The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—26 August, 2 September, 21 October, 25 November and 2 December 2021
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—24 to 26 August 2021
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BILLS
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
The CHAIR (12:01): The committee is considering 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. The question is that the amendments on sheet 1377 moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:02): [by video link] Senator Hanson was speaking to her amendments yesterday and would be in continuation. I'm not sure if she's on the line at the moment, but I am very happy to give the Greens' view of these amendments.
Of course we support retrospectively asking Woodside and other companies to pay for their clean-up in the ocean. The legislation before us today basically is putting in place a pathway to a levy on the oil and gas industry for future liabilities. The Senate has debated at some length in recent days what those future liabilities are. On some estimates the future liability is between $50 billion and $60 billion. That is for oil and gas infrastructure like pipelines, plugged cased wells in the ocean and rusty rigs sitting in the sea. We know that, courtesy of the extremely generous oil and gas petroleum resource rent tax—the PRRT, which we in the Greens call the petroleum rort rent tax—the oil and gas industry has very craftily been able to write off some of those future costs and put the onus back on the taxpayer. That's nearly $17.86 billion, according to the estimates the government provided yesterday.
Of course, those oil and gas companies have to carry the can for the rest of those liabilities, so they're going to do everything they possibly can in this chamber to move away from those liabilities and make the taxpayer carry the can or, as we heard yesterday from Senator Small—and I'll comment on some of his contribution in a minute—they plan to leave that infrastructure in the ocean as is and do very little remediation work. The Greens will support these amendments by One Nation.
Senator Small said yesterday that he was very pleased that I acknowledged—and he was commenting on my second reading debate contribution the week before last—that Woodside pay income tax. Well, I'm happy to put the facts on the table: Woodside do pay income tax. But my point was that, like a lot of other oil and gas companies, they pay virtually no petroleum resource rent tax. In other words, there's no super profits tax on this industry. The Greens initiated an inquiry into this back in 2017 and 2018 to push really hard for changes to the PRRT to remove the ridiculously generous uplift rates that oil and gas companies were claiming. This was not just on operating expenditure, with uplift rates of five per cent per annum, but on all their high-risk exploration costs, with uplift rates of 15 per cent per annum. Of course, there is also the ridiculous situation we've found ourselves in whereby, if there's an oil leak in the ocean, like we've seen up off the North West Shelf in the Timor Sea in recent times, the oil and gas companies can claim those expenses against their future payments to the Australian people and create an even bigger liability for the taxpayer. The Greens have pushed really hard to try and get these things changed.
So, yes, let's put the facts on the table. I was pleased that Senator Small yesterday also declared that he is an ex-employee of Woodside Petroleum. I listened with interest to his first speech in the Senate. He can of course come in and correct the record, but I don't remember him saying he was an executive of Woodside Petroleum prior to coming into this place, when he replaced Senator Cormann. We have heard a lot about the revolving door between Australian politics, including this Senate chamber, and oil and gas companies like Woodside Petroleum, but it seems the door is revolving the other way and we're now getting oil and gas executives coming into the Senate chamber. Of course, while he briefly acknowledged the details in the bill and the amendments before us today, what did Senator Small do? He spent the majority of his speech doing the bidding of Woodside Petroleum. He spent the majority of his speech talking about how we need to reduce the future financial liabilities of Woodside and their shareholders. To quote his exact words, 'We might work closely on more legislation in consultation with the industry to reduce their future liabilities.' As we've seen in the media in recent weeks, the plan is to adopt the principle of leaving this oil and gas infrastructure in the ocean. The Greens have significant concerns, as do a number of other stakeholders, about the environmental impacts of that particular issue.
What has been new since the debate started in the Senate, the week before last? Woodside Petroleum has now bought the fossil fuel assets of BHP, which makes Woodside one of the biggest fossil fuel companies on the planet. They not only purchased the assets of BHP, but, lo and behold, they purchased the future liabilities of BHP in relation to the clean-up of their offshore and onshore infrastructure, particularly in Bass Strait, off the coast of Tasmania, where I live.
I recently spoke to Jacob Greber of the Fin Review. He was writing an article about Woodside Petroleum, and I said, 'Why would you be a Woodside shareholder?' We've seen BHP, a company that has been extracting and burning fossil fuels for decades, making a decision to exit from oil, gas and coal. Why would they want to do that? It's because they realise these are going to be stranded assets. They realise that the fossil fuel industry has significant political risk. Indeed, I would say the biggest risk for these companies is that they rely on government to have their back in a place like the Australian Senate. And that's exactly why Senator Small was doing the bidding of Woodside yesterday. The risk to Woodside in the future is that they have invested in a model of crony capitalism. Yes, they have invested in the assets of BHP, but what they've actually invested in is politicians in this place having their back. They won't get a carbon price which will tax their pollution into the future. They won't have to worry about the $40 billion to $50 billion worth of trailing liabilities for cleaning up their mess in the ocean with all these oil and gas rigs and other infrastructure. Also they'll be relying on political support for a whole range of issues related to emissions controls—specifically, Australia's emission reduction targets. When I think of Woodside Petroleum, I think of risk, risk and risk.
The only thing that's going to mitigate that risk is politicians who are in their pocket. Let's be honest: we all know the problem in this place is corporate donations. We've never been able to break that nexus between corporate donations and the political power that they wield in this place with proper, transparent disclosure rules and with independent commissions against corruption, all the things the Greens party have been fighting for for decades. We know from the ICC report that the world is on the edge of an irreversible climate disaster. 'A code red for humanity' was the exact description that was used. This is such a critical time in history for us to break this nexus between the fossil fuel industry and politicians, pay for play, getting what they want in this place.
This amendment before the House today by One Nation is a good start. I commend One Nation for bringing this forward. It's good to see them joining the Greens in the fight to hold big fossil fuel companies to account. We need to see a lot more of that in this place. I look forward to making a contribution to Senator Patrick's amendment, which I understand will be coming up after this. Thank you.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:11): [by video link] I want to speak in favour of this amendment to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 from One Nation. It is a good amendment. I want to reflect on the debate that's taken place thus far. We have seen people talking about Northern Oil & Gas Australia, NOGA, being a company that was unable, or purportedly unable, to meet its obligations. A lot of the blame has been directed towards them. But they are not the only party involved here, and they are not the only party that needs to share the blame.
As Senator Whish-Wilson has just been saying, Woodside played a significant role in this. Basically, they decided that they had exhausted what they wanted to get out of the Laminaria field, so they started to reduce maintenance on the Northern Endeavour and then, eventually, off-loaded that asset to NOGA. In my view, they did so completely irresponsibly. They knew exactly what they were doing: they were getting rid of their obligation to clean up the field and remove the Northern Endeavour. Now, the strange thing here is that, after the whole liquidation of NOGA and the taxpayer starting to pick up the bill, Woodside has been paid $8 million in consulting fees on how to clean up the mess. So they rid themselves of the responsibility and now the taxpayer is paying them to give advice on how to clean up the field. That is just an unbelievable situation.
We also have NOPTA. NOPTA are responsible for the issuing of titles and looking at each of the different entities that wish to operate in and around Australia. Of course, in this circumstance, and it's the thing this bill is trying to fix up, Woodside didn't sell off the tenement; they sold off the company that owned the tenement. That's the controversy that this bill is trying to fix today. But, on the evidence that has been provided at estimates, NOPTA realised this loophole existed back in 2015. They realised this from another situation, yet they didn't do anything about it. So we ended up with the situation that's now taken place with Woodside and the Northern Endeavour when it was all preventable. They knew about the loophole and they did nothing. So NOPTA also has to share some blame here. NOPSEMA are the safety and environmental regulator. They are responsible for a vessel that might be moored off the Australian coastline, extracting oil and gas. They were the ones that stopped the production licence. They initiated a prohibition against the Northern Endeavour operator, which is a company called UPS, basically stopping the company from producing oil. That company would have continued to operate had there been cash flow available from the production of the oil, but NOPSEMA effectively stopped that. I understand that they did that for safety reasons. But, having worked with Senator Hanson at estimates on this, I say that NOPSEMA did not work collectively with NOGA to try and deal with the safety situation.
Ironically, the safety situation that initiated the prohibition was the falling of a pipe. It was self-reported. It wasn't as though the operator didn't do the right thing. They reported it. No-one seems to know where the pipe is. That's gone missing. That became the start of all of this. I went to NOPSEMA at estimates, after the company had entered into administration, and said: 'You need to help this company. You need to put on the table what it is they need to do to make the vessel safe again.' NOPSEMA simply weren't interested in assisting. Of course, that left the company in no position to continue, because they didn't know what the pathway back to operation was. They didn't know how to get cash flow returning. I said to the head of NOPSEMA at the time, 'You are going to drive this company into liquidation.' He said, 'No, that won't happen, Senator,' and a month later we find the taxpayer having to step in to operate the vessel. We see Upstream Production Solutions operating the vessel. They were operating the vessel prior to this mess, and now we're paying them again to operate the vessel in lighthouse mode. If you look at the auditor's report that dealt with NOGA, you can see that the government is paying something like twice the odds to operate a vessel in lighthouse mode, compared to what NOGA were paying for them to operate a vessel that was producing oil. It's just incredible.
Lloyd's Register International was the classification society that had issued the class certificate for Northern Endeavour, which is a key document that is required for them to operate. In effect, NOPSEMA were relying on that. The NOPSEMA report found 'serious concerns regarding the veracity of Lloyd's Register International's application of its rules and processes and the resulting information'. The indication of this is: 'It calls into question the reliability of the information provided to the operator of the facility and the extent to which they may use it to assess risk of structural failure, which could to lead to catastrophic consequences for both personnel and equipment.' The bottom line is NOPSEMA went in and looked at the organisation, Lloyd's, and Lloyd's were found to be remiss in their ability to issue certifications in relation to not just the Northern Endeavour but also the other three vessels that were examined at the time. So we have other vessels that Lloyd's had certified improperly, and NOPSEMA had a responsibility to make sure that they were doing their job.
I can tell you right now that Lloyd's is still getting paid to do classification certifications on the Northern Endeavour. I might point out that, had Lloyd's done its job properly, we would have known much, much sooner that the Northern Endeavour had some issues, and NOGA, the company that bought it when it was under certification, would have looked much more closely at the vessel had it not had that class certificate. So there are a number of players that have been responsible for this. We shouldn't sheet home blame to NOGA.
It is for that reason—particularly in relation to Woodside, who knew exactly what they were doing—that I'm supporting Senator Hanson's amendment. Her amendment takes the responsibility back to 2015, not 2021. Now, people might look at that and say, 'That's retrospective, and we don't like retrospective legislation,' but this is remedying a conscious act by a company—that is, Woodside Petroleum—to off-load their own responsibility. As for this being retrospective, all it does is remedy unconscionable conduct by Woodside Petroleum. That's what we're trying to remedy here, and that's why the Senate should be supporting Senator Hanson's amendment. Companies ought to know that, if they operate in and around Australia in a manner that is not consistent with their ethical obligations, parliament will retrospectively hold them to account. There is enough evidence on the table for that to occur. People just have to go and look at the reports. Look at the Walker review into this whole affair. Look at Senate estimates. We have examined this properly, and the right thing to do is to hold Woodside to account. Yes, it goes back to 2015, but that's when they were committing unconscionable acts in trying to off-load their responsibilities. Thank you.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:21): As the government has already announced an industry levy to deal with the Northern Endeavour and NOGA issue in the budget, Labor won't be supporting this amendment. Labor has been vocal on the government's negligence on this issue. In April, Labor released a statement welcoming the Morrison government's acknowledgement of serious and costly shortcomings in the regulatory system that covers the critical issue of how to ensure the proper and timely decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure in Australian waters. It's a shame it took the Northern Endeavour fiasco to trigger government action on this issue, especially when you consider this profound regulatory failure will cost the Australian taxpayer an estimated $210 million. However, the government has already announced an industry levy to pay for this. This is separate to the regulatory reform proposed in this legislation.
Making policy retrospectively is almost always bad policy and undermines certainty. The decommissioning framework has the support of the industry because it's not retrospective, and therefore it's not going to undermine the integrity of investment decisions that have already been made. This reform is too important to rush through amendments which could have unintended consequences for the safety of these projects and the environment.
To reiterate: we absolutely have concerns with the way the government has managed this process. It's why we moved a second reading amendment that was highly critical of the government's failure to take action on these matters. It's unfortunate that our second reading amendment was not supported in this chamber. We do not support this amendment that has been moved by One Nation.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (12:23): [by video link] I just want to say thank you very much to the Greens and to Senator Patrick for their support in this matter. For a few years now I've been raising issues about the oil and gas industry, especially on the North West Shelf, and other issues.
Senator Patrick is right. In Senate estimates we were actually questioning Senator Matt Canavan, who was the minister for resources at the time, when what was happening with the Northern Endeavour was brought to my attention. We need a full investigation into that. I believe there has been a cover-up. I don't believe it has been dealt with properly. And now, with this amendment, we listen to Labor say that this is a rushed-through amendment! I just can't believe it. Every time we put up an amendment to a bill that's going to improve legislation for the people of Australia, that's Labor's answer: 'It's always rushed through. We haven't had time to look at it.' Well, that's a weak excuse, because I'm questioning the coalition government over the deals that they've done, asking why they have allowed Woodside to pay $24 million to NOGA to take over this company and forgo their responsibilities in the clean-up. I have to ask: do you want representation for the people, or are you quite prepared to sit back and let the taxpayers pay for this? That's exactly what they're doing. You are pathetic in the way that you are dealing with this, saying that it's rushed-through legislation.
You also talked about an industry levy. Where is it? Where's the legislation? They say they're going to bring it in, 48c a barrel. We haven't seen the legislation, so how do you know it's going to happen? Do you trust and believe the government that it is going to happen? That's a change, isn't it? You used to be the ones jumping up and down and saying, 'Where's the legislation?' Don't you think it's putting the cart before the horse?
We have a responsibility here. It's cost hundreds of millions of dollars. As I said yesterday, something stinks to high heaven here. When you have a company like Woodside paying $55,000 a year to have access to the National Party ministers in the resources portfolio, which they always hold, that tells me something is not right. We know because Senator Rex Patrick and I really investigated what was going on with the Northern Endeavour. There was a cover-up there if I've ever seen one. But we were shut down in asking questions in Senate estimates because they didn't want us asking questions, and Senator Matt Canavan was absolutely hopeless. He didn't know his portfolio or didn't know exactly what was going on, and he was also in cover-up mode. It's not fair that the Australian people have to wear this.
We're trying to get accountability here, and it's most important that we do. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. I want the Labor Party and the others to really have a look at this retrospectivity. Yes, I agree with you that to bring this in at this time is not really good. But, when we know that it was purposely done to actually get rid of their responsibilities, you've got to question that and ask why it was allowed to happen. Why were Woodside paid $8.8 million to get their advice, as Senator Rex Patrick said? Honestly, I think it stinks to high heaven, and I'll keep saying that over and over again.
To every member of parliament who sits back and doesn't ask for accountability: you're not worth your salt, and you shouldn't be sitting on the benches in parliament, representing the Australian people. This is important to the Australian people. Let's have some accountability. Once again, I will say: thank you very much to the Greens, for your support and common sense in this matter, and to Senator Rex Patrick.
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (12:27): Madam Chair, I have just been gutlessly defamed in this place, under the guise of parliamentary privilege, by Senator Whish-Wilson. I wish to raise, under standing order 193(3), that he has effectively accused me of corruption, in being paid to do Woodside's bidding in this place. I'm happy for the Hansard to be reviewed so that you can make a determination. It is shameful, and I won't stand, as a representative of the people of Western Australia in this place, to be accused of such things and for there to be no consequence. So I request that you make a ruling, and I request that the record stand corrected, because this is an affront to me and it is an affront to the rights of our democracy, in sending people to this place to act in the best interests of Australians.
The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Small. I don't believe Senator Whish-Wilson has transgressed, but we will get the Hansard reviewed and come back to you if necessary.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:28): In response to the contributions that have been made in relation to the amendments that have been put forward by One Nation, the government would like to make it very clear that we do not support retrospective legislation, because it has significant impacts on Australia's reputation and credibility and it breaches fundamental principles of law and justice. However, we also believe that the bill before us at the moment strengthens Australia's offshore oil and gas decommissioning framework and ensures former titleholders can be called back to decommission and remediate the environment in a broad range of circumstances. I can assure the chamber that the government is absolutely committed to ensuring the costs of decommissioning remain the responsibility of the oil and gas industry. As noted by one of the contributions on this particular amendment, in the case of the Northern Endeavour, legislation will soon be coming before parliament to impose a levy on the industry to recover the associated costs, and I can assure this chamber the Australian taxpayer will not be footing the bill.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:30): [by video link] Could I also add how disappointed I am that Labor's not supporting this amendment today. It is good to hear the minister's reassurance that she will be bringing some legislation forward for debate. But, while Senator Small is in the chamber, could I remind senators what he said yesterday in his contribution. He said in terms of the liabilities to the industry and the taxpayer, which he outlined—$17.8 billion over the next 10 years—that we should reduce that liability 'with smart regulation' and 'industry cooperation,' which suggests to me that there's a move afoot here to negotiate with the industry, or go through a consultation process in terms of the upcoming legislation in this place, that involves a bigger push by the industry to get out of their liabilities that they signed up to, going back to when they originated these projects. It's no secret that there's a big push on, through APPEA and other organisations, to leave these infrastructure assets, or whatever you want to call them, in the ocean and reduce their future liabilities. So I would urge Labor to reconsider their opposition to this amendment. The chamber today has the chance to make Woodside pay for this.
There are two other points I'd like to make in relation to this debate and this amendment. Senator Small said that I've shamelessly defamed him. I'm sorry, Senator Small, if that's what you think. That is not what I have done today. I have simply outlined that you came into the chamber and did the bidding of Woodside and the fossil fuel industry. Your words will speak for themselves. I've always referred to—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): Sorry, Senator Whish-Wilson. There's a point of order.
Senator Brockman: Senator Whish-Wilson is repeating an accusation against a member of this place, clearly in breach of section 193(3) of the standing orders, and I would ask you to get him to withdraw.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, there has been a point of order. If you agree to the proposition, can you withdraw your comment and then proceed?
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Temporary Chair, I ask you to perhaps take advice from the Clerk on this. I understand that the Deputy President was going to review that. Her statement was that she doesn't believe that I had transgressed, so I would rather not withdraw until that deliberation has been made. If that is what the Senate has decided, I would be happy to withdraw that.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: As I understand it, the Deputy President is going to review that, so there will be a report back to the chamber. Senator Whish-Wilson, you can continue with your remarks.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thank you, Temporary Chair. I'd also like to make some remarks in relation to Senator Patrick.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, there is a point of order again.
Senator Brockman: On the same point of order, I would ask then, that while this matter is being reviewed by the President, that Senator Whish-Wilson ceases making those accusations against a member of this place.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The point of order has been raised previously. It's the same point of order, and I report again that the Deputy President is having this reviewed, so I will ask Senator Whish-Wilson to be mindful of that and to continue his remarks.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Yes, and on that point of order, Temporary Chair, I won't bring it up again. I'm very happy to not bring this up again while it's being looked at. In relation to Senator Patrick's comments on Northern Oil & Gas Australia, in the last week of parliament I said that this looked like the perfect scam—in terms of Woodside selling an asset at the end of its shelf life, probably written off to next to nothing on their books, with a massive trailing liability. I can't comment as to the intentions of NOGA when they bought this asset except to say they obviously thought they were onto a winner in buying a production asset that may have had some prospective exploration. I think I mentioned that in my previous contribution. I would hope that they had done their due diligence and realised that they were buying into a significant liability over time, and that they had the wherewithal to deal with that in terms of raising equity or other finance.
But I certainly don't stand back at all from my comments about Woodside Petroleum. They must have known that this came with hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions of dollars—worth of future trailing liabilities. They must have known that when they sold the business. But I do accept the additional information that Senator Patrick has provided today—that there were other failings, including with the regulator. There absolutely were. I participated in those estimates questions as well. This is a collective mess that we never want to see happen again. While we have this significant issue ahead for Woodside Petroleum and their shareholders, with the massive liabilities they have bought by purchasing BHP, this is an issue we absolutely must deal with and it needs significant public debate. Once again, I thank One Nation for bringing this forward and I look forward to continuing my contributions in relation to Senator Patrick's amendments.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:36): [by video link] I would like to follow-up on a couple of the contributions as well. It is a shame that we again find ourselves in the chamber trying to hold people to account in relation to past indiscretions—the unconscionable sale to a smaller company of a vessel that was rapidly becoming a stranded asset. We find, again, that only the crossbench is pursuing this. Labor do not really want to stick up their hands and support Senator Hanson in her attempt to hold Woodside to account. I would encourage the Labor Party to reconsider their position, because this is about making people accountable.
When we recognise that there has been a failure in a company, a failure that ultimately sought to have the taxpayer bear the cost of a stranded asset, the parliament should act. We shouldn't always be protecting the oil and gas industry, as we seem to be. I said yesterday that in an inquiry last Friday with the economics committee, we went through the fact that in 2018-19 this industry has taken $62 billion of our resource, exported it overseas and, in return, the taxpayer has got one $1.06 billion in PRRT as compensation for the sale of this non-renewable asset. Every single time oil and gas companies engage in activity here in this country, it appears as though the taxpayer pays; we end up with the taxpayer basically paying for all of their investments. If they make a bad mistake in terms of a project, again that value is written off; the taxpayer basically bears the cost of it. We have an amendment put up that aims to hold one of the companies to account for an unquestionable sequence of events, yet the Labor Party doesn't want to stand up.
I will direct myself back at the Liberal Party here. We know that, if we go back two decades, Woodside again were beneficiaries of the spying activity that took place in East Timor. In 2004, the Australian government—ASIS—bugged the Timorese cabinet rooms to listen in on their negotiating team when we were negotiating a sea boundary. They did that when we had shook hands with the Timorese and said, 'We're going to negotiate in good faith.' The government then commanded ASIS to go and set up, under cover of an aid program, listening devices inside the cabinet rooms of the Timor-Leste government. While they were doing that, I might point out, there were quite significant terrorist activities and rising threats in Indonesia in relation to Jemaah Islamiyah. They went on within the month, of course, to blow up the Australian embassy. But, no, we were focusing our efforts on oil and gas negotiations for which Woodside became the beneficiary. Why is the government continually operating on behalf of this company?
We've had an expert in international law provide information to [inaudible] that, in fact, Australia's national interest is apparently whatever Woodside's company interest is. So I ask the minister: I understand the issues associated with retrospectivity, but is it not proper to hold a company to account when it is clear on the evidence that they sought to basically divest themselves of an asset in order to avoid their clean-up obligations? Why is that not something that the government can do? That's all this does in terms of retrospectivity. It holds a company to account for misconduct. Why, Minister, are you not going to support this, noting that in these circumstances it is clear that the retrospectivity is designed to remedy unconscionable conduct by a company?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:42): I think I've been reasonably clear as the minister that, for the reasons that we've stated, we don't support retrospective legislation. I know that you're an absolute stickler for protocol and process along those lines. However, we've made it very clear in this place that, in the instance of the Northern Endeavour, to which you are referring, we are intending to bring legislation to this place very shortly in relation to ensuring that it is the industry that is held to account on these matters and that the taxpayer is not the one to foot the bill. I look forward to continuing our contribution and discussion at that time.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:43): [by video link] Minister, I thank you for acknowledging that I do respect the principles around retrospective legislation, but it's clear that Woodside have engaged in conduct whereby they sought to basically divest themselves of a responsibility. You have indicated that the intention is to bring in a levy; in fact, Minister Pitt has indicated that. That levy, as I understand it, will be right across industry. Not that I think there are many good players in amongst that industry—they all seek to maximise profit and don't really give proper due payments back to the people who host them and who own the resources—but isn't it true that you will seek through the levy to recover the money right across industry, not necessarily with Woodside, who one can fairly look at and say are mostly responsible for this mess?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:44): Obviously, Senator Patrick, you'll have the opportunity to investigate the legislation, when it comes out in draft very shortly, in relation to the circumstances that exist around the legislation to impose a levy. But you're correct; the government is seeking, by this mechanism, to make sure that the whole of industry is held to account for the behaviours of that industry. The details of how that is going to be achieved will be matters contained in that bill.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:45): [by video link] I'll be brief. I've heard Minister Ruston's comments regarding the government's lack of desire to retrospectively legislate, and I can't let the opportunity go past without reminding the Senate that this government has repeatedly retrospectively legislated to deny the rights of refugees in this country. You have repeatedly retrospectively legislated to ride roughshod over the human rights of thousands of people who sought asylum in our country and, as a result, you have created humanitarian calamities and catastrophes. You have been responsible for the deaths of numbers of people in the double digits and you have destroyed hundreds, potentially thousands, of lives because you have repeatedly retrospectively legislated to deny rights to refugees and people who have sought asylum in our country.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:46): [by video link] I want to note in the chamber that, according to the Centre for Public Integrity, Woodside donated $110,000 to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in 2019-20. My question is for the minister, and I invite Senator Watt to stand up and respond on behalf of the Labor Party: do those donations—quite significant donations—have any bearing or any influence on you in relation to not supporting this bill, which of course would have adverse effects for Woodside?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:47): Of course they do not influence our decisions.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:47): [by video link] Through you, Chair, I invite Senator Watt, on behalf of the Labor Party, to make a statement on that.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:47): The answer is no. I'm not even aware of whether or not Woodside make donations to the Labor Party. I know Senator Patrick is asserting that, but if that logic holds true then every donation that Senator Patrick has ever received would influence his vote and the donations of people like Graeme Wood and professional gambling outfits that the Greens have received would influence their voting decisions as well. I question Senator Patrick and the Greens on whether the donations they have received have influenced their decisions. This is a circular argument. We have made our position clear. We actually moved a second reading amendment to this bill, which a range of parties didn't support. We have attempted to improve this bill through that amendment. I know that the crossbench lives to criticise the Labor Party and to take votes and seats off the Labor Party. But I would encourage the crossbench to think about the fact that this is government legislation, and it may be a better use of your time to focus on the government's activities rather than continuing to attack the Labor Party. I've got a newsflash for you: we're not the government.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:49): [by video link] I can't let Senator Watt's remarks pass unchallenged. He seems to know more about donations to Greens and crossbench senators than he does about donations to his own party, so I'm going to assist Senator Watt by placing firmly on the record that Woodside's political donations in the last nine years in Australia totalled $2,111,190. Of that, $1,110,190 has gone to the Liberal and National parties, and $1,001,000 has gone to the Australian Labor Party. So your party has received over a million bucks in institutionalised bribery from Woodside in the last nine years, and I would urge you to stop focusing actually on the crossbench; start having a look in the mirror and understand how corrupted your party as well as the Liberal and National parties has become through receiving this level of political donations from Woodside.
And of course these are only part of the donations that the Liberal and National parties and the ALP receive from other planet-cooking companies that have a corporate profit-making model which externalises the true costs to our climate and environment and to all of us and, instead, embeds those costs in profits to their shareholders and uses some of those profits to bribe the ALP and the Liberal and National parties for outcomes in the Senate and in the parliament of Australia. It's institutionalised bribery. Corporate political donations should not be allowed and they certainly should not be allowed from companies whose business model is predicated on destroying nature and cooking our planet.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:51): [by video link] I want to put on the record that I never received any donations from Woodside Petroleum or any other oil and gas company.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:51): [by video link] I would like to put on record the Greens have never received any donations from Woodside Petroleum or any other company in the fossil fuel industry that I know of. This debate is very important. It's significantly in the public interest. Senators aren't aware of the very important distinction between institutional corruption and personal corruption. Institutional corruption is an accepted definition; a significant amount of work has gone into looking at the issue of institutional corruption.
Our institutions become systemically corrupted over a period of time. I've repeatedly raised this issue of institutional corruption. Another term for it is 'crony capitalism', which I referred to earlier in my contribution this morning. 'Crony capitalism' is, quite simply, a term we use when governments are in bed with big business. We all know this nexus between the political donations and the large call parties is the root cause of the reason we are in a climate emergency, the reason why this government has done nothing in the nine years that it's been in power, nothing at all, to tackle climate change.
An amendment to a bill about cleaning up the mess of the fuel industry has been moved before us today, but each year our government hands out new acreage to these exact same companies so they can repeat this process—80,000 square kilometres of our oceans handed over to more fossil fuel exploration, more potential production, more burning of the exact same product that is killing our oceans. I make no apologies for coming into this place and representing nature and future generations of Australians. We've witnessed the loss of half the corals on the Barrier Reef because of the burning of fossil fuels by the exact same companies going out exploring for fossil fuels, the same companies that, I believe, are trying to deliberately use this process to reduce their future liabilities to them and their shareholders.
What we need to be doing at this point in history is transitioning to clean energy. We need a plan to totally ban all new offshore oil and gas exploration and listen to what the international energy agency said just this year—that is, this year is the year to end all offshore oil and gas exploration. That's coming from the world's premier energy agency. Why is it that, in this country, we're doing exactly the opposite? The debate we're having today on this amendment is crucial to this point. At this point in history, in a climate emergency, we don't want to make it any easier for the fossil fuel industry to be burning and exploring for more mores fuels. The more we let them off their liabilities, the more we allow the taxpayer to step in and carry the externalities that they so obviously create.
I'll just finish by saying that it's the government's job to solve externalities—to put a price on pollution and to do the other things that are required to solve environmental problems. Every environmental problem we look at, including climate change, which is the biggest problem, is first and foremost a political problem. It's a political problem because of the nexus between big corporate donations and big political parties. If you come into this place and you're annoyed and angry because you're part of that, well, I'm sorry, have a good look at yourself.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:55): [by video link] I have a question for the minister. It does relate to the levy being proposed, but it has a profound impact on how people might think about what Senator Hanson is trying to do. I understand that you will seek to put a levy on industry in relation to making sure we can deal with these sorts of stranded assets. But that levy is likely to be considered a cost for the company and, therefore, be offset against their petroleum resource rent tax requirements. Can you confirm that this levy will be borne by the company in such a way that it won't offset their PRRT and hence, in effect, see the taxpayer end up paying anyway?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:56): As you would expect, Senator Patrick, I do not have with me, as the representing minister, the briefing pack in relation to measures that are contained in a bill whose drafting has not even been finished yet. So I would have to say that the information that I've provided to you is all that I am able to provide to you today, as the other piece of legislation you're referring to is still in the drafting stage.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:57): [by video link] Minister, I'm sure you will understand the problem here, and maybe you can make a commitment on behalf of the government. If you impose a levy upon industry and they treat that as a cost of business which they can offset against corporate tax and their PRRT, ultimately it means that the taxpayer pays anyway for the stranded assets that you're trying to deal with. Can you give an undertaking that you will examine that concern when you are looking at the bill that you're proposing to remedy the situation?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:58): The response I can give you is one that has been publicly stated by both the Treasurer and the minister responsible for resources, Minister Pitt: the Australian taxpayers will not be footing the bill.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:58): [by video link] I thank the minister for her answer. I will hold her to account on that when we come back to that bill, because there are many, many ways, from an accounting perspective, in which a cost can effectively be transferred back to the taxpayer as a loss of payment. But I'll leave it there.
Question negatived.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:59): Madam Temporary Chair, I ask that the Greens' support for this amendment be noted.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): It is so noted.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:59): [by video link] I would also like my support of Senator Hanson's amendment noted. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1349 together.
Leave granted.
Senator PATRICK: I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1349 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert:
6A. Schedule 5A |
A single day to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence within the period of 6 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the day after the end of that period. |
|
(2) Page 168 (after line 31), after Schedule 5, insert:
Schedule 5A — Reporting and publication
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006
1 After paragraph 8A(2)(q)
Insert:
(qa) Part 7.4;
2 Paragraph 125(2)(b)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
3 Subparagraph 125(3)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
4 Subparagraph 126(2)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
5 Subparagraph 154(2)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
6 Subparagraph 154(3)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
7 Subparagraph 155(2)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
8 Subparagraph 185(2)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
9 Subparagraph 185(3)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
10 Subparagraph 185(4)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
11 Subparagraph 186(2)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
12 Subparagraph 221(3)(c)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
13 Subparagraph 221(4)(c)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
14 Subparagraph 222(3)(d)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
15 Subparagraph 222(4)(d)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
16 Subparagraph 223(2)(c)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
17 Subparagraph 224(2)(d)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
18 After subparagraph 270(3)(b)(iv)
Insert:
(iva) Part 7.4; and
19 Subparagraph 270(5)(a)(ii)
Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".
20 After subparagraph 274(c)(iv)
Insert:
(iva) Part 7.4; or
21 After subparagraph 277(1)(a)(iv)
Insert:
(iva) Part 7.4; or
22 After subparagraph 277(2)(a)(iv)
Insert:
(iva) Part 7.4; or
23 After subparagraph 611(1)(a)(vi)
Insert:
(via) Part 7.4; or
24 At the end of Chapter 7
Insert:
Part 7.4 — Reporting and publication of specific matters related to petroleum titles
721A Simplified outline
This Part requires matters to be reported and published in relation to certain petroleum titles, and operations undertaken in relation to those titles, including:
(a) specific matters on a monthly basis; and
(b) specific matters (related to wells) before notifiable decommissioning operations are undertaken.
721B Definitions
(1) For the purposes of this Part, the table has effect:
Title, titleholder and title area |
|
|
|
||
Item |
In the case of... |
the titleholder is... |
and the title area is... |
||
1 |
a petroleum exploration permit |
the permittee |
the permit area. |
||
2 |
a petroleum retention lease |
the lessee |
the lease area. |
||
3 |
a petroleum production licence |
the licensee |
the licence area. |
||
4 |
an infrastructure licence |
the licensee |
the licence area. |
||
5 |
a pipeline licence |
the licensee |
the part of the offshore area in which the pipeline is constructed. |
||
6 |
a petroleum special prospecting authority |
the registered holder of the authority |
the authority area. |
||
7 |
a petroleum access authority |
the registered holder of the authority |
the authority area. |
||
721C Petroleum monthly report
(1) A titleholder commits an offence if the titleholder does not give the Titles Administrator a monthly report for a title area within the period:
(a) starting on the last day of the named month to which the report relates; and
(b) ending 15 days after that day.
Penalty: 50 penalty units
(2) The Titles Administrator must, within 30 days of receiving a report under subsection (1), make publicly available a copy of the report, without redaction, on the website of the Titles Administrator.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt:
(a) the copy of the report is not subject to a confidentiality requirement; and
(b) a confidentiality requirement that is inconsistent with this section has no effect to the extent of the inconsistency.
Note: The confidentiality requirements in Part 7.3 of this Act and in the regulations do not apply in relation to this Part.
(4) In this section, monthly report means a report that includes each of the following matters for a title area, if applicable to the title area:
(a) for each well in the title area, if any:
(i) the well's identification name and number; and
(ii) a summary of all work that has been performed on the well during the month; and
(iii) the results of production tests for the well, including the parameters of the test; and
(iv) the well's operational status at the end of the month; and
(v) the number of days of production during the month; and
(vi) the cumulative quantities of liquid and gaseous petroleum, of water, and of carbon dioxide that have been produced or injected as at the end of the month;
(b) the total quantities of each of the following for the month:
(i) liquid and gaseous petroleum produced;
(ii) liquid and gaseous petroleum used;
(iii) liquid and gaseous petroleum injected;
(iv) gaseous petroleum flared or vented;
(v) liquid petroleum stored;
(vi) liquid and gaseous petroleum delivered from the area;
(vii) water produced;
(viii) water injected;
(ix) carbon dioxide produced;
(x) carbon dioxide injected;
(c) the cumulative quantities of liquid and gaseous petroleum, of water, and of carbon dioxide that have been produced or injected as at the end of the month.
(5) Subsection (4) does not limit:
(a) the matters that the regulations may require to be included in a monthly report; or
(b) the matters that may otherwise be included in a monthly report; or
(c) any other monthly reporting obligations that the regulations may prescribe.
721D Notification before decommissioning
(1) If a person proposes to undertake a notifiable decommissioning operation in a title area, the titleholder must notify the Titles Administrator of that fact and the following matters:
(a) the nature and location of the notifiable decommissioning operation;
(b) for each well subject to the notifiable decommissioning operation in the title area, if any:
(i) the well's identification name and number; and
(ii) a summary of all work that has been performed on the well during the month; and
(iii) the results of production tests for the well, including the parameters of the test; and
(iv) the well's operational status at the end of the month; and
(v) the number of days of production during the month; and
(vi) the cumulative quantities of water and of liquid and gaseous petroleum produced or injected as at the end of the month.
(2) The Titles Administrator must, within 30 days of receiving a notification under subsection (1), make publicly available on the website of the Titles Administrator the matters of which the Titles Administrator is notified, without redaction.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt:
(a) the matters subject to publication under subsection (2) are not subject to a confidentiality requirement; and
(b) a confidentiality requirement that is inconsistent with this section has no effect to the extent of the inconsistency.
Note: The confidentiality requirements in Part 7.3 and in the regulations do not apply in relation to this Part.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person undertakes a notifiable decommissioning operation in a title area; and
(b) at the time the person undertakes the notifiable decommissioning operation:
(i) the titleholder has not notified the Titles Administrator of the matters referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the notifiable decommissioning operation; and
(ii) the Titles Administrator has not made the matters publicly available in accordance with subsection (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units
(5) In this section, a notifiable decommissioning operation is an operation relating to the decommissioning or removal of structures, equipment or other items of property that have been brought into an offshore area for or in connection with:
(a) petroleum exploration operations; or
(b) petroleum recovery operations.
25 Paragraph 23(2)(a) of Schedule 6
Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".
26 Paragraph 24(a) of Schedule 6
Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".
27 Paragraph 26(a) of Schedule 6
Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".
28 Paragraph 27(a) of Schedule 6
Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".
29 Paragraph 30(d) of Schedule 6
Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".
30 Paragraph 31(a) of Schedule 6
Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011
31 Subdivision 3.4 of Division 3 of Part 7
Repeal the subdivision.
For many reasons, the Australian oil and gas sector needs work. In some aspects, it needs a tweak. In some, it needs an overhaul. In some areas, it needs a complete reset. We have a situation in Australia where we are not getting the maximum value—in fact, any real value—out of our resources, resources that belong to the taxpayer. Such resources have been used in other countries, such as Norway and Qatar, to return significantly more to the residents or citizens of those countries.
We have a situation here in Australia where there's a whole range of different taxes and impositions placed on companies. We see GST, fringe benefits tax, payroll tax and corporate tax. We know from tax transparency data that the oil and gas industry pay almost no corporate tax. ExxonMobil are a good example. On $42 billion of revenue over four or five years, they paid zero corporate tax. They don't bother about paying for the security of the North West Shelf or the Bass Strait. They don't worry about paying for the education of the workers on their sites. They don't worry about paying for the medical facilities that might exist in a hospital near their site. They don't pay for the roads that lead to the doors of their premises. They simply don't contribute back to the Australian taxpayer by way of corporate tax.
I will give Commissioner Jordan of the ATO a big shout-out here. I criticise him when I think he's done something wrong, but I have to congratulate him when he has done something right. The ATO successfully pursued Chevron through the courts, where it proved that the company's internal lending arrangements associated with a $3.7 billion loan were inconsistent with the principles of arm's-length transactions, and the company has had to pay a $340 million tax settlement. This just tells you how these companies operate. They don't have national interest in their charter. Most of them are multinationals. They don't care about Australia at all. They care about their profit, and the Australian government is responsible for setting up a regime in which Australians receive a fair share of tax.
The other sort of return that we might expect to get from offshore companies is, of course, the petroleum resource rent tax. We've seen in submissions to a Senate Economics References Committee inquiry on maximising benefits from oil and gas for Australians that in 2018-19 we had $62 billion of resources exported, for a PRRT return of just $1 billion. The company benefits by $62 billion, and the taxpayer gets a return, for their resources, of $1 billion. That is just grossly unfair.
Indeed, no-one in government seems to be saying: how do we maximise the benefit? In an Economics References Committee hearing last week, I asked who is responsible for that. We know that NOPTA looks after titles. We know that NOPSEMA looks after environmental and safety aspects. We know that Geoscience Australia looks after surveys. The department looks after administration. Who looks after making sure the Australian taxpayers benefit from their own gas and oil resources? Who does that? The answer is basically no-one.
If I talk about that $62 billion and try to work out where that's coming from, I can't. You can't work it out, because all of the information that you need to do that is held 'confidential'. Which are the fields that produce the oil? Which projects, which entities, produce the LNG? What resources were extracted? How much of that resource was extracted? How much is left? This type of information is actually reported to government. It's reported to the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, or NOPTA, in the form of a monthly production report. Currently, these production reports are deemed 'permanently confidential'. It makes no sense to me that this data would be made confidential. You have to remember that this information is about our resources, about the Australian taxpayers' resources. Companies claim that it's commercially confidential, but—you know what?—when companies come along and say, 'I want to extract your oil and gas resources,' there's a price to that, and one of those prices is transparency. It's not commercial information. Indeed, the department has done a study on this. In answer to question on notice BI-117 from Senate estimates, the department advised very openly that ACIL Allen was engaged by the department to review the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations, or RMA regulations. ACIL Allen found:
Monthly production reports submitted under regulation 7.19 are a case in point. These reports have been classified as permanently confidential under regulation 8.02 presumably because they contain information that is a trade secret … or incorporate information the disclosure of which could be expected to adversely affect title holders' business, commercial or financial affairs. While production reports may contain some financial/commercial information (which could be redacted), the release of the bulk of the information contained in production reports is clearly in the public interest.
Minister, I'm going to ask you about these reports, if you're not supporting my amendment. Your own department has given advice that this information ought to be made available and public. The information includes things such as well identification and numbers; a summary of all work that's been performed on the well during the month; liquid and gaseous petroleum produced, used or injected; gaseous petroleum flared or vented; and liquid and gaseous petroleum delivered from the area. My amendment will make this monthly production data available, giving the public, academics, universities [inaudible] the ability to see the actual data associated with the extraction or recovery.
We need to make more information available publicly, something that ACIL Allen also seems to be indicating in their report. I'll quote again from the report. This is significant:
There do not appear to be any sound economic or ethical reasons for the Government to support permanent confidentiality of most of the information … Indeed, it is not apparent why this information should not be released promptly.
The report by ACIL Allen will make interesting reading, and I've asked for it to be tabled with the Senate Economics Committee. My amendment seeks to deal with this. My amendment simply says, 'Put this information out.' Make it available in the public domain so that we can all see exactly what is going on.
It beggars belief. I'm eager to hear whether the government is going to support this. This has been recommended to it. I would encourage the Senate—this is just a transparency amendment, about our information, about our resources. It's beyond comprehension that this sort of information, which ACIL Allen has told the department in a funded study ought to be made available, shouldn't be made available. This amendment seeks to do that.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:09): Thank you very much, Senator Patrick, for your contribution. First of all, there are a couple of things, just to correct the record. You made the statement in your contribution that the department had made a recommendation for the information to be released publicly. That's not correct. It was in a review that was undertaken by ACIL Allen. I would also add to that that the government is intending, as part of the review around the regulations, to further consider what data can be released. As you would be aware, Senator Patrick, we always, as government, try and strike the right balance between providing confidential information appropriately and making sure that we protect the confidentiality of that information.
This amendment seeks to move and expand material currently included in the regulations and the act. We are always mindful about making sure that we collect and release data in a way that is able to provide as much advice and transparency as is possible, more broadly, in relation to such things as our resources sector. But we are also very mindful about protecting confidential information appropriately to make sure that we maximise the ability for these resources to be achieved for the Australian public.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:11): I want to put Labor's position on the record. These amendments have been presented with no indication of consultation with industry. Labor have consulted with industry, who have argued that technical advice should have been provided alongside this proposal to inform the amendment given its complexity. This reform is too important to rush through amendments which could have unintended consequences for the safety of these projects and the environment. On that basis, we'll be opposing the amendment.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:11): [by video link] I'll respond to both sides—firstly, to the Labor Party. Senator Watt, my office did make available the UK's Wood review, which showed how they were seeking to maximise the benefit, the return, to UK citizens. One of the measures recommended by the Wood review was, in fact, transparency. Of course, this amendment—which was also circulated to you—relies on advice from ACIL Allen, as mentioned by the minister, which says that this information ought not to be confidential. One would think that you would lean to the side of public interest, not to the side of the oil and gas companies, who say to you, 'We don't want any information made available.'
To Minister Ruston: I apologise if I did, in fact, reference the department. I did mean to say that the department commissioned a review, and it was ACIL Allen that, in fact, has made the statements. So I accept it if that was incorrect. But that doesn't change the fact that the recommendation in a paid review is that this information be made public.
Yet again, we see a government two or three years behind the crossbench—as they were yesterday, failing to move on things like modern slavery. They failed to support a bill that would stop goods coming to Australia that are generated by people who are basically under bondage. Those goods come to Australia and get sold at a much, much cheaper price than Australian-made products. Do you know why? The Australian companies have to pay wages. Again, the excuse used yesterday was: 'We have to think about this. We have to ponder this. We have to talk this out with everyone.' Why don't you get on and actually do something?
This is a measure that is in the public interest. Don't side with the oil and gas industry every single time. This amendment just seeks to get access to data, to production information, information about our resource. It belongs to the Australian public. I asked the head of NOPTA, Mr Waters, on Friday why this information ought to be held confidential. He, of course, has seen the report by the department. I asked him, 'Why is it?' Do you know what he said to me? I'll try not to quote him incorrectly, but it was along these lines: 'Well, Senator, NOPTA inherited that requirement. All we've done is just let it run on.' So even NOPTA don't understand why this information ought to be held confidential; it's only being kept confidential because no-one's really asked them to look at it.
This information would help. It would help Australians understand the extraction of their resource. It would help entities or organisations that are looking at the tax conduct of some of these companies. We heard from a number of witnesses on Friday about transfer pricing, or the way the liquefaction of gas is priced: making sure that the minimum amount of profit is made on the wellhead price so that the minimum amount of PRRT is paid. It's a scam, and it's a scam that is allowed to take place because of a lack of transparency.
The government ought to really rethink this, because I think most Australians are getting pretty upset with the Australian government. Every single time, you let international companies into our jurisdiction to extract taxpayers' oil and gas and we get no return, and you don't seem to care about it. All this is is a transparency measure, and it is beyond me why you won't support this. People will be watching this. People will be looking and they'll say, 'Why is the federal government not doing this?' It's just going to have to go into one of the many failures that are associated with this government. Quite frankly, I'm disgusted that the government won't yield and won't promote transparency.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:17): Can we be really clear here, Senator Patrick? Nobody is saying that the maximum level of transparency and provision of data is not a good thing. What we are saying, though, is that, in order for us to be able to be assured and to undertake the appropriate consultation and to make sure that the amendments, or the changes, that we would be seeking to make around the provision of data are appropriate and robust in their nature in both making sure that we provide the maximum amount of information and protecting the confidential commerciality of activities.
The amendment that you have drafted is not drafted well enough to be included in the act. We have given you an undertaking that, as part of the review process for the regulations, we will continue to work in relation to providing that data, but these changes need to be undertaken through a proper consultative process. I'm sure you would agree it is absolutely appropriate that, if you are going to deliver changes that are going to deliver real improvements in data transparency, they be undertaken through a robust process so we do not have unintended consequences as a result of putting through something that has not been drafted to the level that would satisfy both the government and, clearly, the opposition. We also need to bring the industry along to make sure we understand the implications for them as well.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:18): [by video link] I think the minister belled the cat there at the end. It's about satisfying the industry. It's a pretty fundamental concept: you can't manage what you don't monitor. Transparency should be in our genes. What is the issue with getting companies to provide the kind of information that Senator Patrick is talking about? I have a lot of faith in Senator Patrick's ability to draft an amendment. I know he's spent a lot of time and worked very hard on this. Can I also say that a number of stakeholders have worked very hard with the crossbench, including with the Greens—indeed, with all political parties—to raise awareness of these issues. I would like to acknowledge the work of some of those stakeholders, such as Jess Lerch and Tim Beshara at the Wilderness Society; Nathaniel Pell, previously at Greenpeace, now with Surfrider; and the Australian Conservation Federation.
This is a significant matter of public interest, because these environment groups know that there is a potential liability not just to the balance sheets of Woodside and other fossil fuel companies but also to the environment. I think it's an interesting quirk that we've had a debate today on retrospective legislation, when what is it if it's not retrospective that the big fossil fuel companies now want to change the liabilities that they signed up to when they put these production assets in the ocean in the first place? It is 20 or 30 years down the track and now they want to leave them there; they want to change the game. Based on what we've heard in this debate, no doubt we're going to hear a lot more about legislation and what the industry want in terms of reducing their liabilities. So why not support an amendment that provides more information so that the public are better informed? The only thing that I can think of as to why the Labor Party and the Liberal Party would oppose this is that the fossil fuel industry oppose it, and the only reason they would oppose this is that it helps us better understand their future liabilities. That's clearly not something that they want to talk about or that they want in the public domain, given the liabilities that they will face in the future to clean up this mess in the ocean. The Greens will be supporting Senator Patrick's amendments.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:21): [by video link] I have a question for the minister. What's your undertaking to the chamber in respect of the view that you mentioned before? When is it likely that the government will at least take some transparency measures and alter the regulations and/or legislation to permit Australians to see what is happening with their oil and gas?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:22): I'm not in a position to be able to give you a timing on that undertaking, Senator Patrick, but I will give you an undertaking to take it offline with you, outside of the chamber.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:22): [by video link] Thank you. Again, I just express a concern. Similar arguments were rolled out yesterday. In fact, I thought you might have been reading the government's speech on the second reading of my bill yesterday, which was just: 'Well, we're just going to continue looking at things.' I'll leave it there.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1349, moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:23): Could I have the Greens' support for the amendments noted in the Hansard, please.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:23): [by video link] And of course I support my own amendments.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That will be noted.
Bills agreed to.
Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:24): I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:25): [by video link] Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to have Hansard note that Senator Hanson and I supported Senator Hanson's amendments and Senator Patrick's amendments.
Leave granted.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): Your position has been noted, Senator Roberts.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:26): I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. This bill undertakes largely technical amendments via two schedules. The first concerns the regulation of charities and the second concerns the taxation treatment of offshore banking units. Although Labor supports these changes, Labor will be taking the opportunity presented by this bill to address some other serious problems created by the Morrison government with respect to the two policy areas covered by this bill—charities and tax. I will deal with charities first.
Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to require non-government entities seeking endorsement as a deductible gift recipient or DGR to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission or be operated by a registered charity. The amendments include a 12-month transition period, which will give non-charity DGRs time to meet the requirements for charity registration without losing DGR status. Some DGRs will be able to apply for a longer transition period of up to three years.
Labor notes that this change will improve the consistency of regulation, governance and oversight of DGRs, which the government says is meant to help support continued confidence in the sector and public support for DGR entities. It's ironic that it was the government that claimed the measures here are meant to help support continued confidence in the sector when in another way they're cracking down on the sector in one of the most draconian of manners. Not in this bill but in regulations, the government has proposed to extend the ability of the charities commissioner to deregister a charity for a summary offence or because the charities commissioner anticipates that the organisation will commit a summary offence. This crackdown is just emblematic of how this government engaged with the charitable sector.
Charities and volunteer organisations are doing crucial work to help vulnerable families, people and communities get through these lockdowns. They are helping to mop up the consequences of the Prime Minister's mistakes in Sydney, in Dubbo, here in Canberra and in many other places across the country. It's not just social justice charities. When we don't have half of this country under lockdown, charities are cleaning up our waterways, working to tackle climate change or improving access to essential health care. Instead of the government engaging in a partnership that recognises the important work that can be done working with environmental charities on climate change, with social justice charities on poverty alleviation and with health charities on tackling COVID, they decide to wage a war on charities. The latest salvo in the government's proposed regulations has the effect of reducing the scope of charitable activism and it goes to the fact that the government doesn't want these entities discussing issues of law reform or broader social issues—that is, these charities should be seen but not heard.
Opposition to these changes is broad. Law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler, who says the changes are fundamentally inconsistent with our democratic system of government, has opposed the changes. In addition, the Law Council president has said that the changes will leave registered charities, including faith based charities, at grave risk of political interference. A full-page advertisement in the Australian Financial Reviewsaid 'Don't stop Australia's charities from speaking out'. It was co-signed by St Vincent de Paul, Catholic Social Services Australia, Anglicare, UnitingCare and others. The CEO of the Community Council for Australia said:
Any suggestion that the ACNC commissioner can act against a charity because he or she believes they may do something wrong—even when there is no evidence they have done something wrong—seems at best to be against every principle of justice, fairness and procedural transparency, all of which should be fundamental values for any regulator.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): It being 1.30, I shall now proceed to two-minute statements.
STATEMENTS
Hodgens, Mr Howard
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:30): [by video link] I rise to acknowledge the recent passing of Howard Hodgens, who died peacefully on 31 July, aged 96. Howard was a well-known identity of Melbourne's east, particularly among members of the Victorian Labor Party. A true believer in the truest sense, Howard was a man who thoroughly understood the value of community and dedicated his entire life to those around him. This is illustrated by his service—in the Royal Air Force as a radio technician throughout World War II; as a local councillor; as an architect working on the Melbourne City Loop rail project; as President of the Friends of Wattle Park; as a dedicated member of the Clayton Choristers; and as an active honorary life member of Humanists Victoria—and by his insatiable appetite for corresponding with community leaders and others on matters of concern to his neighbours.
Any person even loosely connected to the Labor Party in Melbourne's east would have had a hard time forgetting Howard, almost always accompanied by his dedicated wife Marie. There was scarcely a meeting, campaign or fundraiser where Howard couldn't be found. His steadfast devotion to the movement served as an inspiration for all of us. Howard is survived by his wife and three sons, Christopher, Nicholas and Julian, as well as grandchildren and a great-grandchild. I pray for them and wish to convey my deep thanks for allowing us to share with them in the life of Howard. I've no doubt that Howard is busily writing letters, finishing crossword puzzles and making the occasional dad joke in a better place.
Victoria: COVID-19
Senator VAN (Victoria) (13:32): I rise to speak to the people of Victoria to give them hope, which, after 200 days of lockdown, they're fast running out of. I address the businesses there that are missing out on proper support, like that being given in New South Wales, and the people of Victoria who have been locked in their homes for over 200 days due to a lack of proper public health policy by the Andrews government. Even today we are seeing testing numbers in New South Wales of 138,000, whereas in Victoria it's still only 48,000. I wonder what the case numbers would be like if Victoria could test as well as New South Wales and if they could contact-trace as well as New South Wales could. All we hear from those on the other side—and we heard Senator Watt just a moment ago—is them blaming the Prime Minister for what's happening in Dubbo. I've not heard one senator on the other side say one word about Victoria and the place that it finds itself in.
People are losing hope. The national plan that has been agreed by all premiers is there to give them that hope. Yet premiers like Premier Andrews and Premier McGowan talk about not honouring that plan, even though it's a plan that they agreed to and put their names to. If they're not going to honour their word, they need to come out and say to the Victorian people and people more generally in Australia that their word is not their bond, that they're not worthy of their word and that they won't follow it. They need to give Victorians hope. Dan Andrews: promise that we'll have the grand final; promise us that we'll have the Melbourne Cup. Give people hope.
Australian Research Council
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (13:34): The Australian Research Council has an absurd new rule prohibiting the citing of preprints in grant applications. A preprint is a research paper that has been submitted to an academic journal that has not yet been peer reviewed for publication. Preprints are stored on servers to make the latest research accessible to researchers around the world. But for some obscure reason the Australian Research Council has decided that citing a preprint is enough to make an application ineligible. More than 20 applications for this year's Discovery Early Career Research Awards have been excluded. The ARC did not inform applicants directly. Its claim that an appeal is possible is sophistry, because many are on the second application for their project and can't apply again. This rule change is a fiasco. It shows that the ARC is out of touch with international best practice and also domestic best practice, given that the National Health and Medical Research Council accepts preprints. As the President of the Academy of Science, Professor John Shine, said in a letter to Minister Tudge, the rule change will have a 'major impact' on Australia's research potential. Professor Shine wrote:
It could easily be argued that a researcher not referencing material found in preprints is not using the full range of contemporary knowledge in a discipline.
This is an integrity issue. If grant applications cannot cite all the information they have used, they risk being accused of plagiarism for treating the research of others as their own. The ARC needs to explain itself and fix this mess quickly.
Afghanistan
Assange, Mr Julian
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:36): [by video link] As we see the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and Kabul, the inevitable end of a 20-year conflict and the occupation of a foreign country, it's an opportune time to be reminded about the truth-teller of this war, Australian Walkley Award-winning journalist Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the only source of true factual and verifiable information. There is no doubt that as Australians ask the hard questions—how did we find ourselves in such a crisis; how did things collapse so quickly?—there are no answers. No information is forthcoming, nor has there ever been, reflecting on the last 10 years of hard work that the Greens have done in the Senate asking questions: Why are we there? When are we leaving? What does a withdrawal look like? All we've had for decades now are lies and deliberate deceptions. WikiLeaks has provided the information, the cover-ups, the war crimes, the deceptions, yet Julian Assange languishes in a UK jail awaiting extradition to the country that got us into this mess in the first place, the United States of America. I urge President Joe Biden, at this important time in history, to walk away from your extradition of Julian Assange, the truth-teller in this war of Afghanistan, and make sure that we support whistleblowers and we support press freedoms because they have never been more important than now.
Business Investment
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:38): [by video link] Later this year we will pass an amazing milestone when an Australian designed and made satellite will be launched into space using an Australian designed and made rocket and launch facility. We now have a domestic end-to-end space capability, creating jobs and injecting new wealth into our economy. Government has not achieved this, private enterprise has, proving once again that governments do not create wealth; free personal enterprise creates wealth. For many years, we led the world in innovation, inventing the refrigerator in 1856, electric drill in 1889, military tanks in 1912, pacemakers in 1928, ultrasounds in 1961 and wi-fi in 1992. But that's where the list ends, 30 years ago. Australia once led the world in patents; now China registers four times the patents per capita that Australia does. This is partly the fault of the big banks, whose tight hold on the capital sector funding for business development is throttling investment, suffocating beneath our banks' greedy obsession with real estate. The government, through its future growth fund, has taken upon itself the role of picking winners and losers amongst start-ups, making private sector growth beholden to government bureaucrats.
Lockdowns have decimated small business and forced medium and large businesses to shelve research and development plans. Australia is going backwards and is losing the ability for citizens to support themselves through their own hard work and enterprise. Reliance on government handouts appears to be a design feature of Prime Minister Morrison's socialist version of Australia. Instead, One Nation will shrink the government to fit the Constitution, we will get government out of the way of free enterprise, we will let the Australian spirit out of [inaudible] to then invent and create to carry this nation forward, even to space. We have one flag, we have one community, we are one nation. The right to raise ourselves up through hard work and enterprise is a freedom that must not be compromised. It must remain.
Autism
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (13:40): I have been increasingly disturbed over the early childhood pathway program in the NDIS and its reluctance, if not outright blatant opposition, to supporting best-practice therapy. We know what that is. There is no confusion globally about what it looks like: early, good quality, intensive intervention. In fact, we know that, for every dollar that we spend on it, we exponentially save in the future. In fact, some studies say that, for every dollar we spend when a kid is little, we save $13 throughout their life.
But now, in some woke agenda, listening to only so-called autistic voices is the way to go. Many of these self-declared experts have multiple degrees, jobs, relationships; people who would have been considered Asperger's under the former DSM. But what about those with severe autism? Classical autism? Those who self-harm? Those who have extreme sensory issues? Those who are non-verbal? Those that cannot be an autistic voice because they cannot speak?
There are already far too few centres in Australia who offer genuine intensive early intervention in a clinic setting that allows parents to work. But don't be fooled! These kids don't go home into a normal family situation. The parental involvement continues: toileting programs; food resistance programs; behaviour replacement to remove self-harm; communication, whether it's through assistive technology or speech—these programs continue at home. Stop insulting parents by suggesting that clinic support means there's no in-home support or family involvement. Only someone who hasn't raised a classically autistic child would even dare to suggest that. So a shout-out to AEIOU, to Little Learners and to all the other centres and organisations who work so well with our families to give all our kids the best opportunity at life.
Intellectual Property
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:43): [by video link] The wheels of government, like justice, turn slowly, and never more so than when the privileges of special interest groups are threatened. We see this with the government's copyright reforms. In 2015, the Abbott government directed the Productivity Commission to review Australia's intellectual property arrangements. The commission found the policies were deficient and it made a series of recommendations that will capitalise innovation and growth in a stagnant economy. It took the Turnbull government a year to respond to the review, and they supported many of those recommendations. Now, four years later, we're still waiting for implementation by the now Morrison government. It is unbelievable that changes to make Australia more dynamic and innovative have been stalled for so long.
One minor but worthy recommendation was to end parallel import restrictions on books. While Australian consumers can freely import books from sellers overseas, Australian bookstores do not have the same freedom. They must purchase from a monopoly publisher, who can hike prices as high as they like. These restrictions hurt Australian retailers and consumers who support their local bookstore. The Productivity Commission recommended these restrictions be abolished. The government supported the recommendation, but absolutely nothing has been done in four years.
Other worthy recommendations have also been ignored, such as ensuring free access to publicly funded research, legislating a fair-use exception and limiting liability for orphan works. Each of these changes would benefit Australians. But, again, the government has given in to special interest groups at the expense of the public interest. It is well and truly time for government to do better by Australia.
Yadu Health Aboriginal Corporation
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (13:45): [by video link] Today I call on the government and particularly the health minister, Greg Hunt, and the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to immediately step up and fund Yadu Health Aboriginal Corporation in Ceduna. Yadu Health is a First Nations led Aboriginal community health clinic providing health services to residents in Ceduna and also the surrounding areas of Koonibba and Scotdesco. It is in an absolutely catastrophic state of affairs, with mould, asbestos and water damage. The roof is literally caving in on this important service. Their own CEO described the situation like being hit with a triple-whammy of mould, asbestos and now COVID. A quarter of the building has been condemned because of the levels of mould and asbestos present. It is absolutely unacceptable.
Yadu has been trying for years to get funding to rebuild this clinic. Their hardworking staff and volunteers have persevered despite these conditions, but they are fed up and I don't blame them. The time has long past. We need to fix Yadu. We need to rebuild Yadu. If the government is serious about closing the gap then here is a way they can help to do that in Ceduna. In the Prime Minister's recent Closing the Gap statement, he announced $254 million for health infrastructure for this very purpose. So the money is there. It's time to use it. Use it to rebuild Yadu. Every single Australian deserves a high-quality standard of health care. They don't have it in Yadu and they need it. The only way they'll get it is if you rebuild this clinic. Step up, fund Yadu and show Ceduna and the rest of this area that you care.
Minor Parties
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:47): [by video link] Just quickly about the Yadu health centre, I suggest since it's a gold-plated area for the cashless debit card you would probably want to get down there and stick by what you promised and get it done.
The government wants to make it hard for small parties to get into this place. They're slamming the door in the face of normal people who want a say in how things work up here. Heaven forbid someone with life experience makes it up to parliament! Apparently we shouldn't be there. Apparently it's better to have party hacks and political staffers instead of anyone who might shake things up. The government's latest thing is to change the electoral rules so it's harder for smaller parties to run an election, and new parties have to find 1,500 members before they can get their name on the ballot paper instead of just 500.
After I was affected by section 44 and booted out of parliament, I had to go and get those 500 names. I had to regather myself. I can assure you that, without staff, without paying anyone, without the campaign and without a job, getting 500 signatures was very difficult for an Independent. And I was miles ahead of where many others would be when they're on the starter blocks. Those new parties will just have no hope.
The other thing the Liberals want is to have total control over the names of small parties. They want to be able to veto new party names. They want to be able to say to small parties, 'You might think the word "liberal" describes who you are, you might think it tells your community what you're running for, but we own that word now.' They want to set impossible rules for the rest of us, and it isn't right. It isn't good for democracy. I feel for the one in three Australian voters who would like a choice other than Liberal or Labor, because the government are doing everything they can to take that choice from you and they're doing it quick, I can assure you. So if you do not want to get stuck with two-party preferred, for goodness sake, vote for Independents and micros.
Hillman, Mrs Joan
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (13:49): I rise this afternoon in the Australian Senate to take a moment to acknowledge an exemplary community leader. Her name is Mrs Joan Hillman. She has recently concluded her four-year term as the president of the Jewish Community Council of Western Australia. Joan has led her community with distinction, and this afternoon I'm proud to recognise some of the highlights of her time as president.
Joan has personally committed countless hours organising and communicating across the Jewish community in Western Australia, as well as working closely with others to address concerns such as anti-Semitic violence and to provide a strong community led response to some of the many challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Australia. Under Joan's leadership, the Jewish Community Council has facilitated various forms of community dialogue, such as an interfaith panel on countering racism and gender discrimination; collaboration with other groups, like the Hellenic Community of WA; and creating a wonderful and very powerful mosaic of community group cooperation across Western Australia.
Importantly, I was honoured to join Joan last year to represent the Jewish community in laying wreaths at the Jewish War Memorial in Perth ahead of Anzac Day, as well as joining many others in commemorating the victims of the Holocaust at a virtual service during the pandemic. Of course, I'm delighted to join with my other Western Australian Senate colleagues in acknowledging the coalition government's $6 million contribution to the redevelopment of the Jewish Community Centre in Western Australia and the construction of an important Holocaust museum. On behalf of everyone in this parliament, I applaud the wonderful leadership that Joan Hillman has provided not just to the Western Australian Jewish community but also to many community groups across Western Australia. Congratulations to you, Joan.
Freedom of Information
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:51): [by video link] Freedom of navigation is a customary international law under which ships flying a flag of any sovereign state shall not suffer interference from other states, except in exemptions allowed by international law. Connected to this law are freedom-of-navigation operations, which are carried out by navies, including the Royal Australian Navy, to exercise the right of freedom of navigation and assert it in circumstances where it is resisted by a sovereign state. One might wonder how that might relate to the Senate. Hear me out.
In my first speech, I quoted President Woodrow Wilson, who said:
It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served …
This has relevance to recent events in this Senate, where we've been unable to get access to information or documents, whether it be an answer to a QON, an OPD or information requested by a committee. We must recognise, as navies do, that, occasionally—from time to time—we have to enforce our rights. We have to exercise the right of freedom of navigation, if you can draw the parallel. If we fail to do so, like what happens in the international domain, we will simply lose the right to transit through what would otherwise have been international waters.
Tokyo Paralympic Games
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:53): [by video link] I want to wish all our Paralympians the best of luck ahead of the Paralympic Games starting tonight. Australia is behind you all the way, and we are so proud of your achievements. In particular, congratulations to our Territory athletes, including Tom O'Neill-Thorne, who will complete in the men's wheelchair basketball team, the Aussie Rollers. I know my son CJ, who's trained with the Australian team, is sending all his love to all his teammates over there, too. The opening ceremony begins at 9 pm Australian Eastern Standard Time, and I know I'll be tuning in to watch it.
I also want to congratulate all the athletes who competed in the Tokyo Olympic Games, including our Territorians. How terrific it was to be able to watch the Olympics from here when so much of our country was in lockdown.
I'd like to mention NT brothers Jeremy and Leon Hayward, who both made it to the Olympics for hockey, competing against each other. Jeremy played for Australia's Kookaburras, while 31-year-old Leon played in goals for the Black Sticks of New Zealand. Congratulations to Brooke Peris from Darwin, the niece, of course, of Nova, who once stood as a senator in this place. Brooke competed for the Hockeyroos and did us so proud. The NT was proud to welcome the athletes to the Howard Strings quarantine centre after the Olympics, and I know we wish the Paralympians well.
As Australia gears up for our Olympics in Brisbane, I call on the Queensland Premier and those who are going to prepare for the Olympics to make sure that this time we can have both the Paralympics and the Olympics all together in Brisbane in 2032.
Afghanistan
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (13:55): [by video link] Australia has now evacuated hundreds of people from Afghanistan. I was in touch with 11 of them over the weekend as they were in the crushing chaos outside Kabul airport: a group of human rights and democracy activists, people who have worked with foreign governments and NGOs, a four-year-old, a four-month-old and a 23-year-old woman training to be a pilot. They are now on a flight on their way to begin new lives in Australia, leaving behind the heartbreak of their country having fallen to the brutal Taliban regime.
Australia committed to take 3,000 refugees like them, but we must do more. We need to take at least 20,000 asylum seekers and give permanent residency to the 4½ thousand people on temporary protection visas here in Australia. We must because we helped create the problem. Australia joined the US in invading Afghanistan in a war that bred more terrorism, that made the world less safe. We failed to build a lasting peace. A decade ago, my former colleague Scott Ludlam underscored this failure in this place, quoting a former ambassador, who said:
One of our major challenges in Afghanistan is how to fight corruption and connect people to the government, and their key government officials are themselves corrupt.
And Scott quoted Hugh White, saying:
… it is understood that perhaps within months of a withdrawal … it may well be that the corrupt government which is being propped up at the moment would not last a matter of months.
Scott finished his speech by asking: 'Do we need to be there for another decade?' Well, Scott, it was another decade almost exactly, with the government falling even before the last US troops were withdrawn.
There's no doubt that Afghanistan in 2001 was in a dire situation. We had a problem, but the solution was not a US invasion. Our imperialist war failed. We have a responsibility to pick up the pieces and take in 20,000 asylum seekers— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (13:57): Around Australia there are a lot of people struggling with the pandemic. There is the anxiety of not knowing whether there will be a spike in cases that could threaten your health; the stress of economic disruption with the potential to make your job or business non-viable; the frustration of missing school, sport and the chance to build friendships; the hit to pride that comes from taking a welfare payment when you've lived all your life proudly paying your way; and the isolation and the mental health impact that comes with it. Beyond Blue reported a 30 per cent increase in calls compared to before the pandemic, with Lifeline recording the busiest three days in its 57-year history this month. A colleague of mine described it as a feeling of quiet desperation. I hear you.
But there is a way out, a light at the end of the tunnel: it's the national plan for living with COVID. We can't eradicate it. In all of history, only one disease has been, and it took some 200 years. But we can live safely with it, and the national plan is our path to get there. Every Australian who can, whose health and conscience permits, needs to get vaccinated. It is voluntary and that's why we need your help. When you do it, you protect yourself. Either you will be immune from the virus or, if you get it, it will be less severe. Importantly, you will protect the people you love, the children and older people in your lives and the vulnerable in our community.
In the plan there is agreement struck between the Commonwealth and the states that, as we hit vaccination targets of 70 and 80 per cent, our freedoms will return because it will be safer. The states must keep their commitment. It's where we end the cycle of lockdowns and border closures. So everyone who can needs to roll up their sleeve. We've made sure there are vaccines available in abundance. Every minute, 800 Australians are vaccinated, a million doses every three days. We are almost there. I want to encourage Australians to step up and to play their part. (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:59): Today is an important three-year anniversary. It's the three-year anniversary of this Prime Minister's ascension to the top office of this country, and it's a three-year anniversary of bungles, failures and rorts. It is a three-year anniversary of a prime minister who never takes responsibility, who is christened 'Scotty from Marketing' for a reason and who is always too slow to act. He's a disgrace. He should go without another day in the office. (Time expired)
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Afghanistan
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): [by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Afghans who worked with the ADF are reporting that their applications for safe haven have been rejected because they did not apply within six months of ending employment. How many Afghans who stood side by side with Australian troops, have had their applications for safe haven rejected because they did not apply within six months of ending employment? Given that the Taliban won't check the date of employment, will this policy be revised and will those who didn't apply within the six months have their applications reconsidered?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): [by video link] I thank Senator Wong for her questions. I've seen certain media reports or suggestions, but, in relation to some of the matters that Senator Wong raises, I'm not convinced that these are all accurate reflections of circumstance. Australian officials have worked very hard to process applications through the Department of Defence and through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ensure that those who have been locally engaged staff supporting Australia's engagement in Afghanistan over a long period of time are given the acknowledgement and the pathway to securing a visa.
On the ground in Afghanistan right now and over recent days our officials have been working hard to equally ensure that visas are issued in emergency situations, to quickly expedite arrangements to guarantee that those who need that safe passage who have got through to the airport in Kabul are able to be airlifted with a visa to be supported in their repatriation to Australia. That's what's enabled us to now have seen over 1,600 people evacuated from Afghanistan through Australia's efforts, working with the UK and others, just since 18 August. This builds on the hundreds of repatriations that we have supported over recent months and, indeed, the many more that we have supported since, as a country, we put in place special visa arrangements and plans to be able to assist those to leave Afghanistan safely.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:02): [by video link] Those the Australian government has instructed to travel to the Hamid Karzai airport have faced a perilous journey—some having to wade through a sewer—only then to be refused entry despite having relevant documentation. The United States, Canada, Germany and New Zealand are working beyond the airport to evacuate citizens and Afghans. Is Australia going to do the same, and, if not, why not?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): [by video link] Australia has been working closely with partner countries such as those Senator Wong has mentioned to be able to try to access and provide assistance beyond the airport perimeter to individuals where that is possible. But nobody should underestimate the difficulty in relation to the perimeter at the airport and the challenging circumstances that not just Australian troops and personnel and individuals face but also, of course, all of those seeking to ensure an orderly process that enables flights to be able to move at such speed in and out of the international airport at Kabul. That does require security into the airport. It does require checks and processes. Australian officials are not in charge of every one of those checks and processes as to who gets entry into the airport, but we continue to work closely with those partner countries to try to ensure that anybody, Australian citizen, Australian visa holder, Australian permanent resident or those with a connection to any of the aforementioned are able to get access and to get support to leave. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:04): [by video link] Is there a deadline for the evacuation of Australians and Australian visa holders from Afghanistan? Has Mr Morrison spoken as yet to President Biden about arrangements to ensure the evacuation of these Australians and those Afghans who helped us before any such deadline?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:04): [by video link] The deadline is to action everything, with the utmost urgency, right now. That's why we're seeing multiple flights running in and out of Kabul airlifting people out each and every day at present. I pay thanks once again to the Defence Force, Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs personnel, all of whom are in difficult, challenging and dangerous circumstances and helping to undertake and expedite that very important work.
As the Prime Minister has said, if the deadline for departures that the United States has spoken of is pushed out—he has made it clear to the United States that we support that. The government has made that clear. We will continue to support all operations as long as they are safe and feasible and help people to leave Kabul and Afghanistan, especially those who have worked alongside us. We will continue to do all we can in terms of giving that assistance, which has seen more than 1,600 leave in the last few days alone.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (14:05): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister update the Senate on Australia's vaccination rollout to combat the COVID-19 pandemic?
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Before we start being disorderly, can we at least allow the minister to start getting to his feet.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt! Again, I'm going to ask senators, for the courtesy of all those appearing remotely. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:06): Thank you, Mr President, and thank you, Senator Chandler, for the question. Australia's COVID-19 rollout continues to expand. To date, more than 17.4 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in Australia. We had a record Sunday, with more than 139,000 vaccines administered, and 335,000 vaccines administered over the weekend. Yesterday was a record Monday, with more than—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck. Stop the clock. The interjections started two seconds into his answer. While there is a place for interaction across the chamber, some courtesy, so that those appearing remotely can hear, would be appreciated. I'm having trouble hearing the minister, and it's very hard to tell who is interjecting unless they have a very recognisable voice, Senator Watt. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Mr President. Yesterday was a record Monday, with more than 289,000 doses administered. That is good news for Australians and good news for the country. Just about the only ones barracking against this rollout are on the other side of the chamber. In the last seven days, more than 1.8 million doses have been administered into the arms of Australians—6.3 million doses in the last 30 days.
Senator Watt interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Applause is out of order, Senator Watt.
Senator COLBECK: The vaccine rollout is ramping up, as we always said it would. In our home state of Tasmania, Senator Chandler, 414,000 doses have been given to those who have stepped forward to protect themselves, protect friends, protect their families and protect their country. Each vaccine helps protect each one of us, but every vaccine helps protect us all. We now have national vaccination rates of more than 54 per cent for first doses among the eligible population and over 30 per cent for second doses. Perhaps most significantly, amongst our most vulnerable Australians—which is why we are seeing a difference in New South Wales this year compared to Victoria last year—over 70 per cent of over-50s have had their first dose and over 85 per cent of over-70s have had their first dose. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Chandler, a supplementary question?
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (14:09): Thank you, Mr President. Minister, could you inform the Senate how people are accessing the vaccine across the nation?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:09): I thank all those involved in the rollout of vaccines across Australia—in particular, the frontline healthcare workers—for their commitment and hard work in getting this most important job done. We have enlisted GPs, Commonwealth vaccination clinics, Aboriginal community health centres and pharmacies to deliver vaccines into the arms of people right across the country. There are over 8,100 points around the country at which you can get a jab.
This week, 2,595 pharmacy sites were active and vaccinating nationally. By the end of this week, it will be 2,850 pharmacies across the country that will have received doses and be able to vaccinate next week. More importantly, more than 900 of those are in New South Wales, including in the greater Sydney hotspot areas.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Chandler, a final supplementary question?
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (14:10): That is great news, Minister. What advice is there for Australians who are yet to roll up their sleeves?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:10): The sooner Australians turn up at one of the more than 8,100 sites across the country, the sooner we will be able to return to a normal life, with fewer restrictions and fewer lockdowns. As the Prime Minister has said, the national plan that we have developed and agreed with the states is our pathway to living with the virus. That is our goal—to live with the virus, not to live in fear of it. It's a plan based on the best-possible scientific evidence, undermined only by those opposite. Once we achieve 70 to 80 per cent vaccination, we'll see less transmission of COVID-19, fewer people with severe illness, fewer people in hospital and fewer deaths. We should all get on with it.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:11): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. South Western and Western Sydney woke up yesterday to harsher restrictions and a Western Sydney curfew as a result of a COVID-19 outbreak that started in Bondi. Why are South Western and Western Sydney residents, who are trying to do the right thing by their communities, being forced to take multiple busses and trains in the middle of a lockdown to get to a vaccination hub and being forced to wait up to five hours outside at those vaccination hubs to get vaccinated?
Senator Van interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Van! I remind senators on my right that I need to hear the question. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:12): I say to all of those people in South Western Sydney who are turning out to get vaccinated: thank you for doing so. Those residents of South Western Sydney know, like we know, that vaccination is one of the things that provides a pathway for all of us to deal with this pandemic.
There are 777 primary care and Commonwealth sites administering vaccines across South Western Sydney. There are 590 general practices, including 266 that are offering the Pfizer vaccine, seven general practice respiratory clinics, 14 Aboriginal community health centres and 176 community pharmacies that are offering AstraZeneca—777 sites across South Western Sydney.
I say to those Australians from South Western Sydney: thank you for turning out. Thank you for having the patience to wait for your jab. You are doing not only yourselves but also your community a service. We know and those people of South Western Sydney know that one of the pathways to dealing with this virus is to get vaccinated. It will protect you, it will protect your community and, once we start reaching the thresholds that have been set down by the national plan, it is the way to start returning to a more normal life. So thank you to all of those people in South Western Sydney. In fact, thank you to all of those people around the country who are turning out to get vaccinated. Thank you particularly to those health workers who are working in those vaccination clinics—the GPs, the pharmacists, those working in the ACCHOs, those working in the Commonwealth health sites and those working in the state clinics. All of those people are working to assist people to get vaccinated. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:14): Why are children with disabilities and pregnant women in the federal electorate of Macarthur still having trouble booking vaccine appointments, as they are reporting to their local MP, 18 months into the pandemic and six months into the vaccination rollout?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:14): I thank Senator Keneally for her question. Clearly there is strong demand for vaccine across the country, and that is a good thing. I say to all Australians: it's clear that there's only one group of people in this country who are campaigning against the vaccine rollout and who are undermining confidence in the vaccine rollout, and it's that lot over there. We continue to increase the supply, and, as I've already indicated today, we continue to increase the number of outlets that are available for people to get a vaccine. As more vaccine becomes available, we will continue to increase the volume. It's only the Labor Party who are out there trying to undermine confidence in the vaccine rollout. It's only the Labor Party who are out there trying to undermine confidence in vaccines.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:15): The people of South Western and Western Sydney, 18 months into the pandemic, are struggling to secure vaccine appointments and are living in lockdown conditions worse than anything Australia has ever experienced. Why has the Morrison-Joyce government left the people of South Western and Western Sydney behind?
Senator Van interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Van, I've called you to order during questions on a couple of occasions now. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:16): I completely and utterly reject the premise of the question. Only last week, we put an extra 500,000 doses of the Pfizer vaccine, which we'd managed to bring in from overseas, into New South Wales to assist with the current circumstance. We continue to work on vaccine supply, increasing the availability of vaccine and the number of outlets, as I've already outlined a number of times in the chamber today. While the Labor Party fight us, we fight the virus. While the Labor Party fight us, we will continue to fight the virus and we will continue to work in the interests of Australians to give them access to the vaccine. We appreciate the fact that they are lining up for an appointment. We appreciate that they are turning out to get vaccinated. They know, like we do, that vaccination is a pathway to freedom.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:17): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. There are a growing number of children, teenagers and young people sick with COVID. Do you acknowledge that including children in the vaccination targets will save lives? When will your government include kids under 16 in the national vaccination targets, and when will there be enough supply for those young people?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:17): I thank Senator Siewert for the question. I reject the assertion that there's any sense on the part of the government that all parts of the Australian population aren't important in the vaccination rollout. The national plan for vaccination, which was agreed by national cabinet, with modelling done by the Doherty institute, was based on a certain population cohort and based on the information available at that point in time to Doherty and to Australia with respect to approved vaccines.
I think it's also important, at this point, that we consider the impact of the virus on Australians within different cohorts, which reinforces our process. We have received approval for the administration of vaccines to 12- to 15-year-olds and we have commenced the process of rolling the vaccine process out to the most vulnerable of those. We have started that. We have said that when the advice from ATAGI comes to us, when the advice from the health professions that are advising the government and guiding the vaccine rollout comes to us, we will make the vaccine available to the rest of those cohorts. Plans for that are already being developed, and they are important. If you look at the wording of the information from Doherty, they stand by their modelling and the targets that have been established. When you consider there are 1.2 million children in the cohorts you're talking about--(Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:20): There are now a number of models on vaccination targets. Why are you relying only on the Doherty modelling? Is it because it's politically convenient? Why did you limit that advice and the modelling from Doherty to over-16-year-olds?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:20): Can I say at the outset, I think that's an outrageous thing for Senator Siewert to say. The Doherty modelling is based on work across a number of peak institutions in this country and—
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: I will take your interjection, Senator. If you look, for example, at the ANU modelling, and at the assumptions, which are seriously flawed, I have to say—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: No, I will tell you what's flawed about them. They assume that we go directly from A to D and skip sections B and C in the national plan. That's the flaw. So be careful about the modelling you're quoting and don't be a part of the Labor Party's process of undermining the modelling and the plan that we have for the national vaccination process—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: Children are important— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:21): When will the government stop enabling vaccine apartheid and finally support a TRIPS waiver?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:21): That is an absolutely outrageous slur. Quite frankly, Senator Siewert—through you, Mr President—you should be ashamed of yourself. At no point has the government tried to downplay the importance of any part of this Australian community. We have at all times sought to provide protection and support for all Australians, including children, and it's an outrageous slur.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Siewert, your point of order is on?
Senator Siewert: The point of order is on the fact that the minister didn't—
The PRESIDENT: Is it on direct relevance?
Senator Siewert: He didn't listen—
The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Siewert. You asked a question that had a highly—
Senator Siewert: I asked about the TRIPS waiver.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, you also—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator Siewert: Yes, I did. I asked—
The PRESIDENT: Order, on my right! Points of order have to relate to the standing orders. I'm going to at least ask people to treat the chamber with the courtesy of saying that it's to do with direct relevance. It's not a chance to restate the question. Senator Siewert, you also used a highly charged term in that question. I have ruled previously that where highly politically charged terminology is used ministers are entitled to respond, and that was a particularly loaded piece of terminology. So the minister is allowed to respond. I can't instruct him how to answer a question.
Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Mr President. The government has at all times been concerned to ensure that all Australians are supported and protected through the management of the pandemic, and so in setting the thresholds under the national plan, the Doherty modelling takes into account the two-week time frame for people to get full immunisation and the later time for the vaccination of children. The Greens and Labor can come in here and run all the slurs they like against us, but we will continue to work in the interests of the Australian people to help them to get vaccinated and also to support the opening of the Australian economy. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Australian Defence Force
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:23): [by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Last week the New South Wales government announced that 800 Australian soldiers would be deployed to help state police enforce movement restrictions and the Queensland government announced that 100 soldiers would be employed to help state police enforce state border restrictions. Can the minister tell us what reasonable and necessary force will be permitted for these personnel to carry out their duties, such as the power to make arrests or to use force against Australians?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:24): I thank Senator Griff for his question. I can advise the senator that the scope of ADF support to states and territories is constitutionally limited, as I'm sure the senator is aware, particularly for tasks with an element of law enforcement. ADF personnel are not authorised as law enforcement officers; nor are personnel able to enforce health orders. These remain the responsibility of relevant state or territory agencies.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a supplementary question?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:25): [by video link] What happens if something goes wrong on one of these patrols or doorknocks, and a member of the public gets violent or makes threats? In these circumstances, what powers do the ADF personnel have? Are they only able to follow directions of police officers or can they take actions on their own initiative?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:25): I would reiterate what I said in response to your first question, Senator, which is that the ADF are not authorised as law enforcement officers. The authorisation for those powers remains with the police of the relevant state or territory, and these matters are determined, planned and operationalised between the ADF and the relevant police service, whether it is—the examples you have used—in New South Wales or in Queensland. In fact, given the amount of time since the beginning of Operation COVID-19 Assist in 2020, where we have seen over 20,500 ADF personnel deployed nationally under Operation COVID-19 Assist, there has been a very significant period for agencies to work together on exactly these matters.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a final supplementary question?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:26): [by video link] Thank you, Minister, for that explanation. Every Australian police force has hotlines and online reporting portals for members of the public to report police misconduct. How will Australians be able to report any misconduct of ADF personnel supporting law enforcement? Who will investigate these reports?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:26): Through any normal channels by which one would report such a concern. But, to be very clear, the scope is constitutionally limited, particularly with regard to tasks with an element of law enforcement. There is no authorisation for the ADF to act as law enforcement officers, nor, as I said previously, to enforce health orders. This remains the responsibility of those state and territory agencies. Can I say in conclusion, to all of those women and men in law enforcement agencies around Australia and to all of the women and men who have been deployed with the ADF through Operation COVID-19 Assist, that we recognise that these have been very demanding, very challenging times in Australia, and we acknowledge their service and their contribution.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:27): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Following a visit to the Dubbo Aboriginal Medical Service in April this year, I wrote to the minister for health, alerting him to the chronic understaffing of GPs at the Dubbo Aboriginal Medical Service and the excessive delays that would mean for the vaccine rollout to the Dubbo Indigenous community. Why did the minister for health do nothing to address the issues raised and potentially avert the current outbreak in Dubbo's Indigenous community?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:29): I thank the senator for her question. Throughout the course of the pandemic, ensuring that Indigenous Australians have access to vaccine has been one of the important elements of the way that we've managed the program. They were in the early stages of having availability of vaccine. Like Senator O'Neill, the government is concerned about the vaccination rates in some parts of Australia. With the arising of the outbreak particularly in the region of Dubbo, a number of specific measures have been undertaken to support Australians, particularly in that area, to get vaccinated. There have been five teams of ADF vaccination force go out there to work their way through the community, to make sure that there was availability of vaccination for people in those communities. We're working our way methodically through those communities to ensure that we can get vaccination rates up to support and protect those communities, and we'll continue to do that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, do you have a point of order?
Senator O'Neill: It is indeed a point of order with regard to relevance. I appreciate that the minister is speaking about the general scheme that has been advanced in the region, but my question was specifically for the AMS in Dubbo. It was a very specific question. There was a letter sent. This requires a specific answer. I think the people of Dubbo deserve that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, I ask people to make their point without commentary. I take your point of order. It was a specific question, but, as the minister was talking about programs that related to that region—and there is an opportunity after question time to debate the merit of answers—he was being directly relevant, even if not answering in the form that the asker would prefer. I call the minister to continue.
Senator COLBECK: And we continue to support Indigenous communities around Australia with respect to vaccination. As at 23 August, 193,348 people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander had had at least one dose of vaccine—approximately 33 per cent of the eligible population—and over 103,000 had received a second dose. The largest gap in coverage is seen in the 40-to-59 age group. Approximately 75 per cent of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are aged 12 years and over and are eligible for COVID vaccines. We will continue to work cooperatively with New South Wales and the ACCHOs— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:31): Can the minister confirm that, as at 17 August, the Morrison-Joyce government had vaccinated just eight per cent of First Nations Australians in western New South Wales? Why are First Nations Australians being left unprotected by the Morrison-Joyce government?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:32): I can't confirm the number quoted by the senator. I don't have that granular level of detail here with me in my information. As I've indicated, in response to the outbreak in western New South Wales the government have taken some very specific actions to ensure that vaccination capacity was increased in those regions as it needed to be and as we've done across other parts of the country. We supported Victoria in their surge when they had an outbreak and we supported New South Wales more broadly when they had an outbreak. There is a specific incident management team to coordinate the Commonwealth response and that includes representatives from the National Indigenous Australians Agency. Actions include vaccine allocation, support from the ACCHOs, support from the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the Australian Defence Force vaccination teams and, of course, PPE. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:33): Perhaps the minister can take that on notice and confirm the eight per cent number. The Morrison-Joyce government promised First Nations Australians that they were a priority in the vaccine rollout and would be fully vaccinated by winter. We're now eight days away from spring and COVID-19 is ripping through First Nations communities. Why should Australians believe Mr Morrison will deliver on his new promises when he has failed to deliver on his old promises, leaving First Nations Australians unprotected and at risk?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:33): I thank Senator O'Neill for the question. I completely reject the premise of the question. In fact, Senator O'Neill quite dishonestly didn't declare that Minister Hunt had actually responded to her letter on 27 July to answer the questions—
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a point of order?
Senator O'Neill: I think the honourable gentleman should withdraw that comment.
The PRESIDENT: I'm happy to correct myself later on, but I don't believe that terminology has been ruled unparliamentary in the past. The Clerk I think is agreeing with me. If I'm wrong, I'll come back and say so. Senator Colbeck, continue.
Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Mr President. As so often happens in this chamber, the opposition come in here to misrepresent quotes that have been made by members of parliament and don't fully declare the full circumstances that sit behind the questions.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, on a point of order?
Senator Keneally: My point of order goes to relevance. Senator O'Neill did not say that Minister Hunt didn't respond; she said that the minister did 'nothing to address the issues raised'.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally!
Senator Keneally: I stand by Senator O'Neill's call for that comment to be withdrawn.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally! I'm going to insist that, while the leaders are given a lot more room to move, they do abide by the chair when I call them to order. That wasn't even a remote attempt at a point of order, Senator Keneally; that was debating a matter of fact. There's a time for that after question time.
Senator COLBECK: I reject the premise of Senator O'Neill's question. We have continued and we will continue to support all communities in Australia—as the response from Minister Hunt to Senator O'Neill clearly indicates—with a whole range of incentives and programs that are designed to support Indigenous communities: workforce incentives, rural bulk-billing incentives, a distribution priority system to identify distribution of GPs. There is a range of things in place to support Australians, particularly in Indigenous communities.
Defence Personnel
Veterans
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (14:35): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister advise the Senate on what measures are available to support serving members of the Australian Defence Force experiencing emotional distress and anxiety, including in my home town of Katherine and in Darwin, in the Northern Territory?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:36): I particularly thank Senator McMahon for this very important question, because we are all very conscious that the devastating developments in Afghanistan are distressing for many of our serving defence personnel and for veterans, including, in particular, the very large defence community in the Northern Territory. We thank and acknowledge the 39,000 Australian men and women who served in Afghanistan and the many more Australians who've served both in campaigns and in peacekeeping efforts around the world, including the Battle of Long Tan, the 55th anniversary of which we marked last week. To all those who have worn an Australian military uniform, and to all of their families: we are grateful for your sacrifices and for the safety and security that you have afforded your fellow Australians.
In turn, we have a duty as a nation to be there for them by ensuring their physical and mental health needs are met. The government is committed to ensuring Australian Defence Force personnel have access to the right support at the right time. Defence has in place mental health services that operate around the clock. These include the confidential telephone support service for both ADF members and their families, the Defence Employee Assistance Program, which provides free professional counselling and support through defence members' chains of command through the chaplaincy service. Defence provides comprehensive mental health support services to deployed forces before, during and after deployments.
To all of those who served in Afghanistan: the government is unequivocal in saying that you did the job your nation asked of you. You did it overwhelmingly with great distinction, and nothing will change that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McMahon, a supplementary question?
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (14:38): Can the minister advise what other measures are available to support ex-service men and women?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:38): The government does operate a range of services for veterans, such as the Open Arms 24/7 counselling service and 1800 VETERAN. Of course, our veterans community has generated an extraordinary depth of support over many years and more recently through groups like Legacy, the RSL, Soldier On, Wounded Heroes and Young Veterans, to name a few. I'm pleased to say that many of our veteran women are playing increasingly important roles as well. Talissa Papamau, who served as an ADF medic in Afghanistan in 2012 and in Papua New Guinea in 2014, founded Modern Soldier, an online veterans network that created a series of groundbreaking videos on post-traumatic stress disorder and now helps veteran-owned businesses to sell their products. The Women Veterans Network Australia connects ex-serving women and fosters a sense of belonging and reduces isolation. I commend all of the women and men working to help Australia's veterans.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McMahon, a final supplementary question?
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (14:39): How is the Liberal and Nationals government working with ex-service organisations to ensure tailored support is available for all veterans who require it?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:39): Again, I thank Senator McMahon because I know that Senator McMahon has a particular interest in this issue in the Territory. The government recognises that military service creates special bonds between those who serve together and these bonds last for the rest of so many veterans' lives. Nothing can substitute for these bonds, so the very important thing that government can do is to nurture and support connections that the veterans have forged themselves. The Australian government is investing $40 million in a network of veteran wellbeing centres around Australia, one of which is in Darwin. I congratulate Senator McMahon on her support for the veteran community in the Northern Territory and I hope to have the opportunity to visit the Darwin veteran wellbeing centre in the future. It's being led by Mates4Mates in collaboration with a number of local organisations. It will provide a one-stop-shop of support services to veterans and their families.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:40): [by video link] My question is to the Minister for Finance and Special Minister of State, Senator Birmingham. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021 would give political parties the right to block new parties coming through if they had the same key words in their names as existing parties. When the Liberal Party was formed in October 1944, there was already an existing political party called the Liberal Democratic Party. If the rules you want to put in place had been around when your party started, there wouldn't be any Liberal senators in the building today. Does that seem fair to you, or do you think it would be good for democracy to let incumbents block their opponents?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:41): [by video link] I thank Senator Lambie for her question. We have a robust democracy in Australia in which competition is freely and fairly encouraged. But it needs to be freely and fairly encouraged in ways that ensure voters make informed choices, have all the information to make informed choices and are supported and empowered in their choices. Sometimes people will decide to go and start other political parties. Senator Lambie indeed is an example of that. But Senator Lambie has always made sure that she has stood very clearly, very identifiably, in relation to her political parties, whether as a Liberal Party member at one stage, as a candidate and a senator for the Clive Palmer Party or indeed now, when she is identifiably the Jacqui Lambie Network. That's as it should be: clear, obvious to the voters.
The practice that has been increasing in recent times—some sort of political astroturfing by some individuals—is unhelpful to voters. It has been shown in terms of voting trends across some states to create confusion, especially when it comes to Senate voting tickets, so, yes, it is reasonable for political parties to be able to have their name protected, just like any other trademark has its name and brand protected under legal practices. That's a commonsense approach, and it's all that the government seeks to do, not to prohibit or to prevent anybody else from having the opportunity to contest an election vigorously but also fairly. And that's the intent of these laws.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:43): [by video link] If this bill passes, small parties with small budgets would have to get rid of any materials that they've already produced with their current names or logos and pay to replace them all. They'd have to pay to replace their websites and they'd have to build a whole new brand in less than six months. Will you make any compensation to those parties who incurred approved political expenditure under the old rules and who will now have that expenditure rendered redundant, once Labor rolls over like a puppy dog and backs your bill?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:43): [by video link] I'd make the point again that this is about simply ensuring that voters have clarity in their voting intentions and in the choices before them. I note that across the current Senate chamber we have, as I said before, Senator Lambie and the Jacqui Lambie Network. We have Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. We have Senator Griff, representing Centre Alliance, and Senator Patrick, as an Independent. We have the Greens, the Labor Party, the Liberals and the Nationals. Each is clearly distinguishable from the other when their names are presented on the ballot paper. That's all we seek to achieve and to ensure occurs in the future, and we hope and trust that all will see the common sense in that regard. It is simply a fair approach that's being put in place for our next election.
Senator Lambie: [by video link] Point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?
Senator Lambie: [by video link] Sorry, I was raising a point of order there; no worries.
The PRESIDENT: The rules for remote participation don't allow points of order to be raised remotely. My apologies for the confusion. Your final supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:44): [by video link] The bill triples the membership requirements for parties, effective immediately. The minister says this is to test that political parties have genuine community support. The obvious question here is: isn't that what elections are for?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:45): [by video link] Indeed, elections don't prevent anybody from nominating and from standing. They can stand as an independent—that is an option open to all Australians. But what we seek to ensure is that where people constitute a political party it has a genuine underpinning to it, that it is not just an independent, and that it has a base, a body of support and a set of beliefs commonly adhered to by its members. That is the logical, commonsense test that Australians apply when they are thinking about what political parties are, and that is all that these modest reforms seek to do. They ensure that we have that test in place in ways that meet the expectations of the Australian people. They expect political parties to be fair dinkum parties and the names of those parties to be clearly distinguished from one another, reflecting their individual identities.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:46): My question this afternoon is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. How many children with a disability in Australia have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:46): On 2 August this year the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation reviewed the data on the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine and recommended that the following groups of children among those aged 12 to 15 years be prioritised for vaccination using Pfizer: children with a specified medical condition that increased their risk of severe COVID-19; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged 12 to 15 years; and all children aged 12 to 15 in remote communities, as part of a broader outreach vaccination program that provides vaccinations for all ages greater than 12 years. The government is also ensuring that all children accessing or eligible to access the National Disability Insurance Scheme will have access to the Pfizer vaccine from Wednesday 25 August if they have not already had their vaccines.
As the medical advice and the vaccines have become registered for use in children we have followed that advice and made the vaccine available. From Monday 9 August the Pfizer vaccine has been opened for those with underlying medical conditions and, as I've indicated earlier, once ATAGI provides to us—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, on a point of order?
Senator Watt: On relevance—the question simply asked for a number. If the minister does haven't the number, he should agree to bring it back and take it on notice.
The PRESIDENT: I can't instruct the minister how to answer or address a question. I will say that the minister has been speaking for 90 seconds and it was a question that was very specific in nature. I ask the minister to return to the question.
Senator COLBECK: As I indicated to the chamber, on ATAGI's advice from Monday 9 August—only earlier this months—the Pfizer vaccine was made available to children in that age cohort. So I actually don't have the data on those that have been fully vaccinated, but we need to consider the process for commencement, whether the data actually exists at this point in time—(Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a supplementary question?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:49): How many students and staff for children with disabilities have been fully vaccinated at schools for children with a disability?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:49): The vaccination of students with any vaccine in this country has commenced only since 9 August this year. That data is not yet available for people who are fully vaccinated, because three weeks hasn't passed for a full cycle of vaccination yet.
So it's very cute for the Labor Party to come in here and ask that sort of question, but, based on the medical advice, we've commenced and made available the vaccine as soon as approved for use and supported by the medical authorities. We will be able to provide the data once it's collected and once the full vaccine cycles have been completed. With respect to staff, I'm very happy to provide that information to the chamber as I can make it available.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:50): Why has the Morrison government failed to track the number of children with disabilities and staff at their schools who are being vaccinated when people with learning disabilities have been seen to be eight times more likely to die from COVID than the general population?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:50): Again, the Labor Party come in here and make an allegation that simply isn't true. There is a range of data that's being provided, supported and tracked. As I've indicated to the chamber, the vaccination of children has only been available since 9 August this year. A full vaccination cycle of three weeks has not yet passed. So for the Labor Party to come in here and ask that and imply that the data's not available is, quite frankly, dishonest. They know it can't have been made available yet because it can't be collected yet, because the time frames for collecting it haven't occurred yet.
Every single member of the Australian community is important to this government. It's only the Labor Party campaigning against the government— (Time expired)
Vocational Education and Training
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (14:52): My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Minister Cash. With this week being the 11th National Skills Week, can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison government's skill reform agenda has strengthened our vocational education system?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:52): I thank Senator Small for the question. In answering the question, I acknowledge that Senator Small is an employer in the hospitality industry back in Western Australia. Senator Small is one of those people who has had the opportunity to provide young people with the opportunity to undertake a traineeship in his workplace and to provide them with that stepping stone and the skills that they need to get into the hospitality industry.
As Senator Small stated, this week is the 11th National Skills Week. As we know, National Skills Week is dedicated to raising the profile and the status of vocational education and training within Australia but also looking at dispelling myths and showcasing the, in particular, attractive career opportunities that someone with a vocational education and training skill set is able to get. We need to acknowledge that vocational education and training has well and truly been the foundation of our strong and vibrant economy. When you look at so many who have been through vocational education and training in Australia, it has produced industry leaders. It offers great diversity. It offers new and exciting career paths. It supports our resources and primary industries. It builds our cities. It supports tourism and monuments. It supports our heritage and, as Senator Small knows, it well and truly supports our hospitality industry within Australia. Each National Skills Week we as a country have the opportunity to really get together and highlight all of these opportunities.
I know the Morrison government is proud to recognise National Skills Week 2021. In terms of our commitment to Australians in the vocational education and training sector, we have invested a record $6.4 billion in skills in this financial year alone—$6.4 billion has been invested by the Morrison government. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Small, a supplementary question?
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (14:54): Minister, how are the Morrison government's wage subsidies supporting Australian businesses to take on an apprentice or trainee to help meet the skills needs of Australia's workforce now and into the future?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:54): So many employers across Australia know that the Morrison government is backing them to take a new apprentice or trainee into their business. Of course, last year we announced the boosting apprenticeship commencements wage subsidy, and what that has now done across Australia is that it has seen apprenticeship and traineeship numbers increase by 200,000. We have put in place a policy that has given 200,000 new commencements across Australia. This is 200,000 Australians who are now in an apprenticeship or traineeship as a result of the Morrison government's boosting apprenticeship commencements wage subsidy. That really says something for the fact that employees out there are utilising the policies that the Morrison government puts in place to bring new apprentices and new trainees into their business.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Small, a final supplementary question?
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (14:55): How is the Morrison government's economic recovery plan helping Australians train for the skills that we need now and as we chart our way back from the COVID-19 pandemic?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:56): As we know, the coalition government, the Morrison government, has been working with the states and territories, in particular, to provide additional training places in areas of skills demand, and that is the key to the success of the JobTrainer program—$500 million from the Morrison government, matched by $500 million from the states and territories. But the key to the additional training places that we released onto the market was that they are within areas where there are skills demands. So we are training people across Australia, working with the states and territories, through what is now a $2 billion JobTrainer fund to ensure that Australians, when they access JobTrainer, are training up in areas of actual labour market demand. That's because we understand we need to put in place those policies which will skill up Australians and give them the skills they need to get into a job.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:57): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Mr Morrison has failed to deliver on his promise to vaccinate all people working and living in residential aged care by Easter, vaccinate all Australians with a disability and disability care workers by Easter, vaccinate four million Australians by the end of March, fully vaccinate all over-70s by the onset of winter and vaccinate all Australians by October. Why should Australians believe Mr Morrison will deliver on his new promises when he has consistently failed to deliver on his old promises, leaving Australians languishing in lockdown?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:57): [by video link] Once again, Senator Watt and his questions, as has become commonplace from the Labor Party, airbrush the bits of history that they're not interested in. They simply ignore the realities of the 3.4 million doses that didn't arrive on schedule at the start of the year. They airbrush the challenges in relation to changes in the health advice relating to the AstraZeneca vaccine. They pretend those things didn't occur and just surge on, pursuing their politically motivated agenda. That's the choice of the Labor Party.
We've acknowledged, yes, there've been challenges. We've taken responsibility for fixing the challenges, and we are pleased to see the rate of the vaccine rollout now charging ahead across Australia. In the last week alone, 1.8 million doses have been administered around Australia. That is the population of South Australia provided with a vaccine dose, all in one week. We are running at a rate of administration of vaccines now higher than was ever achieved in the United States at their peak and higher than was ever achieved in the United Kingdom at their peak, and that's before we see the increase in supply that will come through further in the coming months. We've secured additional supply already, and there's more coming. We will see, with that extra supply, even more distribution outlets brought online. At that point, there will be the ability for us to open up to the entire adult population, providing all Australians with the opportunity to follow the magnificent lead of our older and senior Australians, who have turned out, as the first cohorts made eligible, in record numbers, taking the effort and the time to get vaccinated. Now some 85-plus per cent of senior Australians have received their first dose, setting a very strong example that I trust, based on the growth rates we're seeing across every other age cohort, will be followed by Australians to help us reach the crucial targets of 70 and 80 per cent, and hopefully further in the time to come.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:59): Mr Morrison is promising Australians that the lockdowns he is responsible for will end when 70 per cent of Australians over the age of 16 are vaccinated. Will Mr Morrison admit that Australia would be there already if he had not failed his two jobs on vaccine and quarantine? How can Australians trust that the same man who got them into this mess can get them out of it?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:00): [by video link] There we have Labor again taking the political approach, and we have Senator Watt repeating this pathetic line from Labor, that there were only two jobs to worry about. Of course there are many more serious jobs in addition to COVID that we must do simultaneously, have been pursuing simultaneously, whether that be the updated Closing the Gap agenda, whether that be dealing with the sensitive issues in Afghanistan, whether that be pursuit of many other policies in relation to economic growth, to climate change and otherwise.
In terms of the agenda for opening up, we are absolutely committed to seeing the Doherty modelling applied, because it provides a scientific basis to give confidence and certainty to Australians while keeping Australians as safe as possible. We can see Australia charging towards those targets in the Doherty modelling because Australians are turning out as more dosages become available, and that is delivering the opportunity for us to look to a future with far more confidence and optimism than those on the other side apparently seem to have.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:01): In the Black Summer bushfires, Mr Morrison told Australians, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' When COVID hit Australia, Mr Morrison blamed everyone else for his failure to deliver safe national quarantine and the vaccine rollout. After three years as Prime Minister, when will Mr Morrison start acting like one?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:01): [by video link] What a pathetic excuse for a question there from Senator Watt. As a government, we are proud to have Mr Morrison leading us through the most uncertain of global times. We're proud of the fact that, as a country, the cooperation shown by all Australians right across this nation has ensured, despite our current difficulties, we do have world-leading outcomes when it has come to the management of COVID-19.
The policies and approaches put in place in Australia have saved lives, tens of thousands of lives, compared with the rest of the world. The economic responses put in place in Australia have saved businesses and saved jobs—hundreds of thousands of jobs—relative to the challenges that have been faced in the rest of the world. These are uncertain times. The delta variant has thrown additional challenges at us, but we are confident Australia will come through it. We won't let those opposite talk this nation down, talk it into some sort of economic abyss. We will see once again, I am certain, with the economic support— (Time expired)
Senator Cash: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:03): 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 Watt today relating to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
My home state of New South Wales is now entering its ninth week of lockdown, with record case numbers and a population suffering from nine weeks of social isolation from friends, families and everyday activities. There was one person—one person—who could have stopped this had he been effective and had he kept his promises to the Australian people. But Mr Morrison has instead failed on all of those promises.
He promised to vaccinate all people living and working in residential aged care by Easter. What have Australians actually got? More than 40 per cent of aged-care staff still haven't had their first shot! Despite making vaccines mandatory in the aged-care sector by 17 September, the government's failed rollout means that the aged-care sector—a large section of the workforce—will see these workers sacked or the government will push back its deadline again due to its complete and utter failure.
Mr Morrison's second promise? To vaccinate all Australians with a disability and all disability care workers by Easter. What Australians actually got from Mr Morrison: 26.2 per cent of 267,526 National Disability Insurance Scheme participants aged 16 or older have been double dosed and 44 per cent partially vaccinated as of 19 August. That is another appalling failure to vaccinate our most at-risk citizens.
Mr Morrison's third promise? To vaccinate four million Australians by the end of March. But what Australians actually got was 850,000 doses—not full vaccines; doses—by 6 April, just over 10 per cent of where we should have been in April.
Mr Morrison's fourth promise? To fully vaccinate all over-70s by the onset of winter. What seniors actually got was fewer than 40 per cent of over-70s were fully vaccinated by the end of the second month of winter.
Mr Morrison's fifth promise to the Australian people? To vaccinate all Australians by October. What Australia actually got was one of the slowest rollouts in the developed world and chronic, crushing lockdowns. As at yesterday, only 24 per cent of our population is fully vaccinated.
These failures, these broken promises from Mr Morrison, have implications that have radically changed the lives of those in my home state. We will look back on this period of time—life before COVID and life after—at the endurance of the ongoing failure of this government during this profoundly challenging period of our country, where promises were made and Mr Morrison and his government failed to deliver, whether that's for the residents of south-west Sydney who are locked in their homes with soldiers patrolling their streets, whether it's the aged-care worker desperate to get a vaccine and an appointment and trying to get there in time so that they don't infect the beloved members of that community that they are serving, or whether it's the First Nations communities whose communal lives and culture is profoundly interrupted by the terrifying spread of virus, especially those communities in Dubbo for whom I advocated directly to the minister for health in April. He failed to respond, and we see the context in which the wild spread of that disease is happening right now.
I warned the government. Labor has continued to warn the government, particularly about rural health failures that would harm the lives of First Nations communities across this country, but particularly in the seat of Parkes in western New South Wales.
Mr Morrison's fingerprints are all over this enormous mess, from the botched negotiations with Pfizer due to his meanness—he was offered 40 million doses in June 2020 and he said 'No, thank you;' we are paying the price for that decision—to the lack of foresight throwing all of our eggs in to one vaccine basket and the inability to effectively coordinate the rollout. This Prime Minister has hobbled the Australian economy and prolonged the health crisis with his failure to attend to detail and to take necessary care. His sole interest is political future, not the nation he pretends to lead. This has left Australians in an enduring economic, emotional health crisis, the likes of which we have never seen. (Time expired)
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (15:08): I rise to address the topic at hand this afternoon in the Senate, which is on the question of vaccines and the question of the management of this pandemic. It has been said that the opposition really has played their role, which we would expect, during this past 18 months that they have been in opposition—interested in politics and not interested in trying to help the Australian nation deal with an enormous economic and health shock. So, if people want to talk about what really matters when the books are written, people will look at this period and they will say that there was a relatively low level of infection, there were fewer deaths than any other comparable nation and the vaccination rollout was slower than it may have needed to be but it picked up pace pretty quickly.
The pace of the vaccination rollout right now in my home state of New South Wales—and you want to talk about New South Wales—is pretty much the fastest in the world. It's the fastest that anyone has ever seen. We're now at the stage today, having hit six million doses in my home state—which is almost 60 per cent of people having had one dose—of being 15 points ahead of some of the other states in Australia. New South Wales will be the first to real freedom. Other states can live behind their COVID curtain and try and pretend they're in some kind of hermit kingdom, but New South Wales, because of the very fast rollout in combination with Commonwealth and state government cooperation, will be the first to real freedom. People in my state will be the first people in this country to genuinely live with COVID. And that is what we have to do: we have to live with this.
Now I come to this issue that was raised in question time, where it was asserted that there were huge waiting lists for people to get vaccines in south-west Sydney. In the course of the last hour, helpfully, I've been able to check a few facts. I have spoken to a few pharmacists I know in south-west Sydney, and you can walk into a pharmacy in Bexley or Kingsgrove and you can get a shot straightaway. Labor want to pick up on the politics, because they're not interested in health outcomes. They are interested in politics—and that is their role, so we can't begrudge them that.
But the point is that we are on the way to achieving our plan's targets. We're going to get to 70 per cent. We are going to get to 80 per cent. It is going to happen. You can already see, with over 80 per cent of older Australians in some cases having already received their first dose, that this is going to happen. In a couple of months, we're going to be there. And our economic figures will still be very strong, based on all of the relevant data we have up to the moment. People will look at this period and say, 'It was a huge economic shock, it was a huge health scare, but, you know what, it was run pretty well, because few people died, there was a low level of infection and the vaccine rollout was very fast, in the end.'
Some of the more sensitive issues here are around minorities, and people want to talk about the Indigenous communities. Of course people are concerned about Indigenous communities, and far-flung and remote communities—and there are some of those in New South Wales, as there are in Western Australia. It has been very important to keep the virus out of these communities, and, overall, that has largely happened. Yes, there has been some infection, in towns like Burke and Brewarrina and Coonamble—towns that I've visited in my role as a senator—and, yes, it is clear that the facilities in those towns are not flash, and these are the last places we want to see the virus. The virus having been in some of these communities, we do need now to work closely with the elders, as is happening, to ensure that vaccines go into the arms of those Indigenous people. We do need, I think, to reflect on some of the past values here in Indigenous policy in Australia, where there's been far too much paternalism and far too much 'doing to', rather than 'doing with'—and 'doing with' is what has happened across Australia during this pandemic. The vaccination rollout has been done in deep consultation with Indigenous communities. We need to get those vaccines into arms in western and south-western New South Wales. That is happening and that is now urgent.
I think we will look back on this period as one of great concern. There has been a big price paid by small-business people and by schoolkids. But, ultimately, we are on track. This will be over in a couple of months, and we can open up. (Time expired)
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:13): [by video link] I rise to take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham, to questions asked by Senator Watt on the Morrison government's failure to hit their own self-imposed vaccine targets and vaccinate key vulnerable groups in the community. This is a government that is now in its eighth year. One need only look at some members of cabinet to realise that sometimes the length of a government is directly relevant to who in the B-team gets into cabinet. This could not be truer of the minister responsible for the dignity and peace of mind of hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities, Senator Reynolds. People with a disability and their loved ones depend on a capable, empathetic and engaged minister. Instead they've been saddled with a self-absorbed senator from Western Australia who has failed in her current position and who—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, there's a point of order. Senator Small?
Senator Small: That is a clear reflection on the minister in a personal capacity, and I consider it a breach of 193(3).
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, Senator Small, it was not a reflection. Senator Kitching.
Senator KITCHING: I realise that, of course, Senator Small is also a senator for Western Australia. I don't wish to besmirch him, because he isn't as self-absorbed as Senator Reynolds is.
Anyway, she has currently failed in her position. She's still wallowing in self-pity—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Small.
Senator Small: If the previous thing wasn't a reflection, surely calling her 'self-absorbed' is.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't believe it is, Senator Small. Senator Kitching.
Senator KITCHING: She's still clearly wallowing in self-pity, having been prised from her previous role as defence minister. In fact, you can probably still see the fingernail claw marks in the walls of the secure room from which they had to drag her. Let me break it to you, Senator Reynolds: you're not getting that role back anytime soon.
To add insult to injury, this is the second incompetent, inept and lazy minister that Australians with disabilities and their families and loved ones have had foisted upon them by the Prime Minister. They've gone from the member for Fadden to the senator for Western Australia Senator Reynolds. While her predecessor's sole qualification was that he was the Prime Minister's flatmate, I laughed disbelievingly when I heard this pathetic and negligent minister boast about what she believes are her achievements and strengths on Radio National this morning. The minister said:
Well, Fran, when I became minister, nearly five months ago, it was very clear to me that there were a number of challenges in rolling out the vaccination program—
One would think that she had some ability to see problems—
to people with serious and permanent disability, particularly those in shared residential accommodation—in over 6,000 small homes around the nation. That's for a variety of reasons, everything from consent to making sure that we provide the right environment, the right supports, to the individuals.
Then Minister Reynolds went on to say, and I really couldn't believe she said this:
As an Army logistician myself, I did what every good logistician does—
'How much are the tickets?' one has to ask—
I got an even better logistician to come in, and we set up a task force for disability vaccinations.
This panicked buffoon actually said 'logistician'. I'll come back to that. She then went into an indecipherable bureaucratic rant, in which she said:
Now, as you've said in relation to all NDIS participants who are eligible, we've also had a 300 per cent increase since I started this new approach, in June. So we've still got a way to go, but we are picking that up fast. But can I also just finally share with you disability workers—we have had an extraordinary response. In fact, since you and I last spoke about worker vaccination, in June, we've had a 200 per cent increase.
So dreadful were these numbers that she kept referring to a percentage increase and not the percentage of those actually vaccinated. If we want to look at the actual figure, it's 28 per cent [inaudible] months. That is it.
Remember this minister talking about how she cares for people with disability? 'What an honour it was to be in this portfolio,' she said—fine words, zero action. Her responses on the ABC this morning and her dislike of discussing numbers would suggest that she's not even the logistician that she prides herself on being. As she should remember, because she's already experienced it, pride cometh before a fall. This train wreck of an interview shows she's not even a good obfuscator, an attribute much valued by this government.
However, this isn't the only area in which the minister's reign of error is being felt. I received an answer to a question on notice today, No. 3926, whereby the minister revealed that complaints received by both Centrelink and Medicare—both under her watch—have steadily increased in recent months. We hear a lot about the Prime Minister shirking responsibility and not doing his job, but I'd like to add one more job to the list of things Mr Morrison will no doubt fail to do: to sack this disgraceful dud before even more people die on his government's watch. This is a message for the Prime Minister, one he'd heed if he were doing this job. He would not have this minister, who's been in for 148 days, cruelly subjecting people with a disability to her bungling. He would get a better minister, if that's what he really cared about.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Kitching. I will ask you to withdraw the last comments you made about the minister.
Senator Kitching: I withdraw.
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (15:19): We know that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, the member for Grayndler, likes a buck each way. Instead, it's taken till today for the member for Maribyrnong and the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, to finally recognise that Labor can't have it each way when it comes to the Team Australia moment that is getting our nation vaccinated against COVID-19. Today the member for Maribyrnong has endorsed the government's position on adopting the national cabinet endorsed Doherty institute modelling, and that is that Australia must vaccinate and then, in a compact with the Australian people, allow them to live with COVID-19. There is only one contagious disease that has been eliminated from the face of the earth in the last 200 years, so it is fanciful to suggest that anything other than a suppression and vaccination strategy—and that is the strategy of the Morrison government and, indeed, of the national cabinet—gets Australians back to what they want. It gets them back living their lives. It gets them out from under the blanket and allows them to spend their time doing the sorts of things that we know they want to do—get a job and to raise their kids and give them opportunities that they may not have had themselves.
That is the Australia that the Morrison government wants to see, and that is what our track record speaks to. Not only were we the first nation in the world to close our international border; we then set about protecting lives and livelihoods. That included, of course, the devastating economic impacts of COVID-19 in the early days and the record levels of economic stimulus that we provided on the back of that—some $290 billion of direct economic stimulus that allowed three million Australians to be supported with JobKeeper and one million to regain employment as the economy came roaring back.
However, we are not done, because we know that the vaccination rollout is the key to a post-COVID normal for this country. That is why we have seen more than the population of South Australia vaccinated in the last week alone. Whilst those opposite seek to undermine our vaccination effort, that is a higher rate of vaccination than has ever been achieved by the United States or the United Kingdom on a per capita basis. Those opposite seek to undermine Australia's vaccination program, which featured ordinary approvals of vaccines rather than emergency approvals of vaccines in the US and the UK. We know that the reason the US and the UK put their vaccines through emergency approval was that bodies were piling up in the streets. Instead, here in Australia, not only did we preserve the national economy, with Australia's unemployment rate falling below five per cent in the latest monthly figures, but we did so with a death rate that was the lowest in the OECD and comparable only with that of New Zealand. It would otherwise have meant some 30,000 additional deaths here in Australia, even if we had only suffered the average death rate in the OECD.
But do we hear a good word from those opposite about our vaccination program, our economic support and our national leadership through this once-in-a-century pandemic? No, we don't—other than from the member for Maribyrnong, who has finally realised that the time has come not to be painted into a corner and isolated from the rest of the nation as we seek to get the job done, get vaccinated and get back to living our best lives. Instead, in the eight long years they have sat opposite, the Labor Party have learnt nothing about their failures in government, with their ill-thought-out proposal for a $300 vaccination bonus being reminiscent of cash for clunkers, school halls, pink batts and other government rorts with taxpayer money. They have learnt nothing in the eight years of opposition sitting over there. They should have been listening to the Australian people, who overwhelmingly 'speak with their sleeves', rolling up their sleeves in record numbers. When it comes to those aged over 70, some 85 per cent are already protected, and 75 per cent of the over-50s are protected. When it comes to Australia's most vulnerable, 67 per cent of those in shared disability accommodation have received one dose and already 51.9 per cent have received two doses. That is the fact. (Time expired)
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:24): [by video link] Australians are typically known for being a rather easygoing lot. We're not ones to expect a great deal. We're relaxed and, I think it would be fair to say, reasonably forgiving types. Given these generally low expectations from Australians for most things, it is really quite something to see the level of disappointment currently in the community, disappointment especially with those opposite and their ability—or rather their inability—to get on with the job and deliver the things that matter to working families. At the beginning of this year we knew that the government had two jobs. The first was to deliver the vaccine rollout and the second was to deliver a national quarantine system. Those opposite would like to talk about how great they are at this moment, but, nine months later, what we are seeing is the government playing catch-up, to be frank. They have had the whole of this year and the one previously. One would have thought that the government would throw absolutely everything at these tasks. One would have thought that the government would understand just how important it is for them just to get it right and get those jabs in arms and have Australians overseas back home with their loved ones. And yet here we are with still some of the lowest vaccination rates in the developed world and still no effective quarantine system for returning Australians.
As much as those opposite would like to ignore it, the Prime Minister and his government made some promises to the Australian people. We remember those promises, and so do those in our community. The coalition promised that stranded Australians would be home by Christmas—last Christmas that is. The coalition promised that, in the race to get vaccinated, Australians were at the front of the queue and they would be the first ones in the line to get the jabs they needed in order to get our nation and our economy back on track. But what we know now is that both these promises have been broken. Christmas came and it went, and still tens of thousands of Australians remain stranded overseas, separated from family and friends—mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, torn apart because of this government's failure. Now, eight months on from the commitment, still here we are with loved ones torn away from their homeland because of this government's failure to deliver a national quarantine system.
And here we still are, over 12 months on, with Australians waiting and waiting for the jabs that they desperately need. It is good to see finally the government playing catch-up, but we're having to also rely on vaccines from overseas countries, because we took it too slow to get our orders in with various vaccination companies. We have half a nation that is currently under lockdown—our two biggest cities in Australia and even our national capital. Residents of Sydney and Melbourne are living under curfew conditions, all because of the coalition's failure. If Australians had had access to the jabs that they needed, we wouldn't be in this mess. That's just the fact of it. If Australia had actually been at the front of the queue, as was promised, we wouldn't be in this situation. It has been absolutely clear that the only thing this government deals in is false hope. It certainly isn't outcomes, the result of orientated groups of individuals.
My question to the federal government is simply this: how much longer do we all need to wait here until you stop buck-passing to the states and address the Commonwealth's failures and the Commonwealth's responsibilities under the Constitution? How much longer will working families be facing the uncertainty of rolling lockdowns before you'll get the jabs you promised rolling out into their neighbourhoods? How much longer will this take? These are not questions asked by me but questions that come to my office every single day from people who can't get work, people who are desperate to get out there and earn a living. These are questions far too important to ignore. They're too important for you to continue to buck-pass on. I urge the government to step up to the plate, make good on your broken promises and do the job that you were elected to do.
Question agreed to.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:59): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the COVID-19 vaccination program.
Senator Colbeck didn't answer my question about whether children are going to be included in vaccination targets This is a very important issue, because, if children under the age of 16 are not included in our targets, it means that 80 per cent is really 65 per cent of the population. That has ramifications in and of itself about the impact of COVID in the community, in terms of the infection rate, in terms of people who catch it and, unfortunately, in terms of deaths from COVID. Importantly, we need to stop our children getting sick. It's absolutely essential that we move strongly to make sure that teenagers under the age of 16 are included in our vaccination targets, because we've seen in the latest outbreaks that children are getting the delta variant. It is absolutely essential.
I'm going to share my time with Senator Faruqi, because she wants to talk about the TRIPS waiver. My last supplementary question was about the TRIPS waiver. The minister obviously did not understand the question, because he went on and had a rant at me about my comment. It was not about Australia; it was about the TRIPS waiver so that other countries get access to vaccines—in other words, waiving intellectual property rights so that those lower-GDP countries who don't have adequate access to vaccines can get access to vaccines. That's what that question was about. It was not about Australia. My other two questions were, but that one was about vaccines around the rest of the world. Our government, the Australian government, has not supported the TRIPS waiver. Australia is one of those countries standing in the way of making sure that the TRIPS waiver is in place. I would now like to hand over the rest of my time to Senator Faruqi.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:31): [by video link] The Morrison government have not only botched vaccinations for people living in this country; they are also actively jeopardising the health and lives of millions of people in the Global South. The Liberal-National government have ignored the pleas of more than 100 countries for our support to temporarily lift intellectual property restrictions so poorer countries can manufacture vital vaccines, medicines, masks and ventilators. This waiver is currently being considered at the World Trade Organization, with the TRIPS council meeting again on 14 September. But, as Senator Siewert said, I don't think Minister Colbeck even knows what a TRIPS waiver is, and that is pathetic and shameful.
Till now, Australia has sided with the big pharmaceutical corporations to keep their profits intact, rather than increasing access to a life-saving treatment for people who have already been screwed over by the Global North's colonialism and neocolonialism. Now is the time to pay off some of the debt that we owe these countries and their people by making sure that they can produce vaccines at the scale and urgency that is needed. Yet this government not only has stonewalled pleas to support the TRIPS waiver but, as the Saturday Paper recently reported, is using pharmaceutical industry talking points to help other holdouts such as Germany prolong negotiations at the World Trade Organization. This government is so shamelessly supporting corporate profit ahead of the lives of people.
While refusing to support the TRIPS waiver on the one hand, on the other hand Scott Morrison has dipped into the COVAX supply, taking out 500,000 Pfizer doses, because he failed to do his job. COVAX, a donation based model for poorer countries to have access to vaccines, is already struggling to meet its funding goal, and it's not enough to meet the required demand.
So today I'm calling on the Australian government again: if you have a skerrick of decency or any sense of morality and responsibility left in you, value people's lives and provide your full-throated support to the TRIPS waiver now. There is not a second to waste. It is unconscionable to deny any country vaccine access to protect the billions of dollars of profits of pharmaceutical giants.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Sheldon to move on the next day of sitting:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Job Security be extended to the last sitting day in February 2022.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting days after today:
(1) That the following instruments made under the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 be disallowed:
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 List 2003 (No. 2) [F2021L00632]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 List 2003 (No. 3) [F2021L00628]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 List 2004 (No. 2) [F2021L00642]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 List 2009 (No 1) [F2021L00637]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing 2010 (No 1) [F2021L00638]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing 2011 (No 1) [F2021L00641]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing 2013 (No 1) [F2021L00634]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing 2015 (No 1) [F2021L00640]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing 2015 (No 2) [F2021L00627]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing 2015 (No 3) [F2021L00648]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing 2016 (No. 1) [F2021L00635]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing 2018 (No. 2) [F2021L00639]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing 2019 (No. 1) [F2021L00649]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing (No. 1) 2020 [F2021L00626]
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 Listing (No. 2) 2020 [F2021L00633].
(2) That the following instruments made under the Charter of the United Nations (Anti-terrorism Measures) Regulations 2001 be disallowed:
Charter of the United Nations (Anti-terrorism — Persons and Entities) List 2001 [F2021L00631]
Charter of the United Nations (Anti-terrorism — Persons and Entities) List 2001 (No. 2) [F2021L00643]
Charter of the United Nations (Anti-terrorism — Persons and Entities) List 2002 (No 1) [F2021L00645]
Charter of the United Nations (Anti-terrorism — Persons and Entities) List 2002 (No 2) [F2021L00647]
Charter of the United Nations (Anti-terrorism — Persons and Entities) List 2002 (No 3) [F2021L00636]
Charter of the United Nations (Anti-terrorism — Persons and Entities) List 2002 (No. 4) [F2021L00644].
Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting days after today:
That the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2021L00567].
That the Industry Research and Development (Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program) Instrument 2021, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2021L00610].
That the Telecommunications (Statutory Infrastructure Providers—Circumstances for Exceptions to Connection and Supply Obligations) Determination 2021, made under the Telecommunications Act 1997, be disallowed [F2021L00651].
Senator Hanson-Young to move on 19 October 2021:
That the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2021L00567].
Senator Griff to move on 19 October 2021:
That the Migration Amendment (Merits Review) Regulations 2021, made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2021L00845].
Senator Ruston to move on the next day of sitting:
That on Wednesday, 25 August 2021 consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable senators to make valedictory statements relating to Senator Siewert.
Senator Keneally to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 9.30 am on 26 August 2021, the advice referred to by the Prime Minister in his statement on
22 August 2021 that 'what we've been advised by Professor McVernon is that the starting point doesn't ultimately change the ultimate conclusion point of where case numbers arrive'.
Senator Cash to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Crimes Act 1914, and for related purposes. Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:35): On behalf of Senator Ruston, I move:
That, on Wednesday, 25 August 2021, the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021 be called on at 4 pm, and if consideration of the motion has not concluded by 4.30 pm, the question then be put.
Question agreed to.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:35): Could the Hansard please record the Greens as opposing this motion.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Siewert. It is so recorded.
DOCUMENTS
Australian Research Council
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:35): I inform the chamber that Senator Carr will also sponsor the motion. At the request of Senators Faruqi and Carr, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 26 August 2021, de-identified information about applications for the Australian Research Council Future Fellowships 2021 and Discovery Early Career Researcher Award 2022 funding schemes, specifically:
(a) the number of applications deemed ineligible on the basis that they cited pre-print publications;
(b) the primary field of research code of each of those applications; and
(c) the total monetary value of those applications.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:36): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: All Australian Research Council funding is awarded on the basis of a competitive grants process and rigorous peer-review assessment. All applications are subject to grant guidance and guidelines which, since September 2020, have precluded the listing of preprints in an application for funding. This preclusion was detailed in the application form, instructions to applicants and information sessions conducted by the Australian Research Council with universities. Applicants are able to appeal decisions in accordance with the grant guidelines.
Question agreed to.
Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:37): At the request of Senator Waters, I 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, 26 August 2021, the following documents relating to the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling program:
(a) any correspondence between the Minister for Resources and Water and Tamboran Resources Ltd, Santos Ltd or Sweetpea Petroleum Pty Ltd or any subsidiaries discussing the program;
(b) any correspondence between the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction and Tamboran Resources Ltd, Santos Ltd or Sweetpea Petroleum Pty Ltd or any subsidiaries discussing the program; and
(c) details of any meetings between the Minister for Resources and Water or the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction and representatives of Tamboran Resources Ltd, Santos Ltd or Sweetpea Petroleum Pty Ltd, including date, location, attendees and notes of any matters discussed.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:37): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The Greens' continual motions for the production of documents relating to the Beetaloo accelerated drilling program are nothing more than a fishing expedition tying up the time of ministers, their departments and the Senate for no discernible result.
Question agreed to.
Senator RUSTON: I ask that the government's opposition to that motion be noted.
The PRESIDENT: It is so recorded.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:38): I give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during the period of sittings:
(a) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021;
(b) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021; and
(c) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021.
I table the statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statements read as follows—
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COUNTING, SCRUTINY AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES) BILL 2021
Purpose of the Bill
The Bill includes a series of amendments to modernise aspects of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to allow the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to conduct electoral events more efficiently and effectively in relation to pre poll matters, handling and scrutiny of ballot papers, and the streamlining of authorisation requirements.
Reasons for Urgency
The Bill is urgent as the next federal election can occur between 7 August 2021 and 21 May 2022. In order for relevant legislative changes to take effect and be implemented by the AEC before the election, passage will be needed during this sitting period.
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL OFFENCES AND PREVENTING MULTIPLE VOTING) BILL 2021
Purpose of the Bill
The Bill includes a series of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to provide the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) options to safeguard against suspected multiple voting, and revise the existing penalty of interference with political liberty to further enhance the safety and integrity of Australian elections.
Reasons for Urgency
The Bill is urgent as the next federal election can occur between 7 August 2021 and 21 May 2022. In order for relevant legislative changes to take effect and be implemented by the AEC before the election, passage will be needed during this sitting period.
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PARTY REGISTRATION INTEGRITY) BILL 2021
Purpose of the Bill
The Bill includes a series of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 with respect to the registration requirements for political parties to ensure the continued integrity of the Australian electoral system.
Reasons for Urgency
The Bill is urgent as the next federal election can occur between 7 August 2021 and 21 May 2022. In order for relevant legislative changes to take effect and be implemented by the AEC before the election, passage will be needed during this sitting period.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
COVID-19
The PRESIDENT (15:38): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, eight proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. I inform the Senate that a letter from Senator Keneally proposing a matter of public importance was chosen:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
That after the Morrison-Joyce Government has failed to deliver on its promises to vaccinate four million Australians by the end of March 2021; vaccinate all of the first priority group by Easter 2021; and vaccinate six million Australians by 10 May 2021, last weekend Australia experienced its highest daily COVID case numbers since the pandemic began eighteen months ago.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers for today's discussion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:39): I'd like to make a contribution on this MPI:
That after the Morrison-Joyce Government has failed to deliver on its promise to vaccinate four million Australians by the end of March 2021; vaccinate all of the first priority group by Easter 2021; and vaccinate six million Australians by 10 May 2021, last weekend Australia experienced its highest daily COVID case numbers since the pandemic began eighteen months ago.
I don't have to remind anyone in this chamber, as I don't have to remind anyone outside this chamber, of the serious nature of this pandemic and the impact of a hapless, unorganised, disorganised, chaotic government that's failed to secure the health and safety of its citizens. And that job rests solely with one man: the Prime Minister of this country, Scott Morrison. He's failed to meet the dates that he put in place to reassure Australians that he was on the job. I don't know how many times we've been in this chamber and reminded the Prime Minister that he has had two jobs during this pandemic—two crucial jobs. One was to roll out the vaccine in a timely way to protect the health of the Australian people and to protect the economy. The other was to provide adequate quarantine. He has failed at both of those tasks. But the consequence of his failures has seen too many Australians lose their lives. Too many vulnerable older Australians have died needlessly because of the failures of this man. When you're the Prime Minister of a country, you are expected to show leadership. This is the same man who said there isn't a race. He said, 'There is no race to roll out the vaccine; there's no race.' There is a race, and the race was always about ensuring Australians' health, ensuring that the Australian economy was protected and ensuring that Australians could feel secure in their jobs and secure in knowing that their Prime Minister was on the job. But he has failed on all counts. What we see now is that there are over 16 million Australians in lockdown around this country. Families are being locked down. Children are locked down at home and parents are having to resort to homeschooling. That has an impact on that family and it has an impact on the community.
If we look at the frontline workers in this country—the truckies, the people who work in retail, our healthcare workers, our schoolteachers, our aged-care workers, our disability carers—these are the people that should have been a priority for vaccination because they're keeping our economy moving and helping to ensure the health and safety of this country and our people. But we still don't have all aged-care workers in this country fully vaccinated. We still don't have all disability carers fully vaccinated. We still have not seen even a plan to address the vaccination of aged-care workers who go to the homes of our older Australians, our most vulnerable Australians. Many of those workers are not yet fully vaccinated. We have heard stories from upset people who call our offices. They're concerned about their loved ones because they can't access the vaccine or the vaccine that they choose. This is the government that failed to secure enough vaccines to ensure their communities, their residents, are kept safe.
We know that the Prime Minister never likes to accept responsibility for his own failings. We've seen that time and time again in what is a pretty sad reflection on his ministry. We've seen Senator Colbeck come into this chamber wanting to talk about the number of vaccines that have been rolled out over the last couple of weeks, as if that's something to be proud of. But that is just an acknowledgment of the fact that they have failed to meet the time lines that they set themselves. Those people on that side of the chamber may think: 'That's okay, we can get away with this. People are now lining up for five hours to get their vaccination, so all's good—nothing to see here.' This is after three years of this Prime Minister, who on every occasion wants to blame somebody else and accept no responsibility. What he's going to be remembered for is being the Prime Minister who was good only at slogans and trying to spin his way out of trouble. That's what Mr Morrison is going to be remembered as: the Prime Minister who always went missing in a crisis, just as he did through the 2019-20 bushfires. What we heard in those circumstances was, 'I don't hold a hose.' Then it was, 'I don't give jabs.' That is not good enough. This is a war against this pandemic. This is when a Prime Minister is supposed to stand up and be counted, and he's failing to do that.
In my home state of Tasmania, fortunately, we aren't in lockdown. But we are seeing the effect of New South Wales and Victoria and at times Queensland, WA and South Australia going into lockdowns. That has an impact on our community. It has an impact on our economy. It has an impact on our small businesses. But I never hear any of the Liberal senators from Tasmania come in here and speak up for the small businesses or for the schoolteachers who can't get a vaccine. We see them coming in defending their government on their pathetic attempts to secure the safety of Australians. What we don't see is a Prime Minister and his government taking responsibility.
We've had other senators make a contribution through the course of this week about our First Nations people, who have such a low vaccination rate. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. In Western Sydney and further west—in Orange, Bathurst and Dubbo—there are spikes in outbreaks. Teachers who are working with special needs children, and who should be a priority, have been told when they ring around doctors' surgeries and pharmacies that they will have to wait until next year to get a vaccine, because they don't want to have to have the AZ vaccine; they want to have Pfizer.
This government will be reminded about its failings every single day that we sit, and it must be held accountable for its failings, because our economy and the Australian citizens deserve nothing less. This shifting of blame, trying to say that we want people to stay in lockdown, is ridiculous. We want to see the Australian people going back to their old way of life. Of course that's what we want. But we wanted that to have happened because people had been vaccinated according to the Prime Minister's own time lines. First it was March and Easter this year. Then six million Australians were going to be vaccinated by 10 May 2021. Then it was that we were all going to be vaccinated by October. Those deadlines were not met, and I have no faith that this government will be able to meet even its own latest deadline of October or the end of this year. Other countries around the world are already looking at boosters for their residents, but we are so far behind.
How many more people are going to have to die? When the Prime Minister says that we are going to have to learn to live with this pandemic, it will be on his head. How are we going to live with the number of people that are going to die if we open up the borders before all Australians are vaccinated? How are we going to be dealing with those deaths? That will be the situation if he forces states to pull down their borders before the majority of Australians are vaccinated in this country. Enough is enough, Prime Minister. Get on and do your— (Time expired)
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (15:49): [by video link] It is my pleasure to rise and speak on this MPI which, regrettably, reflects the Labor Party's determination to focus on petty politicking and personal political attacks and not the national interest. I say to Senator Polley, and to all Labor senators opposite, that Australians are sick of this negativity, of you dragging down the achievements of Australians, of our nation, of our health workers, of our cleaners, of our families struggling with home schooling and of our businesses. Australians are sick of it. So I say: what about starting to put the national interest first? This politicking is a disgrace.
I say to Senator Polley that I am outraged. I'm outraged by your statement attributing blame to the Prime Minister personally for COVID deaths. That is an absolute disgrace. You should withdraw that appalling statement. The facts are that the Coate inquiry found that the evidence is and the facts are that the vast majority of COVID deaths in this country—801 deaths—were caused by the failure of hotel quarantine in Victoria last year. Those are the facts.
Talking of slogans, Senator Polley, let's have a look at Labor's slogans. Labor keeps on claiming that we failed with quarantine. The bottom line and the facts are that the Labor premiers determined to take responsibility for quarantine. In fact, that was led by Premier Andrews last April when he put forward the hotel quarantine plan to national cabinet, which was accepted. So please start telling the truth. The fact of the matter is the Commonwealth is playing its part, but quarantine has been taken on as a responsibilities by the states. One of the most successful quarantine facilities is in Howard Springs in the Northern Territory. It's supported by an investment of more than half a billion dollars. It has taken the bulk of repatriation flights into this country. In Victoria, the Morrison government has also agreed to share the costs of quarantine with the state for a new quarantine facility in Melbourne. So let's stick to the facts and stop this revolting politicking.
The first positive thing I want to say in my contribution—and let's focus on the positives—is to say to all Australian who are eligible: please, get vaccinated. What a shame we didn't hear that from Senator Polley. Today we have the wonderful news that Australians aged between 16 and 39 will be able to book their Pfizer vaccination from seven o'clock tomorrow morning. We are seeing a dramatic escalation in vaccination rates. Some of the figures we've heard from Labor are just a misrepresentation of the facts. The fact is that over 17 million vaccine doses have now been administered, and we are now hitting over 1.8 million doses being administered every single week. A total of 4.5 million vaccinations were given in July, which is more than double that achieved in May, when 2.1 million doses were administered. Yes, there have been some challenges, principally with supply. But these have largely been overcome and I wish Labor would tell Australians that. Give Australians hope. I say to Labor senators: give Australians hope that there is a way out of this. Our government has secured close to 300 million doses of various vaccines.
Let's not forget that, based on our hard work and the decisions that we made very early in the piece in relation to the management of the pandemic, including closing the border with China, which occurred in January of last year, we have saved, working together, 30,000 lives. We have been very proud to support over three million Australians through programs like JobKeeper, getting one million Australians back to work. There is a lot this government has got right. Now Lieutenant General Frewen and his team are working with the health minister and the Department of Health and doing a great job in accelerating the rollout of the vaccinations.
As the Prime Minister has said, to keep Australia focused on going forward, we need to make sure that we stick to our national plan—that is, once we achieve 70 to 80 per cent vaccination rates, we will see less transmission of COVID-19, fewer people with severe illness and, therefore, fewer hospitalisations and deaths. As the Doherty institute has said, COVID-19 won't go away, but it will be easier to control in the future. That is the hope that Australians need.
I say again to Labor senators, to the Leader of the Opposition, please start talking about hope. Please start talking about what we can do together as a nation. Please start talking about the importance of the national plan, because the bottom line is we can't live in lockdown forever.
I have been very critical of Daniel Andrews and state Labor at times when they have plunged us into lockdown, particularly in parts of Victoria where there are no cases. I am deeply critical of the fact that there are children currently at boarding school in New South Wales who cannot get a permit to cross the border to come back to their families in Victoria which, in my view, is a breach of the Victorian charter of human rights. This is outrageous. There are elderly people sitting in caravan parks in Albury and across the border who cannot get a permit to return to Victoria.
We have got to manage these lockdowns better. They must be a last resort. When we hit those 70 per cent and 80 per cent vaccination rates, we need to see Australia opening up. As the Prime Minister has made clear, as the Treasurer has made clear, we cannot live in lockdown forever. We need to open up our economy, get kids back to school, people back to work and we need to give Australians hope.
The Prime Minister has reiterated that the groundhog days of rolling lockdowns gripping the nation must not last a day more than necessary. The premiers and the first ministers must stick to the national plan. It is deeply concerning that some premiers are already indicating that they will walk away or walk back from this national plan. The Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, will not rule out further lockdowns even though we reach the 70 or 80 per cent vaccination rate. The Herald Sun reported today that Premier Andrews said that once Victoria reaches a vaccination rate of 80 per cent of those aged over 16, there would not be state-wide lockdowns unless otherwise advised. I say to Premier Andrews: What sort of hope is that? What sort of plan is that? This is deeply troubling. This saps confidence from every single Victorian, particularly the businesses which have been hit so hard in the events sector, in hospitality, in arts, in tourism. These are businesses which have suffered so much. When Melbourne goes into lockdown, it causes such huge issues right across regional Victoria because the regional Victorian economy to a large degree depends on the Melbourne economy.
I say that Victorians have had enough, and that's why I call on Victorian federal Labor MPs, including Mr Marles, Ms Coker, Ms King and Ms Chesters, to come out in support of the national plan. I say to Labor, please stop your negativity. Please start acting in the national interest.
The national plan we have developed and agreed on is our pathway to living with this virus. That is our goal—to live with this virus and to do the best we can as a nation working together. It's a plan based on the best possible scientific, medical and economic advice, and, I would argue, the best advice available to any government in the world.
Let's not forget that 12 months ago we didn't even know whether we would have a vaccine. The fact that we have a vaccine that has been rapidly rolled out to all Australians is an incredible scientific achievement. This is largely going to keep us safe from this terrible virus, which has caused such havoc in Australia and around the world. But we are getting through this and we are managing.
Again, to Labor, to those opposite, please let's focus on our success. Please let's focus on what we are achieving. Please let's focus on the scientific breakthroughs that we have seen here in Australia and around the world. Let's celebrate what we are doing. (Time expired)
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:59): I rise to make a contribution to this MPI debate. Apparently we're being political if we dare raise concerns about the so-called national plan. That plan for 80 per cent of the eligible population conveniently does not include children under the age of 16. There are a lot of human beings not included in the targets. When I asked the government today about children being included in the targets they conveniently didn't answer that question. They said, 'We're going to ATAGI and we're going to get vaccines out to children sometime in the future,' but they did not commit to include it in the plan. Let's be very clear: children continue to be at risk because an 80 per cent target that doesn't include those under 16 means that we are dealing with around 65 per cent of the population, and that's pretty scary, folks.
Don't accuse us of being political when we raise very genuine concerns. We too look at the science. We too look at the modelling. The Doherty institute's modelling is slightly out of step now with the current situation, which I think the government acknowledges. But there is also other modelling. ANU modelling came out today—the pre-published report. The Grattan Institute modelling clearly shows that young people—children, kids—need to be included in the targets. When are they going to be included? It is our job in this place to question government, hold them to account and raise these issues—the same as we have done with many other issues, such as JobKeeper and increasing the coronavirus supplement. We all acknowledge that the government did the right thing there. We raised those issues.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (16:01): This year started with so much promise because of the lightening-speed scientific endeavour that delivered us the promise of protection through vaccination. The success of public health intervention measures meant that Australians could look forward to a vastly superior 2021 than the previous year. It is true that the failings of the Morrison government to get Australia near the head of the queue on vaccine procurement was evident even in 2020; however, thanks to the successful public health interventions led by state governments it seemed like we bought a little more time to successfully deliver our rollout.
The commitment was there directly from the Prime Minister that Australians would be vaccinated and vaccinated soon. In fact, the Prime Minister pledged to Australians that some four million of us would be vaccinated by the end of March. That pledge included a further commitment. He promised that every Australian in the first priority group who wanted to be vaccinated would be by Easter. There was hope that our most vulnerable Australians would be protected and protected reasonably soon. The promise made by the Prime Minister stretched to the vaccination of six million Australians by 10 May. While the vaccination rollout in Australia even under this pledge was well behind the OECD, it still seemed as though we would reach higher levels of vaccination coverage within months.
We needed just two things to go right. We needed our government to deliver on just two responsibilities that fall directly at the feet of the Commonwealth government. We needed to keep COVID out through a successful quarantine system whilst we rolled out a successful vaccination program. It seemed doable. We thought this government and this Prime Minister would be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. It turns out that they can't do either on their own.
Last week, tragically, this nation experienced its highest daily COVID case number since the start of this pandemic, and we are nowhere near where we were supposed to be on our vaccine rollout under the Prime Minister's original plan and promise. We all agree that vaccination is our ticket out of this pandemic, so why on earth did the Prime Minister fail to secure deals to secure vaccines in a timely manner in 2020? Other nations seem capable of doing it. He claimed we were at the front of the queue. Now we find we are near the back of the pack when it comes to all comparisons with comparable nations. In fact, we are last in the developed world when it comes to having our population fully vaccinated. There are still people in the vulnerable priority categories yet to be fully vaccinated.
It's quite extraordinary really, and a far cry from the hopeful optimism we all felt in January, because the consequences of Mr Morrison's failure to do his job have a devastating impact on Australians. Many of us are in seemingly endless lockdown. Hundreds and hundreds of Australians are contracting COVID every day. Borders are closed. Businesses are struggling or collapsing. People are out of work and losing income. The stress and the strain is having a significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of Australians, and it didn't need to be this way. We didn't need to be here, but here we are because Mr Scott Morrison couldn't do his job—just two jobs. Job No. 1 was a speedy, effective rollout of the vaccine: fail. Job No. 2 was to manage quarantine: fail. But, for this Prime Minister, every job is someone else's fault; every crisis is someone else's responsibility.
We are in the race of our lives—we always were—to get this done and to provide better protection and the hope of a better life. This was always a race, despite what the Prime Minister said. It's been a total dereliction of duty, because, as you know, he doesn't even hold a hose, and now Australians have been plunged into uncertainty and disruption because of the quarantine system and the slow vaccine rollout. Australians are crying out for leadership. They just want the job done. They want some hope. They want the promise of January 2021 delivered, and all we ever get is more spin. All the while our health is at risk, our economy is held hostage, families are being kept apart and children are stressed and missing out on school. Australians deserve better. Interestingly enough, the first of Mr Morrison's promises and commitments to Australia in early 2021, the 70 per cent target, would already have been reached.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (16:06): Clearly, those opposite are consistently listening to some form of echo chamber, the land of Danistan cheer squad focus group, with their constant negativity. Do you want Australia to fail? Why are you constantly rooting for Australia to fail? I would have thought Senator Keneally, as a senator for New South Wales, might have been able to muster some state pride, if not national. Australia is now vaccinating people at a rate higher than that of any other country in the world. In fact, the only thing more impressive than that is the fact that New South Wales is actually leading that charge. What that means is that New South Wales is now vaccinating people at a faster rate than that of any other jurisdiction globally.
As a fellow New South Wales senator to Senator Keneally, I for one am extremely proud of the people in my home state who have gone out and gotten vaccinated. When Gladys Berejiklian set a target of six million vaccinations this month, New South Welshmen heeded the call and exceeded those six million vaccinations, with still a week to go in August. That is something we should be celebrating. Instead, here we go again with the political pointscoring and the talking down of Australians and of what Australians are actually going out to do in record numbers. In fact, there have been over 17 million doses of vaccine delivered to date. But what's really so remarkable about that is that just three days ago we were at 16 million vaccinations. For those of you who struggle with the maths here, that means that in the past three days we've seen one million doses delivered. Now, no-one could have gotten their first and second jab within three days, which means that one million Australians have received a vaccination over the past three days. So I would like to say thank you—thank you to them for making themselves safer, thank you for making your loved ones safer and thank you for assisting all Australians to get back to their lives without lockdowns. But perhaps that's where we find the problem. Perhaps you don't want to return to any form of normality. Perhaps you've developed some form of fetish for lockdowns. Each to their own, but this predilection affects millions of Australians and hundreds of thousands of businesses.
We need to break the lockdown cycle, and we know via the Doherty modelling we can start to do that at a 70 per cent vaccination rate. Just let me break it down for you. More than 85 per cent of over-70s have received their first dose and 58 per cent their second, more than 75 per cent of over-50s have received their first dose and almost 45 per cent their second, and more than 50 per cent of over-16s are protected with their first dose and 31 per cent their second. But what we also know is that in both New South Wales and the ACT over 60 per cent of all of those eligible have received their first dose. Unfortunately, Queensland and Western Australia are lagging well behind, with their numbers in just the mid-40 percentile.
Those opposite are very fond of asking questions about it being a race, so here you go. Have your race. Get onto your state premiers and start encouraging them to get their citizens vaccinated. Maybe those of you from outside the premier state—that is, New South Wales—could get onto those premiers and CHOs and get them to understand this requirement. While we're on it, perhaps Senator Keneally might like to ask the member for Maribyrnong, who's such a fan of AZ, to give the current opposition leader a call. Firstly, he could teach him how to actually say the word 'AstraZeneca'. Then, perhaps he could start to get out there and practise by encouraging people to get the vaccine rather than by desperately trying to slow it down with his fearmongering, because those of us on this side actually understand the toll these lockdowns are taking.
But perhaps the mental health toll that these lockdowns are taking is beyond you. The rate of teenage suicide and self-harm is rising and we have a generation of kids that, quite frankly, these lockdowns are breaking. We know that Lifeline is receiving record-breaking numbers of calls each and every day. This morning I heard Roderic Rees on Sky News speaking with Peter Stefanovic. His business, Cairns Adventure Group, is unlikely to survive if he can't at the very least get interstate travellers to visit Cairns, and I'm sure Senator Green will be on the phone to Premier Palaszczuk pleading with her to ensure that fellow Australians are able to travel interstate at Christmas not only to see their families but to support these businesses that are absolutely at breaking point. But, when these premiers, who agreed to the plan and then walked outside to politically point score and further jeopardise the wellbeing and the livelihoods of so many within their own states, go against what the national cabinet devised, do they even begin to comprehend the damage that they are doing to not only the business owners—I know those opposite aren't too fussed with small business owners—but the workers employed in those small businesses. Do they comprehend the uncertainty that this prevarication causes for those workers when they don't know if the small business they work for will be able to survive.
I remain an optimist. I am hopeful that very soon your focus groups will tell you that the day of lockdowns being a vote winner is over. I am forever hopeful that you will start to support Australians. You don't support all Australians and their families, their jobs and their businesses. If those opposite don't start to understand the devastating consequences of refusing to accept that we need to start to live with this virus in the same way that we live with the flu, the mental health consequences will far outweigh the damage that COVID could ever have.
Whilst those opposite continue their scare campaign and fearmongering, I'd actually like to congratulate Victor Dominello, the New South Wales Minister for Customer Service and Minister for Digital, on the creation of the inclusion card. What he's doing here is allowing businesses to check people in rather than the other way around. It's this sort of innovation that's going to assist in opening up New South Wales. If only all the premiers had the same focus. We know that there are people who struggle with using a smartphone, who aren't that tech savvy. In fact, I still have a giggle when I think about one of the posts I saw last week. Someone mentioned that their mother wasn't sure what to do with all the photos of the QR codes. She'd been taking photos of the QR codes, rather than checking in, because the technology was maybe a little too sophisticated for her. But it's also really good, and an important move forward, for people with a disability who would also struggle with the check-in technology.
I would also like to acknowledge that, from tomorrow, 25 August, all NDIS participants over 12 years of age will be eligible to get vaccinated. Every NDIS participant over the age of 12 will be eligible. For those wondering why it's not under 12, it's because no vaccine is approved for anyone under 12. So when we all start chiming in about how many children are going to be vaccinated—no vaccine is approved anywhere around the world for children under 12. My son, gorgeous 'Freddo Frog', is 12. I, for one, will be getting him vaccinated as soon as possible because I understand, unlike some of the antivaxxers out there, that vaccines don't cause autism. What they do, though, is ensure that people with autism don't suffer this serious illness. I'm also pretty sure vaccines contribute to decent spelling and the use of correct grammar, but that's a whole other matter for us to discuss on another day.
What I would like to say to those opposite—and, really, it's a very simple message; I think even those opposite may be able to understand it: please stop the politicking. Please start to back Australians. And, to Senator Keneally: be proud of your state. Let's get back to life. Let's get back to travel and help support the mental health of all Australians.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:17): [by video link] Some 14.5 million Australians have not yet received any COVID-19 vaccination—not Pfizer, not AstraZeneca. Three in four Australians are not yet fully vaccinated. The Prime Minister massively bungled the vaccine procurement, and his government is now engaged in a mad scramble to increase and accelerate vaccine shipments from overseas. He will eventually achieve satisfactory levels of vaccination, but it will be many months later than it should have been, and there will have been great social and economic cost associated with the delay.
What is particularly worrying is the extent to which the Prime Minister's so-called plan for reopening Australia is being wrapped and accelerated by his political objectives. The declared target of full vaccination of 80 per cent of the eligible adult population excludes one in five adults—that's 4.6 million adults—and all children below the age of 16, or 4.8 million kids. At the 80 per cent level, millions of Australians, including children and teenagers, will not be fully vaccinated and will still be vulnerable to the virus and its potential, long-term, debilitating effects. There's much argument about the Doherty institute modelling. However, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister is wilfully disregarding the scale of the New South Wales delta strain outbreak and the spread of the virus amongst children. These factors surely deserve much deeper investigation—more than just one institute—and that analysis should be made public. It's a case of a looming election skewing the Prime Minister's view. Australians are right to question his judgement in relation to— (Time expired)
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (16:19): If you listen to the noise coming from the government, they're trying to hold everyone to account except themselves. I think we've heard—I can't quite remember—Mr Morrison finally admit that he's lagging behind in the vaccine rollouts, but let's put the facts on the table. The Morrison-Joyce government failed to deliver on its promise to vaccinate four million Australians by the end of March 2021. Okay, Mr Morrison might have actually acknowledged that he failed to meet that target, but then he was going to vaccinate all the priority groups and care workers by Easter 2021. We know that aged-care workers are not fully vaccinated—and that stops clearly at the feet of Mr Morrison and Senator Colbeck. There was that promise to vaccinate six million Australians by 10 May 2021. And we've now got mandated vaccination of aged-care workers being done by 17 September. I can't see that happening myself. And we were going to make sure that everyone over 70 was vaccinated by winter 2021—we are now just a few days away from spring—and there was that big promise to vaccinate all Australians by October 2021.
These aren't magical numbers made up by the opposition; they are numbers put out there by Mr Morrison. Is it any wonder that we've got vaccine hesitancy in this country when we've got a Prime Minister who can't even meet his own targets? I heard Minister Reynolds talking about the NDIS on the radio this morning. If you listen to her, you would think people with disability are lining up all over the shop and able to get vaccines. That's clearly not the case. After Minister Reynolds had finished trying to hoodwink the Australian community, a mother called up about her child who has a disability and is within the age range to get the vaccine. She said that, despite going everywhere to try and get a vaccine, the earliest she could get one was October. Do you know what Minister Reynolds's response to her was? 'Keep trying'! This is the government that is responsible for the vaccine rollout—and we know that there has been vaccine rationing all over this country.
What's happening right now among First Nations communities in western New South Wales is, frankly, shameful. Sure, the Premier of New South Wales and Mr Morrison can get up about 'six million' but the reality is that that figure needs to be broken down. In western New South Wales, it won't be 30-odd per cent receiving their first jab; it will be nothing like that. It's shameful that the Minister for Aged Care and minister representing the minister for health said in here today that 'they are doing their best'. They should have been on the front foot with First Nations communities, not the back foot. I'd like a map of Australia to show us the appalling rates of vaccination among First Nations people and I'd like to know exactly what the government is doing about it.
In the ACT, a significant number of people under 40 are coming down with the delta strain and a significant number of them are children aged from 12 years. Primary schools and high schools have had to be shut down. In New South Wales, it's the same. If we are not now proactively looking at getting vaccines for that age group, for those aged 12 and up, then, again, Mr Morrison will fail the Australian people. The need is there. We have a disastrous vaccine rollout across this country amongst vulnerable groups and now, clearly, amongst children. Sure, we are now starting to vaccinate children who have some sort of disability or illness. But, frankly, that is not good enough. Other countries are vaccinating children from the age of 12.
And where on earth is Moderna? We have been promised—'its coming, it's coming, it's coming'. I'm sorry, but you have failed at vaccine rollout. You should be ashamed of yourselves and finally admit it.
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:24): It is certainly clear that Labor got the memo this week about their key speaking points. With everything else going on, Labor are ensuring they keep it negative—shock, fear and loathing, 'bad vaccination rates, bad PM,' blah, blah, blah. Yesterday they were quoting the PM ad nauseam: 'He said, "It's not a race." How bad is our Prime Minister?' They've been harping on about that for quite a while now. They've also been harping on about how the Prime Minister had just two jobs, as they say. Well, I'm sure the Prime Minister would love to have only two jobs, but the reality is not so simple, as the Australian public are well aware. It is not as simple as Labor delivering their tired sound grabs, and yet they accuse the Prime Minister of being addicted to slogans.
It is true that, early on in the piece, the Prime Minister did say, 'It's not a race,' because he wanted to keep our public calm. He could have said to the Australian public: 'Don't panic. We have the vaccine. We have a plan. Stay calm.' He used different words. Did we get everything right from day one of the rollout? No, and the Prime Minister has admitted that. Did the changing ATAGI advice throw a spanner in the works of the best-laid plans? Absolutely. But we are not the only country that had to pivot and deal with changing advice regarding different vaccines. I'm not quite sure what Labor are proposing when they harp on about the fact that we didn't have enough vaccinations early enough. We were also a country with one of the lowest rates of infection in the world. Did they want us, as a wealthy Western nation, to push other countries aside and say, 'Give us your vaccine?' Atrocious.
But, while the public were told, 'It's not a race,' that doesn't mean our agencies, our healthcare workers, the vaccination hubs and others have not been racing. Indeed, it is now clear that, from a slow start, they're racing like Phar Lap. Per capita, as Senator Hollie Hughes said earlier, people in New South Wales are now getting vaccinated faster than at the peak of vaccinations in the US and the UK. Dr Nick Coatsworth tweeted on the weekend:
UK was the world model in vaccination and NSW is now exceeding it.
And we're rolling out our ancillary troops. GP clinics across the country have now administered over nine million doses. Community pharmacies are delivering AstraZeneca. The Royal Flying Doctor Service—if I may respond to Senator Lines's worry about remote communities and Indigenous communities—have delivered 22,000 jabs into the arms of our most remote communities, through 90 site visits, as well as delivering nearly 14,000 additional doses to remote health services. Even our Defence Force is engaged. In my state, the ADF delivered 1,500 vaccines at a pop-up clinic in Dubbo just last Saturday—one day. We are now delivering well over a million doses a week. In fact, the most recent data shows it took just three days to deliver the last million doses, so we are off and racing. But we don't want to panic the nation.
While this motion is right, in that we didn't meet the six million target by the end of May, we are now getting almost that figure out per month, and, at current rates, we are on track to have 80 per cent of the over-16 population vaccinated by the end of November. But it requires a level of personal responsibility. People need to come forward. So I say to Labor: stop fearmongering, stop looking in the rear-view mirror, stop harping on about past targets missed and look at what we are achieving. Look to the horizons. I say to the 30 per cent of eligible people who are now fully vaccinated: thank you. And I say to those coming to get vaccinated: thank you. We're moving forward.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:29): [by video link] It is difficult to see the rising COVID numbers in New South Wales, and it is also heartbreaking to watch the New South Wales Liberal government shaming people in certain communities in their theatre of compliance because they have failed to control the spread of COVID and, ultimately, because Scott Morrison has failed to roll out a vaccination program early enough. It is having a huge impact. The multicultural communities being overpoliced and singled out by the New South Wales government are also now carrying a disproportionate burden from this outbreak. South-West and Western Sydney are full of essential low-paid workers who carry out the bulk of the needed critical work. They are first responders, grocery store workers, train and bus drivers, delivery drivers, childcare workers, nurses, aged-care workers and so much more. Getting their jobs done means that they are shouldering the burden of this pandemic while, all the time, risking exposure to the virus. But the people of South-West and Western Sydney, rather than being thanked for doing the work we all so desperately rely on, get told off and put under curfews in a heavy-handed police crackdown. This might be a cheaper strategy than proper wage subsidies and income support, but it's also shameful and discriminatory. Overcrowded housing is at its worst in Sydney's west and south-west, yet the government keeps telling people to stay home rather than providing safe housing for all. The Morrison government's botched vaccine rollout, mixed messaging and blame shifting have created mass confusion.
Despite efforts to divide and to paint multicultural communities in a different light, a report by the New South Wales Council of Social Service found that attitudes towards vaccines in multicultural communities mirror those of the general population. I know that low-paid brown and black workers might be the easiest of scapegoats for politicians, but shifting the blame to people of colour really needs to stop right now. Just stop. It is not just unhelpful; it stinks of racism and is doing immense harm to so many.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (16:31): [by video link] I'm speaking from Sydney in our ninth week of lockdown. I listen to the government senators saying, 'Look at what we've achieved.' You've achieved nine weeks in which small business, working people and families are put in an extremely difficult situation as a result of the government's failure to sort out a national quarantine system and organise an efficient and speedy vaccine rollout. As COVID-19 ravages New South Wales, the vaccine rollout is still months behind schedule. Victoria, the ACT and even New Zealand have been forced into lockdown by the outbreak which began in Bondi.
It is unthinkable that, 18 months into the pandemic, six months into the vaccine rollout and nine weeks into lockdown, many of the most urgent priority groups for vaccines are still being left behind. People are still waiting outside in the pouring rain for hours at a time to get a vaccine. Just 26.9 per cent of NDIS participants over 16 are fully vaccinated. That is less than the general population, despite them being in phase 1a or 1b, the urgent and high-priority groups for vaccine access. Anne Kavanagh, a professor of disability and health at the University of Melbourne, has called the rollout for disabled Australians 'negligent' and a 'failure'. These aren't complaints; this is a call for the government to get its act together today.
It was recently reported in the news that a pregnant woman found that she could only book a vaccination appointment five months from now. This is despite the recommendation from ATAGI in June that pregnant women be urgently vaccinated due to the severe risk of COVID to their health and that of their unborn babies. Then there is the disability and aged-care workforce, who Scott Morrison promised would be vaccinated by April. Well, it's nearly September and more than 40 per cent of aged-care and disability workers are yet to have even their first jab. The Health Services Union has reported that workers have been struggling to access vaccines. The HSU says that aged-care workers have had to cancel appointments in order to go to work so that they can put food on the table. That is the reality for a workforce which is 90 per cent part time or casual. No Australian should be in such a precarious position in their job that they are forced to miss out on critical medical appointments just to get by.
When health workers are making so many sacrifices, when they are risking their health and wellbeing caring for those who are vulnerable, the least we can do is make sure they don't have to lose shifts or to pay to make their vaccine appointment. The fact is that small businesses and working Australians, particularly in western and south-west Sydney, are doing it tough during this lockdown. I think also of the businesses of working Australians in Victoria and the ACT, who are being impacted by the Bondi outbreak. Of course, there are many other parts of the country not able to receive tourism and exchanges from state to state.
When people are doing it tough, they need short-term support and they need a longer term vision for how we can get to a better place. I note a new report by Community and Patient Preference Research today, which found vaccination take-up is almost five times more likely if a $300 payment is on offer. That's not whinging; that's about solutions. This government is refusing to do it because it was the opposition who proposed it. Ludicrous! That is exactly what Labor has proposed. It's about time the Morrison government dropped its ideological opposition to providing financial incentives to vaccination. Mr Morrison certainly has no issues with giving billions in JobKeeper to Gerry Harvey and his pals. I'm sure Mr Morrison can cough up a far, far smaller amount to salvage our national vaccination program, which is still struggling to catch up from his insistence that this isn't a race.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:37): [by video link] For disabled people and our families, the pandemic has been a time of unparalleled fear and anxiety. Many of us have been trapped inside our homes, scared to go outside since the very beginning of the pandemic. Throughout this time, we have worked as hard as we can; we have banded together, we have collaborated, we have raised our voices to our state and federal governments. We have argued, cajoled, convinced, persuaded, presented discussion papers and expertise, and sometimes even pleaded for a plan that would vaccinate us and would give us what we need to be safe. And from the very beginning of the pandemic, the Morrison government has repeatedly failed to heed our advice, failed to engage with us effectively, and failed to provide us with the protection and the support that we need.
At the very beginning of the pandemic, we discovered there was not a single person in the health department whose job it was to make sure that the initial response supported and protected disabled people. Months into the pandemic, we discovered that there still was not a plan. Months later, there was still no plan. And now we discover that, as far as we are into this great crisis, no more than 26 per cent of NDIS participants have been vaccinated, and there are still about half of the folks living in residential settings who are yet to be fully vaccinated. This is absolutely unacceptable! It puts disabled people's lives at risk, and it must be urgently addressed effectively.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) ( 16:39 ): [by video link] The safety of everyday Australians should never be a race on a political scoreboard. Instead, it must be about health and accountability. Yet this government and most people in parliament hastily rammed COVID injections on people. The vaccines are not fully tested and are only provisionally approved. These are vaccines with serious side-effects—they're even killing people—and with plummeting efficacy. The injections are already losing their effect. We've been told that we do not need 100 per cent vaccination to protect. Why, then, do governments, parliaments and big businesses continue to persecute people rightly concerned about this injection? A constituent, Ben, asked a simple question that many are asking: if your vaccine works, why does he need one, and, if it doesn't work, why should he get one?
Secondly, Australians have a right to sit this race out. Instead we're hearing democracy choking—the death of our right to say, 'No, this is not for me.' Without blush or hesitation, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce threatens the jobs of people who are concerned about COVID injections. Yet the same man signalled the need for IR reform now, supposedly to protect workers from abuses of power. Respect people's rights and restore informed consent—a basic human right. Is it any wonder millions of people now question everything state and federal parliaments say and have reached breaking point? No, it's expected.
The ongoing protests must be heard. Australians have legitimate concerns for health and safety, jobs and livelihoods, and rights and freedoms. The unions and Queensland Labor—old Labor—used to defend the right to protest. They're now a symptom of the problem of taking away people's freedoms, jobs and livelihoods. In turn, state and federal governments must get back to basics and focus on the virus, not the symptoms. Whether we came here before Captain Cook or came from Europe or from Afghanistan, we Australians have one flag, we are one community and we are one nation. (Time expired)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ): The time for the discussion has expired.
DOCUMENTS
Australian Research Council
Consideration
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:44): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I understand that Senator Faruqi would like to make some comments.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:44): [by video link] I speak to take note of document No. 5 in the Senate Order of Business, the Australian Research Council grant recommendations July 2021. Firstly, I must congratulate those researchers who were successful in the current round of DECRA, as listed in the document. It is not an easy time to be an early-career researcher in this country, and I hope that you're able to conduct your rigorous academic work, which will be of enormous benefit to the community for years to come. But let's be honest about the process for this funding round and the recent Future Fellowships round. It was a flawed process. The rule change from the ARC that rendered ineligible dozens of grant applications citing preprint publications has had such a terrible impact on so many researchers, particularly those in STEM. Researchers say the rule change was poorly communicated and does not seem to have any basis in research integrity. For many in the sciences, citing preprints of other scholars is a basic and unavoidable part of their work. Some have noted that this rule disadvantages not just the sciences but those working in fast-moving fields of research. It is completely counterproductive to the pursuit of intellectual inquiry, especially in the ever-changing research world of 2021.
Since the news of this matter emerged late last week, hundreds of researchers have signed letters petitioning the ARC to change its approach on preprint publications. As reported in Guardian Australia, the President of the Australian Academy of Science, Professor John Shine, wrote to Minister Tudge to say:
It could easily be argued that a researcher not referencing material found in preprints is not using the full range of contemporary knowledge in a discipline.
He also offered the academy's services in developing a new approach. A new approach is what is needed, and I hope that the ARC will listen. It should be mindful that the new rule could also impact applications currently under consideration, and the ARC should ensure that those applications do not meet a similar fate. As a former academic and university researcher, I know all too well how difficult it is to apply for these extremely competitive grants when the stakes are so high and opportunities so few.
What this saga has exposed is much more than the use or role of preprint publications in academic grant applications. It's hit a nerve about the broken model of research funding in this country. Increasingly, thousands of bright, motivated, curious researchers across the country feel that their contributions are being completely disregarded and devalued by a narrow-minded, short-sighted, anti-intellectual government. Over the last 18 months and even before that, it has absolutely pained me to see so many researchers and academics leave higher education, either because they were forced to or because they see no future in it. It is so depressing and, honestly, it's a disgrace. I will keep fighting for higher education staff and students who still believe we can have world-class, well-funded, fee-free university and TAFE in the country. There is so much at stake, and very little time to turn this ship around.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:48): I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
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) responding to the order, and attachments. Motion to take note of documents moved by Senator Siewert. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Australian Research Council—Grant recommendations—Letter of advice pursuant to the order of the Senate of 27 February 2020—July 2021. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Siewert and debated. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
COMMITTEES
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Additional Information
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (16:49): On behalf of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Senator Kitching, I present additional information received by the committee during its inquiry into the TPI payment.
Environment and Communications References Committee
Report
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:50): I present the interim report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This report is a very important one. Not only has it gathered information and evidence in relation to the Beetaloo basin and the plans to drill for gas in that area in the foreseeable future; this interim report goes directly to the government's plans to give tens of millions of public dollars over to gas companies to start fracking in the Northern Territory.
The Beetaloo basin gas field, which sits south of Katherine in the NT, holds around 34 billion tonnes of heat-trapping gases, the equivalent of 68 years of Australia's already high pollution levels. The NT government said that opening up the basin's gas fields will increase Australia's annual emissions by six per cent, when we should be going the other way. We have many debates about having to reduce carbon pollution in this country and around the world. Rather than doing that, the government's plan to open up fracking in the Beetaloo basin is going to make it even harder for us to address climate change and to reduce pollution.
We have until 2030 to halve the world's pollution. Otherwise, we run the risk of setting off chain reactions that will lead to a runaway climate breakdown way beyond the ability of humans to get under control. The IPCC report that we've referenced in this place many times over the last few weeks is a big warning sign that, if we're to reduce the risk of temperature rise, this is the last decade that we have to take serious action to reduce pollution and get things back on track.
Putting aside the fact that this fracking plan in the Northern Territory is a climate bomb, it is a trademark dodgy process of this Liberal government. What we've seen is the government put on the table a $50 million grant fund for gas companies to go hell for leather in the Northern Territory. We've got spreadsheets marked with electorates. We've got mates looking after mates. We've got fundraising dinners and private jets flying across the Northern Territory, and we've got nice, cosy, private dinners with ministers and gas company executives. This is more 'cash for Liberal Party mates', at a time when we've been having a lot of debate in this chamber and the other place about other types of rorts that this government is involved in. They're up to their necks in car park rorts, and, of course, there's the sports rorts program. Unfortunately, we hear today that this gas rort by the Morrison government is going to be simply waved through by the opposition. That is an extra extremely disappointing position for the Labor Party to have taken.
What we know is that, out of the $50 million of public money that the Morrison government wants to hand over to gas companies, $21 million has already been earmarked for a company called Empire Energy. That company has been awarded $21 million so far. What this report outlines and what the committee has uncovered is that this company had the inside track. They were mates of the Liberal Party and even mates of the minister, Mr Angus Taylor. They were lifetime members of the Liberal Party. What happens is, of course, that this company ends up getting the lion's share, $21 million. The relationship between this company, Empire Energy, and the Liberal Party is so thick you couldn't count the number of ways on one hand.
In March this year, the company met with Mr Taylor privately in his ministerial office; no department officials were there. Eight days later, the grant guidelines were publicly released, showing that the scheme wasn't even merit based. The evidence that we've got through this inquiry thus far and detailed in this report is that the money was handed out on a first-come first-served basis. No due diligence was done. The criteria weren't even met. Of course, the key criterion for getting access to the cheque is if you're a mate of the Liberal Party. Minister Taylor denies that they even talked about the grants, but—let's be honest—this is the same bloke who denies that he played with the reports and documents from the City of Sydney website and who denies the ownership of Cayman Islands based companies that received $80 million in water purchases from the federal government. I leave it to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, as to whether or not you believe Mr Taylor was involved in this and whether he is to be trusted.
What we do know is that before this meeting, in October last year, Minister Taylor's personal fundraising vehicle, the Hume forum, specifically invited this very same gas company, Empire Energy, to attend his fundraiser in Darwin. Empire, of course, graciously accepted the invitation. They paid $4½ thousand to attend that event. The next day the company chartered a private jet to the site where the well is to be drilled. That not only included Mr Taylor; his staff were flown there. His chief fundraiser, the head of the Hume forum, Mr Ryan Arnold, was there as well, as were members of the gas lobby, APPEA, and the executive director of the Menzies centre. What were they all doing, flying out to the well site over there? They were all in attendance. Of course, a few months later, this company ended up getting $21 million of public money. After a big day of jetsetting, obviously they would have been pretty happy with themselves that night! They even went out for a private dinner.
Who exactly owns Empire Energy? The chair of Empire, Mr Paul Espie, was described in parliament by cabinet minister Jane Hume as a friend and a mentor and a doyen of the Liberal Party. He's the chair of the Liberal think tank the Menzies centre, which explains why the Australian columnist and Menzies executive director Nick Cater was on board this private jet as well. Mr Espie has donated over $400,000 to the Liberals over the years. Do you see a theme here, Madam Acting Deputy President? Cosy, cosy! Friends, friends, friends! The major shareholder of this company is a Tasmanian billionaire, Dale Elphinstone, who has been involved in Liberal Party preselection, is a regular supporter and is referred to as a lifelong member of the Liberal Party. The next largest shareholder of this company—and this goes to the lack of due diligence that was done before giving this money, public money, $21 million of taxpayers' money, to this gas company—is an investment vehicle owned by a Mr Michael Tang, who is a Chinese national, and there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest, in Hong Kong, for insider trading. Boy! So, on one hand, you've got mates of the Liberal Party and, on the other, a bunch of criminals. And yet taxpayer money is being spent on this rubbish—$21 million of taxpayers' money to be spent trying to frack for gas in the Northern Territory at a time when we should be reducing carbon pollution.
Now, we could have a debate about whether we should be fracking in the Northern Territory, and the Greens' position on that is crystal clear. But what this report goes to—as well as the lack of consultation with the traditional owners, and I know there will be other senators who want to refer directly to that—and what I'm worried about is that even the process for handing out this money has been dodgy from go to whoa. But I'm very disappointed to hear today that the Labor Party, rather than standing up to it, is going to let this one slide. It is going to let this one slide just so it can perhaps keep its mates in the gas and the fossil fuel industries happy. Boy oh boy, why on earth would the Labor Party want to let the Liberal government, the Morrison government, Mr Taylor and his mates off the hook when clearly this stinks of just another Liberal Party rort. It's also going to cook the planet. (Time expired)
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:00): [by video link] I speak to the interim report of the Environment and Communications References Committee's inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin, which has just been tabled in the Senate. There is $50 million of public moneys about which we have so many questions. This report has uncovered that, and you will see that in the recommendations. The recommendations centre around the concerns of transparency, accountability and openness and the fact that there are so many questions which still remain unanswered. There is the issue of $50 million, where $21 million has been provided to one company based on merit. It beggars belief that millions and millions of dollars can be given in such a way.
What we heard in this inquiry was important evidence from people who live in the Beetaloo region. These are people who matter. They are people who worry about their future, their livelihoods and their families. We heard from very many groups right across the Gulf of Carpentaria, across the Beetaloo and Barkly and right up to Arnhem Land. These concerns are very real. Witnesses gave evidence where they have not had the opportunity to do so before. These witnesses matter. We had a witness who comes from the Borroloola region and the Beetaloo region who now is in Dubai unable to get back to Australia. Her evidence spoke very strongly about the importance of being accepted as a traditional owner.
There were questions that we were also able to put to the Northern Land Council, which is responsible for looking for and talking with traditional owners—not to influence in any way their decisions but to ensure that they are aware of what it is that they're agreeing to or not agreeing to. These processes that we have seen took place back in 2011. Even then, families were unaware of what it was they were agreeing to. These were the statements that were coming from the older generation, and now they are coming from the younger generation of people who live in the region, in particular the First Nations people. The fact that $50 million could be so much better spent elsewhere was also an important piece of evidence that kept coming through time after time from witness after witness.
But perhaps one of the most important things is the role of the parliament and the role of the scrutiny it funds and the role of how money is given or gifted. That's the role of the Senate and this inquiry. Their role is to examine why it is that, when you have massive failures in the COVID vaccination of First Nations people and in closing the gap, in terms of First Nations people and health, $50 million can be provided to companies that do not have to meet any particular criteria, other than first come, first served. These are serious questions that this inquiry has to delve further into, and we'll continue to do so as we continue through to March. It's for these reasons that I would certainly encourage the Labor senators to consider that. There are too many things here that need to be answered. There is too much doubt. Allowing $50 million of funding that comes from public moneys and could go to other things to be given away has to be seriously considered.
I say to the witnesses who have given evidence so far: this inquiry will diligently continue on its path. This interim report is a very vital piece of information for the parliament, both the Senate and the House, to recognise how serious the concerns are in relation to this program in the Beetaloo. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (17:05): I would also like to make a short contribution on this report. I am not and have not been a member of the committee, so have not been involved in the inquiry, but I have followed these issues closely, particularly in my capacity as shadow minister for northern Australia.
I want to recognise all of the members of the committee for the work that they have done in this inquiry, in particular my colleague Senator McCarthy, who, as you just saw, has maintained a very close focus on this issue for quite some time. I know that she has been a thorough and effective advocate for the citizens of the Northern Territory on these issues, particularly traditional owners, around the concerns that they have. I do want to publicly recognise the work that Senator McCarthy has done on this inquiry, and even beforehand.
It's no secret that in Australian politics today the development of the gas industry is a contentious issue. There are many who support the development of the gas industry, particularly on the basis of the jobs that it can create, the export dollars that it can earn and other economic benefits. Of course, there are others in the community who oppose the development of the industry, particularly on the basis of their concerns around climate change.
We often hear, as we heard earlier from Senator Hanson-Young, different people's versions of what Labor stands for on these issues. But I would always encourage people who would actually like to know what the Labor Party believes on a particular issue to consult our platform, rather than listen to our political opponents and how they choose to characterise our position. What Labor's platform says on the matter of the gas industry, among other things, is that we support new gas projects and associated infrastructure:
… subject to independent approval processes to ensure legitimate community concerns are heard and addressed. Labor will ensure the industry assesses and manages environmental and other impacts, including on water reserves and co-existence with other agricultural activities, and engages constructively with landholders.
Throughout our platform there are also a number of references to the need for traditional owners and First Nations people generally to be consulted on developments of any kind, including in the resources industry.
Quite apart from the gas industry in general, the proposed development of the gas industry in the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory is also a contentious issue for the reasons that I've already outlined. But I do want to draw the chamber's attention to the fact that a couple of years ago the Northern Territory government commissioned an extremely rigorous inquiry, known as the Pepper inquiry, which explored the issues around the development of the Beetaloo basin. That inquiry put forward 135 recommendations about how the development of the Beetaloo basin should occur. The Northern Territory government and a range of other parties are in the process of implementing those recommendations now. I think it's important to understand some of that background to this inquiry.
As I said, I haven't personally been involved in this inquiry, but I'm aware, from my discussions with colleagues, especially Senator McCarthy, that there are two particularly big concerns that have been raised over the course of the inquiry. The first concern relates to the level of consultation with traditional owners and First Nations people generally in and around the Beetaloo basin. It does appear, through the evidence to this inquiry, that there are some legitimate concerns about how adequate that consultation has been with traditional owners and First Nations people by some of the gas companies who are seeking to explore and develop in the Beetaloo basin. These are concerns that we should all take seriously. Again, looking at Labor's platform, you would expect us to take them seriously, and we do take them seriously. In fact, they are concerns that I personally have raised with the gas industry in very recent times, and I know that colleagues of mine in the Labor Party have done the same thing. I don't know whether the Greens party have bothered to raise those concerns directly with the gas industry, given that their modus operandi is usually to pull a stunt in here rather than seek constructive improvements.
It's because of those concerns that the additional comments that have been made by Labor senators in this report acknowledge the efforts of the Northern Land Council to consult with a range of traditional owners and other interests over many years about the Beetaloo basin. We urge the government to consider supporting the Northern Land Council to ensure even more rigorous consultation with affected traditional owners and native title interests. These are issues that deserve to be taken seriously, and we hope that the government will take the comments on board.
The other big concern that has been raised by a number of people over the course of this inquiry is the probity of particular grants to the value of $21 million in taxpayers' funds that have been made under this program. Of course, when taxpayers' funds are being provided to private sector interests, whether it be in the gas industry or any other industry, we need to be confident that those grants have been administered and approved on a completely above-board basis. I think we are right to be concerned about the distribution of these grants in particular, given that the evidence demonstrates the quite extensive involvement of Minister Angus Taylor, his chief fundraiser and other people with very strong connections to the Liberal Party. We need to remember, of course, that when we're talking about Minister Taylor we're talking about someone who has form. This is the Minister Taylor of the water rorts and the grassland rorts, the Minister Taylor of 'Well done, Angus' and of 'Great job, Angus'—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order, Senator Watts. Senator Brockman?
Senator Brockman: The President very recently made a ruling that you are not allowed to use language saying that a minister has undertaken rorts, so I ask for that language to be withdrawn.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, my advice from the clerk is that if you could please clarify what you mean in using that language it might be helpful for the chamber.
Senator WATT: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I understand why members of this government are sensitive when accusations of rorts are put to them, because it is something that is endemic within this government. What I'm talking about is the involvement of Minister Taylor in what have become known as water rorts and grassland rorts. Let's face it: this is a government that is full of rorts. It doesn't stop with Minister Taylor. We've got the sports rorts and car park rorts, and I'm sure we'll be discovering more before too long. The fact that these rorts are so endemic in this government is why Labor has called for an anticorruption commission, something the government has not agreed to.
This inquiry has heard very concerning evidence about private flights paid for by a grant recipient headed by a Liberal Party life member. Those flights were taken by Minister Taylor and his chief fundraiser. Those trips coincided with fundraisers for the Liberal Party in the period leading up to the grants being administered. Equally concerning is what seems to be misleading evidence that has been given to the inquiry by a number of witnesses. There are some things that Labor is particularly concerned about. Firstly, Minister Taylor seems to have misled parliament by maintaining that his office had not discussed the program with the recipient company prior to the opening of applications, when FOI documents on the website of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources clearly show the opposite. Secondly, it appears that, in answer to a question on notice, the managing director of Empire Energy said that a CLP fundraising dinner was not referenced in its invitation to Minister Taylor when he visited the Northern Territory. There is other evidence, particularly in the Saturday Paper, to the contrary. Thirdly, in answer to a question on notice, the managing director of Empire Energy said the company did not discuss the design of the grant program with Minister Taylor or his office, but an FOI return includes an email from Empire Energy to Minister Taylor's office in January this year that refers to discussions about the grant program. Fourthly, in response to a Senate order for the production of documents, Senator Ruston presented an answer which said there had been no correspondence between Minister Taylor and Empire Energy discussing the program, when there is FOI evidence to suggest the contrary. So we have at least four occasions when ministers or other witnesses appear to have given misleading information to either the Senate or this inquiry.
In response to these concerns, Labor will use the Senate inquiry to pursue this apparent misleading evidence from witnesses. What we will also do is move another motion for an order to produce documents this week in this chamber to seek all correspondence relating to Minister Taylor's visit to the Northern Territory, there is a stench around these grants. There is a stench around Minister Taylor's involvement in them, and we deserve to see all correspondence regarding Minister Taylor's visit to the Northern Territory.
Finally, because of the concerns that have been raised in the inquiry around the probity of these grants and the potential misbehaviour and misconduct of Minister Taylor in particular, Labor will ask the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit of the grant program, noting the close political connection between Minister Taylor and Empire Energy, and draw to the Auditor-General's attention the presence of Minister Taylor's chief fundraiser on the site visit and the company's presence at a Liberal fundraiser on the night before the site visit. These are serious questions, they deserve to be taken seriously and that's why Labor is taking firm action in the way that I have outlined.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Watt. Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks?
Senator WATT: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (17:15): I would like to point out that the coalition senators involved in this inquiry cannot support the majority report. This report is characterised by overtly political and ideological statements and selection of evidence. It has resulted in a quite biased report and biased conclusions, and we do not support it at all. In fact, we have a dissenting report which relies solely on scientific and factual evidence that was given by organisations such as the CSIRO and GISERA. The evidence that was picked up and presented in the majority report relied on a lot of unreliable witnesses, a lot of witnesses that didn't even seem to know why they were there or what they were saying. This is the reason we can't support this report.
For the Northern Land Council, in fact, one of the star witnesses was a lady who gave evidence from Dubai, where she lives, claiming to be a traditional owner. The Northern Land Council, which is the body under the legislation that is charged with identifying and organising consultation with traditional owners gave evidence that this witness was, in fact, not a traditional owner of the area concerned.
The report is just punctuated by claims such as these all through it, where these witnesses, who were supposed to be factual witnesses, giving evidence were actually activist groups, such as GetUp who were coaching a lot of the witnesses that were appearing, and a lot of the witnesses who supposedly appeared independently gave strikingly similar answers and they were the same answers as those that were given by organisations such as the Australia Institute and GetUp. My colleague Murray over there seems to be pathologically obsessed by Minister Taylor.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McMahon—
Senator McMAHON: Senator Watt seems to be pathologically obsessed by Minister Taylor. In fact, he spoke about Minister Taylor and about Minister Taylor's trip to the Northern Territory for quite some time and he cast aspersions about Minister Taylor's involvement. I would just like to point out to Senator Watt that he has the wrong minister, because Minister Taylor is not responsible for this program. In fact, Minister Taylor has absolutely nothing to do with this program. This program is administered by Minister Pitt—two completely different ministers, two different parties, in fact—and it is, in fact, Minister Pitt who has carriage and he is the sole decision-maker of this program.
Minister Pitt was not even there. In fact, he's never been to the Beetaloo. I would love and I extend the invitation for him to come, but he's not even been there, so I don't know why Senator Watt is so obsessed by Minister Taylor and why he is trying to draw him in to what should be a factual report of evidence given by credible witnesses. In fact, he is using the opportunity to try to draw in a minister who is not involved in the instrument that this inquiry was about. Senator Watt, I don't know what your obsession is—I really don't—but you have definitely got the wrong minister. If you want to talk about any ministerial involvement in this program then you need to talk about Minister Pitt, not Minister Taylor. In case you need help: they do look quite different, they are from two different parties and they do look after different areas of ministerial responsibility. If Senator Watt and the Labor Party are going to try to incriminate any ministers in any of this program, I suggest they at least get the correct minister.
As I said, coalition senators have a dissenting report, which we believe displays the factual evidence that was presented by credible witnesses. I ask the Senate to please take our report into consideration and to discredit some of the evidence given by Labor that implicates the wrong minister. Our recommendations in this report are quite easy. There are two recommendations. The first one is that the NT government complete its implementation of the Pepper review in a timely manner. That is something that came out as part of the evidence. Many witnesses gave evidence that the issues they had were because the NT government had not implemented the recommendations of the Pepper review, as it was meant to. The other recommendation we have is that the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program proceed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Public Works Committee
Report
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:22): I present the fifth and sixth reports of 2021 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
COMMITTEES
Consideration
The following committee reports and government responses were considered:
Economics References Committee—Foreign investment proposals—Progress report, dated 20 August 2021.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Funding for public research into foreign policy issues—Report, dated August 2021, Hansard record of proceedings, additional information and submissions.
DOCUMENTS
Climate Change
Pensions and Benefits
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (17:23): I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the summary for policymakers for the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Income Compliance Program.
Pensions and Benefits
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:23): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Minister Stoker just tabled a response to the resolution of the fourth interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee into the robodebt debacle, which is apparently called the Income Compliance Program. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised at the government's response. The documents that the committee sought have not been tabled. This is the fourth interim report on this matter. The government has made repeated claims of public interest immunity. While I'm not surprised that we got basically the same response—there has been a bit of cutting and pasting going on; it's the same response but a different minister—I find it shocking that this government continues to claim public interest immunity over this matter.
Previously they said, 'There's a class action going on and it may prejudice or influence the class action.' Well, I've got to say that even with that excuse—it wasn't quite as paraphrased as that; I'm paraphrasing—which the committee rejected, the community has a right to know. We are asking fairly simple questions, I think. Did the government seek legal advice? Did they seek legal advice about a program that has impacted on so many Australians? They actually want to know. Did the government ask the simple question? Did they check? Did they ask, 'Is it actually legal to do what we want to do? Is it legal to send out hundreds and hundreds of thousands of letters to Australians, some still on income support and some not any more?' When there was no response, because people move after five to seven years, they were sicking debt collectors on people in a very distressing manner. I've spoken to many of those people who did actually receive pressure and visits by debt collectors. We also heard evidence in the previous inquiry into the robodebt debacle.
But here we have the government yet again claiming the same old, same old. The grounds on which they've claimed privilege is that they don't generally release legal advice. They claim legal privilege as a ground to refuse to provide information. The committee rejected that. We as a committee have rejected it time and time again. As it states 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 refusal to provide information in a parliamentary forum.
The minister also claims that there might be ongoing cases, although the current class action is effectively resolved. We heard about that in the Senate committee hearing we had on 19 August. There are still some matters around disbursement of funds, but the government's talking about any future cases. The government is talking about any future claims that people might bring, because not everybody who was damaged by this debacle was part of the class action. The government is using the excuse, 'There may be others, so we are not going to release this legal advice.'
Let's cut through all the legal issues. I will come to what Mr Grech, a lawyer for Gordon Legal who ran the class action on behalf of all those claimants, said to us in a Senate committee in a minute. But when you cut through all the legal mumbo jumbo that a lot of people will see it as, especially those that were affected by robodebt, quite simply the government won't provide the Senate committee or, in fact, this place—because it is a resolution of this place—answers to simple questions like, 'Did you seek advice?' or, 'When did you seek advice?' Why won't the government say? A lot of people would say it's very obvious why they won't say—because they don't want to be caught out because either they didn't look or they didn't even think to think whether it was actually legal under the Social Security Act. Did they not think about it? Or did they check and go ahead anyway? When they found they may be in deep trouble, did they then seek legal advice? When did they seek legal advice? What was the nature of that legal advice?
There's quite clearly evidence here that the government, through their very nature of not wanting to provide this advice, ha ve something to hide.
The same happens when we ask about the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. When you got their findings, did you actually talk to the department about it? Did the department take any action about it? Did they inform the ministers? What action did they take? Because if they'd actually looked at what was happening in the AAT, they would have known there was a problem. These are the sorts of things that this government continues to try to cover up by continuing to claim public interest immunity.
One of the excuses—because it is an excuse—that the minister uses is that the claims of public interest immunity were accepted by the court. When we asked about that in the Senate hearings, Mr Grech from Gordon Legal said they were and that there were some things he couldn't tell us. Yes, there were some claims , but there was a lot knocked out. One of the other documents we're tryi ng to get—the ombudsman got it— the government still won't release . That also points to what the government did or didn't know when, and what they did about it. The government won't release that. The government can't hide behind the claim that the court upheld public interest immunity. Mr Grech told the committee that some documents were un available, but a lot of the claims were knocked out. We don't know what those documents were , b ut the government should tell us what they were . They should come clean and tell the people who were damaged and harmed by this illegal program that went on for years . The government should come cle an and present those documents.
I see it as an insult to this place that the government continues to ignore resolutions of this chamber. It continues to ignore requests for this information by the Community Affairs References Committee. We will keep on asking these questions. We will keep on pursuing this because Australians have a right to know. All those people damaged by this illegal program have a right to know. Don't think that Australians or this chamber will accept you churning out the same copy -and- paste letter. The government doesn't want to tell the community what really happened. That's why we need a royal commission so that we can get to the bottom of this issue. There are so many unanswered questions.
I'm really pleased that the money the government illegally claimed has been paid back, but so many people have been damaged. It doesn't provide compensation for the years of deep distress for the people who were affected and their families . Some people found it all too hard. I give a trigger warning here : w e know that this program did contribute to people taking their lives. I'm not going to back away from saying that. Members of the committee , and I'm sure other members of this chamber , have spoken to families who've lost loved ones. Australians demand more. (Time expired)
Senator O'NEILL ( New South Wales ) ( 17 : 34 ): I want to endorse the comments from my colleague Senator Siewert , here in the Senate , with regard to the important evidence we received in the most recent hearing on the 19th. But , to be clear for anybody who's listening to this: buried in the thousands of words that will cover the conversations and contributions here in the Senate is one small section on page 3,936 that talks about, in italics, ' income compliance program—order for the production of documents ' . When you read that, if you're not used to reading this sort of language, what that means is 'robodebt government cover-up providing documents and failing to do so'. That's what that really means. That's a translation into ordinary speak. This is a cover-up of a scheme, known as robodebt, that was described by one of the witnesses the other day as a 'shakedown'. If you don't know what a 'shakedown' is, the Urban Dictionary provides a pretty good definition of it as the abuse of power. That's exactly what we heard.
To be clear, what we asked for was that, by today, this chamber would receive documents from the Minister for Government Services that would give us responses to all the questions that we have put on notice through the committee—and we have had the support of the Senate in rejecting previous PII claims—and everything relating to legal advice about the robodebt, which has been subject to claims of public interest immunity during the Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into Centrelink. We also asked for a copy of the executive minute to the social services minister from 12 February 2015 and a letter confirming that the above responses relating to the legal advice to the executive minute would be provided. We even said we'd do that in camera, which means we'd go behind closed doors, get the truth on the record and see what was going on. None of that has been accepted. Instead of the minister coming in with a great big load of truth and documents, we got a three-page letter which is, as Senator Siewert said, basically a cut-and-paste of the previous four letters they sent to us. This action is contemptuous of the Senate and it's a rejection of this PII claim on multiple occasions.
The government keeps going: 'We'll wear the Senate down. We'll just tell them to get stuffed.' That's really the attitude: 'You can take your questions and walk out the door. We're just going to show up, baldly and boldly, and say, "No, we're not going to show you or give you anything."' This attitude is despite the fact that the government was found to have illegally raised debts against its own citizens. That has been said in the findings of a court. Despite that, this government says, 'Move on—nothing to see here.' Actually, a big accident happened. Everybody knows it was called robodebt and that the damage from robodebt is littered in families right across the country.
I want to put on the record a short excerpt from a committee hearing of the exchange that I had with two great Australians, Mr and Mrs Mundy:
Senator O'NEILL: … you sound like you're hardworking, ordinary Australians who just go along doing your business, abiding by the law and caring about your families.
Mrs Mundy: We do.
Senator O'NEILL: Is that a pretty fair assessment?
Mrs Mundy: A pretty fair assessment. Never been in trouble, worked hard all our life, brought up four children … and done the right thing by everyone.
I acknowledged that comment because the government's created this narrative that people who were attacked by robodebt were dodgy. They were the dodgy Australians who wanted to rip off taxpayers. No, these are the people who were attacked by their own government. Mr and Mrs Mundy are ordinary, hardworking Australians who've done nothing wrong, who've never had a problem with the government or the law in their lives. The exchange continued:
Senator O'NEILL: You've made a pretty significant contribution, as well, to public education—
because Mr Mundy was a teacher.
I don't know what schools you've been teaching in, but it sounds like you've been pretty good contributors to the community over the course of your lives.
Mrs Mundy: We have.
Senator O'NEILL: What was it like, then, to find yourself engaged in—is this the first time that you've ever found yourselves in conflict with your own government?
Mrs Mundy: Yes.
Mr Mundy: Yes.
… … …
Mrs Mundy: It's been horrific. We've had sleepless nights. We honestly felt like second-class citizens when we had to attend the tribunal. The woman that spoke to us treat us like idiots. Every time we went to try to speak, we were asked to be silent. It was something of a nightmare. Centrelink—the same thing. We've been cut off. You put in complaints, you don't get answers. You think you've solved the problem and then it might go one month or two months and then the same thing happens. It's almost like because you complain they harass you, you know? Neither of us ever experienced anything like this in our life. It's just the principle of the whole thing. I just feel like if we let it go, what happens to someone else who can't stand up for themselves?
That was said by a typical person who was attacked by this government and who was served a robodebt. The damage! I acknowledge Senator Siewert's sensitivity in saying a trigger warning, but I've spoken in this place about two amazing mothers who spoke to me on the phone and described the life experience of their sons before they felt they just couldn't go on, and sadly, very sadly, they took their own lives. If anyone is in a desperate situation, I urge you to seek support. But that is the level of harassment, sicking the dogs on its own people, that the government went down with. They concocted it. And the mastermind of it, the Treasurer at the time, Mr Morrison, now the Prime Minister, presided over this abuse of government and the intimidation, the shakedown of the Australian people—hundreds and hundreds of thousands of our fellow Australians. Mr Morrison was on watch as the Prime Minister and kept it going. He kept it going! No wonder they don't want us to see the documents, because this was cooked up really, really badly. The impact has been devastating.
It got to a point where the people actually got together and they got to a court, and the court ruled against the Australian government. The government have had to pay $1.8 billion back to Australians, but that will never compensate for the damage and the suffering that they've had. Yet this government continues to say: 'No, you don't get a hold of these documents. Governments never give over evidence. They never give over legal advice.' That is a lie. Even Christian Porter was actually able to release legal advice on the eligibility of Minister Dutton under section 44(v) of the Constitution dated 24 August 2018. Back in 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard advised the House of Representatives that she had made available to the Leader of the Opposition, then Mr Tony Abbott, the advice of the Solicitor-General on asylum seekers and offshore processing. There is precedent after precedent in Odgers, which is the guide to what should happen in this place, if the government were only willing to follow some of it. There's precedent after precedent about legal advice being provided. This government continues to say that there's no way it can release this, as Senator Siewert said, because there might be somebody else who wants to put up another claim. I tell you why they need to release it, because they did such a bad job in the design of this scheme. So badly were they advised by legal practitioners or so callous were they in their ignorance of advice by legal practitioners that they concocted an illegal scheme against their own people.
Mr Grech gave us very, very important information about the settlement of that case and what it means: once the case was settled, there can be no continuing claim that it's against the public interest to provide this information. Mr Grech, who is a partner at Gordon Legal, said this:
… the issues which are extent now—that are still alive now—really relate only to the settlement and the mechanism for settlement. The issues can't be relitigated in these proceedings; the settlement's been approved. So as you were pointing out, it's hard to see, in fact impossible to see, how the Commonwealth could legitimately sustain a claim with the fact that, whilst technically those proceedings are still on foot, in the sense that they have not yet been discontinued, because the court has to play this supervisory role. That supervisory role relates to the settlement scheme. It's not as though the parties can go back to court and relitigate the issues and that somehow the Commonwealth could be embarrassed or prejudiced by documents that it provides to you finding their way into those court proceedings.
So, with all the legal gobbledygook in the world, you can't undo the shakedown that happened. With all the legal gobbledegook in the world, you can't take away the fact that Australians deserve access to the truth. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Climate Change
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:44): In respect of the document related to the IPCC, I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
BILLS
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the bill without amendment.
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the bill.
Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response No. 2) Bill 2021
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the Senate of assent to the bills.
STATEMENTS
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (17:46): [by video link] After discussion with the President of the Senate and the Clerk of the Senate, I understand that a comment I made in my contribution this morning could be interpreted as impugning the character of another senator. I withdraw any improper imputation that I may have made.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:46): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. Schedule 1 of this bill introduces changes requiring an institution to be either a registered charity or a government agency in order to be entitled to deductible gift recipient status. While most DGRs are already registered charities, some are not. These are practical changes that will provide for improved regulation, governance and oversight of all DGRs and reduce unnecessary compliance costs. But any sensible reforms are under threat by the government's very real and very present attempt to shut down charities for speaking out. Charities across Australia are calling on the government to abandon the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2021. Under these regulations, charities could be deregistered if they commit or potentially commit summary offences. They could also be deregistered if they fail to maintain internal control procedures documenting that their resources are not being used to promote minor offences. In practical terms, this means charities could be deregistered for lawful activity, like promoting a rally where people are peacefully blocking the entrance to a business; setting up an email group for a local community group which, even without the charity's knowledge, uses it to plan a peaceful protest involving a minor trespass, like a sit-in somewhere; or failing to implement or document policies and procedures that control how staff and volunteers may behave.
Every single day of every single year, charities do incredible work to support people through unprecedented crises in this country. I don't think we would be surviving the COVID pandemic without our charities sector. Charities are seeing people they have never seen before in need of emergency food relief and shelter. People enduring lockdowns across the country are experiencing unprecedented hardship and mental health issues. This isn't the first time the government has attempted to silence charities. In fact, I've been dealing with their various attempts through this place ever since I've been here. They would rather charities just delivered services without addressing the causes of the need for such services in the first place. How would we get through this crisis without our charities? The regulations proposed by the government are in danger of putting this vital work at risk. There is no doubt that they will significantly impact the ability of charities to carry out their work advocating for the most vulnerable in our community. The regulations are a blatant attack on charities and, I would strongly argue, on our democracy, because charities have a vital role in civil society and in our democracy.
Last week the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, in tabling Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 12 of 2021, noted that it had 'significant unresolved concerns about the regulations'. It said:
… the committee is concerned about the obligations the instrument imposes on charities to maintain reasonable internal control procedures to prevent the use of their resources to promote another entity's unlawful actions.
The committee said that these obligations will require the ACNC commissioner to make a subjective judgement and exercise broad discretionary powers without any clear guidance or limitations.
There are many outstanding questions that need to be answered: what objective test will be applied to determine whether a charity has complied with these requirements? In what circumstances can the ACNC commissioner seek advice from law enforcement agencies about compliance with the standards? Most importantly, where is the evidence to show that these regulations are needed in the first place? There are already adequate protections in place to prevent charities from engaging in unlawful acts.
The committee is also concerned about the impact of the regulations on the implied freedom of political communication. It said that the regulations may restrict a charity's ability to support or promote certain types of political protest without having committed any unlawful act themselves. The committee has asked the Assistant Treasurer for detailed advice on what objective test will be applied to determine whether a charity has complied with the requirements and how the instrument as a whole does not impermissibly restrict the implied freedom of political action. The regulations have serious and wide-ranging consequences for 59,000 charities across this country.
I would like to commend the committee for its commitment to scrutinising regulations closely. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation is going to continue to scrutinise these regulations. I urge all in this place to think hard about the devastating impact these changes will have on charities and the most vulnerable members of our communities. We simply cannot afford to abandon our charities at a time when we need them so much.
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (17:52): I rise tonight to make some comments about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021, and I want to speak about the offshore banking unit policy. The offshore banking unit policy was introduced in 1987 by the then Treasurer, Mr Keating, with the view that Australia would be an open, dynamic economy that wanted to have a tech and finance sector and wanted to attract the sort of business where an Australian domiciled company could be providing financial services to organisations and to people who were not necessarily residents onshore. The principle was that you would conduct your business through an Australian organisation but conduct it to an offshore consumer. In 1982, a 10 per cent tax policy was applied to the offshore banking unit. That was a significant discount on the overall corporate tax rate, which today sits at 30 per cent; so offshore banking unit organisations, subject to the law of Australia, have a 20 per cent discount on eligible activities. Again, it is designed for offshore transactions and is not available to Australians.
This concept is not unique to Australia. It was put in place, wisely, by that Labor government because we do have an ambition to be a clever country, an economy which has a large and growing tech and finance sector, and one which is able to attract offshore investment in order to create more jobs in Australia in that services sector. And that need hasn't gone away since 1987. In fact, that need is more pronounced than ever. The reason we're here looking at the repeal and the closing of the offshore banking unit is that there have been judgements made by the OECD that the offshore banking unit, as put in place by the former Labor government, was a harmful tax practice. On that basis, there are many, many countries which have harmful tax practices—for example, Luxembourg, Ireland and Singapore—because they operate at significant discounts to the headline tax rates of those countries when they provide services to companies that are, in effect, doing business offshore. So we need to tread very carefully in the removal of the offshore banking unit, and that's what this bill does. It effectively closes the offshore banking unit to new entrants, with a view to grandfathering out the existing users of the offshore banking unit by the end of the 2022 financial year. But that can't be the end of the story. We still want to provide those sorts of services, in a tax preferred environment, because our competitors would continue to do so. The Treasurer's statement on closing down the offshore banking unit refers to the need to replace the offshore banking unit. We should be looking to do that over the next 12 months, because there are at least 1,000 jobs on the line—mainly in Melbourne and Sydney—which rely upon having some sort of policy certainty here.
Last year I commissioned a group of people in the tech and finance sectors to give advice to me, in my role as a senator for New South Wales, about what we could do to improve the competitive position of the country in this tech and finance space. This report, chaired by former Macquarie banker Mr Andrew Low, has provided a number of options. One of the options that the committee came up with could actually be used to replace the offshore banking unit. The Low committee proposed having an incremental business activity regime, which is an interesting idea. It would effectively be a system that would come into place when companies were relocating to Australia and bringing those jobs onshore from places like Hong Kong. I think it would be remiss of the Senate to ignore the geopolitical and economic changes happening in our region, especially Hong Kong. Hong Kong is going through the greatest disruption in terms of its legal stability, given it now has the draconian national security law from Beijing applying in Hong Kong. I think, in the long run, this is going to chill foreign investment in that jurisdiction.
When you look around our region, you think of Singapore and Hong Kong as strong tech and finance hubs. The instability of Hong Kong should be an opportunity for Australia to try to capture some of the growth. What we shouldn't be doing is trying to close down avenues where Australia can attract that growth and investment in jobs from places like Hong Kong. So the timing of the removal and the closing down of the offshore banking unit at the behest of the OECD, where you would think we'd perhaps have a bit more purchase now, really does need to come with the strong commitment that the Treasurer has made to replace the OBU. The Low committee came up with one option, an incremental business activity regime. The Senate committee that I'm chairing will also look at options. But it is a very important principle that we don't get bashed up by multilateral institutions that take away our capacity to be competitive and leave the capacity to be competitive in other countries, largely in Europe. This is a very important principle: for Australia to be committed to dynamic policies like the offshore banking unit, which was put in place—and all credit to Mr Keating for doing it—some 30 years ago. The way forward on the offshore banking unit has to be that we are going to be at least as competitive as Singapore, Ireland and the UK in relation to finance and banking services.
I make one final point, and that is that there has been much discussion through the OECD recently about the new global commitment amongst OECD member nations to a minimum corporate tax rate of 15 per cent. If we had a minimum global tax rate of 15 per cent, which would be half the Australian statutory rate, and that were applying to the offshore banking unit regime, which is to be abolished in the next two years, I don't think that would be a great problem. You would find that those 1,000 jobs that are hanging off offshore banking units today would be there tomorrow if you were to ratchet up the tax rate by five per cent. What I'm very anxious that we do over the next six to 12 months is to look at the options to replace the offshore banking unit regime, because, as this bill goes through—and I expect it will go through both chambers—the offshore banking unit regime will be closed. It is due to close in 2023, so it is critical that we provide a commitment to the people who are employing these 1,000 Australians—mainly in Sydney and some in Melbourne—that there will be an arrangement that retains the competitiveness that they enjoy today in some form.
We need to look at the options that were flagged by Mr Lowe, and we need to look at the options that may fall out of having the minimum global tax rate that is being flagged by the OECD, and we need to do that over the six to 12 months, because the clock will run down very quickly. There will be many other distractions over the next six to nine months, I'm sure, and it's very important that we value these jobs in services just as much as we value the jobs in coalmining and other parts of the economy.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (18:01): I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. This bill, as colleagues have pointed out, undertakes largely technical amendments via two schedules. The first concerns the regulation of charities, and the second concerns the tax treatment of offshore banking units. As my colleague Senator Watt explained in the contribution he made earlier, although Labor supports these changes—they are sensible changes—we will be taking the opportunity presented by this bill to address other very serious problems created by the Morrison government in these two policy areas.
It's ironic, really, that the government has described the charities provisions as an opportunity to support and strengthen the charity sector, because in fact the charity sector is under incredible attack. It is regulated by a person who has shown himself, by so many words and deeds, to be demonstrably unsuitable to occupy the position of charity regulator. The government now plans to give him further powers to persecute those charities that are not, it seems, of a flavour that the government likes. The government proposes to extend the ability of the charities commissioner to deregister a charity for a summary offence or because the charity commissioner anticipates that the organisation will commit a summary offence. It is draconian, it is unnecessary and, as group after group after group has pointed out, it will lead to unconscionable anomalies in the way that charitable organisations are run, to enormous amounts of red tape and to an unfair regulatory exposure which does nothing to strengthen the charity sector and can only weaken it.
This is indicative of a government led by a man with a glass jaw. Mr Morrison hates criticism. He cannot deal with criticism. You can see him seize up when he's even asked a question, especially by a lady journalist. I've seen it happen. So it's not surprising that he seeks to muzzle those organisations that might advocate for the people who don't have very much, for people with disabilities, for the environment or for future generations that would like a climate that they can live in safely.
It's not surprising that Mr Morrison doesn't like some of the arguments that are put forward by Australia's charities, but it's unacceptable that he would seek to regulate them in the way that is proposed. Labor stand with the charity sector that is being unfairly targeted in this way. That's why we are moving a second reading amendment calling on the Senate to note that the government is pursuing these changes to charity law that could stop charities and churches from speaking up for core principles and articles of faith in civil society, limiting their freedom of political communication and limiting their participation in our democratic system. This is not in Australia's interests. It's on that basis I move the second reading amendment that I believe has been, or is shortly to be, circulated in my name:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) despite promising to streamline reporting in the charity sector, this Government is instead pursuing changes to charity law that could stop charities and churches from speaking up for core principles and articles of faith in civil society, limiting their freedom of political communication and participation in our democratic system; and
(b) while the Government boasts about its multinational tax measures, it has failed to curtail the use of tax havens and tax avoidance schemes by multinational corporations."
Turning to schedule 2, this is the schedule of the bill that amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to remove the preferential tax treatment that is provided for offshore banking units and provide transitional arrangements for those existing offshore banking units. In 2018, the OECD forum on harmful tax practices determined Australia's OBU regime to be a harmful and preferential tax regime. In response, the regime will be closed to new entrants. Existing participants will be allowed to use this tax treatment until the end of 2022-23. It's good that the government is finally cracking down on the schemes that let multinationals take advantage of our tax system. It only took them three years! Like so many things with this government, it is never ever quick to move. But it's better late than never. But there is more to do, and that's why the second reading amendment that I referred to earlier calls on the Senate to recognise that the government has failed to curtail the use of tax havens and tax avoidance schemes by multinational corporations.
As the Leader of the Labor Party has flagged, Labor will have more to say about multinational tax ahead of the next election, but in this speech I wish to foreshadow a substantive amendment that Labor will be moving during the committee stage relating to JobKeeper transparency. Earlier this year we found out that $13 billion in JobKeeper payments went to firms that increased their turnover during the pandemic. It went to Monaco based billionaires, men's only clubs and the highest fee-paying private schools in the country. This is a shocking waste—$13 billion is more than the government spent on the childcare subsidy last year and it is more than the government spent on public schools last year. JobKeeper was supposed to support firms that were suffering. It was supposed to support workers whose jobs were at risk. It was never meant to go to firms whose profits were rising. It was a good idea. Labor argued for a scheme which would support people's connection to their workplaces during the worst phases of the pandemic, but it was implemented very, very badly.
If the Morrison government had avoided this waste, it could have afforded to extend JobKeeper to the one million casual workers who missed out on any support. It could have saved people from losing their jobs. It could have saved those many young people, mostly women in the hospitality and retail sectors, that missed out. It could have saved them from losing jobs and livelihoods during the pandemic. If this waste had been avoided, we would have more to spend on supporting Australians currently in lockdown who are struggling to pay rent and put food on the table. The Prime Minister has never asked any of these companies to pay back a single cent. He says that calls to pay back JobKeeper are the politics of envy.
We know what the answer to this problem is. It's something that the Liberal Party is apparently entirely allergic to—and that is transparency and accountability. Transparency is not a radical solution in this context. Both New Zealand and the United States keep public databases of companies that receive income support. It doesn't make a difference. In the early months of JobKeeper, 15 per cent of the money went to firms with rising earnings. Some companies have repaid it, with repayments totalling $225 million, about a quarter of a per cent of the total. But almost all of those repayments have come from public companies. What's the significance? Those, of course, are the companies whose JobKeeper receipts had to be reported in their annual reports. Those were the companies exposed to some measure of public scrutiny.
In New Zealand, which has an online register listing all recipients of their wage subsidy scheme, around five per cent has been repaid. It's a very big difference, isn't it, to the very small amount that has been offered back here by those companies who did pretty well? This is most likely a result of greater transparency. Labor has been calling for more transparency for a long time. It's why we were happy to support an amendment that Senator Patrick moved in the last sitting fortnight. Unfortunately that amendment was to the bill providing support for people in lockdown. The government is so opposed to transparency that it's pretty clear it was willing to play chicken with that support for people in lockdown, to avoid the consequences of scrutiny of their waste and mismanagement. There was a chance that insisting on the amendment here in the Senate would have delayed support for those in lockdown, including thousands in Western Sydney. It says something about this government that the Prime Minister was prepared to let the livelihoods of Australians on COVID support payments become collateral damage in his fight against the transparency that the Senate has demanded of his government. It's an outcome Labor doesn't want to risk, but we strongly believe that the public deserves to know how its money is being spent. We were and we remain committed to finding other opportunities to force the government to be more transparent about JobKeeper payments. I will have more to say about Labor's amendments during the committee stage.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:11): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. I will spend most of my time this evening speaking on the deductible-gift-recipient-status element of this bill. The bill has two schedules. I note that the second schedule, regarding offshore banking units, is largely uncontroversial and is agreed by everyone in this chamber. I hope that is the case. So I am not going to spend a lot of time dwelling there. However, I will address some of the issues just raised by Senator McAllister and I will remind the Australian people again that, a little more than 12 months ago, we were entering a pandemic the likes of which we had not seen for 100 years, the economic outcomes of which we could not guess.
The level of uncertainty in those first few months of last year was extraordinary. In setting up the JobKeeper scheme, the government did allow businesses to base it on what they felt was going to happen into the future. This was done for a very good reason. In situations like this, confidence is absolutely key to bouncing out of the negative impacts. It is key to maintain high levels of confidence to maintain economic activity. By being able to maintain a link to their employees, companies and business leaders can have the confidence to actually bounce out of the negative impacts of a one-in-100-year global event of very significant economic proportions. That is wilfully ignored by those opposite. Confidence was, right from the beginning, always going to be key. By closing the borders rapidly and early, as the Morrison government did, there was confidence that we would protect the health of Australians. Acting in a strong way to protect businesses' economic underpinnings and to protect the links of those businesses with their employees was a part of sustaining that confidence in the Australian economy, in the business sector and in the hardworking Australians who wanted to stay connected to those jobs, who wanted to stay connected to their employers.
It was a compact with business. They had to make a projection as to what they thought the negative impact on their business would be. Did all those businesses get that projection correct? No, they did not. In fact, this government took swift action in doing such things—difficult things, things that others on the international stage said that we should not do—like closing our international border very quickly, at first to Wuhan, then to wider China and then to other affected areas around the globe before finally, unfortunately, having to close our international borders to pretty much the rest of the world. In doing so, obviously that was always going to have a dramatic impact on the economy. Add to that the internal lockdowns that we faced over a period of time, which unfortunately are still going on today, and we have a rolling economic impact. We have government acting strongly and decisively, in the face of an economic crisis the likes of which the nation has not seen since the Great Depression, to allow those businesses to estimate where they would be. In good faith, we said: 'You do the right thing. You keep your employees connected to this workplace, and we will underpin that through the JobKeeper program.' And that is what occurred.
Now, subsequently, in what is quite frankly a bit of a political stunt that those opposite obviously revel in, they want to seek to look at those rules retrospectively. I think that the government made it very clear, right upfront, what the rules of that initial phase of JobKeeper were. They changed over time. That was done at a particular point in time in a particular set of circumstances, and the rules were very clear. This government stands behind them. I will get on to deductible gift recipient status, but I think the economic underpinning that we put into our society not only protected jobs and our for-profit economic sector, if you like; it also did an extraordinary amount to allow our not-for-profits, our charity sector and our deductible-gift-recipient-status organisations to continue their work. It kept a level of activity, certainty and confidence in the entire Australian economy, which stretched not just through the for-profit sector but also into the not-for-profit sector, into our civil society. It allowed Australians to continue, to a great degree, supporting the charities and organisations that they wished to support.
I do wish to get to the actual provisions of this bill. The bill makes a number of changes to tax law to implement reforms to the administration and oversight of organisations with DGR, deductible gift recipient, status. DGR organisations are those which can receive donations that are tax deductible. If a donation is tax deductible, donors can deduct the amount of their donations from their taxable income when they lodge their tax returns. The Australian Taxation Office is responsible for decisions on DGR endorsement.
Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to require non-government entities seeking endorsement as a DGR to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission or be operated by a registered charity. Ancillary funds and specifically listed entities will continue to be exempt from this requirement. The requirement to be a charity already applies to the majority of the general DGR categories in subdivision 30-B of the 1997 tax law. Currently, for the remaining 11 DGR categories, the requirement to be a registered charity or government agency does not need to be satisfied for the fund, authority or institution to be entitled to DGR endorsement. As charity registration is not a precondition for DGR endorsement for these categories but is for other categories, there can be inconsistent governance and reporting requirements for these DGRs. Making charity registration a precondition for DGR endorsement across all the general DGR categories will improve the consistency of regulation, governance and oversight of DGRs while also reducing unnecessary compliance costs.
When the amendments take effect, DGR applicants will generally have to register as a charity with the ACNC before applying for DGR endorsement. There will be streamlined processes to allow DGR applicants to lodge a single application with the ACNC seeking charity registration and indicating their intention to be endorsed as a DGR or as a DGR for the operation of a fund, authority or institution. Once the ACNC is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered as a charity, the ACNC will pass on the necessary information to the ATO to assess the applicant's entitlement to DGR endorsement.
The amendments include a 12-month transition period, which will provide non-charity DGRs with the time to meet the charity registration without losing DGR status. Eligible DGRs may also have access to an additional three-year transition period. Improved consistency, governance and oversight of DGR entities will ultimately help support continued public confidence and support the sector and DGR entities. I think this last point is absolutely imperative for those out there listening to this debate to understand. There is a level of confusion within the general public about what all these various categories mean—what a DGR is versus what a charity is. Clarifying this and making it very clear that everyone has to fit within this governance framework will enhance the way that charities are viewed, will enhance the status of those organisations within the general public's eye, and will actually improve confidence and improve the sector over time.
I will just return to where I started. This government is committed to having a very strong charities and civil society. It's why we have done many of the things that we have done over the last 12 months. It's good to see that this legislation is before us now. It's very clear that, contrary to what those opposite have been saying for the last few weeks, this government is capable of doing many things at once and doing many things very well. So, with those few short comments, I thank you very much.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:22): [by video link] I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. Labor supports the two schedules of this bill. Schedule 1 makes minor changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act to require non-government entities seeking endorsement as a deductible gift recipient to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission or to be operated by a registered charity. This measure to improve the consistency of governance and oversight of deductible gift recipients is a small but welcome change from Mr Morrison's ongoing war on charities.
Mr Morrison's war on charities has ramped up in recent weeks, with the unveiling of new regulations that will allow Mr Morrison's charities commissioner to silence and deregister charities for criticising Mr Morrison, all for speaking out on their core issues. This silencing of opinion is something you might expect from Xi Jinping in China or from Putin in Russia, not here in Australia. Because Mr Morrison has introduced these changes as regulations, rather than as a bill, they do not even need to be approved by parliament. It is antidemocratic. It is chilling.
So what exactly do these regulations say? They say that any Australian charity can be deregistered and shut down if a single employee or volunteer engages in any unlawful conduct. That includes minor trespassing or vandalism. Not only that; charities can also be deregistered and shut down if they fail to ensure their resources are not used to promote or support misconduct. So what does this mean in practice? Some of the most highly respected charities in Australia have shared examples of conduct that might now mean they can be shut down for good. The ACT Council of Social Services CEO, Dr Emma Campbell, said:
If enacted, these new regulations will mean that charities could be deregistered for the most minor of offences such as blocking a footpath at a public vigil or placing a sticker on a lamppost.
The CEO of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, George Selvanera, is reported as saying:
Under these laws,[ the Aboriginal legal service] could be deregistered if one of our employees attended a protest organised by a third party and temporarily obstructed traffic during that protest …
There's also Nicole Hornsby, executive director of Baptist Care Australia, who described the measures as 'totally unreasonable'. The list goes on. The CEO of Vinnies, Toby O'Connor, says:
The administrative burden of monitoring all our activities is enormous and not warranted. Unlawful acts are already covered by existing criminal law. These changes increase red-tape for no good reason.
Kasy Chambers, the executive director of Anglicare Australia said:
… this is silly and it's going to have consequences which will not be good for anybody.
She also said:
Who they'll come after first is anyone's guess …
An open letter from charities including Amnesty International and the Fred Hollows Foundation says:
Our reputations could be harmed, our boards could be stood down and replaced, and at worst, we could be deregistered as charities.
In times of crisis and disaster, we will be forced to slow down our response and seek advice on possible risks created by these unnecessary proposals.
… … …
These regulations must be abandoned. The work of Australia's charities should not be stifled when the country needs us the most.
So there you are. The ACT Council of Social Services, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Baptist Care, Anglicare, Vinnies, the Fred Hollows Foundation and Amnesty International all roundly oppose these regulations. These are the groups that Mr Morrison is trying to crack down on—and 60,000 other charities.
The government's own Treasury review recommended that the existing regulation around 'unlawful conduct' be scrapped—so the laws as they are were already deemed too harsh by the government's own review—but, instead, Mr Morrison wants to dramatically increase the restrictions on charities. We all know why this is happening, and it needs to be called out. Mr Morrison does not want charities, those who advocate for and support the most vulnerable people in Australia, disagreeing with his callous and harmful policies. Remember, Mr Morrison introduces laws which attack vulnerable Australians, such as his deadly robodebt policy; he does not want charities to speak out on their behalf. It's the exact same approach the Morrison government has long taken towards trade unions, because, ultimately, in Mr Morrison's Australia, charities, trade unions and the shrinking middle class are on one side and he is on the other.
Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to remove the preferential tax treatment provided for offshore banking units. Offshore banking units are effectively a tax loophole that enables financial services companies to provide banking services to offshore customers. Labor supports this move. It's the least the Morrison government could do to address corporate tax avoidance. After eight years of this government, we still have a third of large companies in Australia paying no tax on their profits. When Mr Morrison and his colleagues were in opposition, they voted against the laws the Labor government proposed to begin closing tax loopholes.
That brings me to the group Mr Morrison is actively trying to protect and shield from criticism: the billionaires who have been rorting the public purse through JobKeeper. Labor is moving an amendment to this bill to create a transparent register of firms with an annual turnover of more than $10 million that received JobKeeper. Mr Morrison's JobKeeper system is unique. It is the only system of its kind in the world that was introduced with zero—zero—transparency. In New Zealand, there is an online register listing all the firms that received their equivalent of JobKeeper. Of course, as a result of that, many New Zealand companies who actually increased their earnings during the pandemic have paid the money back. Here in Australia, there is no online register. There is no requirement for highly profitable companies to pay the money back. The Morrison government has been fighting tooth and nail to stop the Australian public from seeing what it has been doing with their money.
We have barely scratched the surface on companies that actually increased their profits by receiving JobKeeper. Thankfully, through ASX reporting requirements, we do at least know about ASX listed companies that have rorted the system. In fact, according to the corporate advisory group Ownership Matters, nearly 90 per cent of JobKeeper that has been returned has come from public companies. This shows that transparency does cut out the rorting. But there are plenty of highly profitable companies that refuse to pay that money back, and there would be many, many more that we still don't even know about because Mr Morrison opposes JobKeeper transparency. He supports companies being allowed to use public money to pay dividends, pay down debt and pay executive bonuses.
We know who the losers in the Morrison economy are: middle-class Australians who are suffering through eight years of record low wage growth, who are seeing their jobs made insecure and who no longer have middle-class pay for middle-class jobs. We know that charities are losers in Mr Morrison's economy. He has threatened to shut them down for even the most trivial infringements. We know small businesses in Western Sydney are more of Mr Morrison's losers, because they're suffering through months of lockdown because of his botched vaccine rollout.
Who are the winners in the Morrison economy? The billionaires, of course. Mr Morrison's top winner is Gerry Harvey. Harvey Norman more than doubled their profit during COVID-19, while receiving $22 million in JobKeeper. Gerry Harvey did not even have to lift a finger to receive that $22 million, which is many times more than the vast majority of Australians will make in their lifetime. Did Mr Morrison even ask him to pay it back? Of course not. Gerry Harvey took that public money and paid himself a $78 million dividend. This is the same Gerry Harvey who once said:
You could go out and give a million dollars to a charity tomorrow to help the homeless. You could argue that it is just wasted. They are not putting anything back into the community … You are helping a whole heap of no-hopers to survive for no good reason. They are just a drag on the whole community … It helped to keep them alive but did it help our society? No. Society might have been better off without them …
That's Gerry Harvey's view. I think society would be better off without billionaires like Gerry Harvey leeching off the public purse. These are the sorts of vile, sneering billionaires that Mr Morrison is running a protection racket for.
Of course, Gerry Harvey isn't Mr Morrison's only winner. There are other billionaires. James Packer, who is worth $4.69 billion, received $110 million in JobKeeper through his company, Crown. John Gandel, who is worth $5.4 billion, received $11 million in JobKeeper through his company, Vicinity Centres. Brett Blundy, who is worth $2.2 billion, received $6.48 million in JobKeeper through his various retail brands. Of course, there is the pokies king Lenny Ainsworth, worth $4.42 billion, who received $11 million in JobKeeper through his company, Aristocrat Leisure. Aristocrat went on to pay dividends of $63.9 million to shareholders. That's our money. These are the big winners in Mr Morrison's economy, the billionaires who are only ever a quick phone call away from a big, public cash-out from Mr Morrison, with no expectation that they will ever have to pay it back.
At the same time, Mr Morrison has instructed Centrelink to chase with debt recovery notices more than 11,000 workers who received JobKeeper. Those 11,000 working Australians are being hounded for alleged overpayments of JobKeeper. How disgraceful is that?
This gets to the core of why Mr Morrison is so opposed to any transparency around JobKeeper. The truth is that JobKeeper is the biggest corporate and billionaire welfare rort in Australian history. Mr Morrison and his mates, such as Gerry Harvey, could never again sit on their gilded thrones and complain about dole bludgers or welfare recipients. Gerry Harvey is the biggest dole bludger in Australian history. If the Australian public were ever to be given a glimpse of the scale of the rorting that Mr Morrison has allowed through JobKeeper, it would be a national disgrace on par with his botched vaccine rollout.
So I urge the Senate to support the Labor amendments in order to force some desperately needed transparency into the JobKeeper scheme. I note that Senator Patrick and others on the crossbench have also been advocating greater transparency in JobKeeper. It appears that the Australian parliament, with the exception of the Liberal and National parties, is in fact very unified around this cause. I don't know how many members or senators of the Liberal and National parties can go back to their electorates and tell them with a straight face that they are coming to Canberra to represent their interests. If they were to stand here today and vote against this measure, that would increase transparency around JobKeeper rorting. Mr Morrison may be able to go to Canberra and say with a straight face that, no, Gerry Harvey deserves that $22 million welfare payment—he earned it—but I would hope that some of his colleagues could not.
Mr Morrison is, of course, a seasoned veteran of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He runs scare campaigns about debt and deficit while racking up the largest debt and deficit in Australian history—a trillion dollars in debt, thanks in large part to the billions in JobKeeper he has handed out to billionaires. Mr Morrison says that the Australian government could not afford to provide JobKeeper to casual workers, yet he has given Gerry Harvey $20 million in JobKeeper. Mr Morrison says highly profitable big businesses should not have to pay back JobKeeper, yet he hounds 11,000 welfare recipients with JobKeeper debt recovery notices.
There are vaccines, lockdowns, bushfires, aged care, the NDIS, sexual harassment at work and labour hire in the mining sector—the list goes on and on. (Time expired)
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (18:37): I must say that I always like following Senator Sheldon, but on this occasion his rhetoric wasn't as bright as his jumper. It's a beautiful blue jumper. I saw you on the TV screen, Senator Sheldon, and I thought, 'What's that little tint of blue in the sky?' It was Senator Sheldon! But it's always good to follow Senator Sheldon.
I'm also pleased that Senator Siewert is in the chamber as I make this contribution. If Senator Siewert were to speak on this legislation, and I'm not sure if you are speaking on it, I would say to you—
Senator Siewert: I already have.
Senator SCARR: I say to you, Senator Siewert, that I could anticipate knowing what you would have said, and you would have said it with the great passion you bring to all debates in this place. As a relative newcomer to this place, I really pay tribute to you. You've been a great example for everyone to follow.
Maybe I should say something nice about all the senators in the chamber. I won't say it's going to get progressively harder as I go around the chamber, because it won't, but I should get back to the topic under discussion, which, of course, is the legislation we're talking about today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021, which deals with charities.
If I can, I will talk for one moment about the issue of JobKeeper. I just want to flip it. I want to make it a positive. Let's make the negative a positive. Senator Sheldon made some negative points, and I take them on board, but let's talk about some positive points with respect to JobKeeper. The first point is that it was a massively successful system. It was a game changer. It absolutely was a game changer when this pandemic first hit Australia. I think we as a country and both sides of parliament—all of us—should be very satisfied with the impact that JobKeeper had. It saved hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs and made sure that businesses, small and large, could keep operating. That was so important. I, like many representatives in this place would have, met businesspeople across Queensland at that time who described what it was like to be under such stress. Then the announcement of JobKeeper arrived, and it was transformative. They saw a future. So let's first take a moment to reflect on how successful the system was, on how successful the policy initiative was.
The second thing to note is that what's being discussed here isn't a question of companies going outside the realm of what was permitted by the JobKeeper legislation. It should be noted that at the time companies were applying for the JobKeeper incentive no-one knew what the future was going to be like. The companies didn't know whether or not they were going to be profitable in the eight, nine or 10 months ahead. They just didn't know. The policy was available for them. It was intended to be a generous policy. It was intended to be proportionate. It was intended to be limited in time frame. It was intended to get the money out there as quickly as possible. It was successful. The companies who applied for JobKeeper payment didn't know what the future held for them.
Thirdly, I will talk about some of the companies who have paid back some of the JobKeeper that they've received. We should take a moment in this place to acknowledge those companies, who considered their own circumstances—I don't know all of their circumstances—and have repaid JobKeeper payment to the Commonwealth, to the Australian people. I will mention a few at this point and call out to them and congratulate them, because I think their example is a shining bright example for all Australians. The first one is SIMEC. It received $20 million in JobKeeper payments and repaid $20 million. Iluka Resources received $13.6 million in JobKeeper payments and repaid $13.6 million. Santos received $4 million and repaid $4 million. Domino's Pizza—I wouldn't know who they were as I've never heard of them; don't laugh too loudly, Senator Hume—received $0.8 million and repaid $0.8 million. Adelaide Brighton received $0.2 million and repaid $0.2 million. Toyota, apparently, received $18 million and repaid $18 million.
Senator Dean Smith interjecting—
Senator SCARR: Oh what a feeling, Senator Smith! Absolutely, oh what a feeling. That's right, a bit of product placement in the Senate. There were also four companies outside the ASX 300 who repaid JobKeeper amounts, and I think we should acknowledge them as well. They were Australian Clinical Labs, Peter Warren Automotive, Universal Store and Dusk Group. Congratulations to all of those companies, who at the time of the pandemic were entitled to receive JobKeeper payments. They didn't know what was going to happen in the months following, so they applied for and got the JobKeeper payments. Looking back in time, they didn't need the payments, and in good conscience, in accordance with their social licence, they repaid those amounts. I congratulate each and every one of those companies.
Moving on to charities, there was a bit of talk around regulations et cetera in the charities space. Let me simply say that I commend the work of our scrutiny committees to everyone who watches what happens in this place and reiterate how much I enjoy serving on both scrutiny committees with my good friend Senator Carr on the other side of the chamber. Our scrutiny system does great work, and I'm sure it will do great work in the years and years to come.
The first point to note with respect to charities is that charities perform an absolutely crucial role in filling the gaps, in making sure that aid is provided to those less well off in our community, to vulnerable Australians. Government can't do it all. I've seen over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic just how important our charities are in reaching different groups, different cohorts of people who weren't being given enough aid, not through any act of bad faith or anything but simply because they've fallen between the cracks for whatever reason, and our charities are always there to support them. That's a wonderful thing. Not only are our charities there to support those vulnerable people, but Australians are there to support the charities. That also is a great thing. That spirit of philanthropy, that spirit of generosity, goes to the very heart of what it means to be an Australian.
The second point I will make is in relation to tax deductibility. It is fit and proper that we as a civic society give an incentive to the private citizen to make a charitable donation, so I fully support the concept of deductible gifts which can be taken off your assessable income. I also think it's quite reasonable for the government and individual taxpayers who are donating to these charities to expect some sort of conformity and consistency with respect to the regulation of charities and those groups and organisations that get the benefit of deductible gift status.
It should be noted that in 2017 Treasury identified 28,000 different organisations—that actually surprised me—who qualify for the deductible gift recipient classification. Of those, 18 per cent were not registered charities—10 per cent were government entities and eight per cent were others who can transition to become registered charities. That's what we are talking about there. That's the field we're talking about—eight per cent of the 28,000. Those were the figures back in 2017. I think it is important that there's consistency in approach for deductible gift recipients and also for charities. Schedule 1 of this legislation seeks to promote that consistency.
What's the framework that those deductible gift recipients are being brought under? They are being brought under a framework that is absolutely appropriate in terms of the regulation of charities. Australia has a very robust system in terms of regulating our charities and ensuring—and the Australian people are entitled to be assured—our charities are well run, transparent and accountable. Of course this happens under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act. Under that act six standards have to be met by any charity. I want to run through those six standards.
The first standard is about the purposes and not-for-profit nature. A registered charity must be not-for-profit and work towards their charitable purpose. That charitable purpose must go to the heart of what that organisation does. The charity must be able to demonstrate this and provide information about their purpose to the public. So that charitable foundation has to go to the heart of the organisation.
The second standard is in relation to accountability to members. Charity members must be able to take reasonable steps to find out what the charity is doing. The charity has to be accountable to those members. Members have a legitimate right to raise concerns and issues and have those concerns addressed by the charity. A charity should not ever just be run for the benefit of a small group at the top. It needs to be accountable to the membership. That's absolutely crucial.
The third standard is about compliance with Australian laws. There was some discussion with respect to proposed regulations in that regard. I note for the record that at the moment charities must not commit a serious offence, such as fraud, under any Australian law or breach a law that will result in a penalty of 60 penalty units, which is currently $13,320 or more.
The fourth standard is about the suitability of responsible persons. Charities must take reasonable steps to be satisfied that its responsible persons, such as board or committee members or trustees, are not disqualified from managing a corporation under the Corporations Act. If you've been disqualified from managing a corporation under the Corporations Act, you shouldn't be on the executive board or a director of a charity. That should go without saying. If you can't be a director of a company, you shouldn't be a director of a charity.
The fifth standard is about the duties of responsible persons. Charities must take reasonable steps to make sure that responsible persons are subject to, understand and carry out the duties set out in this standard, including to act with reasonable care and diligence, to disclose conflicts of interest and to ensure that the financial affairs of the charity are managed responsibly. That's fair and reasonable. If there's an incentive for people to make donations to charities to provide them with a source of revenue and those charities get the benefit of that then the flipside is that there needs to be responsibilities and duties imposed on those who are running the charity.
The sixth standard is about maintaining and enhancing public trust and confidence in the Australian not-for-profit sector. I want to quote this, because this is really important. A charity must:
… take reasonable steps to become a participating non-government institution if the charity is, or is likely to be, identified as being involved in the abuse of a person:
(a) in an application for redress made under section 19 of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (Cth) (Redress Act) or
(b) in information given in response to a request from the National Redress Scheme Operator … under … the Redress Act.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend my very good friend—and I don't say that lightly, even under parliamentary privilege—Senator Smith in relation to the work that he's done in this space. I think it's incredibly important work, and I know how seriously Senator Smith treats that work and that it comes from the heart, which is so important to the survivors of those horrific events. I can remember how shocked I was seeing the list of Queensland based charities and not-for-profit organisations that had come within the National Redress Scheme. It was nearly everyone. It gives everyone cause for deep reflection.
So those are the six standards under which these deductible gift recipients are going to have to transition to the charitable legislation, and it's fit and proper that they should do so. But they'll also be given time to do so. They'll be given at least 12 months to make that transition, to get their paperwork together and to do all the things they need to, and that time can be extended in certain circumstances if the regulator sees fit. One of the scrutiny committees on which I've sat has also had something to say about those circumstances. I think it is fit and proper that there is a situation where the organisations can be given more than 12 months to make that transition if they need it. On that basis, I'm happy to support this bill.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (18:52): I will make a contribution which goes to the part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 that seeks to deal with offshore banking units. Before I do that, I want to respond to some of the statements from Senator Scarr, who I know takes his work in this place very seriously. As he's part of the committee that looks at legislation with great care, I always listen carefully to what he has to say. But I also listen carefully to people who go out into our community and act with charity, whether that's an expression of a particular faith's perspective, an expression of a particular philosophical perspective about the world and our place in it, or the Islamic call to give 10 per cent to care for others. We've got that going on all over the country right now. The people who are upset with the government for what it's proposing to do include none other than Anglicare Australia. Many St Vincent de Paul members have a few things to say about the government pulling a swiftie here. So we should be very careful to look at what the government is actually attempting with this piece of legislation.
I think we should be particularly mindful because of the warning—it's like a great neon sign that we should be looking at very carefully—that comes from Mr Gary Johns. He's the hand-picked guy that this government decided to put in charge of the ACNC as the commissioner. He's been no pushover, as I understand it. I didn't haven't any encounters with him, but I understand he's quite a serious and ruthless operator in his own way. But what he said about this is that there is no charity that has had its registration withdrawn due to activity of the kind that this government is purporting needs correction. So there are alarm bells and neon signs. We need to be careful about what's embedded in this piece of legislation, and I hope that we might get to the bottom of that as we move into the consideration in detail phase of this bill.
There is an important part of this bill that I rise to discuss today, and that is what's happening with the tax treatment of offshore banking units. I particularly want to speak to reforms on offshore banking units and laud the work that's done to remove tax breaks for offshore financial institutions. In this time of national debt that Australia has never before seen, and a great need to build up domestic capabilities, we should be closing these wasteful tax loopholes. The tax concession was initially started as an incentive to attract and maintain highly global financial sector activity. In particular, it was seeking to draw Hong Kong and Singapore. However, over the years, with so much change in the financial market, what's happened is that this has actually become a loophole that has preferenced harmful financial activities due to its low tax rate of 10 per cent and an interest withholding tax exemption on interest payments made by offshore banking units on eligible offshore borrowings.
It sounds like a great mouthful, and if you don't have much to do with offshore banking units it's a little bit unintelligible, but it's not good. In 2018 the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices blasted this current regime and what it was doing, because it had the effect of attracting offshore businesses to Australia and it then provided them with ring-fencing to avoid Australian transactions from its scope. That's not good. That doesn't make us good international citizens.
So we've come to this reform three years later. This bill will ensure that offshore banking units will not receive any special taxation arrangements and will be subject to the applicable corporate tax rate that Australian financial institutions pay. While the OBU regime has effectively been closed since 2018, this bill will forever bury this tax giveaway and end all of the grandfathering of the scheme by 2024-25. So, effectively, this part of the bill I'm discussing is a correction and a long overdue reform that I wholly support.
However, as is the style and practice of this government, this is a reform that's coming too late and in a piecemeal fashion. What we've seen over eight years of government, with a failure to act on such a loophole as this, is that Australians are missing out on millions of dollars of tax revenue that slipped through these loopholes for overseas banking units. That has been going on year after year after year after year—count up eight and it ends up being an awful lot of money.
Labor has been working very hard to draw attention to this reality. We are very proud of the tireless work we've done in the financial sector space to constantly stand up to the financial services sector and for good practice in the financial services sector. It was Labor that pushed for the Hayne royal commission. People in this chamber stand up and make all sorts of claims along the lines of a former senator who said he was here to 'keep the bastards honest'. And this has been the official position of the opposition, which has constantly fought the government to protect Australian consumers and not let the reckless pursuit of private wealth for a few crush the dreams of everyday Australians.
Labor pushed the multinationals and the government for years and years to tighten rules around this multinational tax avoidance and to get these companies to just pay their fair share. There's nothing wrong with asking multinational companies to have the same standards as Australian companies and pay their tax. Labor pushed the government to support the royal commission into banks. But the government voted against that 27 times. And because they did that, because they perpetuated for so long a system that was replete with the widespread rorting of Australian customers, we really had to push to prompt an ethical reshaping of Australia's entire financial sector. Labor pushed for that inquiry into the auditing sector, which promoted a complete rethink of how Australian companies are audited. The inquiry looked at the conflicts of interest in auditing between the work of consultants and the work of auditors from the big four professional services firms. That was a great piece of work undertaken by the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. The report was really a road map for this government to take action. But, as this government does so often, the work got done, the government was given the plan and then the government forgot to show up for work. They don't get on with the job of doing the things that need to be done to make life better and safer for people in Australia.
The Australian people look to Labor to stand up for social justice and equity, certainly in the workplace but also in the marketplace. A healthy and functioning business environment is vital to the creation of jobs and the opportunities that those jobs give all Australians to grow and fulfil their potential. We, as the Labor Party, understand how vital people's retirement is. In the absence of dignity in retirement for too many Australians we created superannuation for Australian workers. Right now we are firmly invested in an ethical financial sector to ensure that the retirement incomes of millions of Australians are managed in an ethical and efficient way that benefits them, their families, their lives and their communities. We could all benefit from ethical practice in the financial sector, rather than a few benefiting with impunity. I support our financial services sector to continue to be a world leader and grow in its role as a financial services centre for the Asia-Pacific region. As fintech providers keep innovating and digital wallets become more commonplace than leather ones, I think that regulation needs to keep pace to ensure Australian consumers are protected. It's a solemn role of this government to safeguard their interests, and I'll always fight to ensure consumers are heard.
In a recent inquiry conducted by the corporations and financial services committee—and I see Senator Hume nodding—we looked into what was happening in the digital wallet space. I have to say it was quite concerning to find out that 80 per cent of the transactions in the country occur on Apple phones and that 20 per cent happen on android phones. That is because the profile of people who own these Apple phones tend to be people who have a bit more money. With these older phones, we put our thumb on the icon and point them generally at the reader. There's a little chip in the corner, the digital message goes across and all of a sudden your money is transferring. The government need to be paying attention to what's going on there because in the infrastructure between where you put the chip on that little reader and the person who sells you a good or product gets the money is completely outside any regulation in this country. The ACCC don't know what to do with it; it's just a mess. There's nobody carefully watching what's going on. Because of COVID-19 we've had a massive increase in the number of people using digital technology to pay for things. Just a couple of years ago about 24 per cent of transactions were using that technology, and it's going to be over 51 per cent by the time we get to the end of the year. In jurisdictions that are pretty similar to us, they are up to about 80 per cent of transactions using digital technology, so it's important that our government is on to this stuff.
I know that there was a review in October last year that was heralded: 'Hurry up, we've got to find out about what's going on in the financial space.' A good friend of the Treasurer's and one of his former colleagues, Mr Farrell, was apparently commissioned to do a second report for the government. It was supposed to be due in April. It didn't land on the Treasurer's desk until 1 June. Here we are, just about hitting September, but there's no sign of the report. We've got problems that are happening as I speak tonight. How many people will have used that technology while the government's not paying attention? That's why this legislation that deals with overseas banking units is actually too late to be good governance, but at least it's finally being done. Too often the government is found wanting in this space, where good action should be taken.
I contrast that with Dr Gary Johns's very significant neon signal that the government is doing something pretty dodgy with regard to charities—so dodgy that charities like St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare and other agencies that we know so many people in our community rely on are saying: 'Do not allow the government to put in regulation that's going to change what we are able to do, do not put a lot more red tape in place and do not attack us,' because that's what's happening, to the point where they put out an open letter.
So, with regard to this bill and what it does in terms of making sure that Australians can no longer be ripped off by overseas banking units, I will vote for this bill. I'm glad to vote for it and to finally close one of the most generous loopholes in our taxation system, a loophole that has been open for far too long. I look forward to working with all those in this place to ensure there is an ethical financial sector that makes money in an honest, non-exploitative way; one that pays its fair share of taxes; and one that, in this changing time of switching to a digital economy, is considered in a way that anticipates the exploitation of Australian small business owners and their customers, who deserve much better care, consideration and protection from this government than they are currently being afforded. This is too late. Everything's not a race to this government, but, in the end, the people who pay the price for it not doing its day job properly are the Australian people.
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (19:06): [by video link] I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 and changes to offshore banking unit rules as they apply to groups wanting to register for the status of a deductible gift recipient. This measure makes changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to require non-government entities seeking endorsement as a deductible gift recipient to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission or operated by a registered charity. Ancillary funds and specifically listed entities will be exempt from this requirement.
Charities and charitable bodies operate best when they have the full trust of the public, and this bill seeks to reinforce the framework on which that partnership is built. These changes are designed to help the affected entities and their donors by making absolutely clear the entity's tax-deductible status. It is similar to how some companies stamp their products with 'RSPCA approved' or with the Heart Foundation tick. Doing that is reassuring to the people handing over their money, because the product carries a stamp of an official certifying authority.
With deductible gift recipients, this bill grants some rolled-gold government-recognised status as a legitimate operation people can confidently donate to. It will also improve the consistency of rules governing deductible gift recipients, providing clarity and improving efficiency so that they can maximise the time spent on helping their chosen causes. The requirement to be a charity already applies to the majority of the general DGR categories in tax law. This measure will amend the special conditions applying to other general DGR categories. This measure takes effect three months after the bill receives royal assent. The 12-month transition period will provide non-charity DGRs with times to meet the requirements for charity registration without losing their existing status.
I have touched on just a few of the details in the legislation, because I think it has already been so well covered by the always gracious Senator Scarr, but I do want to touch on some of the other points that have been made, particularly around the multinational tax avoidance. It has to be acknowledged that we are a global leader in the international fight against corporate and multinational tax avoidance. From 1 July 2016 to 30 April 2021, the ATO raised around $21.5 billion in tax liabilities against large public groups, multinational corporations, wealthy individuals and associated groups. Of this, $13.5 billion in liabilities were raised from multinationals and large companies. So this has generated cash collections of around $12.5 billion already.
Since 2016, we have implemented more than a dozen measures to address corporate and multinational tax avoidance. This includes adopting the actions recommended by the OECD and G20: base erosion and profit shifting, including country-by-country reporting; hybrid mismatch rules; antitreaty abuse rules; strength transfer pricing rules; signing multilateral instruments; adopting other measures beyond BEPS, including a multinational anti-avoidance law which ensures companies do not avoid a taxable presence in Australia; diverted profits tax; double penalties for multinationals that seek to avoid tax; imposition of tax conditions on foreign investors; and strengthening thin-capitalisation laws. Enhanced whistleblower protection has been enacted to limit disincentives for individuals to report tax misconduct to the ATO. The MAAL has meant an additional $8 billion of sales revenue being booked in Australia each year. So Australia has played a key role in driving the agenda on the OECD G20 process. We are on the BEPS steering committee and have contributed to every G20 meeting where this has been discussed and have implemented the recommendations. These are really important points to make.
I listened with interest to those opposite. I listened to the increasingly breathless hyperbole about what should have or could have happened at the beginning of COVID. I think we all recall the dark days of March 2020, with the terrible uncertainty of the pandemic. What would it mean to people's security? What would it mean to their ability to put food on the table? The introduction of JobKeeper and JobSeeker was massively welcomed by Australians at all levels, even at the most basic level of ensuring mental health security for people who just didn't know what was going to happen next.
So the appalling attack by the opposition on the very sensible approach that was taken during those dark days just beggars belief. It seems that they have forgotten their own stimulus package of the Rudd days of 2009 when they too understood that there is a time for stimulating the economy and providing security to the people of Australia. The opposition seem to think there are only two jobs in leading a government and, of course, that is not only not true; it gives you much discomfort to think about them ever holding the Treasury positions, because they just truly don't know what the job entails. I commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (19:12): [by video link] I rise tonight to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. I'm not going to focus on the substantive aspects of the bill but rather on the amendment that has been foreshadowed for the committee stage by Senator McAllister. I will start by saying that Senator Scarr has risen in this debate and has presented a perspective and I will come to that in a short while. Everyone seems to like Senator Scarr. I'm wondering if he is trying to take the trophy off Senator Dean Smith. We will have to see as a function of time what happens in that space. But Senator Scarr did rise and speak about the benefits of the JobKeeper program.
I think everyone around the chamber would agree that JobKeeper was a necessary measure during COVID-19. There's no question that there were companies that absolutely needed to have a hand up or, indeed, a handout from the government to help them through a most difficult time. No-one begrudges those companies for having taken that money. We have to remember that the purpose of the program was, in fact, to try and maintain a connection between employers and employees, and it was effective in doing that. We didn't put in place a lot of constraints or controls. Part of the problem we have found ourselves in is that the government were mindful of the need to assist without having too much red tape and allowed companies to estimate what their profits and turnover might be moving forward. And everyone had a right to basically say, 'Things look pretty grim.' There's no issue with the approach that was taken by the government. However, we now know that there are a number of companies that have come through the other side of the pandemic with increased profits, which they've then directed at bigger dividends and executive bonuses. So what's happened here is that we've taken taxpayers' generosity, through the JobKeeper program, and basically funnelled that into the pockets of investors and the pockets of executives. That was never what this money was intended for.
I agree with Senator Scarr that none of these companies has broken any law; the law was created very loose, and that was done because of the uncertainty moving forward. But now it is incumbent upon the company directors, those who have taken the money and then managed to make a much larger profit than what they already had, to return money. We know from analysis that is being done by the PBO that the amount of money we are talking about is in the order of $12½ billion—$12½ billion that was handed over to companies who, in the end, did not need it.
The proper thing for all of these companies to do is to hand back that money. I'm talking about the companies that did better as a result of the circumstances of the pandemic. The taxpayer doesn't want money back from companies that struggled; I don't mind the fact that they've helped them out. But the companies that did well need to look long and hard at themselves. One of the ways we can assist them in doing so is to make public exactly how much each company received so that it's very clear who received JobKeeper and how much they received. That can be looked at in relation to how well they did, and we can use that to encourage companies to repay money.
We know that this has worked in New Zealand. In Australia, you can go onto a New Zealand government website—people can use Google to look for a site that goes to their wage subsidy programs—and type in the name of any company that is operating in New Zealand, including Harvey Norman and Qantas. It will tell you exactly how much they received in New Zealand's equivalent of JobKeeper and other assistance money, and, where it is a wage subsidy, how many employees were involved in the transaction—whether it was 100 employees or 200 employees. You can see that information. This is not information that is sensitive to companies; it is taxpayers' information; it's the amount of money the government has handed over. New Zealand has managed to get back five per cent of the moneys paid under its program. How much have we got back in Australia? We have got back 0.25 per cent, just a fraction. And the difference between the two countries is simply transparency—turning on the lights and letting everyone see and make their own assessment. That has brought about a return of money that can be used for many other things—many important things that we need in society.
We regularly come into this chamber and see cuts being made to programs. Just imagine what $12.5 billion could do. That would be of great assistance. That's why we can't turn our backs on this. That's why we need to look at what happened here. Again, I'm not suggesting companies have broken the law, but they have a moral obligation to return money that was provided to them for a different reason—money that was generously given to them by the taxpayer for a particular purpose—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ) (19:20): It being 7.20, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Darcey, Mrs Beth
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (19:20): I rise this evening to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, an inspiring teacher, a selfless community contributor and a fearless Liberal, Mrs Beth Darcey, who passed away on 9 August 2021. I've spoken about Mrs Darcey in this place once before, in my maiden speech to the chamber, and I think that's particularly telling of the impact she had upon me when she taught me at St Michael's Collegiate School.
William Butler Yeats said, 'Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.' I have no doubt that I speak on behalf of many of Mrs Darcey's former students when I say that no-one could light a fire quite like she did. It was considered a rite of passage for collegiate girls to attend civics lessons with Mrs Darcey in preparation for the annual year 6 Canberra trip. For weeks in the lead-up to my trip in November 2002, Mrs Darcey taught us the fundamentals of our democracy, from holding elections to passing legislation. Our lessons culminated in a mock election, with Mrs Darcey, of course, performing the role of returning officer.
Once we arrived in Canberra, our lessons were applied even further in practice during a tour of Parliament House, with Mrs Darcey taking the lead. We met with what seemed like dozens of parliamentarians, and questioned them about their role as representatives and decision-makers. I was fascinated with the idea of how my vote could one day, through the structures enshrined in our Constitution, impact upon the decisions that were being made in this place. That fascination was firmly rooted in a strong understanding of how those structures worked, and that understanding came from Mrs Darcey. As the dean of St David's Cathedral, the Very Reverend Richard Humphrey, said in a sermon at her funeral last week, 'She not only taught active citizenship; she lived it.'
Beyond the fundamental importance of our democracy, the other thing Mrs Darcey impressed upon me was that it was entirely possible, indeed necessary, to provide our young people with a robust civics education, in turn creating informed and active citizens with a deep respect for our democratic institutions, in a completely objective and non-partisan way. While, of course, she told us of the existence of political parties, never in any of our civics classes did Mrs Darcey provide any political commentary. In fact, it wasn't until almost a decade later, when I joined the Liberal Party, that I happened across Mrs Darcey at a party function and realised that for all this time she'd been a card-carrying member. As it turned out, she'd even run as a Liberal candidate for the seat of Denison, now known as Clark, at the 1989 state election.
At this time, when I reconnected with Mrs Darcey again, I told her what an impact she'd had on me, encouraging my interest in politics, and even then, nearly 10 years later, she said: 'Please, Claire, tell me you didn't join the Liberal Party because of me! I always tried so hard to make sure I was apolitical when I was teaching you girls.' I reassured her that she was absolutely non-partisan in her teachings but couldn't quite bring myself to say that she had nothing to do with me joining the Liberal Party, because fundamentally I know it was my exemplary civics education provided by Mrs Darcey that fortified in me a deep respect for our democracy and our political institutions and drove me to contribute to those institutions in some meaningful way, by joining a political party and, ultimately, seeking election to the federal parliament.
From that meeting, I came to know Mrs Darcey not just as my former teacher but as a tireless volunteer for the Liberal Party in Tasmania. Her contribution, particularly in the Clark electorate as a member of the west Hobart branch, was well regarded by many, and when Mrs Darcey chose to make her views known on an issue at a meeting—well, we knew very well to listen. Along with her husband, Max, who passed away in 2011, Beth Darcey was a much loved member of the Hobart Anglican community, particularly through her longstanding association with my alma mater, collegiate, and The Hutchins School. While I wasn't able to attend Beth's funeral at St David's, due to the Canberra lockdown, it was a testament to Mrs Darcey's legacy to see so many people associated with those two schools in attendance via the live stream I viewed alongside a number of others last Tuesday.
She was also a committed Rotarian and valued member of the Lyrics Singers choral group. Mrs Darcey is survived by her three children, Jane, Alison and Andrew, and seven grandchildren, all of whom I know will miss their family matriarch so much. But I know Mrs Darcey's legacy will live on in the people's lives she's impacted, in the communities she's given back to so tirelessly and, perhaps most importantly, in the hundreds of fires she's lit in her former students by inspiring them to lives of learning and active citizenship. Mrs Darcey, our democracy is so better for the impact that you have had.
Children's Ground
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:25): I rise this evening to talk about an organisation that I've been following for a significant period. It's an innovative, exciting project that is taking a 25-year approach. Children's Ground is a not-for-profit organisation designed and led by First Nations people to end enduring injustice and disadvantage. The organisation is First Nations family and community led, driven and implemented at both board and community level. First Nations cultural governance is at the front and centre of delivery. Their governance system recognises the equal importance of cultural governance and corporate governance, and their community governance committees comprise 100 per cent local First Nations people.
The Children's Ground approach is a 25-year integrated and preventative one founded on systemic change across five service areas: education, health, economic independence, culture and community development. Children's Ground has developed and delivers an evidence based approach collecting data for every child, family and community, to measure, demonstrate and evaluate what is working and to learn by gathering evidence in order to drive systemic reform in government policy and service delivery. The Children's Ground approach is designed for long-term change. They have a 25-year strategy for change within communities and across the system and know that change will take time, so they will walk alongside each child for an entire generation. This is what I find so exciting. They are not a quick fix or program based model but are focused on outcomes, investing in prevention rather than responding to crisis.
Children's Ground is an organisation working towards not only changing the lives of the communities they work with but completely changing the systems that have failed First Nations people since colonisation. They are doing this through practice leadership and evidence. Each community has agency and control over their project and is governed in their operations by the local community and traditional owners. For example, in Central Australia, they have Ampe-kenhe Ahelhe, which is the Arrernte name for Children's Ground, and they follow the direction of their Central Australia governance committee. In West Arnhem, they are called—and I apologise for my mangled pronunciation—Wurdurd Garriyigarrmerren, which means, 'We are all standing together as one family, walking the path with our children.'
Despite their community integrated approach, Children's Ground is struggling to get long-term funding commitments from the government in key areas of education and health. Children's Ground is working in nine communities and receiving limited funding for only three. To meet the government's Closing the Gap measures, we need to have community led solutions backed by government. We cannot keep starting wonderful projects like Children's Ground and then have them peter out or end abruptly because funding has ceased. We know this organisation is there for the long term. Children's Ground will continue to grow as more First Nations communities hear and see the results and seek their services. Continued support from the Australian government to maintain health and education activities that privilege First Nations language, culture and connection to country, to maintain First Nations leadership and decision-making, will make the change that the next generation are wanting.
I urge the government to please work with and support Children's Ground to meet their aspirations in the next few years. This is truly such an important—in fact, groundbreaking—program that I really urge the government to get on board with this group. They are doing amazing work and they need support. I urge everybody here to go and have a look at their website, to talk to them and to learn about what they're trying to achieve in their 25-year vision, which, as I articulated, is about achieving true generational change.
Superannuation
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (17:15): I rise tonight to address the Senate on the question of superannuation policy. People will be aware that New South Wales has been enduring a very lengthy lockdown. One of the major issues that has come out of this lockdown has been the disproportionate impact on small businesses. It's all well and good for people who work in the public sector or for big businesses to be immune from the crisis, but it's the people who are in personal care sectors that are most affected. These are the travel agents, barbers and hairdressers, beauticians—the list goes on. One of the questions that comes up regularly in conversations I have with people who are working in these affected small-business sectors is: why can't they get access to their super like they could last year? Last year we put forward a very effective policy called early release super, which was very engaging for people. I think it is quite mean and nasty that we would deny people access to their own money above and beyond disaster support payments.
This takes me to a couple of policy ideas that I have. One is that there should be a permanent early release scheme for people. People can get access to their super now for IVF and lap-band surgery where trustees grant it. I think that, in the absence of the government wanting to put in place a permanent scheme, it is appropriate that trustees look upon the cases raised by small-business people in particular and grant them access to their own money—because it is, after all, their own money. If they are going to grant people access to their own money for IVF and lap-band surgery, and if small businesses are at risk of never recovering from the lockdowns, then they should be granted access to their super. I'm very happy to assist people in making those representations.
The other issue is that we need to pursue longer-term productivity-enhancing reforms. Super is a huge bet the nation has taken, and it is probably one of the riskiest policies we've ever enacted. Ten per cent of people's money goes off to these funds and they generally manage it quite poorly. I have already discussed how people are denied access to this money. It was given to the financial institutions and the unions by politicians 30 years ago for various political reasons—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator BRAGG: I take the interjections. Here we go: the vested interest. They're defending the crooked super scheme. It's all crooked.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator BRAGG: I take the interjections. Once again, Labor will do anything for big super. You will do anything to defend super. Keep going—you're making my point for me. It's the party of vested interest. This is fantastic.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator BRAGG: Keep going. We'll look forward to clipping that loop later. I take the interjections. The point is that 30 years ago Paul Keating gave the keys to the city to the financial institutions and to the unions, and they have run this industry for themselves and not for the workers. The returns are poor relative to other options. One of the things we should be pursuing over the next little while is the Future Fund as an option for default super. It has outperformed all the average super funds and it's something I think could work very well.
The Labor Party want to bind people up in red tape and in opaque structures because they don't want people to run their own affairs. You believe in paternalism. You want to separate people from the money. You want the donations that flow through to the unions into your political party. It's all about money. What I'm interested in is pursuing policies which enable people to get control of their own affairs. We should be looking at ways to make the system work better because it's not working in the interests of people. Who could imagine that we would have a policy that is designed to reduce the costs of an ageing population that costs the taxpayer more than it saves? It doesn't work. It doesn't get people off the pension. All it does is line the coffers of the unions and the Labor Party, and they will defend that to the hilt. The Labor Party would rather save super than save Australia. That's why they're opposed to early release. They're opposed to any measure that is designed to improve the system for workers. You're not here for workers; you're here for yourselves. You're the party of vested interests. You should be ashamed of yourselves. We should pursue these reforms because they would improve outcomes for workers, and they're who we are here to serve.
Charitable Organisations
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (19:34): I've got to stop myself from laughing at that contribution. It's hard to take it seriously. I rise to speak on a critically important matter for Australia's not-for-profit and charities sector, which is Assistant Minister Sukkar's new proposed regulations to gag charities.
The so-called champions of free speech on the other side are silent when it comes to this new regulation. They rail against any kind of red tape in this chamber, except when it comes to silencing those who dare to speak out, particularly against the government. I've seen Senator Alex Antic decry 'cancel culture' for a fake campaign to change the name of Magnum ice-cream. Senator Canavan cracked open Colonial beers in solidarity with the brewing company. Yet they've said nothing about these new regulations. They've all been silent about this attempt to shut down dissent in the charity sector. They're happy to play a pointless game of culture wars. But, when it really matters—when their own government is proposing to shut down debate from Christian, Islamic, Jewish, non-denominational and other charities—this government is nowhere to be found.
The new regulations the government is proposing will actually inhibit free speech and gag dissenters to the government's agenda. They're even going to give the ACNC commissioner the power to deregister a charity if it:
… reasonably believes that it is more likely than not that the entity will not comply with a governance standard.
No charge or guilty verdict is required. Where is the natural justice in that? It's not just me saying this. Anglicare Australia, the St Vincent de Paul Society, the Benevolent Society, Baptist Care Australia, Uniting Care Australia and Catholic Social Services Australia are all signatories to an open letter against these changes. That's an extraordinary step for those charities to take during this COVID crisis, at a time when they're fighting to do the very best they can for people under such pressure in our community. The letter that they published clearly states:
These new rules undermine the legitimate and lawful advocacy that is at the core of what we do. They will silence the voices of the people we represent, and stifle our mission to create a just society where all Australians can live their lives with dignity.
Anglicare leader Kasy Chambers was right about the regulations when she said:
They are not just an attack on charities. They are an attack on democracy.
These regulations are hardly needed. Instead, they're a cynical ploy to stop charities from speaking out against the government in an election year. That's pure and simple. Unlawful acts are clearly already unlawful, and this type of collective punishment is deeply harmful and unwarranted. The government's own review into charities legislation recommended a complete repeal of the standard this same government now seeks to broaden. Let's just break that down one more time. The government undertook a review into charities and charities legislation. That review, undertaken at the government's own request, said: repeal the standard. Instead, the government is now seeking to broaden it.
Gary Johns is the ACNC commissioner. Dr Johns has confirmed the fact that there is no charity that he oversees—and he oversees them all—that's had its registration withdrawn due to activity. These proposed regulations will divert time, resources and donations away from charity work and into compliance with new red tape. That will not help Australians. It will not help charities help Australians to recover from the dual shocks of a recession and a pandemic. It's not effective regulation designed to fill a loophole or address a societal ill. In fact, it's an intimidation tactic by the government to silence its critics.
I ask all those on the other side who get angry at the thought of a brand of beer, cheese or ice-cream changing its name to think instead of what really matters: the government shutting down free speech of the entire charities sector. That is just unbelievable, and it must not occur.
Hobart: Roads
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (19:39): It is with some level of bewilderment and frustration that I make this contribution this evening. It is a frustration I carry on behalf of commuters across greater Hobart, because, as anyone living in the greater Hobart area knows, traffic congestion in our city has been worsening for some years. So it was pleasing to see the federal government make a commitment, a promise, to the people of Hobart some 2½ years ago that they would invest serious dollars to alleviate—in fact, to bust—traffic congestion in our city. Yet it was an announcement that was received with some trepidation—unfortunately, as it turns out, rightly so.
The Hobart urban congestion package was first committed to by the then minister, Alan Tudge, on 22 February 2019. It was a package of $25 million that was meant to 'ease congestion and improve access in and around the city's northern suburbs'. That's according to the Morrison government's own media statement making the announcement. Now we know that announcements are something that this Prime Minister is particularly good at. He loves to make them, and that's fine. The problem we all have is not in the announcement but in the delivery, because it is this component of the commitment-making process that this Prime Minister has particular difficulty following through on. In fact, the overwhelming evidence to date is that he simply can't do it.
This particular project, something that amounts at this stage to nothing more than an announcement, is the perfect case in point, because here we are, 2½ years on from actually signing the Hobart City Deal, and the Morrison government still can't decide what to do with the $25 million earmarked for tackling urban congestion in Hobart's northern suburbs. In fact, we have learnt through the estimates process that there have been no fewer than eight meetings with relevant stakeholders in this time, yet nothing tangible appears to have come from any of them. Indeed, the latest announcement to come from government following the stakeholder meeting in May was for the commissioning of—wait for it—yet another study into the issue. It will be a further two months before discussions can progress following the results of the latest of several studies commissioned by the state and federal Liberal governments. They've certainly got the process of undertaking studies down pat; it's a pity they can't figure out how to do the actual infrastructure delivery part.
The government claims this study is a key part of progressing the project. It is strange, then, that it has taken eight separate stakeholder meetings and 18 months to reach this realisation. One would have thought that this kind of project scoping study would have been the very first thing you would have done for a project of this type. But, you see, even the federal government's own infrastructure department has recognised the painstakingly slow nature of the government's half-hearted attempt to make good on its promise. At estimates back in May, in response to questioning as to why it has taken so long to identify how this funding commitment might be progressed, the committee was told by departmental officials:
… I think we'll probably escalate this one a little bit more than we have so far.
… … …
To the extent that we haven't been able to identify projects within the budget for the congestion package, I think it's one where we'll have to have a pretty hardheaded negotiation with Tasmania and ensure that we get some projects identified soon for Hobart. That's something that we'll prioritise inside the department.
It has been 2½ years. Yet, when it comes to the urban congestion package, Hobartians are nowhere near knowing a time frame for the starting or the completion of this project, or, indeed, what this project even is.
This failure to deliver on infrastructure commitments in Tasmania has been laid bare repeatedly through the estimates process. In fact, 81 per cent of the Liberals' promised infrastructure spend for Tasmania is still in the in-planning phase. This simply isn't good enough, but it's classic Mr Morrison—big on flashy announcements and pretending to get things done, but when it comes to actually delivering on his commitment he leaves us all stuck in the slow lane. With Mr Morrison it's all talk, talk, talk, talk. Tasmanians deserve a government that will actually follow through and deliver on commitments. Tasmanians deserve a government that will build infrastructure and tackle congestion, a government that is on their side—an Albanese Labor government.
COVID-19: Human Rights
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:44): [by video link] As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, my remarks will be on the most basic of human rights: freedom to protest. State premiers have declared a war on peaceful protests against their policies, including the 'freedom day' rallies, yet they allow protests they agree with such as Black Lives Matter.
An ethical nightmare over human rights is brewing between the parliaments and the people. It's the fault of blind political ambition, leveraged off a virus that has turned out to be, according to government health experts' own data, no more harmful than a bad flu. It's time we cancelled the COVID apocalypse. It's time to end the use of COVID as an excuse to implement all-powerful legislation that exempts itself from proper scrutiny. Both the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 make a mockery of 120 years of legislation and 800 years of common law. Both pieces of legislation are being used in ways never put to the people. Together, these acts trespass unreasonably on the rights and liberties of everyday Australians.
No parliament that wishes to call itself democratic can grant indefinite, absolute and unscrutinised power. State premiers have entered into a COVID arms race with each other, leaving Australians trapped in the middle of the crossfire—huge increases in suicide attempts, children phoning helplines in unprecedented numbers and small businesses in ruins. And what created this? Federal parliament's failure to hold the line against fear and misuse of power.
'Emergency' should not mean a dissolution of rights, especially when a state of emergency can be stretched out for months, years or even indefinitely. COVID policy has turned into a parallel legal system, embraced by a Prime Minister who has encouraged health orders that permanently alter the landscape of work and travel. Death has become a matter of politics and mismanagement, used to prevent the sacred freedom to assemble and protest peacefully. If Australians cannot protest, parliaments will never be held accountable for errors in judgement.
One of parliament's many mistakes is in the presentation of COVID data. Given without context, they tower over us. Viewed in context, COVID harm barely deviates from normal. Parliaments cannot promise safety. Safety is an outcome of parliaments following policies that protect our freedoms and our rights. Instead of handling COVID with a view to these important guiding principles, politicians have suffocated Australia under the weight of biosecurity powers, resulting in displays of cruelty that have shocked the whole world.
The fact is we are not safe. We are not safe from our own parliaments. Freedom protests are a criticism of COVID policies and parliaments' atrocious governance. Like the manufacturers of vaccines, parliaments do not want to hear any complaints about the quality of their work. Despite this parliament's best attempts to control people, we are blessed with a nation full of people who refuse to live under the coercion of fear. This may be considered civil disobedience; I call it common sense.
The Prime Minister's role is to perform his duty with pragmatism and calm. Instead, Scott Morrison has rattled the cage of fear and enticed state politicians to do the same. Instead of focusing on trust, this parliament endorses spending tens of millions of dollars advertising COVID fear. Operation COVID Shield is now an attempt to use the military to force the behaviour associated with trust without any attempt to create the meeting of the minds necessary for trust. Abused people may well obey their captors, but they do not trust them. The more rights parliaments steal from Australians, the less likely people are to trust.
Australians asked for choice in COVID treatments, and the government suppressed peer reviewed and internationally accepted alternatives like ivermectin. Australians asked for vaccine manufacturers to accept liability for their products, and instead they were denied any recourse in the event of personal harm. Australians tried to report fatal side effects, and for months the parliament, the legacy media and social media silenced them. Australians took to the streets to tell this parliament and state premiers that the health orders were destroying millions of lives, and the states hunted them down like criminals. To enforce compliance, parliaments will need more policies like Operation COVID Shield, more police and more Defence Force members in our streets. Force will still fail, because fear and intimidation are a terrible plan.
The damage done to the sacred trust between the people and parliaments is catastrophic. Parliamentary policy has destroyed trust in vaccines, creating two classes of people in Australia: those who profit from the pandemic and those who suffer from it. Policy, not COVID, has destroyed trust in vaccines. COVID Shield seeks to repair it with the rhetoric of war. Everyday Australians are not buying this nonsense. Australians know what the parliaments, the military and the health bureaucrats do not know: we will not be divided, we have one flag, we are one community and we are one nation.
Afghanistan
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (19:49): [by video link] It was only nine days ago that the Taliban arrived in Kabul. It was only nine days ago that the Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani, flew out. In the last nine days, there has been a desperate effort by Western governments to get people out of Afghanistan—a desperate effort to get their defence force personnel, their citizens, their permanent residents, the families of their permanent residents, human rights defenders, women's right defenders, journalists and other people out of Afghanistan. Australia has, over the last nine days, managed to get hundreds of people, maybe up to 1,000, out. Against the heartbreaking backdrop of Afghanistan having fallen once again to the brutal regime of the Taliban, we have some heartwarming stories of people that we've been able to get out.
Over the weekend, I followed a group of 11 people who included human rights defenders, democracy workers, a 23-year-old woman who was training to be a pilot, a four-year-old and a four-month-old, who are all now, as I speak, in flight to Australia. But the people that we have managed to get out have been at the very end of the pipe. We know that human rights defenders and people of ethnic minorities such as the Hazara—good people—if they are left behind under a Taliban regime, are at immense risk of death. They are at immense risk of not getting through. So it's great that we have been able to get some of them out.
But the window for getting people out is closing rapidly, and this pipeline of people that we've been able to get out is drying up. Thousands of people are putting in herculean efforts to try to make the systems work to get people out, and they are to be commended, but it's at the end of the pipe, and then there are going to be so many millions of people who are going to be left behind. It's the end of a 20-year war that has failed to create a lasting peace. It's the end of a 20-year war that did not succeed in building robust institutions. It's the end of a 20-year war that was based on imperialism and power over, not power with. It didn't work, and now we are just doing our desperate best to pick up the pieces.
But it's no wonder that it didn't work. Yes, in 2001 we had a problem. The Taliban in Afghanistan were brutal. They were awful. They were executing thousands of people. It was a terrible, terrible regime. But an invasion serving the interests of the invading powers—that imperialist war—was not the solution to that problem. It has made the world less safe. It has created more terrorism and it has meant the forces withdrawing, the government collapsing and the institutions not surviving. We could have done things differently if we had had a human rights centred approach rather than an approach of having power over and control over. But we didn't.
So what do we do now? We are left to just pick up the pieces. Australia is part of that problem, so we have got a responsibility to do our utmost to pick up those pieces. We have committed that by 31 August, when that pipe is going to shut, we might get 1,000 or 2,000 people out. We need to do more. We have got a commitment now from our government to accept 3,000 refugees from Afghanistan. We need to have so many more. We need to have an allocation of at least 20,000 refugees to make some acknowledgement of our role in this problem. We need to give permanent protection to the 4½ thousand people who are currently in Australia on temporary protection visas, and we need to commit ourselves to work for justice, for peace and for human rights in the world through our defence policy and our foreign policy so that wars like this never occur again.
Senate adjourned at 19:55