years. Unfortunately, through all of that process, the answer to when this will be achieved has always been 'soon'. Well, a vague 'soon' is not good enough. With the parliament sitting in August, the government must put this legislation on the legislative agenda and give disabled people and our allies certainty that they will be able to share their experience without fear of retribution.
I have, in the course of my role here, had the opportunity to hear from multiple people who, right now, would like to share their stories, share their experiences, with the royal commission but currently are not able to. These people are educators, these people have worked alongside disabled people in support organisations, these people have been in charge of safeguarding frameworks and mechanisms that have gone wrong and failed people when they have needed them most, and they have been employed and engaged by state governments to do inquiries into what has gone wrong, only to be silenced. All these people and more want to give their evidence, share their experience, with their royal commission and currently are not able to because of the absence of this strong protections framework.
To achieve this together, we as a community will need to join together, as we have done so successfully in recent months in the disability community, to ensure that these protections are passed through the parliament this August and, subsequently, to make sure that they pass through the Senate with the support of the Labor Party and members of the crossbench. To this end, myself and my office have put together a team of people ready to call at a moment's notice to contact their decision-makers, their representatives in parliament, to advocate for the support of this legislation to get it done so that these safeguards exist so that people can share their experiences, give their evidence, to their royal commission.
I say again, the government must put this legislation on the agenda for this August sitting period. We cannot rise and go home in September without having finally got this done. Together with the disability community, I look forward to pursuing this issue through the course of the next couple of weeks. If people wish to join in the campaign that we are running, please reach out to my office or click any of the links in the video currently being streamed to my page to be part of that campaign. But get involved to get this done so that people can have the protections that they need to share their experience with this vital investigation into abuse and neglect.
Urannah Dam
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (20:10): I rise to tell a tale of two cities; it is the best of times and the worst of times. In this tale of two cities, I want to talk about two towns in central North Queensland, the towns of Emerald and Collinsville. Around 50 years ago, in the 1971 census, Emerald had a population of just 650 people. Collinsville had a population of 2,000. Collinsville has a proud history as a coalmining town, and most of the workers in that town would have been employed in the coalmines.
Fiftly years ago, Emerald was really just a rural town servicing the cattle industry. Some mines around there have been built since then but the big change was the construction of the Fairbairn Dam in 1972. In 1972, the Fairbairn Dam was built outside Emerald in the Fitzroy Basin. It is a huge body of water, over 1,000 gigalitres; over two Sydney Harbours can be stored there. Even though it is a bit low at the moment, it still provides substantial water to the town of Emerald; to cotton, grain and citrus farms; and to the coalmines and power stations in the region as well. Today, 50 years on, Emerald's population is 13½ thousand people. It has grown by almost 20, thanks to the construction of that dam and the resulting economic activity that it generated.
Unfortunately, Collinsville, over the last 50 years, has had its population halved to 1,000 people, as efficiencies, particularly in the mining industry, took away jobs. There haven't been other industries built in Collinsville to supply all those jobs. There is a big solar farm there, I should say, at Collinsville, but it only employs a few people—security guards.
Dams, in contrast, create thousands of jobs. The whole point of building a dam is to store up water behind it. That is like putting money in the bank. That water behind the dam wall gives confidence for investors to come into a town. It gives confidence to farmers to put in centre pivots, to put in channels, to invest money in their farms because they know they are going to have water security in the future to grow food and to have an income stream to pay back those high capital costs that come not just from the construction of the dam but the construction of the related infrastructure on-farm to take advantage of that water. That's why we've had extra people move to Emerald, that's why we have a vibrant town there—thanks to that dam—and that's why we want to build a dam at Collinsville, too. We want to build a dam at Collinsville for the people of Collinsville, to give them a brighter future, better opportunity, and to provide a nation-building project for our whole country.
I was up at Collinsville last week with Michelle Landry, the member for Capricornia, and the member for Dawson, George Christensen. The project, the dam we want to build, the Urannah Dam, is in the member for Capricornia's seat but it will also significantly benefit constituents in the member for Dawson's seat, as well. We went and saw Marisa at the local post office—a lovely lady. It is more than just a post office for Collinsville; it is the general store and meeting place. It is the vibrant hub of the community, and Marisa was over the moon with the announcement we were making to support the Urannah Dam project and to get that going. It will be great for the town and that's why she is a big fan of it.
What we announced there last week was a further $12.7 million in funding to help bring the Urannah Dam project to a shovel-ready phase. That builds on the $10 million the government has already provided to the project to help finalise its business case, which shows it stacks up. This additional funding will now help the proponents, Bowen River Utilities, to finalise their design, go through the rigorous environmental approval processes that we have in place and make sure that we can start this project within the next couple of years. This is another step in taking this project forward, and I'm confident this is going to happen.
There will be more to do here. There is more to do. It's a billion-dollar project and it involves more than just building a dam. It involves a 1,400-megawatt pumped hydro power station that will help backup the solar power and renewables that are going into the area. As I mentioned, there's a solar farm at Collinsville, but at night time, of course, that doesn't work. So having this pumped hydro facility, which can backup the power needs of North Queensland for about eight hours, will be very useful overnight. It's a big project—1,400 megawatts. There will also be a related irrigation project associated with the dam that will open up 20,000 hectares of new agricultural land. The project also involves the construction of a pipeline to Moranbah, a town that's had intermittent issues with town water supply. This dam will provide Moranbah with excellent water security and really help fix up those water issues in the long term.
The water will also help underpin supply for coalmines in the area, helping to expand that great industry. There is a lot of confidence. We went out to the coalmine, and I might give another speech about that because Michelle, George and I were very happy to have our photos taken there at Collinsville. We put them up on social media and let everybody know we were there, unlike Labor leaders in this place who come up to North Queensland and do a secret visit to a coalmine. No-one knows he was there—there's more evidence that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon than there is that Anthony Albanese came to a coalmine in North Queensland in the last couple of weeks. Why doesn't he do it? Why doesn't he put pictures on his social media page? I think it's because he's a little bit embarrassed about workers. Mr Albanese is a little bit ashamed of being seen next to an actual worker, because that might not go down well in his inner-city Sydney electorate. But the real deal here is how we as a government are getting on with building things that support economic activities, jobs and workers in this nation.
As I mentioned, to finance this billion-dollar project will be a big ask. There is private capital ready to go. I know the proponents will be seeking a request from the government's National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, and we've got the money there to help them out. I'm a strong advocate, given that this project stacks up, that we see it funded and build another dam in Queensland.
I want to finish on the fact that this builds on the government's initiative to build more dams around Australia and get dams back on the agenda. When we came to government seven years ago no-one was talking about dams and no-one was building them. We hadn't built one for a generation. We are now building projects right across Australia, right across Queensland, to open up new farmlands and create jobs everywhere. It is fantastic to see the Rookwood Weir project just come out of the ground. It took a bit of dragging and kicking and screaming with the Queensland Labor government, but we put money on the table back in 2016, again with Michelle Landry a tireless advocate for water infrastructure in her region and Ken O'Dowd also a big advocate for it. They tirelessly fought for this, and now this project's happening. There are people there—we know there are people there because, unfortunately, they had a coronavirus case the other day which stopped the project for 14 days, but it will get going again—and the wall will be poured very soon, next year. We'll have water being stored back up against that on the Fitzroy River. And it's a really big river. The Aboriginal word for the Fitzroy River, Toonooba, means 'big water'. It's a lot of water.
The water in the dam will be 20 metres high, and it will back up for about 50 kilometres. It's a long distance, pretty much from the top of the ACT to the bottom in terms of water—the top of Gungahlin to the bottom of Tuggeranong and probably a little bit further than that. That'll open up all that country along the Fitzroy River for extra irrigation opportunities and more jobs. A lot of macadamia investors have already bought water. It's a very exciting time in Central Queensland to be involved in agriculture and the development of new farmlands because of all the investment coming from the federal government—the Liberal-National government—in dams and the ability to store more water. That's what I want to see our country do. That's what I get excited about—that is, when we build new things. We built our nation on the back of projects like this, like the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme, like the Perth to Kalgoorlie pipeline—a major waterway—like Burdekin Falls Dam in North Queensland, like the Ord development—
Senator Dean Smith interjecting—
Senator CANAVAN: like Lake Argyle—thank you, Senator Smith—over in Western Australia. I don't want to leave them out. There is so much more going on over there too. I'm sure Senator Smith could let us know all about that. It's fantastic to see what this government is doing, to see new economic opportunities being opened up in our nation through dams. This is thanks to the hard work of the local members pushing these projects, working with proponents. We're getting it done and we're creating more jobs and more opportunities for all Australians.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): Senator Canavan, I just want to note standing order 193 'Rules of debate'. I just remind you, even though you are an experienced parliamentarian, that it is highly disorderly to make any imputation of improper motive against members or officials of the house.
Senator Canavan: Well, can I repeat my speech without those imputations? Can I be given that liberty?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I ask you to take note of that standing order, Senator Canavan.
World Ranger Day
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (20:21): [by video link] Last week, on 31 July, it was World Ranger Day, a day where we pause and reflect on the work that rangers do, particularly First Nations rangers, who protect and care for country. From the mountains and cool rainforests of the south of this continent, to the spectacular deserts of the Centre and to the plentiful waters of the north, our people have been managing and caring for country, water and sky since time began.
First Nations rangers work to protect our plants, animals and sacred totems. They control introduced pests like weeds and feral animals, as well as reducing bushfire risks. First Nations rangers also care and maintain cultural sites, like our ancestors have done for millennia. Since Europeans and other settlers have completely mismanaged and completely destroyed what we had maintained for thousands and thousands of generations—the care of country, land and waters—many of our native plants and animals require increased ongoing care and protection by all.
First Nations rangers are continuing the knowledge, science, art and cultural practices handed down by our old people since time began. A report commissioned by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet found that First Nations rangers deliver up to $3 worth of environmental, social and economic value for every $1 spent. First Nations rangers are at the front line of protecting country, culture, waters and sky. We need more people working on country to address these threats. Country needs more well-resourced people to care for it, as well as strong rules that protect country.
Article 10 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples clearly states:
Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.
Let's reflect on those words: 'free, prior and informed consent'. Free, prior and informed consent is the highest standard required for the involvement of First Nations people in decision-making about anything that happens on or affects country, waters and sky. Not only is it the highest standard required, it should be the only standard required.
The oil, gas and mining companies get to do what they want on country because the politicians they have purchased allow it. Free, prior and informed consent means that First Nations people must be informed about mining, fracking, logging, dams and other large projects in a timely manner. First Nations people must be given the opportunity to approve or reject projects happening on country before a project happens—not during, not after, but before.
The opportunity to give or withhold free, prior and informed consent is central to the rights of local communities, and it's also a distinct right of First Nations people. Participation in decision-making and negotiating full, prior, informed consent is central to human rights, including the right of our people to development, including economic development. Free, prior and informed consent involves local communities and First Nations people being informed—in a way that is meaningful to them and in a way that they understand—about things happening on country. Free, prior and informed consent means that First Nations people and other affected communities have the opportunity to approve, reject and change a project prior to the commencement of its operations. Free, prior and informed consent means that First Nations people and affected communities participate in setting the terms and conditions that address the economic, social and environmental impacts of all phases of whatever happens on country.
Free, prior and informed consent is about involving everyone and not picking off traditional owner groups and pitting them against each other. We know that happens all the time, by both Labor and Liberal—we know, you know, and it's wrong. Free, prior and informed consent involves not manufacturing consent by hand-picking the blackfellas that you know you can buy off. It means you have to stop paying the cash and the cars and offering all these other dirty and shoddy policy promises with your gifts to gain consent. It means that we give First Nations people the respect they deserve as the original owners and involve them at all stages of a project, not just the ones that the mining companies have bribed with promises of cars, money or benefits. Don't get me wrong. As I said, this happens. It's happening right now. The unconscionable conduct of mining companies is truly abhorrent.
Unconscionable conduct is a statement or action so unreasonable it defies good conscience. I'm sure all the lawyers know that one. In 2008 the United Nations Human Rights Council recognised that corporations also have a distinct responsibility to respect human rights. Well, they should look at the conduct of mining companies here in this country. The 46,000-year-old heritage-listed rock-shelter was blown up by Rio Tinto against the stated wishes of the traditional owners. Rio Tinto knew Juukan Gorge was irreplaceable; they just didn't care. Rio Tinto isn't the only company acting in truly abhorrent ways out on country. As part of the inquiry looking into the destruction of Juukan Gorge by Rio Tinto, we've heard how other mining corporations behave on country, too. As part of that inquiry, I had the great pleasure of meeting Garrwa elder Uncle Jack Green. He shared with me his artwork depicting the conduct of these dirty mining corporations on his country. He described one of his paintings, called Like an Ice Cream in the Sun, as follows:
This painting is about how Glencore work in Borroloola. Glencore won't let us organise under our own Law. Instead, they pick off one or two of our people. They say to them, 'If you can work for us we'll get you a motorcar, we'll give you tucker. You'll be well looked after, and you'll have money and everything. So, if you want this, you help us get an agreement. You talk for us to your family'.
… … …
The ice cream, lollies on a plate and cake symbolise the absurdity of what's being offered to us. Things that have little long-term value to us. Things that won't last. Here now, but quickly gone, just like an ice cream in the sun.
Glencore throw down scraps like this while they destroy our sacred sites and contaminate our land and water, while the government watches.
There's no way we should be played off like this. We want people in the cities to know what's happening to us. They have to know how their governments work with mining companies to do us over and destroy our land.
I am honoured to bring Uncle Jack's words to the parliament and into the public record. It's absolutely critical that everyone pays attention and listens to the words of Uncle Jack and the many other elders and First Nations people who are being affected by the destruction of country. This is happening. This is unconscionable conduct, bribing First Nations people and pitting families against one another so that Glencore, Rio Tinto and other dodgy corporations can steal the wealth of our people. It is revolting and it is happening with the consent of the politicians here that the mining companies have purchased. And we know that some of these politicians come cheap. Protecting country, caring for country, is the most important thing that we can do as a nation and as a community. Laws that are meant to protect First Nations heritage are fundamentally broken.
Queensland Olympic and Paralympic Games
Bol, Mr Nagmeldin (Peter)
Independence of the Republic of South Sudan
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (20:31): Let me at the outset note how wonderful it is that Brisbane has secured the Olympics for the year 2032. I pay tribute to my great friend Graham Quirk, former Lord Mayor of Brisbane and probably the leading visionary in terms of identifying this opportunity, after Brisbane staged the G20 conference, to keep Brisbane on the world map. I pay tribute to Graham Quirk and to the current Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Adrian Schrinner, as well as to my good friend Ted O'Brien MP, the member for Fairfax, for all of the work he's done behind the scenes. I'm very confident, as we go through this process, that all three levels of government, whatever their political persuasion—at local level, state level and federal level—will work cooperatively to take advantage of this fantastic opportunity. Someone we've seen take advantage of a fantastic opportunity is Mr Peter Bol, who is in the 800 metres final at 10.05 pm tomorrow. This is the first time since 1968 that Australia has had a finalist in the 800 metres at the Olympics.
Peter Bol's story is just so Australian. He came to this country as a young man, as a refugee. Like refugees who came to this country from Vietnam, from Hungary, from the Baltic states, from all parts of the world, he and his family came to Australia to make a life for themselves. As Peter says, 'We came to Australia for the obvious reason. Australia is one of the best countries in the world. I've been around a few countries, and Australia is the best country to be in, so my family definitely made the right choice.' Peter's mother is from a Sudanese background and his father also has a Sudanese background, but came from that part of Sudan which has become South Sudan. They fled Sudan during the civil war and found their way to Australia. I congratulate Peter on his success so far at the Olympics and will certainly be cheering for him tomorrow night.
Peter's success made me reflect on an ecumenical service I attended on 10 July this year to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of South Sudan. That ecumenical service took place at Saint Paul's Catholic Church Woodridge, south of Brisbane. Madam Acting Deputy President, I'm sure you can remember the scenes in 2011 when thousands of South Sudanese living in Australia voted in that historic referendum which ultimately led to independence for the Republic of South Sudan. We should remember the efforts that the Australian government went to in order to ensure that those people had an opportunity to vote in the referendum. In fact, there were above 10,000 people who voted in that referendum in Australia. The greatest number of people outside of Africa who voted in that referendum voted in Australia. Some of those people were in attendance at the ecumenical service on 10 July.
Firstly, I congratulate Mr Sebit Rambang, the acting president of the South Sudanese Community Association of Queensland Inc, for his efforts in terms of organising that ecumenical service. He's one of the new generation of leaders coming up through these communities. Mr Sebit Rambang is a wonderful, confident young man, and I really pay congratulations to him for stepping up to lead this association during these difficult times. He'd had a number of events cancelled due to COVID-19 lockdowns, but he persevered. Certainly, this ecumenical service commemorating the independence of the Republic of South Sudan was a huge success. I congratulate Mr Sebit Rambang. He's an outstanding young Australian.
The service was led by a Reverend Andrew Oyet. Also contributing during the course of the service were Reverend Kennedy Kanyi of Logan Grace Baptist Church and Father Stephen Kumyangi of the Upper Mount Gravatt Wishart Catholic parish. There was strength and inspiration in each of the sermons given that day. It was quite moving. I also note that my good friend Pastor Moses Leth was in attendance. Pastor Leth is another great community leader in the Australian South Sudanese community. He teaches language and culture to young girls and boys of South Sudanese ethnicity.
After the service, those of us in attendance proceeded outside to gather around an olive tree that was planted 10 years ago at the St Paul's parish to commemorate the independence of the Republic of South Sudan. I congratulate that initiative, undertaken by Mr Gabriel Ukono with the blessing of Woodridge St Paul's parish priest Father David Batey. We stood around that tree and reflected on the 10 years of independence of the Republic of South Sudan.
After that commemoration, there were many highlights on that day, but one of the highlights was video tributes, which were given by a lot of the members of the community. A lot of the young members of the Australian South Sudanese community outlined their aspirations for the independent Republic of South Sudan, which has been going through a period of great instability, which is felt keenly by the community here in Australia. They also outlined their aspirations as young Australians, in terms of how they want to contribute to our beautiful country and take advantage of all the opportunities that they have by living in our country. It was quite touching and heartwarming to hear their aspirations, their goals and their objectives, and to hear how they want to contribute to our society.
All the members of the Australian South Sudanese community, and also all the members of the greater Australian community, one and all, united, will be cheering Peter Bol when he runs in the 800-metre final tomorrow night. He'll be running with the best wishes of everyone in our beautiful country.
Regional Security
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:39): In December 2017 I gave a speech to the Senate in which I highlighted Australia's changing strategic circumstances. I argued that we were living in a time of rapid strategic change characterised by uncertainty, risk and potential danger. I highlighted this observation in the government's 2017 Foreign policy white paper:
… China's power and influence are growing to match, and in some cases exceed, that of the United States.
The white paper went on to observe:
China's military modernisation is rapidly improving the capability of its armed forces. It has the largest navy and air force in Asia and the largest coast guard in the world.
That was four years ago. A lot of water has flowed underneath the bridge since then. The broad reality is that Australia's strategic outlook has deteriorated sharply, and, for the first time since World War II, we face a significant risk of high-intensity conflict within our region of strategic interest, especially between China, the US and Japan over the island democracy of Taiwan.
Tonight, against this background, I want to highlight a major strategic revelation of the past month, which has received little attention in this country and which the Australian government is yet to comment on or to respond to. Over the past month, national security researchers and imagery analysts in the US have used commercially available satellite imagery to reveal a major expansion of the Chinese strategic nuclear arsenal. Satellite pictures have revealed that China is constructing two strategic missile silo fields, one of some 120 silos near the small city of Yumen, in Gansu province, and another of some 110 silos near the city of Hami, in eastern Xinjiang. These new strategic facilities are in addition to approximately one dozen missile silos constructed at a training facility in Inner Mongolia.
The silos could be a ruse; the actual number of new missiles may not equal the number of new silos. However, given China's highly secretive strategic posture, it can only be assumed that each of the silos will eventually contain an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM. That would be another 120 ICBMs. Western strategic analysts anticipate these will most likely be solid-fuel ICBMs, known as the DF-41s, with multiple warheads and a range of 15,000 kilometres, potentially putting the US mainland and indeed Australia within reach of China's far west. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Rocket Force has, for decades, operated about 20 nuclear missile silos to support a small force of ageing liquid-fuel DF-5 ICBMs. The PLARF has also deployed about 100 road-mobile ICBM launchers, which operate from a dozen or more bases. In addition, China has also been expanding its force of ballistic-missile carrying submarines.
The deployment of as many as 240 new ICBMs, each potentially carrying three warheads—a total of 720—would represent a dramatic shift for China, which, up to this time, was believed to have possessed a relatively modest stockpile of 250 to 350 nuclear weapons. The scale and speed of the construction underway in China's remote deserts has been described by Western analysts as 'incredible'. Matt Korda and Hans Kristensen of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists observed:
The silo construction at Yumen and Hami constitutes the most significant expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal ever.
… … …
The number of new Chinese silos under construction exceeds the number of silo-based ICBMs operated by Russia, and constitutes more than half of the size of the entire US ICBM force. The Chinese missile silo program constitutes the most extensive silo construction since the US and Soviet missile silo construction during the Cold War.
Of course, these revelations have not been new for the US and Australian governments. Highly classified reconnaissance satellite imagery would have become available before non-government analysts picked up the new developments. In April, Admiral Charles Richard of the US Strategic Command told a US congressional hearing that a breathtaking nuclear expansion was underway and that China's nuclear weapons stockpile is expected to double, if not triple or quadruple, over the next decade. These are very significant strategic developments.
However, the Australian government has had nothing to say. The defence minister, Mr Dutton, has been silent. So, too, has the foreign minister, Senator Payne. This is somewhat surprising given the Chinese government's continued hostility towards Australia and the fact that in May the editor-in-chief of the Chinese Communist Party controlled news outlet The Global Times urged the Chinese military to develop plans for 'long-range strikes on the military facilities and relevant key facilities on Australian soil'. When I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence about that, I got a very dismissive reply, with Senator Cash saying nuclear threats were nothing new.
Some analysts see the Chinese silo expansion as an effort to upgrade a deterrent force that could survive a hypothetical US first strike in significant numbers to defeat US missile defences. This might be taken as a minimalist interpretation of China's likely plans. After all, the scale of the prospective ICBM deployments arguably constitutes an abandonment of Beijing's longstanding minimum deterrence posture. However, it may well be the beginning of a concerted movement towards achieving strategic nuclear parity with the US and Russia.
China's President, Xi Jinping, made no secret of his ambition to place China in a position to challenge—and, indeed, displace—the US as the paramount economic military power. National prestige is probably at play here. China is getting richer and more powerful. Great powers have more missiles, so China too wants to have more missiles in order to underpin its status and ambitions.
Some decades ago, Australian peace activist Helen Caldicott coined the phrase 'missile envy' as a factor in the Cold War arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States. President Xi may be suffering a bit of missile envy. That said, the important question is: what is the strategic significance of the developments? Last month, President Xi declared that any power that challenged or obstructed China will face 'broken heads and bloodshed in front of the iron Great Wall of 1.4 billion Chinese people'. In a recent editorial, TheGlobal Times further declared that China will deploy a nuclear force 'strong enough to make the US, from the military to the government, fear. Equilibrium will be achieved when the US completely lose the courage to even think about using nuclear weapons against China, and when the entire US society is fully aware that China is untouchable in terms of military power.' The words 'equilibrium' and 'untouchable' are probably key there.
In some astute strategic commentary Bates Gill, a professor of strategic studies at Macquarie University, has observed that an expanded Chinese arsenal is probably intended to achieve a strategic equilibrium that will free up China's ability to assert itself through conventional military forces. He said: 'The last thing China wants is a nuclear exchange. This, in China's mind, is a way of stopping others from using nuclear weapons against it. What it means is China feels more confident in engaging in a conventional war. Because they’re not going to be deterred by the possibility of nuclear escalation. And, increasingly, they believe they can win.' That is the real significance of what has been constructed in the far west of China is that equilibrium.
Last November, I warned about the growing threat to Taiwan, a democratic country of some 24 million people. President Xi has made re-unification with Taiwan an absolute national priority. China's nuclear weapons will likely give President Xi increased confidence about making a military move against Taiwan. That is likely to be one of the biggest diplomatic and strategic challenges for the US, Japan and Australia in the next few years. In concert with our allies, the Australian government needs to define our position and not stand silent on the sidelines waiting to be overtaken by events.
Griff, Mrs Kristin
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (20:49): A little over two weeks ago, on the morning of 16 July, my beautiful wife, Kristin Griff, passed away. Kristin was a special soul who lit up everywhere she went. Her vibrant and caring soul brought clarity, comfort and joy to all that she touched. She was the most beautiful, loving wife and best friend. My family and friends are all richer for having known her and absolutely devastated for having lost her.
Cancer slowly took away her life over a four-year period after she found a small lump in her right breast. She had thought that she would easily make it into her 90s, just like her grandmother did. That hope was soon dashed after a biopsy showed her cancer's Ki-67 rate, the rate it progresses, was through the roof. Its aggressiveness resulted in her cancer almost tripling in size in just three weeks. In October 2017, surgeon Davendra Segara operated on her at St Vincent's private hospital in Sydney. Chemotherapy drugs were administered in Adelaide the following month. But the chemo had to stop after just three sessions. It was impacting her lungs and causing significant scarring. Kristin was in a difficult place. Chemo only kills cancer cells that are dividing at the time—dormant cells are not killed—but continuing chemo would further impair her general ability to survive. In early 2018, we met in Sydney with Davendra and oncologist Elgene Lim, who recommended specific oral drugs, and Kristin continued to have six-monthly scans.
We were feeling positive that her cancer had been beaten, until a scan in late 2019 raised concerns. Further scans and blood tests in early 2020 showed progression that required an urgent mastectomy and removal of more lymph nodes and surrounding tissue. Her Ki-67 rate was now over six times the normal rate. COVID restrictions meant I could not travel to Sydney to be with her for the operation. It was a horribly stressful time for both of us. We then decided to return to Adelaide for the operation, but surgery limitations meant we could only remove the lymph nodes and upper-armpit segments, and COVID restrictions meant I couldn't even go to the hospital to be with her. All I could do was find a spot where I could park and look up at her window as we spoke via our mobiles. It was horrible, just horrible. Surgeon Jim Kollias operated on her at St Andrew's Hospital, and Kristin subsequently undertook radiation therapy and oral drugs proposed by her Adelaide oncologist, Ken Pittman.
2020 was a blur of scans, blood tests and drug changes. There was also a close call with a sepsis infection, where we didn't think that she was going to pull through. By November last year, the cancer had spread throughout her spine and pelvis, her lumbar and her thoracic system, and there was suspected incursion in other places. Oral drugs letrozole and palbociclib and pain medication continued, including a period where CBD oil was an absolute lifesaver for her. Like many with aggressive cancers, we went on the look-out for drug trials and found one that was particularly promising. The trial doctor, Meena Okera, arranged for new scans and told Kristin to go off her current drugs, which she did, and she immediately felt the best that she had actually felt for years. She looked great, had vitality again, was smiling and was even singing. It was truly beautiful to see.
But it didn't last long. Scans showed disease progression. This meant she was no longer eligible for the trial. You must be stable or in remission to qualify for trials, something that I was not aware of until that point. How wrong and how gut-wrenching was that? This left us with a choice: stay off everything, with Kristin feeling great for the first time in years, or go back on drugs that were clearly having no effect. Adelaide oncologist Ken Pittman suggested trying anastrozole instead of letrozole. Immediately after taking anastrozole, Kristin had incredible pain and hot sweats. It was the worst she had ever been in her life, all after taking one tiny pill. Did the cancer rebel against this anticancer drug and massively fight back? I think it did. From then on, everything went downhill. Her pain medication had to go up and up. Further scans in April this year showed her bone system and liver lit up like a Christmas tree. Her liver biopsy took place at Calvary North Adelaide Hospital, but incredibly that was screwed up. They missed getting a sample of what turned out to be a very cancerous liver.
This was not the only frustrating part of that experience. Kristin experienced excruciating pain during and after the biopsy, but the nursing staff, those of the St Helen ward of Calvary North Adelaide Hospital on the day, showed a total lack of interest. Kristin was screaming in pain, but the nurse just walked away. Buzzers were continually pressed. No-one came. I raced out to the nurses station and called for help. Not one of the nurses stationed there responded. They were busy chatting amongst themselves while my wife was in agony. The head nurse said our nurse was busy and we'd just have to wait until she came back—totally gobsmacking. Someone could have been dying, but nobody would lift a finger because it wasn't part of their patch. What a disgusting culture, if that is the culture. We went back to that hospital on two other occasions, once for a blood transfusion, when Kristin was forgotten about for the first hour, and the other for an overnight stay, and we vowed never again to visit that place. Our experience of the emergency department in the new Calvary Adelaide Hospital was, however, very different and excellent, but doctors tell me it just wants the easy, profitable business. Cancer doctors do not have admitting rights.
Since the botched biopsy, Kristin experienced frequent vomiting and major pain, both continuing for many weeks. She had further scans at Dr Jones & Partners at Kurralta Park. One required radioactive dye to be injected. The technician missed and injected the dye into her arm, which caused massive swelling, more significant pain over many weeks and poor imaging—another distressing experience.
We met with oncologist Ken Pittman to discuss these scans, and from that point on he effectively took us off his books and referred us to a palliative-care provider. We were obviously at the end of this journey. The palliative-care team told us Kristin had, as they say, short weeks to live. That knocked us terribly. Up until then Kristin was still hoping for a miracle, but it was not to be. When Kristin arrived at Laurel palliative care hospice our stress levels dropped 90 per cent. Warm, welcoming nursing staff, beautiful facilities, doctors and support staff who genuinely cared—we were finally at a place that responded to what the patient needed.
Over the next two weeks Kristin's health improved. She came home for almost three weeks with RDNS support, which meant that she could be with me and our youngest daughter, who had just returned from Victoria. On 10 July everything went downhill. An ambulance took Kristin back to Laurel Hospice. She was very well cared for for her remaining days, and she died, holding my hand, around 8 am on 16 July. Her last 30 minutes of life was a very emotional experience, which I will talk about another time.
Kristin was a beautiful soul who went through much unnecessary pain and distress during her four years of living with cancer. Her medical experiences, which I will outline another time, in the main weren't great, but her palliative-care experience at Laurel hospice was truly beautiful. She asked me to read her final words at her funeral, and they sum up the type of person she is: 'Each of you has gifted my life with love and learning, and I am deeply grateful to you all for including me in your life. It was the greatest privilege to love and be loved and to be given the gift of raising kids who are wonderful humans doing good things within their own lives. When you leave today, step out and lift your head. Inhale deeply. Love and a good life await you. Nourish yourself daily with nature's presence through all the seasons of renewal.'
Beautiful Kristin: Thank you for being a part of my life and that of others who were fortunate to have known you. You will remain in our hearts forever.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Griff.
Senate adjourned at 20:5 9