The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and a return to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Meeting
The Clerk: A proposal to meet has been lodged as follows:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—today
The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I call Senator Birmingham.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:31): by leave—I move:
That:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 1213, standing in the name of Senator Wong, be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business till determined;
(b) the time limit for the debate be 30 minutes, after which the question be put, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each; and
(c) following consideration of the motion, the Senate return to its routine of business.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
COVID-19
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:32): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) applauds the sacrifices made by the Australian people to keep each other safe;
(b) thanks the heroes of the pandemic—our scientists, doctors, nurses, aged care and disability workers, cleaners and other essential workers;
(c) joins the House of Representatives in condemning the comments of the Member for Dawson prior to question time on Tuesday, 10 August 2021 designed to use our national Parliament to spread misinformation and undermine the actions of Australians to defeat COVID-19;
(d) condemns Senator Canavan's and Senator Rennick's repeated use of their public platforms to undermine confidence in public health responses, public health institutions, and the actions of Australians to defeat COVID-19;
(e) rejects statements that 'masks don't work', 'lockdowns don't work', that lockdowns are 'doing much more damage to our love of liberty and our political system, that's the real threat to us now', descriptions of our health professionals as 'dictatorial medical bureaucrats', and that spread misinformation about Therapeutic Goods Administration approved vaccines; and
(f) calls on all parliamentarians to refrain from making ill-informed comments at a time when the pandemic represents a serious threat to the health of Australians.
Paragraph (b) of this motion thanks the heroes of the pandemic—scientists, doctors, nurses, aged-care and disability workers, cleaners and other essential workers. These Australians have shouldered responsibility and taken leadership. If only this Prime Minister could follow their example! If only this Prime Minister could refrain from his consistent pattern of making excuses and ducking and weaving! We know this Prime Minister does that whenever he's asked to take responsibility, and he has done it again when it comes to members of his own party undermining the public health messages in the face of this pandemic.
There was a very similar motion in the other place—a motion the government didn't have the courage to call a division on. In speaking to the motion our Prime Minister went to every length to avoid referring to the member for Dawson. He said, 'What I'm not going to do is engage in a partisan debate on this.' The only partisan debate is the debate within his own party. He's not willing to have the debate in his own party. The leader of the nation is not willing to take responsibility and say to members of his own party, 'You're wrong and you should stop spreading dangerous misinformation.' He did say, 'I don't support misinformation.' That's like saying you don't support cancer. He can't even be straight with people. Where was the rebuke? Where was the courage to say it was wrong? It is a spinner's way through, isn't it? Rather than the Prime Minister making it clear that what the member for Dawson was saying was dangerous and rather than the Prime Minister saying the member for Dawson should stop making these sorts of comments, we saw the Prime Minister engaging in the same old dance of ducking and weaving.
When Australia needs leadership and responsibility, Mr Morrison goes missing. He even went so far as to say—and the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said the same thing—'If others want to undermine the public health effort with misinformation, that's a matter for them.' Really—'that's a matter for them'? What weakness! This bloke can't even stare down his own party, let alone stand up for the country.
But Mr Christensen is not alone in this. We have senators in this place who are prepared to make statements which are demonstrably against the public health advice and demonstrably not in the public interest. Senator Rennick said this about public health officials who are trying to keep Australians safe: 'Our country has become a comedy of errors. Our bureaucrats are the clowns.' They're the clowns! In a Facebook post that he has since removed, he endorsed an article that undermines the TGA approval of vaccines. Remember that, when that lot there stand up and tell us, 'We're doing a great job, because we've got TGA approval for Moderna.' One of their own is undermining the TGA approval process.
Then we have Senator Canavan, and I'm sure he's waiting for this. Senator Payne, in a speech on disinformation, made this statement:
Let's be clear: disinformation during a pandemic will cost lives ...
Senator Payne would be aware, as foreign minister, of the leadership of Dr Anthony Fauci over many years and through more than one pandemic, and I'm sure she too would have been horrified last year to read that the former chief strategist to President Trump, Steve Bannon, called for Dr Fauci to be beheaded. Mr Bannon was banned from Twitter as a result, but he still has a podcast. A recent guest on that podcast said, 'Coronavirus is doing more damage to our liberties than our health,' and that guest was Senator Canavan—going on a podcast hosted by someone who has called for the beheading of one of the world's leading public health officials. There should be nothing easier than for Senator Payne to rebuke Senator Canavan, and I invite her to do that today. I invite Senator Birmingham to do the same, unequivocally, and not with the weasel words we've heard from the Prime Minister: 'It's a matter for them.'
Also, Senator Canavan has written in the Fin Review, saying that using lockdowns in Sydney to save lives was an 'unjustifiable expense'. I would like him to tell us which life saved he thinks is an unjustifiable expense. Who should sacrifice a mother or a father or a daughter or a son because their life shouldn't be saved, because it isn't precious enough to be saved? When people say, 'We should learn to live with the virus,' what they're actually saying to Australians is: 'Be prepared for some of you to die from it.' This government have to stand up to those peddling disinformation and their failure to do so demonstrates the same lack of responsibility the Prime Minister continues to demonstrate. (Time expired)
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:37): We live in the most extraordinary of times—times that none of us would have imagined possible two years ago—but they are times that we have to face as a nation, as indeed the whole world does. Has Australia got absolutely everything right all of the time through the course of managing the COVID-19 pandemic? No, we haven't, nor has any other country on the planet, but we have managed, as a nation, to perform far better than most other countries of the world. Since the start of the pandemic, we have tragically seen at least 4.3 million lives lost across the globe. That's just the recorded numbers of deaths. Here in Australia, sadly, 944 people have lost their lives. Through the course of 2021, 2½ million lives were reported as lost across the globe, and no doubt there were many unreported in many countries. In Australia, 35 have lost their lives. These are all a tragedy, but we should acknowledge the work, as this motion does, of the Australian people: our healthcare workers, our scientists, our advisers—all of them have worked to keep Australians safe.
On 1 February last year, the very moment when our government made the decision to close Australia's borders to China, and when we made subsequent decisions to close Australia's borders to Korea, Iran and Italy, and then ultimately to the entire world—those decisions were ahead of the declaration by the World Health Organization of a global pandemic. We were acting early and we were acting to protect Australians and to keep COVID at bay. And we have continued to act, in concert with the states and territories wherever possible. This year, the world has been thrown the curve ball of the delta variant. The delta variant has created enormous new challenges to countries. At all stages of the vaccine rollout, it has exacerbated challenges for nations. The reality is that we as a country have to continue to respond sensibly and practically to each of those challenges.
The responses we all make, though, are not always responses that can be completely uncontested or go without debate or challenge. The opposition routinely challenges the government in relation to policy responses, and, yes, equally, other senators and other individuals across the nation challenge some of those responses. The government urges everyone, if they're challenging responses, to do so in a way that is responsible—to make sure wherever possible that Australians hear consistent messages in relation to respect for public health orders and to the need to get vaccinated.
We know that there are real debates that exist in this country and elsewhere, and we acknowledge that individuals will use their rights to engage in those debates. In this motion, the opposition acknowledges the heroes of the pandemic, as I said before. It also responds to comments made by the member for Dawson. The House of Representatives already responded to those comments. I heard the Leader of the Opposition in this place say that the government didn't have the guts to call a division on that. That was because the government was accepting the motion. And, in relation to the member for Dawson's comments, we will accept the motion in this place too. I note the desire to focus singly on certain members of the government, rather than acknowledging that indeed debates occur outside of this place as well.
Debates occur with other candidates—for example, the way Labor's candidate for Higgins has engaged on the question of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or indeed the way in which we have seen the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Chief Health Officer undermine confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine. I can't help but note that it took until 7 June for the Queensland Premier to be vaccinated. The South Australian Premier was vaccinated on 21 February and the Western Australian Premier on 2 May at least. Why on earth don't we see the equivalent approach taken by those opposite in relation to all of those who have acted in these ways? That is why I will move an amendment to the motion by the Labor Party that ensures we send a clear signal to all who use public platforms, to all public officials and to all candidates that all should be held to the same standard to support our health officials, to support our scientists and to support our response to this global pandemic. I seek leave to move amendments to Senator Wong's motion together.
Leave granted.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I move:
Paragraph (d), omit "condemns Senator Canavan's and Senator Rennick's repeated use of their public platforms", substitute "condemns the use of public platforms".
Paragraph (f), after "parliamentarians", insert ", public officials and candidates".
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (09:42): I rise to join in the comments supporting the heroes on the front line of this health pandemic—to note that the scientists, the doctors, the nurses, the aged-care and disability workers and the cleaners, those essential workers, have been absolutely paramount. They are not 'clowns', as Senator Rennick has described them. I might add that they are mostly women and they are mostly underpaid. We should be paying them more. We are all still here thanks to them sacrificing their potential safety to be on the front line.
They are putting themselves on the front line and sacrificing their own potential safety because this Prime Minister could not manage the proverbial. He has utterly botched the vaccine rollout, he has utterly failed to build quarantine facilities and he has once again utterly failed to take responsibility for anything that is actually his job as the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister cannot show leadership because he simply is not a leader. He runs away from responsibility. He doesn't hold a hose. He doesn't have a plan. He doesn't have a clue. That is the problem here. He doesn't have the guts to stand up to the science deniers—and lunatics, frankly—in his own party, many of whom are on the backbench and some of whom used to be on the frontbench.
I note with interest that the government has circulated an amendment, which the Leader of the Government in the Senate just moved, seeking to amend this motion to delete reference to Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick. They don't want these folk named. They don't want to name these purveyors of misinformation, these utterly unhinged folk who are contending that masks don't work and that lockdowns don't work. Maybe they don't even think coronavirus is real! This government wants to delete reference to them and doesn't want them named in this motion. It's nothing more than a protection racket once again from this government. There is not a badly behaved man in their ranks that they will not run a protection racket for.
We have seen it with their treatment of women and now we are seeing it with the treatment of the fringe dwellers in their party that do not understand the science, whether it's the climate science or the health science. This government doesn't want to admit to and it certainly doesn't want to discipline these people, but it needs to because these folks are doing real damage. Look at the bloke who went from Sydney to Byron because he doesn't think COVID is real and he doesn't believe in vaccinations. He has sent them into a lockdown. He is potentially endangering the lives of many people, young and old. We have now had a man in his 20s and a man in his 30s die from this virus, and I understand they weren't fully vaccinated.
Disinformation about the effectiveness of vaccination is killing people, and this government's response is to say that they don't want to specifically name Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick, who are part of the cabal of disinformation in their own ranks. It is absolutely abominable. Take some responsibility. Call out these people. Send that message to the Australian public that they are desperate to hear from their government. Show some leadership and tell them to get vaccinated. What's more, order some bloody vaccines so they can actually get the vaccine. The Australian public expect the government to run the country. If you need me withdraw the word 'bloody', I will do so, but the sentiment is clear.
This government has not taken this crisis seriously. It has been everybody else's responsibility except the Prime Minister's. He won't take responsibility to lead the nation and he won't even take responsibility to call out the fringe dwellers within his own party. I wonder why? Because he has a one-seat majority, he can't afford to pull up these dangerous fools in his own coalition. But the result is that Australian lives are threatened and, through his silence, the Prime Minister undermines the work of nurses, doctors, aged-care workers, cleaners and factory workers. His silence exposes them unnecessarily to this deadly virus.
To the Prime Minister the Greens say that protecting the lives of Australians from both COVID and climate collapse is far more important than reinforcing those dangerous and deadly world views through the parliament and the Prime Minister's silence. They should be expelled from his party and the Prime Minister should immediately call them out and distance himself from them. The lives and the safety of Australians depend upon it.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (09:47): [by video link] What a political stunt this is. It was handled in the lower house. It was raised by the Labor Party and it was put to the vote. The coalition government supported Labor's motion in the lower house. So it was dealt with there to throw George Christensen under the bus. But Senator Wong has to make her stance here to actually keep the debate going. So it's a political stunt, as far as I am concerned.
Actually, Senator Wong, I feel a bit insulted that my name wasn't on the list as well, along with Senators Canavan and Rennick. I just don't understand where you are headed with all this. I know what it's like to have been thrown under the bus, because it's happened to me over the years by politicians who stand high and mighty. People who have been elected to parliament have a right to stand up and have their say and have a view, as on Kyle and Jackie O's program last week. I missed out on giving an opinion, and Kyle said: 'What the hell is happening? She is a senator. She has the right to have an opinion.' Yes, I do have the right to have an opinion and have a say, as do Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick. We all have a right to have a say.
We have been given misinformation all the way along, right from the very beginning. I don't think the health officers know exactly what they are saying, because we have one set of health officers telling us one thing and another set telling us another. The people in this nation are so confused. It has been an absolute balls-up with people. You are worrying about the health. I'm saying that it is real. I have not advised people not to have vaccinations. I have said, 'Do your research and understand what is best for you.' We have the Queensland Chief Health Officer, Jeannette Young, saying: 'I wouldn't recommend AstraZeneca to anyone under 40 years of age. You have more chance of dying from the vaccination than you do from COVID.' Now we're told: 'Oh, you can't say that.' Have we heard the truth about whether people have actually died from the COVID vaccination, or have they actually died with it? Where are the facts there? If you go to climate change, we've had scientists that have told us totally different things about climate change. These are things that the people in this nation are so confused about. We hear from one set of scientists a different opinion to another set on the other side.
I fully support George Christensen's comments and his right to make them, as I do any other member of parliament. I have stood true to form, even with Fraser Anning when you tried to bring this stunt in. He was a member of parliament at the time and had a right to say what he wanted to. Just because they don't fall in line with your views and ideology, everyone has to be thrown under the bus. Let the people judge us on what we say. People want to see us stand up and have that difference of opinion and debate the issues about what is happening, not shut us down because it doesn't go with your narrative and what you want us to say. A lot more members of parliament would dearly love to speak out—I've told people this—but they don't out of fear of not getting preselection or moving up the political ladder to become a minister. They're controlled. People want truth and honesty from our politicians, not leading with the political line that suits their agenda.
That is all this motion is: it's just a political stunt by the Labor Party. It was dealt with in the lower house. I blame the Prime Minister. You allowed it to happen. You allowed one of your members to be thrown under the bus by the Labor Party. Now you have to wear it in the upper house. So I'd suggest to the coalition: stand up for your members of parliament. There is nothing wrong with what they have said. There is nothing wrong with anyone questioning the system because our job, as members of parliament, is to question it—then we will find the right answers.
Over the years they've tried to shut me down about immigration, multiculturalism, even climate change, water issues—everything in Australia. I'm supposed to be shut down because I don't have a right to have those opinions. It is so important that we are allowed to voice our opinions. As I said, the people want diversity. They want debate. We want the truth. That's all people are asking for with regard to COVID.
If you're worrying about those people that may get infected, yes, delta is more contagious, but it doesn't mean it's a death sentence. You are destroying people's lives and businesses. They are going under with suicide attempts. The kids of this nation don't know what's going to happen to them. We are destroying them, and you don't even have the answers. It's about time you both worked together to give people in this country confidence about when they can get on with their lives, instead of playing your political stunts.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (09:52): I rise to oppose this motion because this motion seeks to turn this house of review into a house of censorship. This motion seeks to silence people who are elected representatives of the Australian people from speaking about a particular viewpoint. That is our job. Our job is to express views and opinions. Sometimes we might even disagree with each other on those views and opinions.
God forbid that this house would be a place of debate. God forbid that we would have differences of opinion and actually argue it out respectfully and put different views. That's what this motion seeks to do. This motion seeks to make sure we all continue to get paid during the pandemic but that we don't do our job anymore, because our job here is to debate different issues. If you don't like someone's view, you've got a voice. Have an argument. Put the other perspective and convince people of the different opinion.
In her contribution, Senator Wong spoke of weakness. How weak is it that you can't even have a debate? How weak is it that, apparently, the greatest fear of Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is a 90-second statement from the member for Dawson? How is that not weak? How weak is it that she can't even stand up and have a debate and put a different view? Instead, she wants to censor and silence people.
We've been through tough times as a nation and this is a tough time. I do support the part of this motion that seeks to recognise the efforts of frontline health workers. This is a very tough time for our nation. But we've been through tougher times. During World War II, this place met. During World War II, this place had a debate about war strategy. During World War II, the Labor Party brought down an elected government, with a vote of no confidence in the other place. During World War II, the House of Commons had the Norway debate, where they debated for three days on the war strategy of the Prime Minister at the time, Neville Chamberlain, and he lost his job at the end of it. We had debates. There were leaders. And the Australian people are calling out, 'Where are the leaders today?' because all of us are, apparently, cowering because the member for Dawson spoke for 90 seconds in the House of Representatives the other day. That is a joke. That is not doing our job.
If there is one thing that has unfortunately happened during this pandemic, it is a complete lack of parliamentary accountability. We have not had accountability for the decisions that governments have made. Almost all the decisions that are being made under public health orders have not gone through this place. There has not been legislation. There has not been a committee. There have not been disallowable instruments. So all the businesses that have been shut down, and all the restrictions that have been put on people's freedoms, have happened without even a scintilla of parliamentary accountability. I think that's a big question for us post this: whether that's the right approach.
But to silence even the limited abilities of parliamentarians to try to hold to account those who are making decisions about people's livelihoods and their freedoms, and to then say even a 90-second statement can't be made? We are not doing our job. Our job is to review the decisions of government. That's what this place is meant to be. That's what this place is about. And I don't want to turn us as senators into a bunch of noddies. Many of us have been there, at the press conferences behind other people, where we just nod our heads in agreement. That's what this motion seeks to do. It seeks to turn us into a bunch of noddies, where all we do—apparently—is just stand there and nod our heads behind whatever the government or officials are saying at the time. To those that are supporting this motion, and who want to turn us into a bunch of noddies: you do not deserve the title of senator. If you want to be a senator, you've got to be willing to get into the debate. You've got to be willing to get into the fight, and sometimes your views will be held to account. Sometimes your people might disagree with your views. But have the guts and show the leadership to stand up for your opinions instead of seeking to silence others.
There is a great disconnect in this country. There is a great disconnect between what we do here and what people think and believe out in the public, and a big reason for that disconnect is that there is a pall of censorship that has come over our political discourse in the last couple of decades. And, if we support and continue that pall on our discourse, we will only widen that gap between parliamentarians and those we represent in this country. The sooner we allow ourselves to do our job and debate things again, the better for our nation. (Time expired)
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (09:57): Paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of this motion today are absolutely to be commended, because the true heroes of this pandemic have been our frontline workers and our essential services workers, and I think everybody this country owes a debt of gratitude to those people—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: On a point of order, as part of the informal arrangements that the managers engaged in, the government agreed to take two spots. The government have had two spots. I'd ask the manager to allow Senator Watt to speak, consistent with the arrangement she agreed to with my manager. It's a matter of courtesy.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston.
Senator RUSTON: If the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate hadn't ceded her position to this side of the chamber, then those arrangements would have been in place. However—
Senator Wong: He wanted to speak. You're just upset because he got to speak.
Senator RUSTON: I would have stood at the time, had the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate ceded the call to this side of the chamber; however, she was specific about who she had ceded the call to.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am going to say to the chamber that the arrangements that exist between managers are, obviously, not covered in the standing orders. Senator Wong, do you seek the call?
Senator Wong: I think, as the manager of government business has made clear, her intention was to silence Senator Canavan. My request is the government allow, by leave, Senator Watt to speak at the conclusion of the debate.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?
Senator RUSTON: In the interests of the chamber, I am happy to speak for a couple of minutes and then allow the remainder of the time to be ceded to Senator Watt, if that would be satisfactory to the chamber.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ruston; Senator Wong has sought leave for an additional five minutes. There being no objection, I'm going to assume that is agreed.
Senator RUSTON: In the interests of saving time and returning to the important matters of business I will cede my time to Senator Watt, but I would like my objection noted.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (10:00): Thank you, Senator Ruston, for ceding your time. As this motion makes clear, we are calling on the Senate first of all to applaud the incredible sacrifices made by the Australian people and the heroes of our pandemic—the essential workers who have kept us safe. All Australians and these heroes of the pandemic have been profoundly let down by a small group of government MPs who are determined to run a constant misinformation campaign about COVID. They are also being profoundly let down by a weak Prime Minister who never takes responsibility. He never took responsibility for bushfires or for vaccines, and he's not taking responsibility for ensuring that his own members of parliament and his own senators contribute to the public debate in a way that keeps us safe.
This motion focuses on the efforts of the member for Dawson, Mr Christensen, who for many months has been waging an online COVID misinformation campaign, to build up his Facebook followers for his post-parliamentary career at the expense of the health and the economy of Australians. That has culminated this week in his infamous speech given to the House of Representatives, which I notice that Facebook has now removed from its videos because it contains harmful health information in breach of its COVID misinformation policy. Even a tech giant like Facebook, which is all about making money and, let's face it, has allowed the spread of a lot of misinformation over the years, is prepared to take action to ensure that Mr Christensen's dangerous lies are not being spread into the community, but the Prime Minister won't take action and nor will the Deputy Prime Minister.
This motion also focuses on the continued efforts of Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick, who also engage in a misinformation campaign. We all know it is about them courting far Right votes in the community and dragging them back from One Nation, which is why Senator Hanson is so upset about what's going on as well. This is a deliberate tactic from Senators Canavan and Rennick to court far Right votes to make sure that they and their government get re-elected.
I have been asking for some time why it is that the Prime Minister won't take action and won't take responsibility for the comments of his government members, and it has been made very clear today by comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister on ABC TV this morning. When asked why Mr Joyce was not prepared to take action about Mr Christensen's disinformation campaign, he said:
If you start prodding the bear, you're going to make the situation worse for us as a government, not better.
I'll say that to my colleagues, I can assure you that when you've got a thin margin, don't start giving reasons for a by-election.
Finally, someone in the government has been honest about why they are not prepared to do anything about the constant misinformation campaign conducted by Mr Christensen and by senators like Senator Rennick and Senator Canavan. It is because this government cares more about hanging onto power than about actually taking responsibility and making sure that its own members are not conducting a misinformation campaign. This government is more concerned about hanging onto its own jobs than about stopping misinformation being put into the community which is endangering people's health and the jobs and economy that all Australians enjoy. This government is more concerned about its own jobs than about the jobs of tourism workers—those on the Gold Coast, in Cairns and in every other place in the country—that are now at risk because of the poor vaccine rollout of this government, because of its failure to deliver quarantine and now because of its failure to take serious action about the efforts of its own MPs.
How can we expect the Australian people to listen to government messaging, to comply with restrictions and to take precautions if we have members of the government out there day after day encouraging Australians to do exactly the opposite? How can the government expect any of the money that it has been putting into its public information campaign to work when the campaign is constantly being undermined by its own MPs? This motion is a test for this government. It was passed by members of the government in the House of Representatives. It's clear that some members of this government won't back it when it's put to a vote in this chamber. It's clear that Senator Canavan, for instance, won't be supporting this motion, because he says that he needs to do his job. Well, unfortunately, it seems that Senator Canavan and other members of this government consider their job to be spreading disinformation, rather than actually engaging in a proper discussion and encouraging Australians to do the right thing, to protect their health, for themselves, for their families, for their communities and for the sake of the Australian economy. It is an utter disgrace that this government has allowed this misinformation campaign to go on. It's about time they took action and put other jobs in front of their own.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Watt. The time for the debate has expired. I will put the amendment moved by Senator Birmingham—sorry. Senator Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (10:05): I ask for the questions on the amendment to paragraph (d) and on the amendment to paragraph (f) to be put separately.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Birmingham to paragraph (d) of the motion be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:10]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (10:11): The question now is that the amendment to paragraph (f) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:13]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
BILLS
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) 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 notes that:
(a) most families receive no extra support from the government's changes to the child care subsidy;
(b) the government's changes do nothing to stop out of control child care fees;
(c) passage of the bill will allow the Minister to bring forward the commencement of the changes; and
(d) the government should deliver extra support to families as soon as possible".
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:16): I thank all senators for the contribution they've made to the debate on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021. The fact is that our record $10 billion investment in child care since we came into office is 77 per cent higher than it was under the previous, Labor, government. There are over 280,000 more children in child care today, and women's workforce participation reached a record high of 61.8 per cent in March 2021, up from 58.7 per cent when Labor was last in office. This policy will make a difference for many, many Australian families. By removing barriers for second-income earners, especially women who want to return to work or to work an extra day, the Treasury estimates that around 40,000 mums and dads will get to work that extra day. This alone translates into a $1.5 billion boost to our economy each and every year.
Increasing the subsidy for families that have a second or third child aged five years or under means that 250,000 Australian families will be better off by, on average, $2,260 per year. As an example, an average family today that has two children in care and an income of $110,000 a year will be better off by $120 a week. That's $120 a week back in the pockets of hardworking Australian families. Our design of this policy is purposeful. We've targeted our support for families who need it the most: when they have two or more children in care and out-of-pocket costs to their family budget are at their highest. We're also removing the annual cap that is in place for families earning over $190,000, so there is no cap on subsidies. Our childcare system is designed to work for Australian families.
On this side we support families' choice. Our childcare system is fair for those who use it and fair for those who don't. We stand by the principles of our childcare system. Our system provides more support for those on lower incomes. Families earning over $350,000 don't receive any taxpayer funded childcare subsidy. An activity test means you need to be working, studying or training in order to access the subsidy, and an hourly fee cap keeps downward pressure on fees. Around 87.5 per cent of services are charged under the hourly rate cap.
Our policies have kept out-of-pocket costs low, with the out-of-pocket cost for a family almost $1 an hour cheaper, on average, than before we introduced our package in 2018. Our changes are an investment in Australian families and in our economy. Our plan is supporting parents, especially mums, to return to work or work more hours if they choose to. That's why Jennifer Westacott of the Business Council of Australia says:
This is good for mums and dads, good for businesses and good for the economy.
We are proud of our record of delivering for all Australian families, and I commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:19): I would like to move the second reading amendment on sheet 1383, which Senator Faruqi did remotely. I understand that I need to do that given that I am appearing in person. I would also like to move the second reading amendment in my own name on sheet 1384.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Senator Waters, we already have a second reading amendment from Senator Pratt. That's the question before the chair at the moment. So we will deal with that and then deal with the amendments that you will be moving on behalf of Senator Faruqi and yourself, if that's alright.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment motion moved by Senator Pratt be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:24]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:26): On behalf of Senator Faruqi, I move the amendment on sheet 1383 in Senator Faruqi's name, relating to the fact that child care should be free:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) childcare is an essential public service that should be free and universally accessible for all children; and
(b) workers and educators in the childcare sector deserve higher wages and better conditions to reflect the value of their enormous contribution to our community".
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Waters on behalf of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:28]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:30): I now move the second reading amendment standing in my name, on sheet 1384, which pertains to the fact that we are in a climate crisis and our kids need us to deal with that properly:
At the end of the motion, add ", and the Senate calls on the Government to acknowledge that:
(a) it has a duty of care to avoid the harmful impacts of climate change on Australia's children; and
(b) in light of the latest IPCC report, supporting new and expanded coal, oil and gas projects is negligent dereliction of that duty".
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment, as moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:32]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (10:33): The question is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (10:35): [by video link] My understanding is that, in the bill as circulated, there's an error which means that families that earn between $70,000 and $175,000 would not receive the rate of subsidy as was announced by the minister as part of the budget. Could the minister please confirm that the government amendment which was circulated last night will address this problem?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:35): The amendment that is before the chamber this morning will address that issue.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (10:35): [by video link] Minister, when did the government find out about this error? Were you alerted to it by someone or did you realise it on your own?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:36): I'm advised that we were made aware of it yesterday morning on advice from the office of the minister.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (10:36): [by video link] Thanks for that, Minister. Really, all I can say is that the Greens will support this amendment, of course, because it was a terrible error that would undermine even the modest reform that the government has made. What an embarrassment, really, for the government that your headline childcare spend—no matter how modest it was—was so poorly drafted. This government was dragged to the table to invest something in child care, and it can't even get a very basic reform right. I think it tells you all you need to know about the government's incompetence and how much it really doesn't care about early education and learning.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:37): I have a couple of questions. In the context of these reforms, the sustainability of childcare centres, and the sustainability of families' payments towards fees, I note that childcare providers currently have been told to stand down staff to save money and that, while the government has given permission to centres to waive gap fees, in many cases childcare centres have not been able to afford to do that, because they know that they need to hang on to their staff, and they can't afford to do that in any case. I ask the government: why have you ignored pleas for support from childcare centres and, indeed, the pleas of families for respite from gap fees being charged?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:38): First of all, I absolutely categorically state that the government would never advise centres to stand down their staff. The government has provided unprecedented support to centres and to families. We are backing families and the childcare sector simultaneously during this pandemic, and I believe we've acted very swiftly to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to reflect the completely uncertain times that we find ourselves in. For instance, for families, we're allowing services to waive out-of-pocket costs and we have extended the number of days families are allowed to keep children absent before they lose access to the childcare subsidy. For childcare businesses the Commonwealth has partnered, in particular with New South Wales, to facilitate swift support through JobSaver to help businesses meet payroll costs if they've experienced a 30 per cent decline in revenue. For childcare workers—an absolutely critical workforce for our economy—where a worker has had hours reduced they are eligible for the COVID disaster payment of up to $750 per week.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:40): So you disagree that the government told childcare providers in the lockdown to stand down staff? It was the department of education, as I understand it, that advised that. No? So childcare providers are wrong. If childcare centres are struggling can they currently stand down staff?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:40): You have asked me two questions. My advice, very strongly, is that the government has not at any time instructed childcare centres to stand down staff. The actions of the centres themselves in relation to their staffing arrangements are a matter for them.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:40): The amendments to the Fair Work Act enabling the standing down of staff in the context of COVID no longer exist. In the context of a childcare centre not being able to afford to waive fees for parents, because otherwise it won't be able to stay afloat, staff may go and get other jobs, frankly. If you can't afford to pay them, they'll have to leave. What advice are you giving childcare centres who are struggling? They have told us they are struggling. They have advocated this week that they're struggling. Yes, you've given some measures, but they're saying it's not enough. What is the government doing about this?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:42): The government has allowed for the fees to be waived, but the government is still continuing to provide the government fees to the childcare centres. So even if children are absent from the childcare centre the government fees will still continue to be paid by the government to the childcare centre.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:42): What proportion of centres in lockdown zones that have experienced attendance collapse have waived their fees?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:42): I'm advised that is not information that the Commonwealth has collected, so we would be unaware of the answer to that.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:42): These childcare places make quite a substantial amount of money. Is there somewhere I can find out how much money they've made over the last couple of years? I can tell you they are not screaming poor. I'm just wondering: does the government keep a list—or can I find that somewhere—of the profits that these childcare centres have made over the past two years?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:43): Many of the childcare providers are large businesses and would be producing annual reports, so I would certainly point you to looking at the annual reports of the big providers. If you require further information about who those big providers are, I am sure that we could provide that information for you.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:43): We all know that, yes, you get charged the full fee irrespective of whether you do or don't attend normally, but what are the changes in attendance rates because of lockdowns? How many families are paying the gap fee without attending?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:44): My advice is that we are monitoring very closely the information that you are seeking. However, as it lags a couple of weeks I'm advised that we don't have a full set of data to be able to respond to that question at this time.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:44): How can you say that you are helping families and helping childcare centres if you don't actually know who you are helping and who you are not? It seems that, yes, some parents will get some financial respite by not being charged those fees if they're not attending but at the expense of the sustainability of some childcare centres. When do you expect you'll have that data?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:45): First of all, I want to reiterate the fact that we have responded in this pandemic by providing support to families, providing support to childcare businesses and providing support to childcare workers, and I will continue to reiterate that. At the moment on average a guaranteed 55 per cent of fees in the Sydney area are for children who aren't attending along with the regular fees for children who are attending is, at this stage, an estimate of the situation. However, as I said before, we will continue to monitor the situation to make sure that we are alive to the very important service that is provided by childcare providers during this pandemic.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:46): In the context of the legislation, what modelling did the government do around workforce participation when examining the income limits for eligibility in the legislation?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:46): The income limits that are being used for the changes that are being put forward by this particular amendment bill are the same limits that were in place for child care in the past.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:46): Indeed, they are. So you've paid no attention as to whether the current disincentives to work because of childcare fees—you've paid no attention to the need to address those in this legislation, then, have you?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:47): No, that is completely factually incorrect. Obviously the Treasury continues to do modelling around many factors that exist particularly in relation, as you are asking, to workforce participation.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:47): Minister, you found out about the drafting error yesterday. How is it that you were about to pass a bill with such a big mistake in there? Can you please explain to us how that actually happens?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:47): Senator Lambie, I'm not aware of the details of how this error occurred. All I can say is as soon as it was brought to the attention of the government we sought to rectify it immediately.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:48): I understand this is Minister Tudge, and I do apologise for putting you in this position, but do you know if Minister Tudge's office spotted the error themselves, or did government become aware of it because someone on Twitter commented about it about midnight on Tuesday night?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:48): Senator Lambie, I don't actually have that information. All I know is that when the bill was here, I was advised, or the government was advised in the Senate, of the error from Minister Tudge's office yesterday morning.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:48): I just have one more question. Could you please tell us, if we had have passed Minister Tudge's bill before the mistake was picked up, which was probably picked up by somebody on Twitter—I'd really like to know, because it's embarrassing for both sides; the Labor Party didn't pick it up either. You have all these staff and all these things at your disposal, yet we're making massive mistakes. What would have happened if we'd have put this bill through without now amending it?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:49): Senator Lambie, my understanding is that it would have been a matter that would have been picked up when the IT build was being undertaken. But I take your point. It was an error and it was sought to be rectified as soon as possible.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:49): In the context of forced participation, I've received significant advocacy from psychiatrists and others who are concerned about the return to work for women in reasonably well-paid industries, saying that it's currently a significant disincentive to them returning to work, because of the rate of childcare fees. Sure, they probably receive a good income from doing so, but they have to pay for the extra juggle that comes with taking children to child care. More specifically, what has the government done to look at some of the critical workforce shortages that exist in Australia, particularly in this time of COVID, where we know we can't import labour from overseas? Have you actually addressed and considered where you need to pull the levers to lift workforce participation? Why haven't you properly considered those issues in the context of the bill that's before us today?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:51): One of the main reasons why we lifted the annual cap was for the very reason that you are raising. As a government, we have also been developing a very substantial skills package to make sure that we have the workforce that we require, going forward. In the context of this bill but also, more broadly, in the context of the entire workforce, the government continues to work on modelling to make sure that we have the workforce skills that we require to go forward.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:51): In that context, I ask why this bill doesn't come into effect until the middle of next year, if you're saying that it's to address workforce participation and shortages. That's when those changes come into effect, or have I read that wrong?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:51): If the actions of the bill are able to be implemented sooner, they will be.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:52): What does that mean? I know that the Greens have sought to bring forward some of those changes in their amendment. Are you saying you might do that of your own volition, as a government?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:52): Because of the complexity of the systems build that's required for this to be undertaken, we wanted to make sure that it was a phased-implementation approach. That's why Services Australia has requested that the completion date for the necessary systems be July 2022. However, if this is able to be brought forward, in the context of all of the work that Services Australia is currently undertaking in response to the evolving COVID pandemic, we will of course do that. We want to make sure that these policy changes are in place and that Australian families can benefit from them.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:53): I'm not sure that the Greens have moved their amendment yet, but I would note in that context that we encourage the government to get on with this as soon as it can, because we need increased support for child care. However, we can't support the Greens amendment, because we view it simply as a stunt, knowing that any request made by the Senate that has funding implications needs to be done by the government and supported by the government. The Greens motion therefore gives families false hope. I encourage the government to bring forward its own changes in getting that system up and running. But I place on the record that only Labor has put forward a comprehensive plan for child care that increases support, and it is simply an exercise in false hope, really, to rely on this government to deliver anything otherwise. Labor looks forward to implementing its comprehensive package after the next election.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (10:54): To add to my answer to Senator Faruqi's questions, I can also confirm that, since the government announced this initiative, I have been working with Minister Tudge, Services Australia and his department. We have worked very closely on the time line, but it does require very significant system changes to deliver. We have always been very cautious but very deliberate in our planning and our time frame. As Minister Ruston said, if we can bring it forward we will, but, again, it's more important that we get the system right to be able to deliver it for Australian families.
I now table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move amendments (1) and (2) and request for an amendment (3) on government sheet PV119:
(1) Schedule 2, item 7, page 7 (lines 11 to 14), omit subclause 3A(2) of Schedule 2, substitute:
What is the applicable percentage?
(2) Subject to subclauses (4) and (5) of this clause, the individual's applicable percentage for the session of care is determined by the table in subclause 3(1), and by subclause 3(3), as modified by subclause (3) of this clause.
(2) Schedule 2, item 7, page 7 (lines 23 and 24), omit paragraph 3A(3) (d) of Schedule 2.
(3) Schedule 2, item 7, page 7 (after line 26), at the end of clause 3A of Schedule 2, add:
(4) Subclause (5) applies, and subclause (2) does not apply, if the individual's adjusted taxable income for the income year in which the CCS fortnight starts is above the lower income threshold and below the second income threshold.
(5) The individual's applicable percentage for the session of care is the lesser of 95% and the percentage worked out by:
(a) starting with the applicable percentage (the default percentage) that would apply to the individual for the session of care under item 2 of the table in subclause 3(1) and under subclause 3(2); and
(b) adding 30 percentage points to the default percentage.
Example: If the default percentage is 60%, the individual's applicable percentage for the session of care is 90%. If the default percentage is 75%, the individual's applicable percentage for the session of care is 95%.
Question agreed to.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (10:56): [by video link] I move the Greens request for an amendment (1) on sheet 1353:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 4), omit the table items, substitute:
2. Schedule 1 |
1 July 2021 |
1 July 2021. |
3. Schedule 2, Part 1 |
1 July 2021 |
1 July 2021. |
4. Schedule 2, Part 2 |
Immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 3. |
|
This request for an amendment is very simple. It brings forward the start date of the package by one year to 1 July 2021. As I foreshadowed in my speech on the second reading, families need more support, and they need it urgently. During the debate on this bill, so many senators on this side of the chamber highlighted the issues with child care: how expensive it is and how difficult it is for families. There is no good reason why the government couldn't prioritise getting more money into the pockets of families who continue to be slugged with some of the highest childcare fees in the world. It is the government's responsibility to do that, not to say 'We will if we can.' It's in your control, if it is a priority for you—and it should be a priority for you.
Over the last 18 months we have seen the rules rewritten and entire government spending programs recalibrated or conjured out of nothing as the pandemic has demanded swift and substantial policy responses. In that light, it seems completely ridiculous to suggest that more than a full year is required in order to enact these changes through the existing government systems. We know that the government has said that it would like to start the scheme as soon as possible. Well, it's up to you to start it as soon as possible. It's up to you to start it now. If that is indeed the case, it's time to get a clear commitment.
Also, it's pretty bloody rich for Labor to stand here and say, 'This is a Greens stunt.' If the Senate agrees to this amendment today, it is going to send a very clear and very strong message to the government to make this change. That's what we're here for. This is not a stunt, Senator Pratt. This is actually trying to fix a problem that families and children and women have had for a very long time. I call on Labor and the crossbench senators: if you want to support childcare workers and educators, if you want to support families, women and children, then at least agree to this Greens amendment which will provide that support, however modest it might be.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (10:59): First of all I thank Senator Faruqi for her incredibly productive engagement on this bill and for confirming her support for its passage. However, the government will not be supporting this amendment for the reasons that I have outlined and that I understand Senator Ruston outlined. It does require significant system and software changes, for not just Services Australia but also third-party software providers, because of the interface with thousands of childcare providers.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Chandler ): The question is that the request for an amendment as moved by Senator Waters on behalf of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.
The committee divided. [11:04]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Chandler)
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Chandler ) (11:06): The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to, subject to a request for an amendment.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to a request.
Bill reported with amendments and a request; report adopted.
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:07): Labor supports the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. We have in this legislation a range of counterterrorism and other police powers in the Crimes Act 1914 and the Criminal Code Act 1995, which are due to expire on 7 September 2021. The powers are declared areas provisions, the control order regime, the preventative detention regime and a range of stop-and-search seizure powers. This bill extends the sunset dates on each of these powers. It allows the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to conduct a review of the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of declared areas provisions prior to the new sunset clause.
Finally, the bill would amend the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act to give the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor more time to finalise their review of the continuing detention order regime, control order prevention, preventative detention and stop-and-search seizure powers, which are all due to expire on 7 September this year and are currently under review by the Intelligence and Security Committee. We support the proposed extension of the sunset dates to 7 December of next year. This extension ensures that the intelligence and security committee has sufficient time to complete its review prior to sunsetting and the government will have sufficient time to work through and respond to any recommendations made by the committee.
The declared areas provisions are in a different category. The declared areas provisions of the Criminal Code allow the Minister for Foreign Affairs to declare an area in a foreign country if he or she is satisfied that a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in hostile activity in that area of the foreign country and make it an offence for a person to enter or remain in a declared area subject to a number of limited exceptions set out in 119.2 of the Criminal Code, such as providing aid of a humanitarian nature, performing an official duty for the Commonwealth or visiting a family member. The committee recommended that the sunset date of the powers be extended to 7 September 2024 and that the Intelligence and Security Committee be empowered to conduct a review of those powers at any time prior to that date. The bill implements both of those recommendations.
The Intelligence and Security Committee also recommended that the declared areas provisions be amended to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to travel to a declared area for a reason not listed in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code. Labor notes that, following extensive consultation with government agencies, including ASIO and the AFP, the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Dr James Renwick, made a similar recommendation in 2017. The government has argued that this recommendation could not be effectively implemented and monitored and the time and resources required to obtain information to assess the application would be significant and would divert security and intelligence resources from other national security priorities.
Labor, on this matter, are not persuaded. We think that the government should implement the committee's bipartisan and unanimous recommendations. Labor recognise the implementation is not without its challenges. Because of that complexity, and the national security context, we think it is an amendment that should be drafted following close consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australia's national security agencies. That is why Labor are moving a second reading amendment calling on the government to implement the recommendation. Subject to that qualification, I commend the bill to the Senate. We haven't circulated it. I note that Labor moved that second reading amendment in the House of Representatives and we'll reflect on that in the course of this debate.
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (11:12): [by video link] I rise with disappointment, it must be said, as I sought to refer the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 to committee. I would still like to do that because it is important that this parliament review this legislation and provide proper community consultation. That's what we're here for, right? We don't represent ourselves. We represent the people who put us here. So we have a duty of care to take it back to the people.
I know the Liberals and the red Liberals don't want to do their jobs today. We know that the committee that the previous senator spoke about doesn't even have Greens representation on it. It's just a Liberal-Labor cosy affair that makes decisions for this country without consultation of the people. So I remind you all that you have to do your jobs. You get COMCAR to pick you up in the morning because it's taking you to do your job, and you have to do your job. Because you are failing in this regard, it's all the more reason why we need to have more Greens in power so that we have balance of power and so that we can hold you all accountable.
The Morrison government just realised that the provisions are about to expire. What? Who's running this country right now that they allowed legislation to expire when we're talking about terrorism legislation? Wake up! What are they doing? But obviously that's how they operate—do nothing until the very last minute and then try and look like they're doing something. Well, you can't con this little black gin. The—
Debate interrupted.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Thorpe, you'll be in continuation when debate resumes.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:15): I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
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 WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:15): Out of an abundance of caution, in case it has not reached the Table Office in time, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Water, by no later than 1 pm on Thursday, 12 August 2021, the following documents relating to the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program:
(a) any correspondence between the Minister for Resources and Water and Empire Energy or its subsidiaries discussing the program;
(b) any correspondence between the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction and Empire Energy or its subsidiaries discussing the program;
(c) details of any meetings between the Minister for Resources and Water or the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction and representatives of Empire Energy, including date, location, attendees and notes of any matters discussed;
(d) a list of all applications for grants under the program, including the date the application was received;
(e) guidelines, directions, policies or any other documentation regarding the decision to allocate grants on a 'first come, first served' basis;
(f) any assessment against relevant guidelines of the validity or merits of applications received;
(g) a list of successful applicants;
(h) a list of any applicants who have been advised that their application has not been successful; and
(i) any grant agreements issued under the program.
Presentation
Senator Rice 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, 30 August 2021, the following documents discussed during a hearing of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation 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 to by Mr Brian Boyd of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) on page 5 of the Hansard of the committee's hearing on 19 July 2021;
(b) any spreadsheets created by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development for the purpose of setting out proposed UCF projects, as referenced in paragraphs 2.30 to 2.32 of the ANAO's report, Administration of commuter car park projects within the Urban Congestion Fund;
(c) any spreadsheets created by, originating in, or shared between the Prime Minister's Office and the offices of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development or the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, setting out proposed UCF projects, as referenced in paragraphs 2.30 to 2.32 of the ANAO's report, Administration of commuter car park projects within the Urban Congestion Fund; and
(d) any maps and attached schedules referred to by Mr Boyd of the ANAO on page 8 of the Hansard of the committee's hearing on 19 July 2021, setting out where projected UCF expenditure would take place and the party affiliation of the seats in which that expenditure would occur.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting—
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) the order for the production of documents made on 10 August 2021, notice of motion (NOM) no. 1209, required the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Water to produce various documents relating to the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling program by 12 August 2021;
(b) the Minister advised the Senate on 11 August 2021 that she would not produce the documents listed in NOM no. 1209 by 12 August 2021, but did not provide an alternative date for their production.
(2) That the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Water produce the documents listed in NOM no. 1209 to the Senate by 6 pm on Monday, 23 August2021.
(3) That in the event the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Water fails to table the documents requested, the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister to attend the Senate at midday on 24 August 2021 to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the Government's failure to table the documents.
(4) Any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (3).
(5) Any motion under paragraph (4) may be debated for no more than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate:—
(a) notes that:
(i) the order of 4 August 2021, requiring the Commissioner of Taxation, to provide, by 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, has not been complied with,
(ii) the response by the Commissioner acknowledges the power of the Senate to require the publication of documents and information, but claims public interest immunity in relation to the documents, and
(iii) in support of the claim the Commissioner asserts that the release of the information will harm the public interest by undermining public confidence in the Commissioner's ability to keep taxation information confidential;
(b) rejects the claim of public interest immunity made by the Commissioner of Taxation, noting that:
(i) the information sought relates to public funding received by an employer, not an employer's business or taxation information, and
(ii) the harm purported cannot be sustained noting identical data relating to New Zealand employers has been published on a searchable and real time New Zealand Government web page; and
(c) orders the Commissioner of Taxation to comply fully with the order by 4.30 pm, 26 August 2021.
COMMITTEES
Selection of Bills Committee
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:16): I present the ninth report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 9 OF 2021
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 7.13 pm.
2. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021.
3. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Air Services Amendment Bill 2018
Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill 2021
Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021
Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2021
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020
Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021
Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021
Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Candidate Eligibility) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021
Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021
Fair Work Amendment (Improving Paid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies) Bill 2021
Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2019
Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019
Human Rights (Targeted Sanctions) Bill 2021
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021
International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2021
Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Transparency and Cost Recovery) Bill 2021
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021
Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017
Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021
Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019.
4. The committee considered the following bills but were unable to reach agreement:
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021.
(Dean Smith)
Chair
12 August 2021
Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:16): On behalf of Senator Thorpe, I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
"and, in respect of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 August 2021".
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:16): I also have an amendment to move which will add, at the end of the motion, the words:
"and the following bills not be referred to committees:
(a) Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021; and
(b) Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021".
Senator Siewert: President, I'm aware that Senator Thorpe wants to speak to the report.
The PRESIDENT: On advice from the Clerk, we will deal with the amendment that Senator Siewert moved on behalf of Senator Thorpe and then move to the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Cash.
Senator Siewert: President, I know Senator Rice also wants to make a contribution on the report itself.
The PRESIDENT: We'll get to that after we deal with the amendment. I call Senator Thorpe to speak to her amendment.
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (11:17): [by video link] There are three provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 that are about to expire—and I do mean that they're about to expire—in a matter of days, and the government have only just realised. This is terrorism legislation for this country. The government have just woken up and realised that parts of the legislation are going to expire. What are they going to do about it? It's because they didn't do their job—and the red Liberals don't want to do their jobs either. They want to just rush these through.
Some of these provisions that are about to expire have never even been used. So you're about to extend things that have never been used. Why haven't they been used? Shouldn't we be asking that question? Isn't that our responsibility? The previous Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Bret Walker SC, is on the record as saying that he found that 'sunset provisions are problematic', and that 'a period of 10 years appeared arbitrary,' stating that sunset clauses should 'either be really very short' or not be used at all—who listens to advice in this place?—in which case, there would:
… be trust in future parliaments to amend, repeal, leave in force laws as the future parliaments see fit in light of circumstances that cannot possibly be predicted at the moment.
So, come on, let's do our job. Let's hear from the likes of the Law Council of Australia, Human Rights Watch, Save the Children and Mr Bret Walker SC himself, among many others. We can get this done soon, but we all just need to do our jobs. Let's have a short hearing and air these issues out. Just because the Morrison government didn't do its job doesn't mean that we all now have to scramble. There are plenty of concerns with this legislation and we must air those out—not to mention that the preventative detention orders and the stop, search and seizure powers that the government wants to extend, with the help of the red Liberals, have never been used. Labor, seriously, why are you supporting something like this?
I ask for the support of the Senate. Let's do our job. Roll your sleeves up and do the right thing by the people. Let's take these proposals to the people and the experts by way of a committee. Let's do it now. It can be done. If these provisions that are about to expire are so important and critical to this country, then can't we just follow due process? I thought that was part of the democracy. Is it, or do I need to learn something different about this place? So I call on my fellow senators: if you truly and genuinely represent the constituents you say you do, roll up your sleeves, get the work done and hear from the people and the experts who are saying that this is problematic. Let's find out why it's problematic. Labor, have you checked out why this is problematic, or is it that you just can't be bothered because you have your eyes set on the next election? Don't get too cocky. Fix the legislation, take it to the people and stop worrying about the next election, because we have a number of crises happening in this country right now. I actually don't give a damn who gets in next. I care about the people, and that's why I'm here. So think about why you're here and, the next time you say you're here for the people, make sure that you're walking the talk and not just rushing through dangerous legislation that excludes the people that we are meant to represent.
The PRESIDENT: To make it clear: on advice from the Clerk, I'm going to jointly deal with contributions on the amendment moved by Senator Thorpe, the amendment moved by Senator Cash and the motion on adopting the report.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:23): I will be very quick in my commentary. Senator Thorpe makes a pretty good point, and that is that it's well known that the legislation was to sunset. It is a little bit strange that the government hasn't brought this in a little bit sooner, and I'd be interested in hearing from the government as to why that might have been the case. It just seems very odd to me. It would seem that proper process hasn't been afforded the Senate with regard to notice on this. I'd like to think that we could, in fact, examine this, particularly in circumstances where it appears as though the provisions of the legislation haven't been used.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (11:23): I oppose the government's amendment to not send two bills off to committee—in particular, the proposal to not refer the Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021 to committee. It seems to be a case of the government really doing its best to avoid embarrassment and not have transparency. What this bill seems to do is fix up what's been quite a big boo-boo on the part of not just this government but also, in fact, previous Labor governments with regard to the legislation sanctioning people who have been terrorists.
It seems, from the current situation—and it is why this bill is being introduced—that the regime of sanctions on terrorists has been operating illegally for the last 20 years. It seems that we haven't had the appropriate legislative framework in place to make our ability to sanction terrorists legal. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' scrutiny report No. 8 of 2021 said:
The legislative instruments were made between 2001 and 2020 but were only registered on the Federal Register of Legislation on 26 May 2021. They were previously gazetted, but not registered—the effect of which appears to be that before they were registered the instruments did not apply to a person to the extent that they disadvantaged or imposed liabilities on the person.
The committee has specifically asked the question of the minister: 'How many of the listings in these legislative instruments are currently valid?' This was covered in TheSaturday Paper last weekend. They summarised the situation by saying:
The sanctions regime under which Australia freezes the assets of suspected and convicted terrorists appears to have been operating illegally for two decades, because the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade failed to entrench it properly in law.
Obviously, we want to fix these failings in our sanctions regime to make sure we're complying with UN frameworks, but we reckon that, where the government and the department have stuffed up, there needs to be a bit of transparency. We think referring this off to committee in order to have some transparency, to work out what went wrong and to make sure that such things aren't going to happen in the future is a really important part of accountability and transparency. We don't think referring it off to a committee would hold it up. It could be a very short inquiry. It could be done on the papers. But, basically, we would have that body of evidence saying, 'This is what has gone on, these are the failings that have been discovered, this is how we're going to fix it up and this is how we're going to make sure that such failings don't occur again in the future.' The Greens very much think that the Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021 should be referred to committee.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I seek to split the motion and vote separately on part (a) and part (b).
The PRESIDENT: That is for the motion to be moved by Senator Cash. I'll put Senator Thorpe's amendment first. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Siewert at the request of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [11:31]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:33): I move:
At the end of the motion, add "and the following bills not be referred to committees:
(a) Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021; and
(b) Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021".
The PRESIDENT: I have a request from Senator Roberts to deal with part (a) and part (b) of this amendment separately. The question is that part (a) of the amendment moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: The Greens and Senator Roberts are recorded as saying no. The question now is that part (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: I take it that Senator Roberts would like his position recorded against that amendment. Senator Waters has expressed on behalf of the Greens, and Senator Patrick has expressed on his own behalf, that they oppose that. The question now is that the report of the Selection of Bills Committee as amended be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:35): I move:
That—
(a) the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021, the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2021, the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Cost Recovery and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Amendment Bill 2021 be considered from 12.15 pm;
(b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and
(c) general business notice of motion no. 1204 be considered during general business today.
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 Whish-Wilson for today, proposing a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee, postponed till 23 August 2021.
General business notice of motion no. 1216 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, postponed till 23 August 2021.
COMMITTEES
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: A notification of extension of time for a committee to report has been lodged in respect of the following:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Funding for public research into foreign policy issues—from 12 to 17 August 2021.
The PRESIDENT ( 11:35): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I shall proceed to the discovery of formal business.
Economics References Committee
Reference
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:36): At the request of Senator Kitching, I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2021:
The Australian manufacturing industry, with specific regard to:
(a) what manufacturing capacities Australia requires for economic growth, national resilience, rising living standards for all Australians and security in our region;
(b) the role that the Australian manufacturing industry has played, is playing and will play in the future;
(c) the drivers of growth in manufacturing in Australia and around the world;
(d) the strengths of Australia's existing manufacturing industry and opportunities for its development and expansion;
(e) the sectors in which Australian manufacturers enjoy a natural advantage in energy, access to primary resources and skilled workers over international competitors, and how to capitalise on those advantages;
(f) identifying new areas in which the Australian manufacturing industry can establish itself as a global leader;
(g) the role that government can play in assisting our domestic manufacturing industry, with specific regard to:
(i) research and development,
(ii) attracting investment,
(iii) supply chain support,
(iv) government procurement,
(v) trade policy, and
(vi) skills and training; and
(h) the opportunity for reliable, cheap, renewable energy to keep Australia's manufactured exports competitive in a carbon-constrained global economy and the role that our manufacturing industry can play in delivering the reliable, cheap, renewable energy that is needed.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:36): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: We supported Senator Kitching's initial motion to have an inquiry into manufacturing. It was withdrawn by the Labor Party. Now we see why it has come back. It talks about a decarbonised world and targeting only renewable energy. We cannot support that. We would support an inquiry conducted into the impact of all energy options. We cannot support this.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Ransomware Payments Bill 2021
First Reading
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:36): At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require the reporting of ransomware payments to the Australian Cyber Security Centre, 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) (11:37): 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 I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Labor is introducing the Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 because we listen to the advice of national security experts, we want to protect Australian businesses from cyber threats and because, quite simply, the Liberal National Coalition has failed to do its job.
Ransomware is malicious software used to deny access to IT systems by rendering computers and their files unusable, and is often accompanied by a threat to release sensitive and private data, until a ransom is paid.
According to the Ransomware Taskforce – a collaboration between government, law enforcement, industry and specialists, and including US, UK and Canadian cyber security agencies:
Ransomware is a prevalent and destructive type of cybercrime, with increasingly dangerous physical consequences. Hospitals, school districts, city governments, public infrastructure, and countless other organizations have found their networks and data held hostage by malicious actors seeking monetary gain. Ransomware attacks will only continue to grow in size and severity, unless there is a coordinated, comprehensive, public-private response.
The Australian Cyber Security Centre has said that ransomware attack is the most significant threat facing Australian businesses and governments. A tool of state actors and cyber criminals, ransomware incidents cost the Australian economy as much as $2.59 billion annually.
Moreover, as forewarned by the Government's own cybersecurity Industry Advisory Committee, "when deployed against essential services or critical infrastructure, ransomware may have rapid and serious consequences for the Australian community."
We've already seen the potential of ransomware in attacks in Australia and abroad. This year, in Australia, a ransomware attack on Nine Entertainment disrupted the network's ability to broadcast. Health services providers UnitingCare and Eastern Health lost access to electronic patient data and hospital IT systems during separate ransomware attacks, with staff having to resort to manual processes. JBS Foods – Australia's largest meat and food processing company, which employs 11 000 people in Australia – had its operations paralysed and supply chain threatened by a ransomware attack. JBS Foods paid a A$14 million ransom to ensure no data was exfiltrated.
In the United States, a successful ransomware attack by the DarkSide group shut down the Colonial pipeline, which carries almost half of the Eastern United States' fuel supply, for six days leading to widespread fuel shortages.
But the scale of the problem and its cost to Australian businesses, jobs and productivity can only be estimated because organisations currently have no obligation or incentive to report ransomware attacks. Australian victims are paying millions to ransomware criminal groups each year. But payments – which encourage further attacks – are typically kept secret due to potential reputational harm, insurance ramifications and legal liability.
While organisations with an annual turnover above $3 million must report data breaches resulting in unauthorised access of personal information to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, ransomware may not be caught by this framework.
The Morrison Government has consistently failed to implement recommendations for a mandatory notification scheme for ransomware payments, despite this being the advice of influential cyber security experts and canvassed as a likely policy recommendation during May's Budget Estimates by Department of Home Affairs seniors.
A similar scheme has been recommended to US President Biden by the Ransomware Taskforce, and data breach schemes in the EU and UK apply to ransomware.
Without consistent reporting and information collection, we cannot understand the scale of the problem or measure the effectiveness of policy and operational responses.
This is the problem Labor's Bill aims to fix. The Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 would introduce a stand‑alone notification scheme requiring that entities intending to make a ransom payment must notify the ACSC of key details, collecting actionable threat intelligence such as the purported identity of the attacker, the details of cryptocurrency wallets for payment, the ransom amount demanded, and indicators of compromise for the attack.
The information provided would not be made public, and the Bill includes penalties for disclosure of personal information except for use by law enforcement.
To reduce the compliance burdens for small businesses, entities with an aggregate turnover of less than $10 million will be excluded from the scheme.
The actionable, de-identified intelligence collected under the bill could be shared with Australian businesses to improve cybersecurity. It could also inform ACSC or law enforcement counter-action.
Moreover, mandatory notifications would create a more complete picture of the cybersecurity threat landscape, enabling targeted policy responses to protect Australian businesses, critical sectors, and jobs.
This is a simple policy and it is a good policy.
Ransomware is an increasing threat to Australian security, and we must understand it better.
Senator URQUHART: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Collaery, Mr Bernard
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:38): I move:
That—
(1) The Senate requires the Attorney-General to attend the Senate at midday on Tuesday, 24 August 2021 to provide a detailed explanation as to why the ongoing prosecution of Mr Bernard Collaery is in the public interest.
(2) Any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (1).
(3) Any motion under paragraph (2) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (11:38): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: This matter is currently before the courts and it would not be appropriate for the government to comment. Likewise, debate on the terms of this motion would not be an appropriate use of one hour of the time set aside for government business in this chamber.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:38): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator PATRICK: Just in response to Senator Duniam, the decision to prosecute is an executive decision. It is not a matter that is before the court and as such it is quite appropriate to debate whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute. We're not dealing with any of the issues that are before the court.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1215, in the name of Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [11:43]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (11:44): Senators, that concludes the discovery of formal businesses. I might say, senators might be aware of the developments in the ACT. I understand there will be some public announcements at 12.15 pm from the ACT authorities. We will hopefully have something to say with respect to this place following that. I thank senators.
BILLS
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:45): 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 RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:45): 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—
AUSTRALIAN ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT (GOVERNANCE AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2021
Australia has implemented a best practice donation system and is a leader in organ transplantation. Since the commencement of the Australian Government's national program to increase organ and tissue donation for transplantation in 2009, there has been a trend of significant growth in donation rates with more than 14,000 Australians receiving a lifesaving organ transplant..
For someone who is seriously ill, an organ or tissue transplant can mean the difference between life and death, being healthy or sick; between seeing or being blind; or between being active and never walking again. Transplantation enables people to resume an active role in their family, workplace and community. Organ donation gives someone who has organ failure a second chance at life.
Few people have the opportunity to become an organ donor. An individual needs to die in a hospital, with organs functioning well, to be a donor. Only around two per cent of people who die in a hospital are able to be considered for organ donation. That's only around 1,300 people a year.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, known commonly as the Organ and Tissue Authority, manages the implementation of the Australian Government's national reform program to increase organ and tissue donation and transplantation in partnership with:
State and Territory Governments;
the national DonateLife Network;
the donation and transplantation clinical sectors;
eye and tissue banks; and
the community.
Under the current governance arrangements of the Organ and Tissue Authority, the Board is the accountable authority under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and reports directly to the responsible Commonwealth Minister.The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is a member of the Board and is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the organisation.
The Board was established on 1 July 2017 following a review of the implementation of the national reform agenda on organ and tissue donation and transplantation conducted by Ernst and Young in 2016. Following the review, legislative changes established the Board as the accountable authority of the Organ and Tissue Authority under the PGPA Act.
This resulted in the OTA becoming the first non-corporate Commonwealth entity to have a Governance Board as the Accountable Authority.
In July 2020, the Organ and Tissue Authority Governance Board undertook an internal review as required under the Board Charter. The results indicated a clear consensus from Board members of the need for increased time and capacity to contribute to the organisation's strategic direction and to provide advice and support to the CEO.
This Billwill transition the role of accountable authority from the Board back to the CEO, and replace the existing Governance Board with an Advisory Board under the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Act 2008.
These governance changes will align the Organ and Tissue Authority with the governance structures of most other non-corporate Commonwealth entities.
This Bill will amend the functions of the CEO to include all functions of accountable authority under the PGPA Act and establish the Advisory Board to provide advice and expertise to the CEO on organ and tissue donation and transplantation matters. There are no changes to the existing functions of the Organ and Tissue Authority.
The Advisory Board will have skills-based membership, harnessing expertise, experience and knowledge from a broad range of areas from within the organ and tissue sector including:
public administration, business or management;
hospital or health organisation leadership;
health consumer of donation or transplantation services;
promotion of donation and transplantation;
community leadership and engagement; and
clinical expertise in organ and tissue donation and transplantation.
All Advisory Board members, except the Chair, will be appointed by the Minister responsible for organ and tissue donation and transplantation matters, in consultation with the jurisdictions. The Chair will be appointed directly by the responsible Minister.
These changes to the governance structure of the Organ and Tissue Authority will allow the Board a greater strategic focus to provide expertise and advice to the work of the Organ and Tissue Authority. This will support the Organ and Tissue Authority to set the priorities for the future to improve organ and tissue donation, retrieval and transplantation outcomes.
I would like to acknowledge the valuable work of the Organ and Tissue Authority Board since its establishment.
The transition of governance from the Board to the CEO will better support the Authority to more effectively achieve its strategic goals – saving lives, and improving the quality of life, for more Australians.
Senator RUSTON: I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:46): On behalf of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 together with accompanying documents.
BILLS
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (11:46): [by video link] Here we go again, because the Morrison government didn't do its job again all of us here are now expected to pick up the slack. I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. There are three particular measures in this bill that are about to sunset. The 'do nothing Morrison government' did not do its job. That's why we're here, right? The Prime Minister forgot that the terrorism legislation was about to expire. That's why we're all here debating why we should let the kid that came with his homework late, didn't do the reading, didn't do the research—we are here to now discuss the problems with it that Labor are supporting to just push through. It's unbelievable. The 'do nothing Morrison government' obviously hasn't done their job, and Labor can't be bothered either, so let's just rush it through.
You've only just realised that these provisions are about to expire. The Prime Minister just realised they are about to expire. Now you are scrambling to do something about it. What kind of leadership is that? Who is running the country? But that's how you operate: do nothing until someone makes it an issue. The Greens are the only ones that are going to pick it up and actually talk to the human rights body, and those that are interested and understand the problems with this bill. I'm not sure whether Labor have picked up the phone or even the government. But obviously you haven't done your homework, you haven't done your job and you're too lazy to even have a conversation about it and allow further scrutiny.
Anyway, the three provisions in this bill that are about to expire, and I do mean that they're about to expire in a matter of days, are: (1) the declared areas provisions in section 119 of the Criminal Code (2) the control order regime in division 104 of the Criminal Code and (3) the preventative detention orders regime in division 105, for a further 15 months. There are also amendments to the Intelligence Services Act as well as the Crimes Act to extend the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers in division 3A part IAA. I will deal with these in that order.
Section 119.2 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to enter or remain in an area declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is also the 'Prime Minister for Women', apparently. I note that a person is still allowed to travel to those declared areas for legitimate purposes, like providing aid or performing official duties, either for governments of this country or for international organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross. Journalists are also able to travel to declared areas, if they are acting in a professional capacity, as are people visiting or reuniting with family. These provisions were part of a number of legislative measures that were introduced in the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014. Labor, you should listen, because you haven't done your homework. Understand what the people are saying and what the experts are saying; that's who we're listening to.
The explanatory memorandum of that act did not really articulate why the length of the sunset provisions was prescribed. In fact, the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bret Walker SC is on the record on this matter. Listen, Labor:
The former INSLM stated that he found sunset provisions problematic and that a period of ten years appeared arbitrary, stating that sunset clauses should either be 'really very short' or not used at all—
Labor, wake up!—
in which case there would be 'trust in future parliaments to amend, repeal, leave in force laws as the future parliaments see fit in light of circumstances that cannot possibly be predicted at the moment'.
Are you awake, Labor?
There are some key concerns with the declared areas provisions. I expect this from the Libs—but, seriously! The Australian Human Rights Commission—I'll send you their number if you like—has made clear that the expectations should be reframed to operate more broadly, instead of being a shopping list of purposes, as appears now. Human Rights Watch—I'll give you their number, too, Labor—also expressed concern that the proposed list of exemptions fails to recognise that, during times of war and conflict, there are a number of legitimate reasons for people to travel to areas involved in armed conflict. These include: doing business; selling property; working for a civil society organisation; running or voting in an election; and for religious reasons. Where are you, Labor? Get out from under that desk. Like pilgrimages—I struggle with that word. I haven't been totally decolonised. The English language is very violent sometimes. For example, Labor, during the Sri Lankan conflict, a number of Australian Tamils returned to sell their possessions but then assisted civil society groups, advocating against the war, or were forcibly held by the Tamil Tigers. None of these acts are covered by the exemptions at the moment, and they should be, seriously. The offence of remaining in a declared area is particularly problematic because, when an area becomes a declared area, it's an Australian citizen or resident or a holder of an Australian visa who has to leave the area. An area could be an entire country.
So, instead of fixing this flawed legislation and rolling your sleeves up and doing what's right for the people, Labor—I expected it from the Libs, but I didn't expect it from you fellas—are seeking to extend the sunset clause until well past the election. They want to completely disregard the processes and procedures of making laws, including committee review and proper debate and scrutiny in the Senate and the other place. That alone should cause everyone concern. It's not clear that the government has fixed the issue in the legislation. Instead, it's trying to kick it down the road for, hopefully, a new government to deal with. But, jeez, you fellas have got to do some work and do the right thing by the people.
But I say no. The control order regime in division 104 of the Criminal Code Act allows a court to impose obligations, prohibitions and restriction on a person. Restrictions may be imposed on the basis of a lower standard of proof, on the 'balance of probabilities', instead of 'beyond reasonable doubt', and even on the basis of secret evidence. The police are not obligated to provide any information that would prejudice national security. These control orders can be put on children as young as 14. Labor, I'm telling everyone that you are supporting this—children as young as 14! You're not our mates.
Only 20 control orders have been issued to date. The Morrison government is considering changes to the control order and preventative detention framework to make it even worse than it is now, with the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020. Human Rights Watch—got the number here—has expressed concern that 'control orders are imposed on individuals in a cumulative manner so as to be tantamount to indefinite detention'. Australia's Independent National Security Legislation Monitor previously recommended the repeal of control order provisions. If only the Morrison government, and their buddies on the other side, were paying attention!
The preventative detention orders regime under division 105 of the Criminal Code Act allows a person to be taken into custody for up to two days to prevent a terrorist attack or for preserving evidence. The issuing authority for an initial order is a senior AFP member. Since the orders were legislated, they have never been used—they have never been used, in the whole time—yet you want to extend them? Since the orders were legislated, they haven't been used. I need people to understand that. Labor and the Libs want to extend something that's never been used before. They don't want to take it back to the people; they just want to rush it through.
We had terrorists, literally Neo-Nazis, burning crosses on my country, Gariwerd—Gunditjmara, Warrnambool. The colonisers call it Halls Gap. It's called Gariwerd. Those terrorists and Neo-Nazis danced on my ancestors and burnt a cross. What happened to those fellas? Nothing. If these orders are so good at preventing terrorism, they would have been working, but they haven't been.
Stop, search and seizure powers in division 3A of part IAA of the Crimes Act allow a police officer to stop, question and search people as well as seize items without a warrant, as long as the police officer suspects that someone is committing or about to commit a terrorist act. That says a lot about human rights. These powers have not been used at all since they were legislated, but you want to extend them anyway. The Greens don't support this. The Greens are for the people, for grassroots democracy. I've given you 15 months to come back and fix some of these issues, particularly in regard to declared areas provisions. I need the Senate to support this so that our people can have a say. All Australians need to have a say, and Liberal and Labor are stopping that from happening. I can keep going if you want.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The senator's time has expired.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:00): At the request of Senator Watt, I move the second reading amendment on sheet 1380:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) in February 2021, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security tabled a report in the Senate following its review of the "declared areas" provisions in the Criminal Code Act 1995;
(ii) the Committee made four unanimous and bipartisan recommendations, including three recommendations to amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Criminal Code Act 1995; and
(iii) this bill would implement Recommendations 1 and 2 of the Committee's report, but the Government has refused to implement Recommendation 4, which is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 "to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to travel to a declared area for reasons not listed in section 119.2, but which are not otherwise illegitimate under Australian Law"; and
(b) calls on the Government to implement Recommendation 4 of the Committee's unanimous and bipartisan report".
Senator VAN (Victoria) (12:00): Fundamentally, the role of the Australian government is to ensure that all Australians are safe, secure and free from the threat of violence so that they are able to pursue their individual interests. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that our sovereign rights remain untainted by malicious actors and groups. Australia's current national terrorism threat level is listed as probable. This means that there is credible intelligence, assessed by our security agency, that indicates that individuals or groups have the intent and/or capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that we live in a world where there are those who wish to take what we have and destroy what we have built.
We have world-class intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies who work day in and day out to protect us from these threats. These agencies are equipped with some of the brightest and most dedicated minds in Australia, using some of the most advanced technologies to fight these threats. To ensure Australians are safe, we must ensure that these agencies have correct legislative frameworks to ensure they can do their job effectively and help us ensure that all Australians are safe.
This is why the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 is vital and must be passed without delay. To delay passing of this bill could threaten the lives of every Australian. This bill provides for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that have helped since its enactment to protect the lives of Australians and our communities. In response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and its 2021 review of declared area provisions, the bill will extend the sunsetting of declared area provisions in the Criminal Code Act 1995 to 7 September 2024 and amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review these provisions by 7 January 2024, ahead of their new sunsetting date. The declared areas offence forms an integral part of the Australian government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters and also mitigates the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to Australians. The bill will also extend the 7 September 2021 sunsetting of AFP counterterrorism powers until 7 December 2022 and emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act 1914.
Control orders are an important tool in preventing a terrorist attack or foreign incursion and for managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community. It is important to note that control orders must be issued by a court. The Australian Federal Police can apply to the court to issue a control order against someone and must also have the consent of the Minister for Home Affairs.
Preventative detention orders are also an important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist act and preserving vital evidence in the aftermath of a terrorist act. Emergency stop, search and seizure powers ensure police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. This bill seeks to extend those powers for a further 15 months. These powers allow for police to request information, to conduct a search and to seize property where they suspect a person might have committed or be about to commit a terrorist act. I cannot stress enough that, if these powers were to sunset, particularly those with respect to control orders, all control orders would cease to be in effect, which would significantly inhibit agencies' ability to manage individuals who pose a risk of terrorism and threaten our way of life. If anyone in this house is okay with that happening, then they're essentially saying that they are okay with Australians' lives being placed at risk. I commend this bill.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:04): I rise to sum up the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Protecting the Australian community from the evolving threat of terrorism is and will continue to be among the Morrison government's highest priorities. This bill will provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe. The declared areas offence is an important part of the Morrison government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters to overseas conflict zones and to mitigate the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to Australians. Control orders and preventative detention orders are important tools used to prevent terrorist acts and manage the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community.
The emergency stop, search and seizure powers ensure that police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. The extension of the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review division 105A of the Criminal Code will enable the monitor to engage in interstate consultations which were disrupted, as I think we all know, by COVID-19 travel restrictions and to provide a greater body of evidence to draw upon in his review of the practical operation of the provisions.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently conducting a statutory review of control orders, preventative detention orders and the stop, search and seizure powers. This bill ensures that these powers do not cease while this important review is going on. The committee's separate review of the declared areas provisions was tabled on 25 February 2021. This bill implements key recommendations made by the committee in this review, including that the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to provide that the PJCIS may review the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the declared areas provisions by 7 January 2024, ahead of the new sunsetting date of 7 September 2024.
I note that the committee also recommended—and I note that the opposition has moved a second reading amendment in this regard—that the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to travel to a declared area for reasons not listed in section 119(2) of the act but which are not otherwise illegitimate under Australian law. The government does not support this proposal. It is unnecessary, because the legislation already provides for a range of carefully defined exemptions, including for bona fide visits to family members, journalism, a range of official duties and the provision of humanitarian aid. There is also an ability to prescribe additional exemptions through regulations.
The government is not aware of any cases where a person has sought to travel to a declared area for a reason otherwise legitimate under Australian law and was unable to do so to the current scope of legitimate purpose exemptions. The proposal would create a scheme which would undermine the intent of the legislation, which is to keep Australians safe and prevent travel to extremely dangerous conflict zones where terrorist groups are active. The government has strong concerns that if such a scheme were put in place it could not be effectively implemented and monitored, and it would directly contradict the government's approach to travel advice. The government would have limited information to assess an exemption application, including to consider whether the intended travel was for a genuine reason. Moreover, the time and resources required to obtain information to assess an application would be significant and would divert security and intelligence resources from national security priorities. In putting forward this proposal, the committee recommended that the Minister for Foreign Affairs' decision to grant or not to grant an exemption be exempted from merits review. However, decisions made by the foreign minister, even if exempt from merits review, would still be reviewable by the courts.
There would also be significant practical difficulties in monitoring the movements of a person authorised to travel to a declared area, and it would be difficult to ascertain whether a person had complied with any conditions to which their travel authorisation was subject. Declared areas are, by their nature, dangerous conflict zones and persons who travel there do so at significant risk to their personal safety. The government sees no rationale for creating a scheme of this kind, which runs counter to the policy intent of the provisions and gives rise to significant practical challenges. Given we are not aware of any real-world instances where a person has been prevented from travelling for legitimate reasons, it is safe to conclude that such a scheme would result in little benefit for the cost required to set up and implement it.
Again, in summing up the debate, I say the bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to protecting the Australian community from the threat of terrorism and ensuring our law enforcement agencies continue to be able to manage the evolving national security threat environment. With those words, I commend the bill to the Senate.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Urquhart for Senator Watt, the second reading amendment on sheet 1380, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2021
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Cost Recovery and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Amendment Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:18): Labor supports these bills, which aim to streamline cost recovery arrangements for regulation of education providers who provide services to international students. The Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Bill 2021 repeals and replaces the current charging provision with a new framework, although most details would be set through regulation, continuing a pattern of this government trying to avoid transparency and accountability for its decisions. The three related bills make minor and consequential amendments arising from the registration charges bill. The bills are all part of a broader shift to full cost recovery for the regulation of higher education providers, including the TEQSA cost recovery and charges bills that were in the Senate this week.
Labor is not opposed to cost recovery in principle, if it is well thought through and justified. Labor has opposed the TEQSA cost recovery legislation as we believe now is not the appropriate time to move to full cost recovery for higher education providers who have been forced to bear the brunt of the COVID pandemic for the most part without any government assistance.
Labor will support the legislation being debated today. While we have opposed parts of the broader shift to expanded cost recovery for higher education providers, this piece of legislation is expected to reduce charges on international education providers and prevent providers from being double charged for the same regulatory activity.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:20): [by video link] I rise to speak on the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021 and other cognate bills in front of us right now. I'll state from the outset that the Greens will not be opposing these bills. The bills update the model for registration charges for the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, known as CRICOS. The bills do so by replacing the annual registration and entry to market charges with an annual charge payable by providers who are registered on CRICOS and by imposing a charge for applications by schools for initial registration and renewal of registration on CRICOS.
Following the 2020-21 budget announcement, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment consulted with the international education sector on this revised cost recovery model. The consultation period ended on 1 June, and I note the explanatory memorandum to the registration charges bill indicates:
No substantive issues were identified during the consultation period that warranted changing the model.
That is all fine, but there is an extraordinary lack of transparency in the way this government is operating. The department has not made any submissions to the review public, which is a very worrying pattern. The way these charges will work, indeed, even the formula to calculate the new charges, will sit outside of the bills in front of us. The bill gives the minister power to exempt providers from charges, yet there is absolutely no clarity in the bills as to how and when these powers may be exercised. The government's repeated attacks on public providers and their cosying up to private providers makes me worry that these broad powers may be used to benefit private over public providers. Indeed, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee mirrored these concerns when commenting on the registration charges bill, noting that this bill provides the minister, by legislative instrument, broad discretionary powers to exempt providers from the requirement to pay a charge in circumstances where there is no guidance on the face of it in the bill as to when these powers may be exercised. Unlike the current provisions relating to CRICOS charges, the registration charges bill does not specify the amount of indexation arrangements for the charges. Instead, the amount, any indexation and any exemptions for one or more classes of provider will be specified through regulations.
We note that the Senate cannot vote on regulations in the same manner we can on bills. We know that the same level of scrutiny cannot be applied to regulations and ministerial decisions. This is precisely why the government is continuing to put up bare-bones legislation day after day where important matters sit outside bills.
From our discussions with the minister's office, we understand that the effect of the bills in front of us today is to reduce charges for institutions to register as providers for overseas students. So we are not opposing these bills, but I want to remind the chamber that these bills come off the back of terrible bills like the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, which impose further levies on providers of higher education who are already struggling. While these bills may provide small relief, the government's agenda to decimate public providers of higher education remains very obvious and very stark. That must be pushed back and fought against.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:24): I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bills to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Third Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:24): I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:26): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1376 in the name of Senator Thorpe together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 5), omit "7 September 2024", substitute "7 December 2022".
(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 13 to 17), omit paragraph 29(1) (bbaa), substitute:
(bbaa) to review, by 7 June 2022, the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code (which provide for declared areas in relation to foreign incursion and recruitment)
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:27): Labor opposes these amendments. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended that the sunset date for the declared area provisions be extended to 7 September 2024 and that the intelligence and security committee be empowered to conduct a review of those powers at any time prior to that date. This bill implements both of those recommendations. By contrast, the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe and moved by Senator Siewert would provide for a more limited extension of the sunset date in relation to the declared area provisions, to 7 December 2022, and require the intelligence and security committee to undertake a further review of those provisions by 7 June 2022.
Labor supports the position of the intelligence and security committee. The intelligence and security committee completed a review of the declared area provisions in February of this year. It is unnecessary and, given the extraordinary workload of the committee, inappropriate to require the committee to complete a further review by the middle of next year. In any event, I note that the bill, if passed, would enable the committee to commence a review of the declared area provisions at any time prior to 7 September 2024. In other words, the bill as drafted would empower the committee to complete a review within the time frame suggested by Senator Thorpe, but it would not require it.
Separately, the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe would see the preventative detention order and the stop, search and seizure powers expire on 7 September 2021. We strongly oppose those amendments. The intelligence and security committee is currently undertaking a review of those powers. The whole purpose of that review is to evaluate the operation, effectiveness and implications of those powers. It would therefore be wholly inappropriate and defeat the purpose of that review for the parliament to allow the powers to expire while the review is ongoing. Instead, Labor supports the proposed extension of the sunset dates to 7 December 2022. This extension will ensure that the intelligence and security committee has sufficient time to complete its review prior to the powers sunsetting and that the government has sufficient time to work through and respond to any recommendations made by the committee.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:29): The government does not support these amendments. They are reckless. They would undermine the intent of the bill greatly, impeding the ability of Australia's law enforcement agencies to keep Australians safe.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:29): I won't hold the Senate up unduly but I will make the point that once again the major parties in this place are in lock step on an erosion of rights and freedoms in our country. This legislation, like so many other pieces of legislation that have passed through this parliament and state and territory parliaments in the last couple of decades, erodes fundamental rights and freedoms.
It is worth pointing out, yet again, that Australia remains the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some kind of charter of rights or bill of rights, whether constitutionally enshrined or legislatively enshrined, and it is the absence of such a charter of rights or bill of rights that makes it so much easier for the major parties to collude in walking us ever further down the dangerous path to a police state and a surveillance state.
In the last two decades, Commonwealth, state or territory parliaments have passed well over 200 pieces of legislation that erode fundamental rights and freedoms in the name of counterterrorism. It is worth pointing out that many of those pieces of legislation have been introduced in the name of counterterrorism, and then the powers, often very intrusive powers, contained in those pieces of legislation are used for intelligence gathering or data harvesting that has nothing to do with counterterrorism. I will give colleagues just one example, which is that the metadata retention laws are being used not to keep us safe from terrorists but for local governments to gather evidence to prosecute their ratepayers for having unregistered pets. That is where we find ourselves today, colleagues.
These powers, which we consistently grant through our parliaments because the major parties are in lock step on these issues, are dangerous. They have not been argued for comprehensively. Our terrorism threat level has remained unchanged over many years in this country, yet we continue to see pieces of legislation coming to this place and passed with the support of both the major parties. That, unfortunately, is what we're seeing today.
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (12:33): [by video link] My contribution will be short and sweet. Basically, you two—Labor and Libs—are the only ones on the committee you're talking about. If that's not a closed shop, if that's not failing the democracy that we're meant to have in this country, what is this about? How can we have a committee that's filled with Labor and the Liberals and shuts out the Greens, the only grassroots, democratic party that represents the people—no dirty donations, no favours for privileged mates, no mining jobs when we leave?
I thought what this was about—you're raising you're eyebrows; I can see you—was working together for the betterment of the people in this country. We're meant to be, aren't we? Madam Temporary Chair, are you okay?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): I believe that you might be attempting to reflect on the chair, Senator Thorpe. I just remind you to use language that is parliamentary. Avoid using the word 'you'. Show some respect for the Senate. If you want to continue your contribution, I will give you the call, but I do expect you to adhere to the standards that are fit for this place. Senator Thorpe.
Senator THORPE: Thank you very much. You've raised a very good point there, Temporary Chair—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, I warn you again not to reflect on the chair. Whether it's a positive or negative comment, it is not required. Please make your contribution, if you wish to do so. Senator Thorpe, you have the call.
Senator THORPE: My apologies. I do take that very seriously, so thank you—because I do believe that the Senate is there for the people and I do believe in accountability and transparency to the Australian population. In this case, I do not believe that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party are acting in good faith and being respectful to democracy in this country, because they won't allow anybody else to sit on their private little committee. So please tell me what 'democracy' means, because I am not seeing that in my new job as a senator for Victoria. I've been put here to call for accountability and to call for transparency. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party get together and have their little committee meeting, make their decisions, bring them to the Senate and expect the Australian people to accept their dodgy little committee findings—two of which, may I remind you all, have never been used since they were legislated. So why are you continuing two parts of this legislation that have never been used before? Wouldn't you ask yourself, as an elected representative on behalf of the people who put you there, wouldn't you say—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, I remind you once again that your use of the word 'you' is highly problematic in regard to established standing orders for the Senate. With that reminder, I will give you the call again. Senator Thorpe.
Senator THORPE: I've got another word; my apologies. Wouldn't a normal person in their right mind, particularly those who are part of the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Labor Party, think that the committee would have asked themselves, in the name of transparency and accountability: why haven't these two parts of the legislation ever been used? Why should the Labor Party and the Liberal Party be allowed to extend two parts of this legislation that have never been used before? That is not accountability, that is not transparency and that is not democracy; it's a breach of human rights. We've seen Human Rights Watch, as well as other experts, come out and say that it is problematic that these two parts be maintained as part of that piece of legislation and be extended even though they've never been used before. I really struggle with how the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party come up with their closed decision-making—because the Greens aren't there to hold them accountable, and that's a problem in the Senate. You can call us what you like: 'Greenies this, Greenies that, latte-sipping Greenies.' I've never had a latte in my life, mind you. I've seen more Liberal Party members have lattes in that place than I've seen happening in Northcote. Come on! We are there to hold you all to account. I know you don't like it because we speak truth—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe—
Senator THORPE: Not again!
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You were on a pretty good roll for a while there. I acknowledge that you're making an effort to avoid using the word 'you', but I remind you once again that it is unparliamentary to use that word in this context in the way that you're using it. Senator Thorpe, please continue.
Senator THORPE: Thank you. I will practise. Anyway, a dodgy deal is being done between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party to exclude the Australian people and not take it to a committee to further investigate why two parts of the legislation have never been used and they're going to just roll it on anyway. I find that lazy and I find that disrespectful, in fact, to the experts we have spoken to who have given us the advice to provide to the Senate to make an informed decision that ensures accountability and transparency. Shame on the Labor Party and shame on the Liberal Party for closing shop and not allowing the Greens to make them accountable. We need the Greens with the balance of power. It's the only way we're going to hold these two parties accountable. They are running roughshod across this country, making bad decisions together. Labor's trying to keep up, scraping to the bottom, catching up with the Liberals on their bad policies and their bad leadership in running this country. So we need the balance of power. The only way we're going to get there is to get rid of this government. Labor can come in. But, Labor: you're not coming in without us, because you'll be just as bad.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:41): I have a brief question for the minister. It relates to the timing of the bill. I think the PJCIS reported in February and this bill was introduced on, I think, 4 August. This is in the context that perhaps it could have been introduced earlier. What was the delay? I say that as a crossbencher who has to deal with a lot of legislation. There was potentially the ability to consider the bill more closely. I'm curious as to the sequence or the timing, in terms of when the committee reported, when the government received a draft bill, when the bill was finalised, and perhaps some details around that.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:42): Thank you, Senator Patrick. In relation to the report of the PJCIS and its recommendations, one of the requirements is for the government to actually consult with states and territories, and, as you know, that can take some time. As such, we introduced the bill in August, when you said, and we're obviously seeking to pass it today.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:42): Just to confirm: the delay between the two was simply one of engagement with the states? Minister, maybe you could take on notice the dates on which that was concluded and the date when the drafting was finalised. I would appreciate that.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:43): Absolutely, Senator Patrick, I can take on notice the relevant dates for you. In relation to part of the bill, it was the states and territories. In relation to the part of the bill on the AFP powers, that is something we're still waiting for the PJCIS to report upon. On notice, I will get you the answers to your questions on the actual dates.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): The question is that amendments (1) and (2) be agreed to.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): The question is that parts 3 and 4 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
The committee divided. [12:48]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)
Third Reading
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:51): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [12:53]
(Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:56): I rise today to support the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021 on behalf of the Labor opposition. In doing so, I move the second reading amendment on sheet 1363 standing in the name of Senator Watt, which has been circulated in the chamber:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) the Government has known about the impending decommissioning of a range of offshore assets in Australian waters since it was first elected eight years ago;
(b) while this legislation compels the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority to regulate the financial assurance capabilities of offshore oil and gas producers, the Government has not provided any additional funding to the agency to undertake this critical task;
(c) the current legislation fails to include a comprehensive definition of what the permitted alternatives to complete removal requirements will be, making it possible for pipelines and concrete structures to be left in place without certainty over environmental, safety and well integrity outcomes; and
(d) the Government's lackadaisical approach to decommissioning reform has resulted in Australian taxpayers footing the bill for the Northern Endeavour fiasco, which has to date wasted $210 million of public money".
I, for one, am glad that the government has finally accepted the need for reform in this crucial policy area, the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas assets. The minister has argued that the time is now for Australia's regulatory framework to catch up with demand, but I would ask the minister: Why now? Why not two years ago?
As with all things with this government, they are far more concerned with sexy announcements and political stunts than meaningful reform in the interests of all Australians. The government, who have been in power for nearly a decade, had to wait for the Northern Endeavour bail-out disaster to address the glaringly obvious reform needed here. If the government weren't the ones to foot the bill, would they have acted at all? The Australian taxpayer is $210 million in the red—and counting, might I add—but I will get to that palaver in due course. Let's start from the top.
By way of background, decommissioning is the process through which all equipment, infrastructure and wells associated with petroleum activity are safely removed when they are no longer used or required. Currently, the complete removal of infrastructure and the plugging and abandonment of wells are the default decommissioning requirements under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. This is consistent with Australia's international obligations, primarily under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the London convention and associated protocol, to remove disused installations and structures and to preserve and protect the marine environment.
Options other than complete removal may be considered; however, the titleholder must demonstrate that the alternative decommissioning approach delivers equal or better environmental safety and well integrity outcomes compared to complete removal and that the approach complies with all other legislative and regulatory requirements. However, this is set out in the guidelines only, and the legislation at hand does not adequately define the criteria by which alternative decommissioning approaches will be permitted.
The risk here is that unscrupulous facility owners will seek to avoid costs and may seek to leave pipelines and other structures in place. This opens the door for producers to undertake a less than full and complete removal, where they opt to repurpose petroleum exploration infrastructure to become an artificial reef. On the face of it, that sounds kind of okay. But we cannot let producers have free rein to use a pretend environmental fig leaf to cover up what they have put on the seabed to avoid their responsibilities at great expense.
There is no doubt that leaving infrastructure in the sea is a less expensive option for producers; however, it does carry environmental risks that need to be rigorously assessed. I accept that, in the right circumstances, artificial reefs that build up over gas infrastructure can provide a habitat for a range of different species. Once algae, corals and invertebrates make themselves at home they produce additional biomass in the food chain, creating a food source for fish and other marine species. For example, Western Australia currently has six purpose-built artificial reefs, with locations spread from Esperance to Exmouth. Nevertheless, it is critical that the complete removal of assets remains the undisputed objective of proper decommissioning.
Currently, it is the titleholder that identifies and then collates the information necessary to assess or evaluate the different options for decommissioning petroleum infrastructure via an environmental plan. As you can imagine, maintenance of and the subsequent decommissioning of offshore petroleum assets is a costly enterprise. That's why government oversight is critical—to ensure that titleholders have the financial capacity to actually do it. Until now, business deals brokered by cowboy operators have been able to go on unabated, with little attention, to the point of negligence, on behalf of the government.
One such example of this was evidently too big to ignore: the Northern Endeavour-Northern Oil and Gas Australia incident. The LamCor oilfields, or the Laminaria-Corallina oilfields, are situated approximately 550 kilometres offshore from Darwin, as is the associated Northern Endeavour floating production storage and offtake facility, the chief infrastructure for extraction and development. Production of Northern Endeavour and associated wells commenced in 1999. By 2015 the titleholder for the fields was a joint venture of Woodside and Talisman Oil and Gas, with Woodside operating the Northern Endeavour.
In 2015 Woodside announced its intention to cease production from the Northern Endeavour in the second half of 2016 and moved to decommission the field soon afterwards. However, before this decommissioning could occur, Woodside sold its share to its joint venture partner Talisman, later known as Timor Sea Oil and Gas Australia, who had been acquired by Northern Oil and Gas Australia. The sale was facilitated through NOPTA and was perfectly allowable in the current legislative environment. NOPSEMA identified concerns about its capability and capacity to respond to an oil spill—an obvious and fundamental titleholder responsibility. This led to formal intervention and enforcement just three days after TSOGA became the titleholder. TSOGA and its contractors were unable to convince NOPSEMA that it had identified the baseline of the corrosion hazards on the facility or undertaken the subsequent assessment prioritisation and planning to address those risks. By 2019 NOPSEMA had lost confidence in the ability of the titleholder and the operator to fulfil their statutory obligations and resolve the identified concerns over the adequate safety and environmental management of the ageing Northern Endeavour facility.
An environmental inspection identified that TSOGA could not demonstrate sufficient financial assurance to cover its liabilities in case of an oil spill, and this required prompt enforcement to resolve. As a result, NOPSEMA issued a prohibition notice on TSOGA's contractor, UPS, on 10 July 2019 and a general direction on TSOGA on 18 June 2020, enforcing the cessation of production on the Northern Endeavour until a range of longstanding serious issues were resolved particularly related to corrosion.
The loss of production until the prohibition notice and the general direction were resolved had serious implications for TSOGA's cash flows. The NOGA group was loss making and had not generated a net profit after tax for the past four consecutive financial years. Essentially the companies could not afford to maintain, let alone decommission, the asset. On 20 September 2019 the Northern Oil and Gas Australia Pty Ltd group of companies went into voluntary administration and subsequently, on 7 February 2020, into liquidation.
The government had to step in. The Commonwealth set up the Northern Endeavour Temporary Operations Program, taking control of the Northern Endeavour until a longer term solution could be agreed. To date it has cost at least $200 million to maintain the vessel—all taxpayers' money. This is at a time when the industry is battling on multiple fronts against extremists with their own agendas and where a social licence to operate is pivotal. They are faced with cleaning up the mess by a negligent government themselves via a proposed levy on industry. This bill, however, does not impose any such levy. As I understand it, consultation is ongoing and a levy is proposed to apply to the industry to fund the decommissioning of the Northern Endeavour. Relevant legislation will come to the fore in due course.
Labor recognises the key role gas plays in creating economic growth and export income earnings for Australia. Labor recognises the many thousands of jobs the industry creates and sustains. We understand the importance of gas as a critical feedstock for Australia's manufacturing industry as well as in electricity generation and in providing the energy that millions of Australian households need for heating and cooking. Labor recognises the role of natural gas as a transition fuel in capitalising on renewable energy opportunities. We support opening up new gas reserves, subject to independent scientific assessments and effective environmental regulation. Gas will play a major part in reducing Australia's carbon emissions and it will assist our regional neighbours on their own journey to decarbonisation as they seek cleaner burning fuels as part of their energy mix, which is why the government's negligence on this issue is so callous and why it's high time they introduced meaningful reform in this place.
The bill strengthens Australia's offshore oil and gas regulatory regime to ensure that emerging decommissioning challenges facing the industry are able to be managed effectively and it addresses a loophole that failed to ensure that the cost of decommissioning an offshore project remained with the entity or entities who are or were responsible for or had the capacity to influence. This bill aims to strengthen the decommissioning framework from cradle to grave and better protect the marine environment and the taxpayer from bearing the cost.
These are important objectives, but I also point out that tightening decommissioning standards will result in significant jobs in the highly specialised oil and gas workforce. In pursuing successful decommissioning and the jobs it creates we must also be mindful of the workplace safety requirements that will need to be in force to keep this workforce safe. This bill increases regulatory oversight and scrutiny by providing for specific decision-making criteria decision points across the OPGGS Act to ensure entities are suitable on entry into the regime and remain suitable throughout the life of the project. It also expands the type of information that may be requested by the relevant decision maker from the applicant or applicants seeking to either enter into or progress through the regime.
There are four key pillars of the bill. The bill provides for oversight of changes in control of titleholders. The sale of an offshore project is meant to be captured as a transfer of the title or titles related to the project, which is also provided under the act. It is also common in the industry, both in Australia and overseas, for an offshore project to be transferred by the sale of the shares in the company that is the titleholder. Such transactions are not currently captured by the OPGGS Act because there is no transfer of the interest of the title or titles.
It provides for specific decision-making criteria and expanded information-gathering powers to assess the suitability of entities wishing to enter into or progress through the regime. It includes minor and technical amendments to improve the operation of the act. It mandates trailing liabilities, expanding existing powers to call back previous titleholders to decommission infrastructure and remediate the marine environment in a title area where the current or immediate former titleholder is unable to do so. It aims to ensure that risks and liabilities in petroleum activities remain the responsibility of those who held—or had the ability to influence operations under—the title and it aims to change industry behaviour by increasing the due diligence undertaken by companies regarding who they sell their assets to.
I'm running out of time, so I will wind up. While it has taken a long time for the government to act to ensure full removal of facilities at the ends of their lives, Labor supports the legislation to ensure Australians receive the assurance they require that offshore oil and gas facilities are safely and appropriately decommissioned and removed.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:11): Later I'll get to Labor's shameful admission in this chamber just then of their support for the fossil fuel industry and a gas-led recovery. I look forward to looking in Hansard at the exact words that Senator Brown used and promoting and publicising those words. I think it's very important that the Australian people see the lack of difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party on the use of fossil fuels, especially in a week when the IPCC report warned of a code red facing humanity. We are on the edge of an irreversible disaster if we don't immediately and rapidly reduce our emissions. The idea that Labor would come into this chamber and say that gas is an important way of reducing emissions is literally abominable. I'll get to that in a little bit more detail shortly.
Let's talk about a perfect scam. Suppose I'm a big petroleum company—a multibillion dollar company—and I have these ageing assets that have been written off to nothing in my balance sheet. I've never had to pay petroleum resource rent tax, because of a very generous scheme—interestingly, one of the architects who set that up was Dr Emerson from the Labor Party. Nevertheless, I've been claiming uplift of 15 per cent per annum on all my exploration and five per cent per annum on all my operating expenditure. And now I'm part of a $350 billion tax offset, so I never have to pay 'petroleum rort rent tax' for the life of my project. I'm getting to the end of the life of this project, and guess what I discover? I've got multimillions of dollars—if not potentially hundreds of millions of dollars—worth of liability to clean up these giant rusting rigs in the ocean. What would I do? What would be the perfect scam? Senators, what could we do?
If there was a little bit of oil and gas left in my field, I might be able to sell this petroleum licence. And who would want a petroleum licence at the end of its life with a liability for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars? Probably a nice penny dreadful listed on the stock market. I could go out and raise some capital. I could say I'm buying an exploration and production licence from Woodside Petroleum, for example. My share price goes up. I can sell my shares, make millions of dollars and squeeze every last bit of oil out of that field. Then, when the liability comes along, I can declare bankruptcy. Bob's your uncle—everybody wins! Everyone's a winner! No, sorry, there's a loser—the taxpayer.
Do you think that's a theoretical example? I don't think so. I think there is a very real scenario here where a large company—Woodside Petroleum—sold off an ageing asset to a very small company. Surely they must have known this company wasn't capitalised to deal with that liability. That company purchased the asset and, lo and behold, wasn't able to meet its commitments for maintenance. Sure enough, the whole thing went pear-shaped, and the taxpayer had to step in and foot the bill. That is exactly what happened. I've put multiple questions about this scenario to NOPSEMA and to the government at estimates, and I know other senators have as well. I know that there are environment groups out there like the Wilderness Society that have been doing a lot of work on this. I'd like to acknowledge in the Senate today the Australian Wilderness Society and, in particular, Jess and Tim Beshara, for the work that they've done on making many senators in this place—not just the Greens; they have been talking to all political parties—aware of this impending problem. What we've seen is just the tip of the iceberg.
Senator Brown talked about the Northern Endeavour, but there are a raft of ageing assets out there in the ocean, rust buckets, that are potential pollutants and that need to be remediated and fixed. We've got to get on top of this now. I heard the proposal that maybe one of these rusting, ageing production platforms might make a good artificial reef. Why don't we literally take a giant welder to it and cut it into pieces and dump it in the ocean and make a habitat for fish? Well, I'm not sure what the cost of doing that would be—I haven't actually looked at the numbers—but, even if it were acceptable from an environmental point of view, which I very much doubt, I'm sure it would be a cost-saving measure on behalf of companies that make a lot of money. They make significant returns on equity and significant returns on capital. They have some of the most profitable companies on the planet, and getting tax out of them is like getting blood out of a stone. I have sat on numerous inquiries over many years on this exact issue, and I can tell you that the Australian tax department themselves calls them 'systemic non-payers of tax'.
Interestingly enough, I will acknowledge, Woodside Petroleum does pay tax. Woodside Petroleum does pay tax. They're one of the few that haven't been dragged through the courts by the Australian tax office. But that doesn't go for the petroleum resource rent tax. The whole of the fossil fuel sector have managed to experience that largesse over many years, without paying the Australian people for the extraction of super profits from our publicly owned resources. But there are a number of companies out there that aren't paying their tax. We're all familiar with the tax department's High Court case against Chevron, for example, and believe me there are many others. So, of course, we will support any pathway towards levying some money out of the fossil fuel industry to pay for the clean-up of their own assets, which they have exploited over many years and made billions of dollars of profit from. That makes perfect sense.
Just this last month, in the middle of the G7 meeting which was predominantly focused on looking at taking action on climate, the Prime Minister sneaked off and presented directly to the APPEA, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, conference in Perth. What did the Prime Minister do when he spoke directly to that conference via video link from London, while the rest of the world was talking about acting on climate change? He announced 80,000 square kilometres of new ocean permits for the fossil fuel industry—80,000 square kilometres of areas to be opened up to the fossil fuel industry, to be burnt to produce carbon dioxide and add to global warming. In a climate emergency, in the middle of a conference discussing action on climate, that's our Prime Minister. That's this government. That is a national disgrace and a shame.
How many more of these assets are there going to be for future generations to decommission? There are hundreds of production platforms around this country, including in Bass Strait, off the coast of my home state of Tasmania. So, this is very important to get right. But, while we're at it, let's not kid ourselves. There are enough reserves of fossil fuel, petroleum and gas already discovered around the world such that, if we were to burn them, it would push us above two degrees of warming. Remember, the IPCC said we have to limit warming to 1½ degrees, and we've got only 5½ years of our carbon budget left before we hit 1½ degrees. In other words, if we keep going, business as usual, we will exceed the target we all signed on to as an international community under the Paris Agreement.
Why are we still risking our oceans with dangerous seismic testing, with dangerous offshore oil and gas drilling, for a product that, when we burn it, is killing our oceans? It is warming our oceans. It is acidifying our oceans. It is the definition of insanity, and I think it is criminal, that we are still pushing ahead. In the government's spin this week we have heard them talking about the fact that they have exceeded their Kyoto commitments, that they have somehow reduced emissions by 16 per cent since 2005. Well, if you take out the Kyoto clause and land clearing—which Australia very sneakily snuck in to those negotiations—our emissions are actually up by 19 per cent in real terms. Australia is the third-highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the world—the third-highest. We're also the third-biggest exporter of fossil fuels, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia.
We have failed to develop any long-term mitigation strategy to tackle climate change in the past nine years under this government. Australia is the only country in the world to have legislated and repealed a carbon pricing mechanism—the only country in the world. That's a shame, and an international disgrace. We have no meaningful policies in place to electrify transport. We have no commitments to net zero emissions by 2050. We have a 26 to 28 per cent 2005 reduction target for our 2030 milestone, when the IPCC report said this week that we now need to make that a 75 per cent reduction if we're going to meet our targets. The Deputy Prime Minister—the second most powerful man in the country—said just yesterday that 'it's not up to the government to have a plan'—it's not up to the government to protect Australians from fires and flood and famine from this climate emergency!
It's the government's No. 1 role to protect its people. Yet we hear that from the second most powerful man in the country. We have been constantly criticised by experts right around the world for having no nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement since 2015. We have consistently ignored recommendations on climate targets such as the Climate Targets Panel report out of the University of Melbourne to continue to cut emissions. We have tried to gut, and we ultimately reduced, the renewable energy target. Only last week we—shamefully—allowed a clean energy investing government body set up by the Greens and Labor to invest in fossil fuels. We repealed a carbon price that did drive down emissions for the first time ever by seven per cent. We're pursuing a gas led recovery even though there are better options with renewable energy and even though we know—including from the IPCC report—that burning gas is not the solution. Indeed, the IPCC specifically singled out gas in their report as not something you want to do. Yet here we have the Labor Party in here peddling the line of the fossil fuel industry, joining with the Liberal Party to support a gas led recover in a time of climate emergency.
If we do not have the Greens in this place and in the other place, we have no chance of holding either of these two parties to account. I am at least pleased that Labor have made very clear today their support for the fossil fuel industry, which cuts all the best available science. I hope that some in the environment movement out there are listening to what was said in here today. The Labor Party have made it very clear that they support more gas, more exploration and more development in the middle of a climate crisis.
I will just finish by saying one word and that's 'leadership'. If I could ask for anything from this parliament, from this institution that I think has dismally failed in its duty of care for future generations, it's leadership. We used to be a leader a decade ago. It's so sad to see the Labor Party walking back that leadership and supporting the government in a gas led recovery. We need leadership to stand up and say, 'We have to transition.' The costs of inaction by far outweigh the costs of action. We have to do this not just for our economy and for our community; we have to do this for future generations. It can only be done in this place. Climate change is an environmental problem, but it is first and foremost a political problem. It is politics and governments that have failed on climate change. This is the only place we can fix it, and this is a small step towards that. (Time expired)
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (13:26): I wish to rise and speak in favour of these bills, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021. I want to really pay a compliment to Minister Pitt in relation to how he's managed a very difficult issue in relation to Northern Endeavour.
Senator Whish-Wilson is correct insofar as this was an old piece of infrastructure that was sold by Woodside to a purchaser. Woodside had made the decision—and I am saying this as a Woodside shareholder, and that's on my register of interests—that it didn't want to extend the production life of that asset. It made that decision and then it went out to the market to sell that asset. I have a firm view, as someone who was worked in the mining industry and been involved in transactions in the mining industry, that if you own and operate mining assets or oil and gas assets you have a very strong obligation arising out of legal requirements but also your social licence to operate, when you transfer that to someone else, to ensure the person you transfer it to has both the financial and the technical capability to discharge their legal obligations. That did not occur in this case. Northern Endeavour went under.
Instead of all the Australian taxpayers having to meet that huge liability—there are hundreds of millions of dollars associated with decommissioning that platform—it is fit and proper that the oil and gas industry bear the lion's share of meeting that cost. It's right that the oil and gas industry should look towards Woodside and ask Woodside's senior executive team: 'How did it come to this? How did it come to this, that you've sold this ageing piece of infrastructure to a company that didn't have the technical or financial capacity to meet its obligations and, in that context, you have now caused a levy to be imposed upon the whole industry?' Woodside needs to reflect on that very, very carefully.
The second point I want to make is this. There was a gaping hole before this legislation that would allow someone to be the subject of an upstream takeover where someone acquired the shares in a holding company and didn't have to necessarily meet the technical and financial capability obligations of the actual tenement holder. When oil and gas companies set up special purpose vehicles to hold oil and gas tenements, you can't just look at the special purpose vehicle; you have to look up the corporate tree. So it is fit and proper that an obligation be added in a takeover context for the ultimate holding company to prove that it has the financial and technical wherewithal to discharge its obligations. We have $52 billion of these contingent liabilities on the horizon and we must make sure that the commercial operators who are legally and morally responsible, as part of their legal requirements but also their social licence to operate, do exactly all that they need to do so that these facilities are safely decommissioned for the benefit of all the Australian people and for the environment.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:29): Madam Acting Deputy President, I'm just giving notice that I need to seek leave before the two-minute statements start. I'm just getting your attention.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ): Sorry, what did you need to seek leave for?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I missed the giving of notices of motion, so I'm seeking leave to give notice of a motion.
Leave granted.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I give notice that on the next day of sitting I will introduce a private member's bill in relation to insurance for the arts industry.
STATEMENTS
Tokyo Olympic Games
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:30): [ by video link] How good are Tasmanian athletes? It's not a question we really have to ask if we had the honour of being able to watch the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. I think we can all agree in this place that Australia has done all Australians very proud. I, like many Australians, have been an armchair expert over the last three weeks, watching much of the coverage of these games. I'm sure you would agree, Madam Acting Deputy President Askew, that it has been so inspiring to see so many Tasmanian athletes on the world stage representing our state. We have been blessed to see 12 Tasmanians compete in a total of nine sports, including swimming; hockey; soccer; track and road cycling; triathlon; basketball; rowing; athletics; and canoeing. All of these athletes, regardless of whether they are fortunate enough to bring home a medal, deserve all the success that will come their way. They have represented their nation at the highest level in sport, something that no-one will ever be able to take away from them.
I would like to acknowledge Tasmanian sports administrator and fellow Launceston resident and Examiner columnist Brian Roe for his time at the games officiating at the athletics. Tokyo 2020 has been providing hope and aspiration to all of us during a very trying time globally and at home in own state of Tasmania. So congratulations to all of them. But, in particular, Ariarne Titmus is now a household name, and I'm sure all Tasmanians and Australians are looking forward to welcoming her home along with her medals.
The footage over the past couple of weeks has displayed raw emotion and the power of sport to bring communities together. It is extremely gratifying to watch athletes in peak condition compete, endure and be successful, to prepare themselves mentally and— (Time expired)
Organ and Tissue Donation
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (13:32): I rise today to encourage Australians to help save lives by registering to donate their organs. The last week of July was DonateLife Week, when it was very important to remind all Australians how important it is that some of us do choose to donate our organs at the end of our lives because that means that we can save other lives. I joined a gentleman in Rockhampton, Lee Briskey, who is a successful local mechanic. He's only continuing to be a successful mechanic thanks to a liver transplant 10 years ago. I joined him and his wife, Sandy, and daughter, Maddie, and they were so thankful to the people who donated organs to help Lee still be here with us.
There are about 1,800 Australians, though, who remain on a waiting list for an organ, and there are around 12,000 Australians who are on dialysis machines and could benefit from a kidney transplant. So it's very important that Australians consider registering to donate their organs. Unfortunately, during COVID, there was a 16 per cent drop in the number of Australians signing up to be organ donors. So this year it's something we should consider doing. In fact, I was under the misapprehension, before I was contacted by Jo Reoch from DonateLife, that in Queensland, if you'd registered to donate on your driver's licence—many years ago in my case—you were on the register to donate. That is not the case. It is very important to remind all Australians that all you need to do is go to donatelife.gov.au/register and ensure that you are on that register so that that can happen when people might be in need. I did that on that day, as soon as I found out. So make sure you do think about it. Talk to your loved ones about it and make sure they know what you want, and go to donate life.gov.au/register. It takes two seconds and you could help save a life.
COVID-19: Indigenous Health
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (13:34): [by video link] Last Saturday, a young black man from Walgett was released from Bathurst prison. The ABC reports that he was tested for COVID while imprisoned and was released before his results were known. Because Bathurst prison did not—and, let's be honest, could not—provide our communities with proper, culturally-safe medical care, Bathurst prison has put our people in grave danger. The man was tested only one week before his release and released anyway. Walgett and surrounding towns have high First Nations populations—around 40 per cent. Our people were the best prepared; we responded quicker than any government to the pandemic, only to be absolutely let down by the New South Wales government and their officials.
In fact, the first Aboriginal health service in this country was born in New South Wales. That mob have been looking after us for 50 years. Now our communities and our old people, the keepers of tradition, culture and song, could be at risk because Bathurst prison did not do its job. That's why we need Greens in power, holding the balance of power. We'll be pushing the new government—hopefully—to make sure that a culturally-safe and well-resourced oversight mechanism for prisons, via the OPCAT, is established urgently. We will make sure imprisoned people have access to Medicare and good medical care. This is why this is important. Without these things, people will die. Bathurst prison let out a positive COVID— (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (13:36): [by video link] Integrity, accountability, delivery—these are three basic tests of leadership, and Prime Minister Scott Morrison fails all of them. Let's talk about integrity. Recently the Prime Minister has been caught out in yet another government pork-barrelling exercise, caught out on another colour coded spreadsheet, caught out spending taxpayer money like it's Liberal Party money, with more than $600 million taxpayer dollars spent to build car parks in Liberal and marginal seats.
Let's talk about accountability. A true leader has to stand up and front up for what they've done. They have to answer the tough questions. But this Prime Minister—he just walks away from them. He literally walks out on journalists who are trying to hold him to account. And he denies knowledge of anything. What colour coded spreadsheet? Which minister can I pin this one on? How can I spin this one?
Let's talk about delivery. The Prime Minister can't even deliver on his government's own pork-barrelling. Just two of these rorted car parks have actually been built. If this Prime Minister and his government can't even deliver on their own rorts, how are they going to deliver for the people of this country? How can they deliver Australians through this pandemic? How can they deliver Australians good secure jobs? How can they deliver Australians a future that they can count on?
Australians need a real leader. They need a leader who is ready to stand up for them and fight for them. They need a leader with integrity. They need a leader who will be accountable to the people of this country. They need a leader who will deliver for the people of this country, not for himself or herself. Prime Minister Morrison fails on all three counts. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (13:38): [by video link] I deliver this speech on behalf of Senator Roberts. I'll discuss parliament's shoddy governance on COVID—the lack of learning, lack of planning and lack of oversight. Vaccine proponents claim COVID injections are as safe as the polio vaccine. Here's real data. In the polio vaccine's early days, it caused deaths. The Cutter incident in 1955 was called one of the worst pharmaceutical disasters in US history, with 164 permanent paralysis cases and 10 deaths among vaccinated individuals and contacts. Many Australians fear the government has only one COVID solution: experimental gene-therapy injections.
Already vaccine efficiency is plummeting. The Lancet last month showed that vaccine efficiency is falling twofold, between 21 to 41 days and 70 days after the second dose. Sixty-three per cent of Israelis have had both Pfizer doses, yet Israel recorded 3,372 new cases on Monday, 10 times what it was a month ago. Deaths are increasing. Studies by Israel's health ministry show the Pfizer vaccine is now only 39 per cent effective against infection. Pfizer recently admitted that immunity from its two-dose vaccine is waning, and it will seek FDA authorisation for a third booster shot.
Randomised control trials show no evidence that the provisionally approved vaccines have any prolonged efficacy. The experimental vaccine manufacturers demanded and got indemnity from the Australian government, demonstrating a lack of faith in their own product. We do know that vaccinated Australians have been harmed or have died.
This government, Labor and the unions, who supported compulsory injections without workers informed consent, have lost people's trust. Australians deserve to know the significant short-term risks and unknown long-term side effects of injections— (Time expired)
Western Australia: Health
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (13:40): Every Australian should have access to world-class health services, particularly in Western Australia, where we have a massive surplus and boosted GST receipts delivered by the Morrison government. But, sadly, that's not the case.
Yesterday, on 6PR, Premier Mark McGowan's health minister, Roger Cook, gave an extraordinary interview. When asked why our health system was in crisis, he blamed Western Australians. He blamed them for coming to hospital now with chronic and long-term health conditions that weren't appropriately treated over the last 18 months. He admitted that GPs were telling him that, because our health system is geared towards the pandemic, Western Australians are now generally sicker than they were before it started. Tumours have gone undiagnosed because our health system can't walk and chew gum at the same time. We have record hours of ambulance ramping: 5,200 for June alone. And we've seen tragic stories coming out of our hospitals—families who will be grieving for a lifetime.
As a direct result of Roger Cook's leadership, we have a health system in crisis. We have a system that can't cope with business as usual, let alone a public health emergency. He's out there spruiking over a billion in spending to upgrade the system and get more health staff in Western Australia, but he still refuses to admit that we have a problem. Gareth Parker, on 6PR yesterday, put to him a reasonable proposition: he asked if this situation gave the minister and other health leaders cause to reflect on their own performance over the course of the pandemic. The minister's response was that he thought that their performance had been outstanding.
Staff working in our health system and the public who use it deserve a minister who wants to get stuck in and sort this mess out. Sadly, that's not what they're getting with Roger Cook.
Brisbane Olympic Games: Netball
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (13:42): I rise this afternoon to speak on the wonderful announcement this week by Netball Australia to campaign for netball to be included in the 2032 Olympics. As you would know, Acting Deputy President Askew, Australia—in particular, Queensland—has been successful in gaining the 2032 Olympics. Wouldn't it just be a wonderful treat at that event in Australia for netball to be included as an Olympic sport for the first time? I guess the surprising thing, given its popularity, particularly in Australia, is that it hasn't already been included as an Olympic sport. I've taken the opportunity, as the opposition's shadow minister for sport, to write to the CEO of Netball Australia, Kelly Ryan, to welcome this terrific initiative.
Netball has an iconic place in Australia's sporting community. Every night, every day, all around Australia, you'll see women and girls playing this terrific sport. As I suspect you know, Acting Deputy President, netball is the top sport for female participation in this country. We're already set to host the 2027 Netball World Cup, so, if Netball Australia is successful with their campaign, a generation of young Australians will get to see their heroes not once but twice on Australian soil.
Member for Dawson
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (13:44): In this chamber this morning, Senator Wong moved a motion condemning the comments of the member for Dawson. You will note that I voted against this motion. The reason I voted against this motion isn't that I agree with the comments that he made. No, I certainly don't; I disagree. But I, like Senator Canavan, respect his right to have debate in this place and in the other place. That is what we do: we come here to debate ideas. He believes that what he said was true and correct. I don't agree, but I respect his right to say that.
If we look at why an intelligent, educated person would say something that's contrary to the views that are held by science, we look at the science itself. It wasn't very long ago that scientific reports and papers were in scientific journals. It took a long time. It was very hard to get these papers published. Nowadays, there are so many platforms, including online, where Karen from Melbourne can go to have her paper on whatever she likes published. There's a lot of stuff out there, and it's available to the general public. This used not to be the case.
It's very easy for some of these complex studies and papers to be misinterpreted. If we look at the wearing of masks, there is a paper that says masks do nothing to stop you catching COVID. The study proved that. However, what they didn't look at was whether masks stop you spreading it or stop spread in the community, because they already knew that masks do stop you spreading COVID and they do stop community spread. All they said in this one particular study was that it doesn't stop you from catching it. We need to interpret these things with scientific advice. (Time expired)
Defence Equipment
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:46): We know that the Future Submarine and Future Frigate programs are a mess, both from a cost perspective and from a delivery perspective. That may well have a ripple effect through all of the naval shipbuilding programs. In the context of what is happening to our north, where there is a changing geostrategic situation developing, we need to make sure that we are able to field our Defence Force assets.
In particular, I want to talk about submarines because they are a very strong deterrent and a very capable military asset. We cannot afford to not have our submarines available. We have a situation where, still, on the table is the prospect of the submarine full-cycle docking work being shifted to Western Australia. We need to understand that, if that were to occur, only about seven per cent of the workforce would go to Western Australia. We would lose an incredible amount of corporate knowledge, and that would affect submarine availability. Everyone can remember, back in the days of the Gillard government, when we had no submarines able to go to sea.
We need a decision on the full-cycle docking, and it needs to stay in South Australia, where we can do the life-of-type extension. It's the one stable element and the one working element of our naval shipbuilding program. We do not need to be taking the advice of those who have led us into the mess we have with shipbuilding, who say that we should be shifting something that's working. It would be catastrophic for national security. We need to give workers in Adelaide certainty, and we also need to give the supply chain certainty. Make the decision, Minister. (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (13:48): [by video link] Yesterday I spent an hour on ABC Radio listening to an awful litany of stories from Australian workers at the roughest end of this country's broken employment system, people who are victims of the insecure work disaster—gig work, sham contracting, labour hire and other indirect employment arrangements; part-time work with zero-hour arrangements; and fixed-term contracts where the work goes beyond the term of the contract. Caller after caller on the program told the human story of a grim reality, where what used to be solid middle-class jobs have been stripped of the middle-class pay, conditions and rights that once defined them. They were teachers at schools, TAFEs and universities, mineworkers, aged-care workers, cleaners and hospitality workers. They were people like Jen, who said she had given up custody of her 11-year-old son to his father so, as a casual, she could say yes to last-minute shifts. She eventually lost shifts, couldn't pay her rent and had to move out of her house. Jack, a casual teacher at TAFE for 30 years, said: 'My pension plan is Lotto. That's it; that's my pension plan.' Margaret, a 68-year-old casual teacher, fought for 20 years to have her job made permanent because she wasn't receiving the super she needed. She said, 'This rarely happens to any of my male colleagues, who retire with very lucrative super packages.' Ian said, 'My son, who is a casual in the disability care industry, had his first vaccination, had some side effects, like a headache, and couldn't work until the next day, so he got no pay.'
These are just the tip of the insecure work iceberg. Faced with a choice between starvation wages or starvation, people will choose starvation wages. It is no choice at all. (Time expired)
Sexual and Reproductive Health
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (13:50): Access to affordable sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception, is part of everyone's right to control their own body. Campaigns for reproductive rights have been hard fought over decades, and I pay tribute to my Greens colleagues across the country and long-term advocates, like Beryl Holmes, in my home state of Queensland, for their tireless efforts.
The decriminalisation of abortion across Australia, including in Queensland in 2018, finally recognised that reproductive choice is a health issue, yet we are seeing conservative governments in many states of America recriminalising abortion and defunding services. Just this week, Mr George Christensen introduced into the House his nonsensical and regressive 'children born alive' bill in another attempt to push the anti-abortion agenda. I hope that bill will never be debated, but it has the backing of the Queensland LNP conference and Senator Canavan, which says a lot about the LNP's attitude to women.
The Greens will continue to work at federal and state levels to ensure that abortion is safe, accessible, free and legal in all Australian states and territories. Despite decriminalisation, abortions can still be expensive and difficult to access, particularly for those in rural and regional Australia. Access has been made even harder with the recent closure of Marie Stopes clinics in regional Queensland and northern New South Wales. Abortion care should be available in public hospitals across Australia, and telehealth services for reproductive health care should be a permanent feature of our Medicare system.
The Greens will continue to support safe zones so that people accessing abortions are not subject to harassment for undergoing medical procedures—I was pleased to see WA pass legislation for safe zones earlier this week—and we'll make sure that unbiased professional counselling is available to all who want it but never mandatory. The Greens will always support the right to safe, legal and affordable access to reproductive health care. (Time expired)
Nanbarry
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (13:53): On this date 200 years ago, a Gadigal man named Nanbarry died, and I'm pleased to have his name recorded by Hansard for the first time on this the bicentenary of his death. Nanbarry was laid to rest by his friend the convict brewer James Squire and was buried, at his own request, in the same grave as this continent's first foreign envoy, Bennelong. As the Australian historian Dr Keith Vincent Smith notes, 'There could be no greater mark of respect.'
Nanbarry was brought into the Sydney colony as a nine-year-old boy suffering smallpox eruptions from head to toe. He was taken into the surgery of John White at the Rocks and nursed back to health. He was nursed by another Gadigal man, Arabanoo, who was being held in chains and forced to learn English so he could be used to act as a translator. Arabanoo also contracted smallpox and died. Both of Nanbarry's parents died of smallpox, a disease that killed 50 per cent of the Sydney Aboriginal clans and an unknown number west of the Blue Mountains.
Nanbarry joined Matthew Flinders on his 1803 to 1804 circumnavigation of the continent he would name 'Australia'. King Bungaree remained on board for the entire voyage. Flinders called them both 'fine Australians'.
When Bennelong returned from London he was invited by James Squire and 100 Aboriginal people to share the 30-acre land grant that Squire had been given. They farmed that land cooperatively and grew it into a 1,500-acre land grant: a testament to positive race relations and a symbol to all modern-day Australians of what can be achieved when we work together in a spirit of friendship and when our First Nations people are provided opportunity and care, dignity and hope.
COVID-19: Morrison Government
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:55): Every day, Australians wake to a country deeper in crisis, a crisis caused by Mr Morrison's character. Cases of COVID are spreading and they are spreading through an Australian population that is mostly unvaccinated, and too many Australians are unvaccinated because Mr Morrison didn't act until it was too late to get vaccine deals and he didn't do enough deals. And then, when he got found out, he tried to make the excuse that it's not a race. Greater Sydney remains in protracted lockdown, which Mr Morrison pressured the New South Wales Premier to avoid, pressure that only lead to a bigger, longer lockdown and pressure that helped see the outbreak spread beyond Greater Sydney. South Australia and much of Queensland have been in and out of lockdown. Melbourne is in lockdown. The ACT is in lockdown. Much of regional New South Wales is in lockdown. The Hunter, Northern Rivers, Byron Bay, Tamworth and Armadale, Dubbo, Bogan, Bourke, Gilgandra, Walgett and Warren are all in lockdown and many others.
It's long been said that character is destiny, and, as long as Mr Morrison remains Prime Minister, Australia's destiny is weighed down, held back by his character. We saw it in the bushfires. He said it didn't matter that he went to Hawaii because he didn't hold a hose. And we see it now: it doesn't matter that he stuffed up the vaccine rollout because it's not a race. He always leaves it too late and then all he offers are excuses, or he blames someone else, or he just dodges the issue, and it is Australians who suffer the consequences. Australians are owed more, and they deserve better from a government.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:56): We are certainly in a national race to get vaccinated. Modelling from the Burnet Institute highlights the need, frankly, to preserve public health measures as a key line of defence in our nation, even when we achieve vaccination rates above 80 per cent. In fact, we need to get to something more like 95 per cent, and they model 95 per cent as including 95 per cent for people over 60 and vaccination rates of 70 and 80 per cent for children. It is only under these circumstances that, if COVID were to be rife in our community with open borders between states and the globe, we would be able to prevent mass death. Their modelling showed that, if, for example, COVID had let rip in Victoria with only 60 per cent of people vaccinated, then over a year we would have some 16,000 deaths. So what this shows is a need for extreme caution when we look at the Prime Minister's attempts to sell his plan for a four stage path out of lockdown to return to freedom. It cannot be achieved at the vaccination levels the Prime Minister has currently suggested. So I encourage senators and all Australians to listen clearly to the evidence, including the evidence and research from Australia's Burnet Institute.
Indian Society of Western Australia
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (13:58): I'm delighted to stand up today to congratulate the Indian Society of Western Australia on what I understand was a fantastic Sangam 2021 at the Perth convention centre on 7 August. Sangam, coordinated by ISWA and its member associations, featured magnificent cultural performances showcasing India's diversity and celebrating India's unity. The diversity of Perth's Indian community and member associations was highlighted by the many dance and music performances presented at this important cultural event. The event also raised important funds to support the provision of essential equipment and services to those impacted by COVID-19 in India. I congratulate again the Indian community in Western Australia for the wonderful work that they are doing in celebrating their diversity and making Western Australia such a wonderful place to live.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
COVID-19: Australian Capital Territory
The PRESIDENT (13:59): Senators will be aware of the announcement by the ACT government of a COVID-19 case being detected in the ACT overnight and the consequent announcement of restrictions applying to the ACT. Before I deal with the arrangements flowing from today's developments, I again strongly urge all to continue to abide by COVID-safe practices: distancing, wearing masks, checking for symptoms, and isolating and testing if symptoms appear at all.
Regarding developments today, first, I urge all senators and all staff to urgently check and constantly recheck the exposure sites listed on the ACT Health website and to follow all ACT public health directives, both with respect to the local restrictions generally and any that may specifically apply to individuals impacted and required to test, isolate or quarantine. Second, under the ACT public health directives, parliament is an essential workplace. Senators, members and staff will continue to be allowed to work from Parliament House to serve their constituents and fulfil parliamentary duties. Media and journalists are also essential workers and are entitled to continue their essential work out of this building. We will expand the measures that were already put in place for this fortnight regarding staff working from home, especially as parliament is not sitting next week for the period of this lockdown.
Third, with respect to returning home and then to the ACT for the resumption of parliament, further details will be circulated as they are determined by state and territory officials following consultation with the Commonwealth. However, as well as the existing requirements in place for Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, I understand that announcements have already been made by Tasmania and the Northern Territory. I also understand that an announcement is likely to come regarding Queensland, but I do not have information about that yet. Importantly, it is likely that some of these additional state requirements will be made retrospective in nature, so senators intending to return to their home base should be aware of that possibility.
I remind all that this building has been operating under extremely strict conditions since these sittings commenced—as strict as at any time during the pandemic—with many members and senators participating remotely; around two-thirds or more of regular building staff working remotely; catering being restricted to takeaway only; use of the check-in app; social distancing and masks inside the building with marshals; and extensive pairing arrangements and spacing in the chambers. These have been substantially above the local requirements of the ACT prior to this incident, specifically to reduce the risk of any transmission in this unique workplace.
Again, I would like to thank both Commonwealth and ACT health officials for their assistance and cooperation in these matters, and I would particularly like to thank senators and all staff in this building for their cooperation with the evolving requirement and rules. It has been critical to maintaining the operation of the national parliament. I thank senators.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: New South Wales
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:03): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Today the COVID-19 crisis continues to grow. In New South Wales, 345 new cases have been reported, with 93 deaths resulting from the current New South Wales outbreak. Does Mr Morrison now regret pressuring the New South Wales Premier to avoid a hard and fast lockdown?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): I thank the senator for her question, and, indeed, I acknowledge that it continues to be a very challenging day for people across many different parts of Australia, as it is for people across many, many different parts of the world. I reject the assertion made by the senator in terms of 'pressuring'. It is well known that, throughout the management of the COVID pandemic, New South Wales had shown an extraordinary capacity in terms of their COVID testing, tracing and isolating regime to be able to get on top of multiple outbreaks through that time.
Clearly, as is publicly acknowledged—and as the Prime Minister has publicly acknowledged—the delta variant has created an additional challenge for systems and in relation to the increased rate of transmissibility that comes with the delta variant. Indeed, it's estimated the delta variant results in a 100 per cent increase in relation to transmission, and with those changed circumstances, as we've had right throughout the pandemic, the advice and the approach changes appropriately too. We want to see the New South Wales lockdown succeed. We want to see New South Wales get on top of it. That is why, as a government, we've been offering additional resources and assistance along the way to New South Wales, be that in the form of additional contact tracing support or additional support in relation to enforcement of the lockdown through the supply of Australian Defence Force personnel to work alongside NSW Police. We'll continue to deliver the support we can to assist New South Wales.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:05): In New South Wales, in addition to Dubbo, towns with very high Aboriginal populations, like Walgett, Bourke and Brewarrina, have today been plunged into lockdown. Does Mr Morrison regret that, despite promising First Nations Australians that they would be a priority in the vaccine rollout, only 10 per cent have been vaccinated, more than 18 months into the pandemic?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:06): Indeed, the government is acutely aware of the reality of different regional communities facing lockdown in cases of COVID-19, as we've been aware in terms of communities with a higher Indigenous population in consequences such as when the Northern Territory has faced lockdown conditions as well. Where possible, we deploy additional support and resources in relation to those communities. The senator asked a question about vaccine availability and prioritisation. As has been well canvassed, vaccine availability has been a challenge at times. However, I'd note that, in terms of some of the cohorts that have been amongst the first eligible to receive a vaccine, we've seen many undertake that activity of their own volition in numbers and achieve very high uptake. I urge all those who are in cohorts that may not have achieved such a high uptake— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:07): While Melbourne is in lockdown, Sydney and large parts of New South Wales are in lockdown, and Canberra is going into lockdown, coalition MP Mr Christensen is saying, 'We need to end all of these ridiculous zero-risk, antifreedom, antiprivacy pandemic restrictions right now.' Does Mr Morrison regret putting his political interests ahead of the health of Australians by refusing to rein in Mr Christensen?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:07): The government has made clear, both in the other chamber and in this place, views in relation to the comments made by Mr Christensen. The approach of the government is, clearly, to make sure that we emphasise to Australians the importance of abiding by public health orders, putting restrictions in place and following advice in all circumstances, and that includes advice in relation to the vaccination rollout as well. It's been deeply frustrating at times that different things have indeed hurt public confidence in the vaccination rollout. I've noted Professor Dore from the Kirby Institute's remarks that we will look back on anti-AstraZenecaism as one of the greatest public health failings in many years. And, whilst the health advice has ebbed and flowed, if you like, in relation to AZ, it's certainly been disappointing that some have exacerbated that— (Time expired)
COVID-19
Senator VAN (Victoria) (14:09): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the Minister advise the Senate how the Australian response to the COVID-19 pandemic, from our frontline and essential workers to our small businesses and farmers, is helping Australia address the ongoing challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): From the very start of the COVID-19 pandemic—indeed, before the World Health Organization declared it to be a pandemic—we have had frontline workers, be they those working on our borders or in our health systems, or, indeed, scientists and others who we rely upon for advice and information, doing an incredible job in the service of our country. It is the work of all of those people that has enabled governments across this country to achieve world-leading outcomes in terms of protecting Australians, keeping people safe, and to achieve outcomes in the saving of lives that are far in excess of the tragic, terrible circumstances we've seen in so much of the rest of the world. Many of those people are today engaged in activities across the country, in helping with testing, in helping with contact tracing or in helping with the vaccination rollout, and we extend our thanks to all of them for all that they are doing in helping the country. We send our thanks to the many essential workers in food, manufacturing, production, distribution and other industries who have been so important, as well as the other care sectors who have had to step up at times when restrictions have been imposed on so many other activities.
I want to acknowledge the many Australians continuing to turn out in record numbers to get vaccinated. We have seen, in the last 24 hours, 262,314 vaccines administered across Australia. This, once again, is another daily record. To administer those vaccines, we have many GP clinics opening late at night—additional hours—alongside increasing numbers of pharmacies putting in extra hours, alongside those working in state clinics or seeking to get into specialist centres, aged care, remote populations or otherwise. It's a huge effort by those individuals in the largest peacetime logistical undertaking our nation has seen. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Van, a supplementary question?
Senator VAN (Victoria) (14:11): Minister, how is the health response by Australians, including through the vaccination rollout, providing the foundation for us to chart our way back from COVID-19?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:11): With the record number of doses administered in the last 24 hours, we now see close to 14.5 million doses administered across Australia. Our country is administering vaccines to the tune of being able to provide a jab to the entire population of Adelaide every single week. It has been a huge scale-up, as I indicated before. In doing so, we have seen some of the most important cohorts who have primary access turn out in record numbers, taking responsibility for themselves in doing so but responding to that call. Of Australians aged over 70, some 82.2 per cent have now received their first dose and 49.9 per cent have now received their second dose of vaccine. Of the entire eligible population aged over 16, some 46 per cent of all Australians have now received at least that first dose.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Van, a final supplementary question?
Senator VAN (Victoria) (14:12): Minister, how has the Liberal and Nationals government's economic plan supported Australian jobs and businesses through the pandemic?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:13): We've always been very conscious of the reality that responding to COVID-19 has been about saving both lives and livelihoods, and, despite the many difficulties and uncertainties that Australia and the rest of the world have faced, we've continued to outperform the rest of the world in terms of saving the lives of Australians and in terms of saving the jobs of Australians, the businesses of Australians and the fundamentals that will enable Australia to come out of this pandemic more strongly than so many other nations who have been much more badly affected.
Prior to the recent challenges of additional lockdowns across the country, we saw unemployment having dipped below five per cent to 4.9 per cent—a comeback, in terms of unemployment, far exceeding expectations, with the strong jobs growth putting Australia in a position of seeing employment at levels in excess of those pre pandemic. Our economic responses have helped to achieve these outcomes, and we continue to deliver record support to families, households and businesses to get them through this. (Time expired)
Deputy Prime Minister
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:14): [by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. When asked about Mr Christensen's disinformation, Mr Morrison's Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, said: 'If you start prodding the bear, you're going to make the situation worse for us as a government, not better.' What does Mr Morrison's Deputy Prime Minister mean?
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) (14:14): I thank the senator for his question. I listened to Barnaby Joyce's interview, as so many Australians did, on RN yesterday, where this question was canvassed, and he was very clear that he does not go to Mr Christensen for advice on how to protect his family and his community around COVID and he does not agree with George Christensen's views on lockdowns, masks and other things. But what he does do is absolutely support Mr Christensen's right, as a citizen of a free country and as a community member, to have an opinion and to express it.
We've seen numerous times in this place individuals take to Facebook, take to public platforms, to express views which we don't agree with, whether it's supporting criminals, like those to my right, the Greens—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: Mr President, direct relevance. Senator Ayres's question was to ask the person who represents Mr Joyce in this chamber what he meant by 'If you start prodding the bear, you're going to make the situation worse for us as a government'.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, it is quite a broad question, but in my view it does need to be restricted to meanings or potential meanings or imputations of that particular comment, rather than observations on others, to be directly relevant. But it is very broad, I must say, in that sense. I call Senator McKenzie to continue.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you. As I was saying, people in this place on their Facebook pages, on the floor of this chamber and in public—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order? I can probably guess it.
Senator Wong: Mr President, the minister can't just ignore your ruling.
The PRESIDENT: I'm going to ask, Senator McKenzie—I did say that I didn't think observations on others were in order when the question was 'What does the Deputy Prime Minister mean?' That is a broad question, but I do believe that it needs to be limited to meanings, potential meanings or otherwise of that statement, rather than observations upon others. Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKENZIE: If I could paraphrase what I think the Deputy Prime Minister was talking about, he was reflecting on Mr Christensen's comments in the chamber and clearly articulating that he didn't support them, that he supported following the medical advice. He himself is also following the health advice right now, as he is in lockdown in Armidale, New South Wales, as a result of a state health order in that state. Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, has clarified those comments. He doesn't agree with George Christensen, but he agrees with his right to say it. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:18): [by video link] The Deputy Prime Minister has also said: 'I'll say that to my colleagues, I can assure you that when you've got a thin margin, don't start giving reasons for a by-election.' Did Mr Morrison's Deputy Prime Minister give that advice to the Prime Minister?
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) (14:18): I'm obviously not privy to every conversation that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have, and nor should I be, so I'll have to take that on notice.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a final supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:18): [by video link] Why does Mr Morrison continue to prioritise protecting his own job over protecting the jobs and lives of ordinary Australians? When will he finally take responsibility and stand up to the extreme elements of his own party room who are spreading dangerous misinformation?
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) (14:19): I completely reject the premise of Senator Ayres' question. How absolutely ridiculous. The Prime Minister, our government and, I would have hoped, the entire parliament here in Canberra has had one focus for the last 18 months: assisting Australians to get through this global pandemic together; making sure we encourage people to get vaccinated, even with AstraZeneca—we've got a chief medical officer in Queensland who can't even say the word 'AstraZeneca'—where there is no vaccination shortage, if you're going to choose that particular vaccination; and working with states and territories. We've got millions of Australians right now in lockdown and they're not able to get to work. It is our government that is actually supporting them with individual disaster payments should they lose hours of work. It is our government, in partnership with both Liberal and Labor state governments, that is supporting those small businesses who are subject to lockdown. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:20): My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. The IPCC report released this week was the 'code red for humanity'. We are on track to tip over 1.5 degrees of warming this decade unless we drastically change course. The Morrison government has nowhere left to hide. You've even been singled out by the US government for not lifting your targets. Will you lift Australia's 2030 targets or will you keep us in the sole company of petro states Russia and Saudi Arabia?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:20): I thank Senator Waters for her question and, indeed, for the opportunity to talk about Australia's targets, our commitment as a country to meeting our targets, our delivery as a country in exceeding our targets and our determination to maintain that sort of track record in relation to Australia's emissions reductions targets. As a country we can and should—contrary to what comes from those in that corner or indeed the misinformation from those opposite—hold our head high about the fact that, as a nation, when we've made commitments to the world about our emissions reduction targets, we've delivered on those commitments and we've exceeded those commitments. That's been a constant pattern for Australia. In terms of our Paris targets, our commitment is also to be able to meet and to exceed those targets.
That's our determination in relation to what we're doing, building off the fact that, since 2005, Australia's seen a 20 per cent reduction in our emissions. That's been faster than Canada, at one per cent; Japan at 10 per cent; New Zealand at four per cent; and the US at 13 per cent. As I've said before in this chamber, I don't mention that as a criticism of those places but simply to put into perspective what Australia has been able to achieve. It's been done with transformation across Australia in terms of Australian industry transforming, the energy generation mix transforming and, of course, Australian households transforming their behaviour as well. That has seen, for example, in 2020 some seven gigawatts of renewable energy generation capacity installed in Australia in 2020 alone. That is at a rate around eight times faster than New Zealand, Japan or Italy and around three times faster than in Germany, the US, China or the EU. Indeed, one in four Australian households now have rooftop solar, showing that rate of transmission that Australians are helping to make.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a supplementary question?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:23): The US Deputy Climate Envoy said overnight that Australia's targets are 'not sufficient' and that we should be considering at least 50 per cent by 2030. That is an unprecedented public rebuke. You copied the US target in 2015, albeit giving yourself five extra years to meet it. Will you now copy the US and double Australia's 2030 targets?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): We're going to get on with ensuring that we don't just talk about targets but, in exceeding those targets, we do it by investing in the technologies to actually reduce emissions, to achieve the outcomes that reduce emissions. Australia generates around one per cent of global emissions. It's important that we do our part. But it's even more important in terms of achieving a reduction in global emissions that we help to achieve the breakthroughs in technology and the transformations that mean we are acting in concert with other nations like the United States, but also like China or India or other nations who have higher emissions profiles than Australia.
Our intention is to make sure that we deliver on the $20 billion of low-emissions technology commitments we've made for the decade ahead. That's part of building on our partnerships we've signed with Singapore, Japan, Germany and the UK to deliver the technologies that will help the US, Australia and many other partner nations and others around the world to reduce our emissions. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:24): The Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, on ABC Radio, called on someone to do a plan to reach net zero. Putting aside the fact that he has been in government for seven years, have any departments been instructed by any ministers to do any planning for this crucial, life-saving work to reach net zero?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:25): The answer to that is: absolutely. Absolutely, they have. That's precisely what our Technology Investment Roadmap is all about: getting the breakthroughs in technology to enable us to achieve emissions reductions, to enable us to chart that course to net zero and to enable us to do it in ways that maintain Australia's competitiveness, maintain employment and opportunities for jobs for Australians, and maintain position for Australian businesses. That road map outlines the work that we are pursuing: our target to achieve clean hydrogen of under $2 per kilogram, our target to achieve energy storage at under $100 per megawatt hour, our target to achieve carbon capture and storage at under $20 per tonne of CO2, our target to achieve low-carbon steel of under $900 per tonne or low-carbon aluminium of under $2,700 per tonne, and our target to be able to measure and achieve soil carbon improvements at under $3 per hectare. Getting those targets achieved is how you make transformation here and abroad. (Time expired)
Morrison Government
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (14:26): [by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In defending his own disinformation campaign, Senator Canavan has declared today that throughout the pandemic there has not been 'even a scintilla of parliamentary accountability'. Does the minister agree with Senator Canavan when he says that the Morrison-Joyce government has been completely unaccountable through the pandemic?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:26): No, I don't agree, because you're taking the comments quite significantly out of context. I was sitting in the chamber when Senator Canavan was making those comments. I was sitting in the chamber, and I know full well that in making those comments Senator Canavan was challenging public health orders issued by states and territories that are made by regulation, by edict, without reference to their parliaments. It's up for each of those states and territories to defend their positions, and indeed I know that many of them, in some cases, of course, have probably presented in parliamentary committees or other formats.
In terms of the Morrison government, we've made sure we're here today answering your questions. We've made sure, through the establishment of the COVID select committee, that we have fronted up. Countless times, our officials have fronted up to answer the questions of the opposition, to answer other questions and to submit ourselves to the scrutiny of this parliament and its processes and procedures, as is only reasonable. We front up. We handle that scrutiny. We submit ourselves to it. That's exactly what we're doing right now. Contorting or twisting words out of context, pitching them in terms of pretending somehow that this parliament hasn't had scrutiny, hasn't had opportunity to do so—that's just not true. This parliament has. I don't believe that's what Senator Canavan was suggesting in his remarks. I believe he was making references to other decisions elsewhere.
That's for him to defend and for others to engage in, but, Senator, I think you are misleading in terms of the construct of the question that you have put. We are here, engaged in scrutiny and accountability. I'm sure you, Senator Sheldon, have pursued opportunities at estimates and otherwise to hold the government accountable, and I've got no doubt that all of you, in particular Senator Gallagher as chair of the select committee, will continue to do so throughout the course of the pandemic.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question?
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (14:28): Senator Canavan has defended himself, saying spreading disinformation is 'speaking about a particular viewpoint. That is our job.' Does Mr Morrison agree?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:29): I didn't quite catch the quote that was referenced then. It is the job of members and senators to bring perspectives to this parliament from their communities on behalf of their communities. I urge, the government urges, everyone to do that in the most responsible way possible. We don't control the words that come out of the mouth of every member or senator, but I urge them to do so in the most responsible way possible. I urge all of those who engage in public discourse across this country to engage in it in the most responsible way possible. I referenced concern about the vaccine rollout in an earlier response and the fact that we've seen this anti-AstraZeneca mythology built up by some, led, sadly, even by some public health officials such as the incoming Governor of Queensland. It's disappointing that we've seen those sorts of mistakes made in terms of the language used by others. I'd urge them all to make sure they apply—(Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sheldon, a final supplementary question?
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (14:30): One of Mr Morrison's own cabinet ministers told Niki Savva that Mr Morrison's philosophy is: 'If you see a problem throw money at it. If you see a problem walk away from it. If you see a problem duck sharp to somebody else.' Isn't the dangerous misinformation campaign being run from his own party room just another problem Mr Morrison is walking away from?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:30): I reject the premise behind that question. I reject the assertion in Ms Savva's article. And, of course, having a question from a member of the opposition about throwing money at a problem is really quite an astounding proposition. It's quite an astounding proposition that those opposite would decide to hone in on an anonymous quote and suggest that somehow throwing money at a problem is a bad thing. Those opposite know no other solution to most problems than to throw money at them. Whilst pretending to take a bipartisan approach to issues in the pandemic, they've also been none too shy in terms of saying that the government should not bring JobKeeper to an end, but then criticising the spending on JobKeeper. They've come out with policies such as last week's thought bubble around the $300 payments to all Australians, including the millions who have already been vaccinated.
Of course, we know they want to talk about cabinet process. That one didn't even go through the shadow cabinet process. It was a surprise to Mr Butler. The shadow health minister, of all people, didn't even know about it—(Time expired)
COVID-19: Economy
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:32): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Liberal and National government's economic plan is supporting workers and businesses to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic and get to the other side?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:32): I do acknowledge that One Nation did have the call.
The PRESIDENT: My apologies. Sorry. I will go to them next. I had Senator Roberts on the list provided to me so I didn't see you, Senator Hanson. I will come to you next. It will just be a switch. I wasn't advised of the change and I didn't see you trying to get my attention. My apologies. I will go to this question and then I will do that question next. It will be an easy switch. Senator Cash.
Senator CASH: Thank you, Mr President. I thank Senator Hughes for the question, and in particular I acknowledge Senator Hughes' work that she's done in relation to ensuring that regional businesses and rural businesses in Australia are supported throughout COVID-19. As I think we would all acknowledge, small and family business are well and truly the lifeblood of the Australian economy, but in particular our rural and regional communities. These businesses have been and are the key to Australia's recovery from COVID-19. And without a doubt those small businesses will be the key to our future economic success.
Look what has happened in the ACT today. Small businesses have not had it easy throughout COVID-19. They have faced many challenges with lockdowns and restrictions severely impacting their operations. But any of us who have dealt with a small business know that they have faced up to those challenges and they are doing their best to get through COVID-19. The Morrison government is backing them every step of the way. In terms of the support that we have been able to provide small businesses, around $300 billion in direct health and economic support since the pandemic began has reached our shores to support these businesses, to support the essential workers, but also to keep Australians in jobs throughout the pandemic.
This extensive economic support—and this obviously includes JobKeeper, the apprentices wage subsidy and that important cashflow boost, giving back to small businesses what they themselves have actually earned—saw Australia's unemployment rate come down to a record low of 4.9 per cent. The Morrison government will continue to back small businesses every step of the way, because we know they're doing it tough, but we want them to prosper and grow and create more jobs. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, a supplementary question?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:35): Minister, how is the government supporting businesses and protecting jobs through the current lockdowns and restrictions resulting from the pandemic?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:35): As the outbreaks that we are currently seeing illustrate, Australia and Australians are not out of the woods yet. The Morrison government continues to work with the states and the territories to help their businesses and to support their staff who are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This week, in partnership with the South Australian government, we've provided a $40 million support package for around 20,000 businesses in South Australia. In July we reached agreement with the Victorian government, and we are providing around $200 million to help support Victorian small and medium businesses. And in New South Wales we have an agreement with the New South Wales government where businesses that have a turnover of up to $250 million who've lost 30 per cent or more of turnover or that have just seen a decline of 30 per cent or more in turnover will be eligible for payments of up to $100,000 per week. Again, we are providing the economic support, working with states and territories, to help these businesses. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, a final supplementary question?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:36): Minister, whilst those opposite are clearly supporting the airlines by fleeing lockdown as quickly as possible and not sharing it with Canberra, how can every single Australian help small and family businesses and their workers not only to get through the current challenges but also to ensure our economic recovery from COVID-19?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:36): I think we all acknowledge in this place that everybody's personal circumstances are just that: their own personal circumstances. Certainly we also all know that in relation to small businesses the best thing we can do at this point in time is to assist them by getting vaccinated. The Prime Minister, alongside the states and territories, has worked to develop our four-phase plan to see us through COVID-19 and to get us out the other side. As more and more Australians get vaccinated—and it is pleasing to see that the vaccination rates in Australia are accelerating; it took us I think six days to get from 13 million to 14 million—we are protecting Australians against the virus. As we all know, getting vaccinated protects you, it protects your family and it protects your community. We want to see small and family businesses in particular prosper and grow, and one of the things we can do collectively is get vaccinated. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (14:38): [by video link] My question is on behalf of Senator Roberts, and it's for Senator Colbeck, representing the health minister. Despite having over 63 per cent of Israel's population vaccinated with both Pfizer dozes, on Monday Israel recorded 3,372 new COVID cases, up from fewer than 300 a little over a month ago—an 11-fold surge. The effect of COVID vaccinations may be wearing off, with studies in Israel on the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccinations showing it is only 39 per cent effective. Pfizer recently admitted that immunity from its two-dose vaccine is waning and will seek FDA authorisation for a third booster dose. Randomised, controlled trials show no evidence of the provisionally approved vaccines having any prolonged efficiency. Minister, do you agree or acknowledge these facts? If not, then what is the vaccine efficiency? (Time expired)
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:39): Thanks, Senator Hanson, for the question. The concept of requirement for booster vaccines is something that the government has had as a part of its strategy for a considerable period of time.
As you would be aware, the Moderna vaccine has recently been approved. A proportion of it is under consideration for utilisation as a booster dose. The fact is that this is a new virus. The vaccines for the virus are new. The life of the vaccine and the period that antibodies are retained in the human body was always a question, so the concept of a booster vaccine has always been something that we've been considering. We have plentiful supplies in our vaccine supply strategy for that.
As we see the evidence that comes from these other jurisdictions that have higher vaccination rates and have vaccinated before us, we will clearly consider that information and we will incorporate the learnings from that into our mechanisms for the continuation of the vaccination rollout, whether that be with the Moderna dose or whether that be a variant of the vaccines that are being proposed, considered and developed by a number of other vaccine manufacturers. So the concept of requiring a booster vaccine is not a new one. It is something the government has always been considering. It already sits as a part of our considerations. Once we get to the stage of understanding that better through the evidence that we are receiving from other jurisdictions around the world, the requirements for that and the operation of that— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, a supplementary question?
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (14:41): I acknowledge your comments, but the fact is we don't know how often the vaccine is going to have to be administered. Can you give the people any indication of how often that vaccine will have to be administered and at whose cost? Every time it is administered, is that at a cost to the taxpayers?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:41): [by video link] At this point in time the government is running a national vaccination program that provides access to a vaccine to every Australian who wants it. That is the program we are running. It may very well be that the vaccination program needs to continue for a period of time until we get to the stage where we have, at a global level, dealt with this virus. There are some questions that we don't know the answers to. If you had spoken to anyone six months ago, the concept of the delta variant and the effect it is having across the world, as you've quite rightly stated in your question, was clearly not understood. The virus continues to mutate. We are not going to understand in advance what those mutations might be. We have to be prepared to move quickly to adapt to those things as they continues to evolve. So the vaccination program will go for a considerable period of time, and the taxpayers— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question?
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (14:42): If we are dealing with the delta strain now, what is the government's plan moving forward if this delta strain changes into another strain? What is your plan moving forward with that? Can you assure the people about the vaccinations they're being given now? Indications from Israel are that they haven't got the same immunity rate. What is your plan to move forward and deal with the next strain that comes through?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:43): I thank Senator Hanson for her question. We will continue to follow the latest science in the development of vaccines globally to ensure that we can offer Australians safe and efficacious vaccines. That's what we've done with the program that we have underway right now. As you have heard many times in this chamber, we continue to expand both the volume of each vaccine that we have and the availability of different types of vaccines. I am sure that the medical fraternity will continue to do as they have done over the last 18 months, which is continue to research the new variants of the virus as they evolve and emerge, and they will continue to adapt the vaccines to deal with those. We are very fortunate in this country right now that we have access to very good vaccines that are safe and provide protection against death, hospitalisation and serious illness.
COVID-19: Overseas Travel
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (14:44): [by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Cash. As of yesterday, 'fortress Australia' has further tightened its borders. Under the strict new rules, even Australian citizens and permanent residents who ordinarily live in another country will need to seek exemptions to leave Australia if they come back temporarily and could very well be denied the exemption. The changes have been made without warning and have caused anxiety and fear. As it is, 38,000 Australians are still stranded overseas, with many desperate to return home. Minister, why are you inflicting unnecessary pain and further anguish on people who are already separated from their loved ones and some with seriously sick family members who will now be further restricted from coming here because they may not be able to return to the country that they live in?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:45): Senator Faruqi, you and I are going to have to differ in relation to the government's response, or your opinion of the government's response, to keeping Australians safe. Australia's strong border control system has undoubtedly been a major factor in our success in managing, as a country, COVID-19, in particular when you look at the global situation. The Morrison government acted swiftly at commencement of COVID-19 to ensure that Australians remain safe.
In relation to the border and travel exemption regime, I think, without a doubt, the closed border and travel exemption regime is underpinned by a system of quarantine designed to ensure that people returning do not present a threat to the community. In relation to the changes to the outbound travel arrangements that Senator Faruqi refers to, as a government we have sought unapologetically to take measures that combat the virus whilst also respecting the rights and freedoms of people. The government's pandemic response is consistent with legal and health advice and is targeted as most effectively protecting Australians from COVID-19. We work closely, as you know, Mr President, with the states and territories through national cabinet to ensure that our COVID-19 response is both measured and appropriate. In fact, I note that the Federal Court has consistently found in favour of the government in previous challenges to Australia's border restrictions.
In relation to the changes that Senator Faruqi refers to, this—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question?
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (14:47): [by video link] Minister, we are a nation with close to 30 per cent of the population born overseas and a further 20 per cent who have at least one parent born overseas. Do you accept that these unnecessary and harsh restrictions are hurting tens of thousands and will disproportionately impact people from multicultural backgrounds?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:47): What I would say to Senator Faruqi is this: COVID-19, Senator Faruqi, affects everybody. You've seen in the ACT today a seven-day lockdown; it is affecting people in the ACT. It will affect people more broadly, but, when it comes to decisions in relation to Australia's borders, it is a fact, Senator Faruqi, that our strong border control system has undoubtedly been a major factor in our success in managing COVID-19. In terms of the changes that you have referred to, as you would be aware, it does not stop Australians who normally reside overseas from leaving Australia. All we have done is remove automatic exemption. Australians who genuinely reside overseas and are seeking to return to their country of residence are still able to do so, but we can't make apologies for our strong border control system.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question?
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (14:49): [by video link] Minister, your government has put in another barrier for people living overseas to come back here, because they fear that they won't be able to go back to their place of residence, all while the rich and the famous, the well-connected and the far-Right trolls are allowed to swan in and out of Australia. Minister, do you think it's fair that the rich and famous are allowed in while ordinary people are left to suffer in silence?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:49): Again, Senator Faruqi, I don't agree with the assertions that you have put in place. Decisions regarding anyone who seeks to come into Australia or, at this point in time, exit Australia are made by the appropriate authorities in Australia. Again, Australia has put in place strong border control systems, and they have undoubtedly been a major factor in our success in managing COVID-19.
Our role as a government is to keep Australia and Australians safe. That does not mean that every measure is going to be supported by, as you can see here, the Australian Greens. But our role as a government is to keep Australians safe. In terms of the measures that we have put in place in relation to our strong border control systems, they have undoubtedly been a major factor in keeping Australians safe. (Time expired)
Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Senator McKenzie. I refer to the minister's statements last week in relation to her role in the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program. As the former Minister for Sport, did the minister provide the health department with permission to access documents created in her office in relation to the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program for the purpose of those documents being provided to the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Philip Gaetjens?
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) (14:51): There has been copious public commentary around sports grants. I have given a 6,000 word submission to the inquiry in this place and I have attended a Senate inquiry. I will let my comments on the public record which are very exhaustive stand.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie, I have Senator Farrell on a point of order.
Senator Farrell: I was seeking the call while the minister was still speaking. It was a very specific question which could have easily had a yes or no answer.
The PRESIDENT: I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question. If the minister is referring to a minister's previous comments that can be directly relevant. I am not in a position judge it otherwise. There is an opportunity, as always, to debate questions after question time. But I can't instruct the minister in the terms on which to answer a question. The minister has concluded. Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:52): Yes, I do have a further question. Based on his analysis of the grants awarded and the list of marginal and targeted seats included in those documents, Mr Gaetjens claims that grants were awarded at a similar rate across other electorates. The minister herself has repeated those claims. Does she still stand by those claims?
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) (14:52): Thank you, Senator, for your question. I stand by all my public commentary around the sports grants and I refer you to my previous statements.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:53): I do have one. If that's the case, will she now give permission to the health department to provide those documents that I've been referring to to the Senate and, if not, why not?
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) (14:53): Mr President, I have nothing more to add to my very copious public statements on this matter.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:53): My question is also to Senator McKenzie, the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the minister please update the Senate on how regional Australians are doing their bit as part of the response to the Australian response to the health and economic challenges through the COVID-19 pandemic?
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) (14:54): I would like to thank Senator Davey for her question and her longstanding support for rural and regional New South Wales. We are standing with your communities, especially those in regional New South Wales who have currently been put into lockdown.
COVID-19 has had an unprecedented impact not only here in Australia but also right across the world. More than four million lives have been lost globally and we are facing the largest global economic shock since the Great Depression. Early and decisive action by our government in conjunction with state governments saved 30,000 lives and millions of jobs. We closed our borders, the Prime Minister established the national cabinet and we invested over $291 billion in direct assistance to individuals and businesses to reduce the impact. We know these measures have had a significant impact on all Australians, mentally, socially and financially, and no one knows that better than those that live in regional and rural areas. The ongoing impact of COVID-19 and the stop-start, sporadic nature of lockdowns—especially in regional New South Wales, with the Hunter Valley, Tamworth and Armidale just recently being declared Commonwealth hotspots—do take their toll. However, this frustration pales next to the difficulties we'd face if we didn't do everything we could to stop the spread.
Regional Australians are doing the right thing, lining up in droves, pulling up their sleeves and getting vaccinated, with over 3.7 million Australians in rural and regional Australia getting their jabs. That's increasing day on day, each and every day. Our First Nations people are also rolling up their sleeves. As of this morning, more than 160,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, nearly 30 per cent, have received at least one dose. Community pharmacies right across the country have kept their doors open. They are now playing their role in regional communities rolling out the vaccine. Our government has allocated nearly $48 million—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Davey, a supplementary question?
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:56): How is the Liberal and Nationals government supporting rural and regional communities as we chart our way back from COVID?
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) (14:56): Our government has provided a raft of support to regional communities through the COVID-19 pandemic. That's why we're delivering highly targeted financial assistance through the COVID disaster payment to workers who live or work in a Commonwealth declared hotspot. It's specifically tailored to workers impacted by those lockdowns, and Services Australia has already processed more than 1.8 million COVID disaster payment claims, paying out more than $2 billion to workers to date. We will not stop standing with individuals, as they feel, in a very individual way, the impact of those lockdowns, when they're doing the right thing and staying home and stopping the spread. In addition to this, the pandemic leave disaster payment supports those who have been directed by a state official to isolate for more than 14 days. We've also ensured that staff at meatworks have been identified as being in a high-priority job role in the first two phases of the vaccine rollout, so that we can actually support our agricultural industries.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Davey, a final supplementary question?
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:57): Why is regional Australia so critical to the success of our economic recovery post COVID?
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) (14:57): Regional Australia is critical to driving our economy post-COVID. We know that agriculture and mining are key industries that stabilise our economic growth. We know that, by supporting the agricultural industry, we've supported international freight task as supply chains have been challenged by COVID-19. Additionally, when our own domestic supply to supermarkets was challenged, particularly last year, we set up transport arrangements to make sure that we could get food from farm to distribution centre to supermarkets, so that Australians who were in lockdown could still access high-quality food. We've negotiated an agricultural visa, which we look to to address some of those workforce shortages that are a result of our international border closures. Every single step of the way, our government is supporting Australians in rural and regional Australia to get through this pandemic and to come outside stronger.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:58): [by video link] My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. It's reported the Morrison-Joyce government's COVID-19 information on the health department website, which comes in more than 60 languages, has not been updated for almost eight weeks. Does the minister agree with the health department that failing to update information eight weeks out of date is 'a short delay'? When will this be fixed?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:59): [by video link] Thanks, Senator McAllister, for the question. I agree with Senator McAllister that ensuring that Australians have access to updated information with respect to vaccines and elements of how they might protect themselves from the COVID-19 pandemic through utilisation of the vaccine is extremely important. I would agree with her that it's a very important thing to do. That information has, in fact, been updated. But, can I say, it should have been updated sooner; it should not have taken eight weeks. The Department of Health understands the perspective of the ministers in the portfolio with respect to that information.
We don't only rely on the Department of Health website for the engagement with CALD communities. This is a very important part of ensuring people understand what's available to them with respect to getting a vaccine. In that context, the 'Arm yourself' TV commercial has been translated into a number of languages and has been running since 1 August. There are 20 languages covered in videos of multicultural health professionals and religious and community leaders from Sydney on the importance of staying home, getting tested and getting vaccinated—specifically for the greater Sydney region. There is an established CALD communication working group, which was set up at the start of the pandemic. It's chaired by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Michael Kidd, and meets regularly, providing advice both to the Department of Health and back out to communities. So communication is extremely important, and this information should have been updated sooner.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (15:01): [by video link] The Arabic translation on the Morrison-Joyce government's Department of Health website doesn't even mention that adults in greater Sydney should strongly consider getting any vaccine. Why?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:01): [by video link] Thank you, Senator McAllister, for the question. As I've indicated, the materials on the website have been updated. That is the advice that I've been provided. The objective of this government is to ensure that every Australian who is currently eligible and who becomes eligible to receive a vaccine has access to the most up-to-date information, and to encourage all Australians to get a vaccine. The thing that we do know about the vaccines that we have available in our vaccine strategy at this point in time is that they are safe and highly efficacious. They will protect you against death, hospitalisation and serious illness. So we're encouraging everyone to get a vaccine as soon as they possibly can, and that will remain a focus of our campaigns.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (15:02): [by video link] Dr Ken McCroary, a GP in the south-western Sydney suburb of Campbelltown, said there was a clear link between low vaccination rates and poor public health messaging. He said this:
We are at a serious state of despair with the website being way out of date …
Will the Morrison-Joyce government take responsibility for its failure to order vaccines, its failure to distribute vaccines and its failure to give timely and accurate advice to the millions of Australians languishing in lockdown?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:03): [by video link] The government has clearly stated, on many occasions, that it is responsible for the supply and delivery of vaccines to Australians so that they can access a vaccine in a timely way. As I've indicated to the chamber already, the information on that Department of Health website should have been updated in a more timely way. It has been updated now, and we will continue to work with communities across this country, through various mechanisms, to ensure that Australians have access to high-quality information, in a way that they can readily receive it, so that we can continue to encourage them to access the vaccines, because we know that the vaccine program is going to be one of the most important ways we work with Australians to come through this COVID-19 pandemic.
Senator Birmingham: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
BILLS
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives indicating that the House had made the amendment requested by the Senate to the bill.
Third Reading
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to
Bill read a third time.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
COVID-19: New South Wales
Deputy Prime Minister
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:05): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) and the Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education (Senator McKenzie) to questions without notice asked by Senators Ayres and O'Neill today relating to COVID-19 outbreak in New South Wales and to COVID-19 misinformation.
I want to commence my remarks by acknowledging the ripple of fear, shock and distress that's moving through this place here today as the ACT goes into lockdown. Lockdown has been miraculously avoided here, and now the anxiety that has gripped the Victorians for so many months and is now in its eighth week in New South Wales is coming on. We know how difficult this is. But we hear the problems of Australians being cast aside in the responses that we received from Minister Birmingham today. He will drop his voice and be very serious and sensible in his elocution of the government's continuing failing response. The Morrison-Joyce government has let this virus get away from us, and it is now running rampant right across the country—out in my great state of New South Wales and into very, very vulnerable communities.
It's no wonder that the disapproval rating for the rollout is nearly at 60 per cent. Malcolm Turnbull—actually telling the truth—said: 'I can't think of a bigger black-and-white failure of public administration than this.' And he said that about his own colleagues with whom he shared a party room—the Liberal and National parties, who have been in government for eight years and who are supposedly great managers of the economy. People trusted them to do the right thing. And here we are at this juncture in this country; the place is literally ravaged with COVID-19 spreading at an extraordinary rate across the entire country. The virus has spread certainly to Dubbo and Walgett. That's nearly eight hours away from Sydney. I know it's not as far as some of the distances that are driven in Queensland and the Northern Territory, but it's still a pretty big state. Walgett, Bathurst, Dubbo and the shires of Bogan, Bourke, Brewarrina, Coonamble, Gilgandra, Narromine and Warren are all now in lockdown.
Do not forget that this experience of lockdown and this inaccessibility of vaccines were brought to you by the stars of the show, Mr Morrison and Mr Joyce. They're the two leaders who are responsible for the decision-making that has led us to this day. In New South Wales, 345 people were found to have acquired COVID in the last 24 hours. We know, just in the last two months, since this most recent outbreak, there have been 36 deaths, and 93 deaths from the current outbreak. We know that there is a huge toll on families, businesses and communities, and part of the reason we're in this situation is that the golden girl, Premier Berejiklian, was encouraged to hold out against going into lockdown.
We've got Indigenous communities right across this state, including those in Dubbo, who are in a great deal of worry about being able to access services and get the vaccinations that they so desperately need. I was in Dubbo in the seat of Parkes earlier this year, and I met with the Aboriginal medical service. They're funded for four full-time GPs, but they've only got one. They can't roll out to the Aboriginal community. In Deniliquin, I met with the Deniliquin Health Action Group and Marion Magee, who has been there for 32 years as a general specialist. What are their concerns? Their concerns are health professional staffing and the ability to provide medical services to children. Access to medical services: that is the disaster and that is the context into which this failed government is actually embedding further and further problems.
Those opposite might smile and think that this is some sort of a joke, but it isn't. My colleague on the Central Coast—the great Labor member—Emma McBride and I have been fighting to get a vaccination hub for the 350,000 people on the Central Coast. That's bigger than the population of the Northern Territory. What did the Liberal member Lucy Wicks say? She said: 'We don't need it; the GPs are enough.' Not good enough. What's happening on the Central Coast—with the ignoring of 350,000 people in one area and the failed delivery of leadership by the Liberal and National parties—is a warning to the people of Dubbo. I want to encourage the great work of Councillor Stephen Lawrence, the Mayor of Dubbo, for his great leadership and for his contribution to public debate this morning. I urge all Australians to stay safe, because, if you don't look after yourself, this government is not looking after you. (Time expired)
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (15:10): I said yesterday it was like groundhog day, and here we go again. We know where this vaccine hesitancy is coming from, and it's certainly got nothing to do with supply. We know that there is supply throughout Australia for any Australian who wants it. We know that, day after day, including yesterday, the day before and the day before that, we have seen record days of vaccinations occurring. Over a quarter of a million Australians are being vaccinated every single day. There is no supply issue.
But what we do know, when we look across some of the states, is that there's vaccine hesitancy. There's brand shopping. Why would that be, considering that the ATAGI advice is now that all of the vaccines—whatever vaccine you can access—are equally effective, equally safe and, equally, hundreds of thousands of times less likely to injure and kill you than COVID?
Those opposite continue to persist with this absolute hyperbole around supply, but really what they're talking about is: 'We don't want to talk about AstraZeneca. We don't want to support Australian jobs. We don't want to support Australian manufacturing. We want to continue a fear and a smear campaign around vaccine brands.' It is just ludicrous! The current opposition leader can barely bring himself to even say the name. The fact is that he then raced out, as quickly as possible, to find a candidate for the seat of Higgins who has been actively out there suggesting people not get the AstraZeneca! This is against all health advice.
Thank goodness we have sensible commentators, like Dr Nick Coatsworth, who are encouraging Australians to get vaccinated and who know that the best vaccine for you is the one that is available. We are seeing Australians out in record numbers, getting their vaccination and ensuring that Australia can open up as soon as possible but also keeping Australians safe.
As we enter into lockdown here in Canberra, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who have all stayed put today, who understand that they need to be here to support the Canberrans as they go through this but also to ensure that parliament is able to continue to conduct itself as best as possible. But, as we stay here in Canberra and enter this lockdown, we know that those in Canberra and the ACT have done extremely well when it comes to their vaccination rates. In fact, they are getting very close to 30 per cent at full vaccination, and over 50 per cent have had one dose. But even more impressive are the vaccination rates in those vulnerable cohorts: we are looking at numbers in the 80 and 90 per cent range. So I think there can be some confidence, as the ACT goes into a seven-day sharp lockdown, because of the compliance that we are likely to see, because of the way that people will conduct themselves over the next seven days and because of the fact that the contact tracers are already working hard with the gentleman who has been affected to ensure that close contacts are identified as soon as possible. But the fact that there are significantly higher vaccination rates within the ACT means a significantly reduced chance of people contracting the virus and infecting others with it and it means people are significantly less likely to get majorly ill or find themselves in hospital or, worse still, on a ventilator or dying from the virus. We need to keep encouraging vaccination—we need to keep encouraging people to get out there.
I am intrigued as to whether or not we will start to see another fear campaign—because we know you guys just can't stay away from them—and whether or not we're going to start to see a move away from the Pfizer and whether you're going to start encouraging people to just really be looking at the Moderna. We're spoilt for choice. You guys aren't going to know which way to go—how to scare Australians!
Disgracefully, today, on Capital Hill on ABC, when I was there with Senator McAllister after half past one this afternoon, there Senator McAllister was, again spreading more information about a lack of supply.
It is absolutely shameful behaviour. It is time that it stopped. It is time that you started to get behind Australians, the Australian economy, to ensure that we can open up as soon as possible, and that is through vaccinations. It's not through brand shopping and it's not through creating vaccine hesitancy. It's through real information, factual information, not scare campaigns and not being out there confusing Australians who are trying to do the right thing.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (15:15): [by video link] A Kinsley gaffe is when a political figure accidentally tells the truth—some obvious truth that isn't supposed to be voiced. This morning we saw an example of such a gaffe. The Deputy Prime Minister really belled the cat, didn't he! When pressed on why he wouldn't be reining in Mr Christensen about his comments, Mr Joyce said this:
… I can assure you that when you've got a thin margin, don't start giving reasons for a by-election.
It was a moment when the Deputy Prime Minister accidentally told the truth, revealing that he and the Prime Minister were always keeping an eye on their political interests, even when it involved a member of the government spreading dangerous disinformation about vaccines and lockdowns—the two public health tools that we have to fight the delta variant. Just to really prove that Mr Joyce meant what he said, the government then tried to use its numbers in the Senate today to protect Mr Christensen, Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick from being called out for their comments.
Today, while the government was busy trying to protect its political interests, the ACT joined New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland in lockdown. More than half of Australia's population is now under some form of COVID restrictions. While the risk of a by-election might be front of mind for Mr Joyce, I doubt that it is a concern for the millions of Australians who would just rather the Morrison government concentrated on doing its job. These are Australians who will lose their chance to say goodbye to a loved one. These are Australians whose children will be learning from home, without contact with anyone their own age, for months. These are Australians who will struggle financially because of the economic consequences of the delta wave, which this Prime Minister has overseen.
We would not be in this position if the Prime Minister had just done his job. In Newcastle, in my home state of New South Wales, there is an outbreak in an aged-care facility, and only a third of the staff have received even one dose of the vaccine. These workers were meant to be fully vaccinated by Easter, under the Prime Minister's plan. New South Wales towns like Walgett, Bourke and Brewarrina have been put into lockdown, and these towns have large First Nations populations. Despite the Prime Minister promising that First Nations Australians would be a priority in the vaccine rollout, only 10 per cent have been vaccinated. The Northern Rivers, where I grew up—Lismore, Bangalow, Byron, Casino—are locked down.
We have been left dangerously exposed by this government's failure to effectively roll out sufficient volumes of the vaccine and to take responsibility for establishing an effective national quarantine system. Senator Hughes's disgraceful and dishonest contribution just now, unhappily, is typical of the government's response. It's always someone else's fault. It's the opposition's fault. It's the community's fault. It's the workers' fault. It's the Italians' fault, sometimes. It's ATAGI's fault. It's the Premier's fault. Perhaps today it's my fault, if you listen to Senator Hughes. But the truth is that it is the responsibility of this government. Those opposite are responsible for the vaccine rollout and they are responsible for hotel quarantine and for a national quarantine system.
This government struggles to get the basics right. Official public health information for CALD communities is two months out of date. This outbreak is affecting communities in south-western Sydney, migrant communities who may not be confident reading official documentation in English. Despite this, the Arabic translation of the Department of Health's vaccination information doesn't mention that all adults in greater Sydney should get any vaccine that they can access.
Australians are scared. They are scared for their livelihoods, worried about their families' health; they are wondering when they'll be able to leave the restrictions and the lockdowns behind them. Don't worry! Mr Joyce and Mr Morrison have got it in hand. As they made clear this morning, their No. 1 priority is doing whatever it takes to make sure there isn't a by-election.
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (15:20): As we come to the end of two weeks in this place, while so much of our country is in lockdown, including here in the ACT from later today, those on the other side continue to repeat the same questions and the same attacks every day. Senator Hughes's description of groundhog day couldn't be more appropriate. While they continue to spread lies and mistruths, our government is focused on getting on with the job of keeping Australians safe. While the opposition continues to undermine the rollout, we are getting on with that job and delivering record amounts of over 250,000 shots a day.
In the last seven days over 1.4 million doses have been delivered; over 14.2 million doses have been delivered to date. In fact, since we arrived here in Canberra for this sitting period last week, over 190,000 doses have been delivered. We are getting on with the job. No-one is saying that there haven't been problems along the way, but it has now been turned around, and we are now back on track. Our numbers are comparable with the world's best rates of vaccination. With one million Pfizer doses arriving weekly, a plentiful supply of AstraZeneca and now Moderna approved for use in Australia, it will be great to see the weekly doses increasing over coming weeks. Twenty five million doses of Moderna have been secured, with the first million doses arriving next month. It is a safe, practical vaccine.
I would like to acknowledge the hardworking frontline staff who are administering these vaccines. My sister is one of those. They are all working long hours, often under extreme pressure. They, along with all the other health professionals who have been at the forefront of the COVID outbreaks across the country, deserve our thanks. Their commitment to saving Australian lives, putting others before themselves, in what is often a thankless task, is incredible.
The ramped-up rollout is just the start. Not only will the vaccination of Australians help save lives; it will also help us to relax restrictions as we progress through the four stages of the national plan. The current phase obviously is accelerating the vaccination rates and keeping lockdowns short and sharp if possible. The transition phase, when we get to 70 per cent, will see low-level restrictions and hopefully fewer lockdowns. By the time we get to the consolidation phase, with 80 per cent of adults vaccinated, hopefully we will only have targeted lockdowns—that's the plan—leading into the final phase, where we can open international borders with no lockdowns and boosters being regularly provided if needed.
As evidenced by the Doherty modelling, now that we've protected our more vulnerable elderly Australians it's possible to shift our focus to younger Australians. They now have access to more options in regard to vaccinations. It is wonderful to see young Australians turning up across the country to get vaccinated.
Tasmania, my home state, is leading the way in vaccinations. We reached the milestone of 50 per cent vaccination last week. As part of Premier Gutwein's four-point Delta Shield plan announced yesterday, they will be boosting vaccination rates over the next weeks to achieve 60 per cent by September. That plan also includes increased fines; tighter border controls; strengthened testing, tracking and tracing; and a support package for businesses impacted by interstate lockdowns. They too are getting on with the job.
I'd like to turn my attention now to earlier this year, when here in this place we debated legislation in relation to freedom of speech, particularly in the context of academic freedom of speech. I defend every single person's right to freedom of speech, particularly those of us elected to parliament to represent all Australians. Universities must be places that protect free speech even when things being said may be unpopular or challenging. The idea of academic freedom is vital to the continued development of our education. Our universities are critical institutions where ideas are developed, debated and challenged. So is our parliament.
As we debated here earlier today, there are vastly differing views about coronavirus, the development of COVID-19 vaccines, the resulting impacts of the virus on border closures, restrictions around events and even how to wash our hands properly. Of course, some of the public debate around COVID we will agree with and, as discussed earlier today, some we wouldn't, but that is the very nature of free speech. We're all entitled to our opinion, but there's a line when it puts at risk public safety.
I defend everyone's individual right to decide if they will be vaccinated or not. However, anyone who chooses not to should also respect the right of those who do and not vilify or harass those who do. I am fully vaccinated. Coming to that decision I considered all the commentary in the public arena; however, the overriding decision came down to wanting to protect my family, my community and myself from an insidious, life-threatening illness.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (15:25): [by video link] I rise to take note of Senator Birmingham's and Senator McKenzie's answers to questions. Senator Birmingham spent all his time covering the backs of members of his government when they espoused dodgy health advice. Maybe Senator Birmingham, in his answers to those questions, should start covering the backs of our mums and dads, our grandparents and our children and holding to account dodgy government members who are giving dodgy health advice.
The failure by this government on a series of levels has been particularly gross. We have seen the grossness of it because of a lack of proper action when it comes to the vaccine rollout. I note that, in the comments of others taking note of answers by the government, not one senator on the government side defended the government's silence on their own dodgy government members giving dangerous advice. The question of freedom of speech is always a critical one, but you need to call out when it's dangerous advice and putting our community at risk—our families and the public.
Quite clearly we've seen failure on a number of levels from this government—failure to hold dodgy members to account, failure to have adequate supply, failure to vaccinate and failure to quarantine. The failure on the vaccine front is important. I have my strong views. I have received AstraZeneca. I suggest many others should be doing the exact same thing. But clearly amongst the public, because of the government's misinformation and lack of an appropriate approach to this health issue, there is great disquiet right across our community.
Senator Canavan also said that people are just thinking about a particular viewpoint and that's our job. That might be your job, Senator Canavan, but the job of government members who know the right health advice is to espouse it and hold you to account. One of Mr Morrison's own cabinet ministers Niki Savva talked about Mr Morrison's philosophy—'If you see a problem, throw money at it; if you see a problem, walk away from it; if you see a problem, duckshove to somebody else.' This dangerous disinformation being run by this government's own party room is just another problem that Mr Morrison is walking away from.
Mr Christensen said:
When will the madness end? How many more freedoms will we lose due to fear of a virus which has a survivability rate of 997 out of a thousand? It's time we stopped spreading fear and acknowledged some facts. Masks do not work—fact … Lockdowns don't work—fact.
Quite clearly the government are in complete disarray about how they deal with this. We've seen, particularly in the situation with Mr Christensen, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, make it clear that he was not going to hold the government to account or hold those in the government to account if they were giving dodgy health advice. And why? Because of crass political opportunism—because of the fact that holding them to account means that they might blow back. Well, guess what: they're blowing back on the Australian community's health. They're blowing back on the outcomes that we need to make sure that we have a successful reopening of the economy and that the lockdowns can cease.
It goes to a very important question. A regional doctor, Dr Clyde Ronan of Yarrawonga Medical Clinic, said that more and more patients were no-shows for vaccination bookings due to false ideas circulating in the community. He went on to say:
Everybody seems to be an expert at the moment … We're being saturated with information, and not all of the information is useful … Otherwise, you get people speaking outside of their expertise. You get people with no expertise at all, and they've all got an opinion.
Well, quite clearly, vaccination hesitancy in this country is squarely at the feet of the misinformation and disinformation from the government's own members. It's incredibly important that they get their act together and that the government hold them to account.
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:30): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to climate change policy.
I note that Senator Rice, who is dialling in remotely, would like to make the take-note contribution.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (15:31): [by video link] We are in a climate emergency. The UN Secretary-General said this week that it is 'code red'. This is completely consistent with Greta Thunberg's words that we should be acting 'as if our house is on fire, because it is'. But what response did we get from Senator Birmingham this afternoon? From the government, basically it's: 'Don't worry. It's just a little fire in the kitchen. Don't worry. We'll get on to it at some stage. Eventually we'll get the fire extinguisher out, or perhaps some other technology.'
'We're meeting our Paris targets,' says Senator Birmingham, whereas in fact our pollution from burning fossil fuels has increased by six per cent between 2005 and 2019. Even if we do meet our Paris targets, it's like saying, 'We put the high jump bar just a couple of centimetres above the ground five years ago, and now we're celebrating. Oh, look: we got over it.' Basically our target translates to almost three degrees of global warming if that were what the rest of the world was agreeing to as well, which would make the extreme weather that we have been seeing in recent times just the beginning.
Meeting our Paris targets, even if we do meet them, is not where the global focus is now. This is an emergency, and other countries are recognising it. The US have recognised it. They have now got a commitment to slash their carbon pollution by 50 per cent by 2030. The EU recognise it. They are going to be slashing their carbon pollution by 50 per cent by 2030. The UK will slash their carbon pollution by over 60 per cent by 2030. We in Australia need to triple our ambition to be consistent with the science and with what the IPCC has laid out so starkly for us this week. We need to be slashing our pollution. We need to have reductions of 75 per cent by 2030 if we are going to be doing our part to keep global heating below 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
The Morrison government's refusal to act on climate leaves Australia isolated on the world stage. It's us, it's Saudi Arabia and it's Russia. No-one is being fooled, least of all our allies. The US, just this week, has publicly rebuked Australia's climate policy. It was an unprecedented public rebuke. Think how strong the private critiques must be if this is what they are willing to say publicly. One of their key negotiators, Dr Pershing, said, 'The commitments they made in Paris are not sufficient.' So, for all that Senator Birmingham can blather on about technology, the fact is that we are burning coal, gas and oil at unprecedented rates and the rest of the world, including our allies, are not impressed.
But no. We have a government basically hell-bent on looking after their billionaire mates and their fossil fuel donors, setting fire to our future rather than facing the facts. You only have to look at the subsidies going out the door for the mining and burning of fossil fuels: over $10 billion a year, including committing to spend $600 million for the Kurri Kurri gas plant and over $200 million to support and subsidise the fracking of the Beetaloo Basin, releasing an absolute climate bomb on the world.
The government are failing in their most basic duty of keeping us safe. They are burning our children's futures. So we have to take serious action. The IPCC report laid it out very starkly: the alarm bells are ringing. The UN Secretary-General said that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk. The temperatures are rising, the ice is melting, the oceans are rising, the reef is dying and the forests are burning. It was 48.8 degrees in Sicily yesterday. The fires around the world—in Greece, in Russia, in the US and in Canada—on the back of our Black Summer fires show this is the emergency that we are in.
We've got to take action. There is hope. We can kick out this destructive, planet-burning mob and have a government with the Greens in balance of power. The Greens will push the next government to go further and faster on climate. We can adopt science based targets for 2030; we can shift to abundant green energy; we can stop the mining, burning and export of coal, gas and oil; and we can work with other countries around the world for a positive, healthy future.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:36): by leave—I move:
That:
(a) the President may alter the day and time of the next meeting of the Senate at the request of, or the agreement of, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and the time of meeting shall be notified to each senator;
(b) the Senate may meet in a manner and form not otherwise provided in the standing orders with the agreement of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and that the rules and orders necessary to constitute such a meeting may be determined by the Procedure Committee; and
(c) leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today, to the day on which the Senate next meets.
In moving the motion I place on record that this is moved as a contingency. Certain steps have been taken over the last year to ensure the effective management of the chamber through these extraordinary times. The government moves this motion with no intent to necessarily use any provisions within it at this time, and it clearly provides for consultation and agreement, particularly with the opposition, should any provisions of it be used.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs References Committee
Report
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:37): I present the fourth interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee on Centrelink's compliance program, and I move:
That the Senate adopt the recommendation contained in the interim report.
This is a very important motion and report. It is the fourth report from this committee and it relates to public interest immunity and the government claiming public interest immunity yet again over specific issues related to the Centrelink compliance program commonly known by the whole of Australia as robodebt.
We have repeatedly sought information about the legal advice they obtained—and I'll go into that a bit more in a moment. The fact is they were using the court case as an excuse not to provide that information. That court case has finished now. Judgement has been passed, debts have been repaid—though not all that we think should be repaid—and compensation will be paid. The government has no excuse to hide behind now, and the majority of the committee agree.
Senator O'Neill, who I'm sure will speak when I finish my contribution, and other senators including me have sought this information repeatedly. The community needs to know. Not just the Senate inquiry but the community need and want to know what the government knew about a program that caused untold stress and harm. I will say it here again: it did lead to people—when people are reading this Hansard, please be aware of the sensitivity of this issue—taking their own lives. I know Senator O'Neill has spoken to family members, as have I. They are absolutely convinced that it contributed to their loved ones' passing. That program was abhorrent.
What advice did the ministers—there were a number that oversaw this program—seek? Did they seek to check that it was legal? Did the department? If so, when? Was it at the beginning of the program, before they went down this track? I'm sure what we will hear from the government is that this was money that people owed. Well, they didn't owe it, and the government should have checked before they started this robo, automatic process. They will also say: 'We didn't do it automatically. It wasn't robodebt. It wasn't automated.' That is nonsense. There was a clear change in the way these debts were collected. When did they seek that advice? You know what? If the government didn't seek legal advice, even bigger shame on them for not doing so to see if they could actually do this.
The particular matter that I'm tabling relates to their latest claim of public interest immunity. This has been claimed, as you know, on many occasions. But on this occasion, as I said, the excuse is not there. They are using, as you will see from the correspondence, the excuse that there may be future ones. If that were the case, they could deny giving people any information at any time. Not everybody who had a debt raised against them was part of the class action, so the government are using the excuse that there could be others. It's complete nonsense. This information should be publicly available. The Australian people deserve to know how this program started and whether the government ever knew it wasn't legal and just hoped they wouldn't get caught or whether they never bothered to check for a program that resulted in untold misery. It's not on. This place, I hope, will continue to chase the government over this issue. It's not just me. There are many, many people in this country who want to know these answers. So we will, all of us, keep pursuing this information.
I urge the Senate to support the recommendation that we presented in this report and have moved as an amendment. The report specifically goes through a number of points which I won't take up time in reading out, but basically it says the committee recommends that the Senate adopt the resolution requiring the production of documents. It talks about the documents that we want laid on the table no later than 12 pm on 24 August 2021, and it goes on to say:
In the event that the minister fails to table these documents, the Senate requires the minister to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 25 August 2021 to provide an explanation of the minister's failure to table the documents.
We are very clear in what documents we want, including answers to all the questions that relate to legal advice and the Income Compliance Program, commonly known as robodebt—I'm ad-libbing there; it doesn't actually say 'robodebt'—which have been subject to the rejected claims of public interest immunity during the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into the Centrelink compliance program. We want the executive minute to the Minister for Social Services, dated 12 February 2015, and we also want a letter confirming that the above responses relating to legal advice and the executive minute will be provided. We're also giving the government the opportunity to provide this information in camera, by the way. It's not as if we're being unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the basis on which the government thought they had legal authority to undertake this illegal program. Please support this resolution.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:45): I want to acknowledge the leadership that has been shown by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee—which is very ably chaired by Senator Siewert, who has just made a contribution—on this matter of great importance to hundreds and thousands of Australians. For those who are just sort of listening or tuning in, if you've heard about robodebt, if you know anybody who was affected by robodebt, essentially the government created a bill and sent it to its own citizens, and that bill has now been considered to be an illegal activity by the government against its own people. That's where we are. After all that noise about robodebt that people heard, that's where we are in the sequence.
I also want to congratulate and thank all the other senators on the committee, including Senator Urquhart, who is here in the chamber with me, and, indeed, even though they hold a different view and they are members of the government, the government members who provided a quorum so that these inquiries could go ahead, because that's the job we're supposed to be doing here. We're supposed to be finding out about what's going on, double-checking that things are okay and that Australians aren't being ripped off. And this is a pretty big rip-off, where your government decides to concoct a debt and send it to the Australian people and it's found to be an illegal debt.
My contribution today refers to the recent report, which Senator Siewert was just talking about, on the government's continued attempts to cover their tracks. They've made a public interest immunity claim, saying that it is not in the public interest for them to release critical documents that show us what they knew and the decision-making that they undertook. We consider it to be a bogus PII claim to hide legal advice that a federal judge found legally insufficient and which was responsible for the sending of these false debt notices to 347 people.
What we have to say about this program is that it was a colossal and callous failure from its inception in order to prop up the budget and the bottom line that Scott Morrison used to talk to you about. That was the only thing he used to talk about then. Now he's telling you why he's not doing a bad job looking after the country's health. Back then he was telling you he was looking after the economy and the budget. But, as Minister for Social Services, it was Scott Morrison who began concocting this scheme to target the most vulnerable in our community and unleashed debt collectors on Australians. Australians on the pension, Australians on carers allowance, Australians who were doing it tough were harassed by debt collectors and the Australian state over money that they actually did not owe. This was an illegal act by the Australian government under the leadership of Mr Morrison. It was illegal. It was enormously expensive, and we need clarity on how on earth this monstrous item of public policy was allowed to be unleashed on the public. We cannot allow the mistakes that were made to be repeated.
Now we come to Minister Reynolds's claim. This comes after a long line of claims by the government that they shouldn't provide the advice because, as they originally said, 'There's a court case coming up.' Well, the court case that declared the government had undertaken an illegal activity has come and gone, yet Minister Reynolds decided to send to the committee a letter that claims it would not be in the public interest for the legal advice that underpinned robodebt to be made public to the committee.
The committee's terms of reference for this inquiry, which give us the task and the job that we're supposed to do, require us to examine the legality of the Income Compliance Program. That actually means dealing with the legal advice that underpinned the entire enterprise—advice that was later found by the Federal Court to have been legally insufficient and responsible for a $1.8 billion payout from the taxpayers. It's a critical matter of public interest that the representatives—that's us; the senators—examine the faulty legal advice on which the whole dirty scheme was cooked up by Mr Morrison as the Treasurer, a scheme which he then presided over for years as the Prime Minister.
The public needs to know—and these are the documents that we are seeking by 24 August—the dates that legal advice was sought and provided by internal and external lawyers to the ministers, departments and agencies in relation to robodebt or in connection with a class action or potential litigation. We need to know, for the Australian public, to make sure that this doesn't happen again, the identity of the person, the agency or the firm who provided the legal advice. We need to know the costs of the legal advice. We need to know where issues remain to be resolved. And we need to know the dates and content of any briefings or meetings, including ministerial briefings and ministerial meetings, that relate to that legal advice. We need to see and know about the instructions to the lawyers by this government, which inflicted illegal debt on its own people, and we need to see any legal advice provided in relation to the modification or enhancement of the Income Compliance Program. That's what they call it—the Income Compliance Program. It's more the 'government harass you program'. That's what it was.
Minister Reynolds's claim that it is still in the public interest to continue to hide this advice is not merely untenable; it's grossly offensive. The committee is even willing to have the documents provided in camera, thus negating the risk that it could ever be used against the government. Yet still they continue to keep the legal advice hidden. This government has fought this disclosure tooth and nail, which tells me only one thing: those opposite absolutely must be hiding something very, very big—and it's very closely connected to the man who holds the highest position in this the land, the Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison.
How could it possibly be considered to be in the public interest for the government to continue to hide advice that cost the public $2 billion? As Senator Siewert indicated, we know that there were several lives lost—confirmed—because of the harassment that people suffered at the hands of this government when it sicked the debt collectors onto them. Of course, there was untold mental anguish, and we have no data collection about the families that were torn apart and the businesses that went under—fledgling businesses that needed support but had all of their economic capacity ripped away from them, only to be repaid later when they had lost the lot. That's the scale of error that we see with this government.
The class action brought against the government to sort out this robodebt matter has been settled. There is no current court action that I'm aware of with regard to robodebt. Even last year, when the case was still alive, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, Kathryn Campbell, was unable to explain to the committee how sharing this data would prejudice the Commonwealth's position on the class action. But it didn't stop her from pretending that she didn't know what robodebt was and trying to lock up the information.
There is a legal precedent for disclosure of legal advice to the Senate. As stated in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice:
It has never been accepted in the Senate, nor in any comparable representative assembly, that legal professional privilege provides grounds for a refusal of information in a parliamentary forum.
Moreover, the Senate has consistently rejected government claims that there's a longstanding practice of not disclosing privileged legal advice to the conserver of the Commonwealth's legal and constitutional interests. The government does not have a leg to stand on. The Morrison-Joyce government is merely playing for time—delaying, kicking the ball into the weeds every time this Senate rightly asks for the documents to allow us to get to the truth. Well, I will tell them: we will not let this go. The Australian people will not let this go. And one day soon—I hope soon—we will find the truth of this matter.
Several questions go not to specific legal advice but to general information regarding the procurement of legal advice. The government says this is never released, but that is not true. Christian Porter released legal advice on the eligibility of Minister Dutton under section 44(v) of the Constitution on 24 August 2018. In 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard advised the House of Representatives that we had made available to the Leader of the Opposition the advice of the Solicitor-General on asylum seekers and offshore processing. In 2007, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Kevin Andrews, released advice in relation to the power of the cancellation of the visa of Dr Haneef. These are just three examples of the common practice of federal governments of both parties releasing legal documentation. It's clear that, if the government weren't so afraid of the implications of releasing this advice, it would have done so. But it has responsibilities, moral, ethical and parliamentary, to provide to the Senate the documents that we seek and to lay them on the table no later than noon on 24 August. It's time. Cough it up. Let's get on with the job.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
COVID-19: Vaccination
Consideration
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:56): I want to make a couple of remarks on document No. 5 listed on the Notice Paper. I just want to put on the record today an emerging concern with regard to the vaccination. We've seen the Prime Minister, in his failed leadership of the country, perpetrate a lot of blame of vaccine companies and advisory bodies for the states, and we see an escalation of lockdowns and deaths and illness.
I want to draw particular attention to one of the major concerns I have right now, and that is that breastfeeding women cannot access the vaccine that they currently need, because they are actually ineligible for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the government have left these women off any priority list. I seek to raise this today because who knows what could happen with everybody in lockdown and the potential that we might not be back here for an extended period of time? I want to take this opportunity, as it might be the last time that I get to raise this concern: breastfeeding women need access. They need to be made a priority to be able to get the vaccine that is recommended for them. I urge all my sisters on the other side of the benches here to make sure that women's particular needs with regard to vaccine access are given a greater priority by this government, because they seem to have been overlooked.
I also note that, at the moment, only 10 per cent of Indigenous men and women have accessed the vaccines and we are in a situation where the explosion of the illness into rural New South Wales—in Walgett, Bathurst, Dubbo, Bourke, Bogan, Brewarrina, Coonamble, Gilgandra, Narromine and Warren—means that the Aboriginal communities that are so significant in those communities are particularly vulnerable at this time. Mr President, thank you very much for your indulgence in allowing me to put that on the record. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Aged Care Quality and Safety—Royal Commission—Aged care and COVID-19: A special report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC)—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Productivity Commission—Report no. 95—Mental health. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
Workplace Gender Equality Agency—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
COVID-19—Pfizer vaccine—Answer to question—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians (Senator Colbeck), providing information concerning a question without notice asked by Senator Sterle on 21 June 2021. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document debated. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Privacy Act 1988—Operation and effectiveness of COVIDSafe and the National COVIDSafe Data Store—Report for the periods 16 May to 15 November 2020 and 16 November 2020 to 15 May 2021. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Home care for older Australians—Resolution of 16 June 2021—Letter from the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck, dated 16 July 2021, to Senator Gallagher. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997—Livestock mortalities during export by sea—Report for the period 1 January to 30 June 2021. Motion of Senator Brockman to take note of document agreed to.
Industry Growth Centres—Order of 5 August 2021 (1199)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology (Senator Seselja) responding to the order, and attachment. Motion of Senator Brockman to take note of documents agreed to.
Modern Manufacturing Initiative—Translation and Integration funding streams—Order of 9 August 2021 (1200)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Seselja) responding to the order and raising public interest immunity claims, and attachment. Motion of Senator Watt to take note of documents agreed to.
COVID-19—Doherty Institute modelling—Order of 10 August 2021 (1208)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) responding to the order and raising public interest immunity claims, and attachments. Motion of Senator Patrick to take note of documents called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program—Order of 10 August 2021 (1209)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston), dated 11 August 2021, responding to the order. Motion of Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
COMMITTEES
Consideration
The following committee reports and government response were considered:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the Global Magnitsky movement?—Inquiry into targeted sanctions to address human rights abuses—Government response. Motion of Senator Brockman to take note of document agreed to.
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—A review of regulations re-listing Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and the listing of Neo-Jama'at Mujahideen Bangladesh (Neo-JMB) as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995—Report by statement. Motion of Senator Paterson to take note of report agreed to.
Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation—Standing Committee—Delegated legislation monitor 12 of 2021. Motion of Senator McGrath to take note of report agreed to.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Inland Rail: derailed from the start—Report. Motion of Senator Chisholm to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Job Security—Select Committee—On-demand platform work in Australia—First interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Sheldon) to take note of report agreed to.
Environment and Communications References Committee—Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment—Report. Motion of Senator Chisholm to take note of report agreed to.
Environment and Communications References Committee—Impact of feral deer, pigs and goats in Australia—Report. Motion of Senator Chisholm to take note of report agreed to.
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Review of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018—Report. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of report agreed to.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Report—Performance of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Government response. Motion of Senator Chisholm to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—Report—General issues—Government response. Motion of Senator Chisholm to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Effectiveness of the Australian Government's Northern Australia agenda—Select Committee—Final report. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of report debated. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Administration of Sports Grants—Select Committee—Final report. Motion of Senator McCarthy to take note of report. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Future of Australia's aviation sector, in the context of COVID-19 and conditions post pandemic—Interim report. Motion of Senator McCarthy to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Community Affairs References Committee—Second interim report—Centrelink's compliance program—Government response. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Consideration
The following Auditor-General's reports were considered:
Audit report no. 39 of 2020-21—COVID-19 procurements and deployments of the National Medical Stockpile: Department of Health; Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Audit report no. 44 of 2020-21—Performance audit—Regulation of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park permits and approvals – follow-up: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Audit report no. 47 of 2020-21—Performance audit—Administration of commuter car park projects within the Urban Congestion Fund: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
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) (16:00): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Communit y Affairs References Committee
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator O'Neill to replace Senator Bilyk for the committee's inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program
Participating member: Senator Bilyk
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Thorpe for the committee's inquiry into the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021
Participating member: Senator Thorpe
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
JobKeeper Payment
Tabling
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) (16:00): I table a document pursuant to the order of the Senate of 4 August 2021 for the production of documents relating to JobKeeper payments.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:00): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
The Senate has asked the tax commissioner to provide information about companies that received JobKeeper, asking for some very simple information: which companies received JobKeeper, how much they received in total, and whether or not money has been paid back. This information is not company operational information. It's not company tax information. It's information about what the taxpayer gave to a company. That's what the information is about. It's no different to a grant that might be given to a company, and we would expect complete transparency about any grant money that we give to a company. Likewise, for any contract that we have with a company, we would expect transparency, and the information would be published on AusTender.
The commissioner claims that this information is sensitive. I will give the commissioner credit; unlike in past responses, he actually acknowledges that the Senate has the power to require the production of these documents, but he then advances a public interest immunity claim. The basis upon which he does so is on two fronts. He makes a claim that the information is sensitive, and it is not. It cannot be sensitive. He also makes a claim that, if it were released somehow, it would undermine the tax system and we would have people no longer wanting to talk to the tax office. And both of those reasons fail, because we know that in New Zealand this information has been published. In New Zealand, this information has been published for every company and, as a result of that publication and as a result of that transparency, they have seen five per cent of the total amount of their wage subsidy returned to the government—as opposed to here in Australia where we have only had 0.25 per cent of JobKeeper payments returned from companies.
We know that there are companies out there who have taken this money and who had made an assessment that they were going to have a turnover of either 30 or 50 per cent less than what they had in the previous reporting periods for previous years. That appears to be the only requirement. In fact, the government introduced the scheme and—we are in the middle of a pandemic—it was appropriate to get money to people quickly. But that's no excuse for now looking back and saying: 'There are companies that took the JobKeeper payment, then went on to make bigger profits and paid money to their investors and to their executives. We funnelled taxpayers' money from the wallets of Australians into the bank accounts of investors and executives.' That was not what that money was intended for. It was never intended for that. We have to do something about this. We've seen the experience in New Zealand. When they disclosed this information, companies looked very closely at what happened and they have returned a lot more, in terms of percentage values, back to the New Zealand taxpayer. That's what I think we need to have happen here.
We can't have a situation where Gerry Harvey has received $22 million of taxpayers' money through the JobKeeper scheme, has made record profits and is out buying advertisements on the Australian taxpayer's coin. That's just not right, and it disturbs me. Every time the government stand up and try to defend what has happened, they take a very strict legal perspective. I accept the government's legal perspective. I'm not suggesting any of the companies have broken any laws, but they have breached the moral trust of Australians, and it's our job to make sure that we stand up and highlight exactly what has happened and encourage the government to have this money returned, to signal to these companies that it isn't acceptable. Right now, every time this is mentioned in the chamber, Senator Birmingham rises and says: 'It's okay. It was great that these companies got that money.'
Senator Ruston: Don't verbal the minister.
Senator PATRICK: I am not verballing the minister at all. He has stood at the table in the Senate and said that this is a good thing, that this money became a stimulus package. That is not what it was intended for. It was never intended for that. The minister tries to rewrite history. We can go back to the Hansard and we can see what he said. We can see what the government said when they introduced JobKeeper, and they definitely didn't say at the time that this money was for stimulating the economy, for executive bonuses or for investors. That's not what was said back when the JobKeeper scheme was presented to this parliament. It's not appropriate to rewrite history and suggest that that is what it was for. This parliament would never have agreed to that.
We were cognisant that there were companies in difficulty and we needed to help them. I have nothing adverse to say about companies who took that help and used it to make sure that they could retain their business and they could retain their employees. I have no gripes about that at all, only about circumstances where companies took the money and made larger profits. At that point, the CEOs and the directors of these companies ought to have been saying: 'What is the right thing for my company to do? Should I keep this taxpayer money, which was given to me for a purpose for which I haven't used it, or should I return it?'
That is the point of the transparency measure proposed through the order for the production of documents—to lay out on the table who got what. Other people can then look at it, and companies may have to answer for their own conduct. I don't think anyone is going to go after companies that really did struggle. We know which companies struggled through the pandemic, and we know which companies thrived. Transparency is like this: you turn on the lights and you see the cockroaches scurry across the floor. That's what it's about. Hopefully, we squash a few of them. It is not okay for the government to simply stand up and say it was okay to take this money. It's not okay for the government to try and hide this information when, in actual fact, it is not company information at all. It is simply the amount of taxpayer money that was provided to a company, and taxpayers have a right to know about that.
Go and have a look at the New Zealand site. You can type in any company name. It doesn't matter whether it's the newsagent down the road, a printing company, a medical company or a travel company—it doesn't matter. You can type in 'Qantas'. You can type in 'Air New Zealand'. You can see how much of their equivalent of JobKeeper was received by those companies. It hasn't blown up the New Zealand tax system, it hasn't harmed the companies, but it has made sure that taxpayers' money has been spent wisely and it has encouraged companies in New Zealand to return the money. I just don't see, for the life of me, how the government thinks it is reasonable to shut the doors on this—to shut the doors on money the taxpayer paid to these companies.
It's taxpayers' money. It's not the money the company earned through its business operations. It's not the amount of profit they made. It's not the amount of tax that was returned to them as a result of a tax submission. It's simply the amount of money that taxpayers provided to these companies for help. It's not unreasonable to disclose that. I don't accept the public interest immunity claim advanced by the tax commissioner. I already have a notice of motion lodged in relation to this. I will be asking the Senate to insist upon the OPD being complied with. Beyond that, let's hope the commissioner follows the process. I don't criticise him at this point in time. He has advanced his public interest immunity claim. I hope the Senate backs the rejection of that. If that occurs, I will use everything possible to make sure that the Senate order is enforced.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (16:10): I move:
That general business not be proceeded with.
Question agreed to.
Senate adjourned at 16:11