PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia
His Excellency General the Hon. David John Hurley, Companion of the Order of Australia, Distinguished Service Cross (Retd), Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, entered the chamber and, taking his seat on the dais, said:
Honourable senators:
I inform the Senate that Senator Siewert resigned her place as a senator for Western Australia on 6 September 2021 and Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan resigned his place as a senator for Victoria on 13 October 2021. Pursuant to the provisions of section 21 of the Constitution, the governors of South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria have each been advised of the vacancies in the representation of those states. Given the resignation of Senator Ryan as President of the Senate, I am here today to swear in new senators, chosen to fill vacancies in the representation of Western Australia and South Australia. I table correspondence relating to the vacancies.
Senators Sworn
The following senators made and subscribed the affirmation of allegiance:
Western Australia—Dorinda Cox
South Australia—Karen Grogan
His Excellency the Governor-General having congratulated senators and retired—
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
President
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (10:06): Mr Clerk, I remind the Senate that the time has come when it is necessary for the Senate to choose one of its members to become President. I propose Senator Brockman, and I move:
That Senator Brockman take the chair of the Senate as President.
The Clerk: Are there any further nominations?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:06): I propose Senator Faruqi and I move:
That Senator Faruqi take the chair as President.
The Clerk: Are there any further nominations? There being two nominations, I invite each candidate to address the Senate.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:06): Firstly, I acknowledge my colleagues from the government who have nominated me for this role. It is humbling simply to be nominated. As the previous President said at his nomination, this is not a circumstance that I thought would ever present itself. The position and the role of the Senate in our democracy have always been the focus of my political interest and much of my career. The Senate plays a role in our democracy first as the states' house and also as the guardian of our fine and effective committee system. It gives voice to the diverse groups across our various constituencies and to interests that might not otherwise be heard.
If elected, I will always strive to maintain and champion the place of the Senate in our democracy and work with all of you with fairness and impartiality. I would seek to continue the tradition of the two presidents I have served under in this place, Senator Parry and Senator Ryan, both fine people and fine defenders of this institution. I submit myself to the will of the Senate.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (10:07): What a huge privilege it is to represent my wonderful state of New South Wales in the Senate. Thank you so much to my colleagues for nominating me and, especially today, it is wonderful to be joined by two incredible black senators, Senator Cox and Senator Thorpe, and be standing here with our team, which actually respect and celebrate First Nations culture and diversity in Australia.
The Senate is a place where a huge diversity of political views are heard and it is important that the Senate is facilitated by people who can also represent that plurality. But what we see again and again is a stitch-up between the two major parties, the Liberals and the Labor Party, and we see it again today. This is not the first time it has happened. We talk about democracy here—this is the chamber of review—but again and again democracy is shut down. How many times have we seen, just in the last couple of years, debate being shut down by guillotine motions? We stopped the Notices of Motion as formal business and that shuts out the plurality of views represented in this parliament.
To my colleagues in the Labor Party, if you really want to be an opposition, then act like one. In the history of the Senate, there's only been one woman in that chair and that was decades ago. We've been talking about gender equity all this year. If you really care about gender equity, then things need to change. I would be very honoured to facilitate this chamber as the second woman ever in history and the first woman of colour. It is time to shake things up. It's time for change.
The Clerk: Unless any other senator wishes to address the nominations, a ballot will now be held. Before proceeding to ballot, the bells will be rung for four minutes.
The bells having been rung—
The Clerk: The Senate will now proceed to a ballot. Ballot papers will be distributed. Please write on the ballot paper the name of the candidate you wish to vote for. The candidates are Senator Brockman and Senator Faruqi. I invite Senator Dean Smith and Senator McKim to act as scrutineers.
A ballot having been taken—
The Clerk: Order! Senators, the result of the ballot is as follows: Senator Brockman, 45 votes; Senator Faruqi, seven votes; Senator Gavin Marshall, one vote; one vote returned blank. Senator Brockman is therefore elected President of the Senate in accordance with the standing orders.
Senator Brockman having been conducted to the dais—
The PRESIDENT (10:24): I sincerely thank the Senate for its support and I thank you for the great honour you have given me today. I also welcome our two new senators, Senators Grogan and Cox. I have not met you yet, but I look forward to meeting you and working with you in the future. As I have said, I did not expect to be in this role, certainly not at this time. Senator Scott Ryan—I should never say this—was younger than me, and I expected him to be around as President for a very long time. I wish, for a moment, to honour former President Ryan.
President Ryan displayed, particularly in the difficult two years that we have just been through, a calmness, an intellect, a level of pragmatism, that helped us all navigate this pandemic. He upheld the finest traditions of this institution whilst recognising the need to adapt to circumstances. I personally wish to honour his service to the nation and to the Senate.
If you will indulge me this once, I would also like to acknowledge my family. We cannot do this job without the support of those back at home. I could not do what I do without Rebecca and Jonathan, Eleanor and Felicity. You have my thanks and you have my love. My goals are quite straightforward. For as long as I hold this position, I will act to defend the interests of senators and the Senate itself. Whilst a diverse range of perspectives are represented in this chamber, I will treat each of you as duly elected and equal representatives of your states. I will take your arguments on their merits and seek to act impartially at all times. I thank you, once again, for the distinguished honour that you have granted me.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Senat or BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (10:26): Mr President, I inform honourable senators that the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the President and party leaders or their representatives in the President's suite immediately.
I should, indeed, add my very sincere congratulations to you, my acknowledgement and thanks for the words you have given to this chamber, your commitment to the chamber in upholding the traditions and conventions of the Senate and respect for the place of each individual senator no matter how diverse their views, in terms of the way in which they approach their business, and the need for their rights to be respected as well. I was pleased to nominate you on behalf of the government, knowing, Mr President, that you will perform these duties diligently, competently and with a deep history in this place as a senator but also in your work prior to that, and your understanding of the important roles of government, opposition and minor parties across the chamber in terms of their work.
I thank you for your kind words in relation to former Senator Ryan. Scott is a dear friend, was a very valued colleague throughout his time and was a president admired and respected across this chamber. You fill big shoes in taking on the presidency following Scott Ryan. I know we all wish Scott, Helen and their children every success and happiness in the future, and we thank Scott for the way in which he fulfilled the role with humility, dignity, always with the interests of this chamber at heart, as a senator, for the way in which he engaged in a principled manner, true always to his values, to his interpretation of Liberal values and traditions and customs and principles, and for the way in which he engaged strongly on behalf of his state and fulfilled a number of roles through this place, including his service as a minister. He will be missed. You are now welcomed in the chair and we look forward to the leadership that you provide to this place.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:28): On behalf of the opposition I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate in extending our congratulations to you on your election to the office of President. We note that your election is in keeping with a longstanding convention of the Senate, that the government of the day has the right to nominate the President. This is essential to our democracy because it goes to the effective functioning of this chamber. So I thank Senator Birmingham and I thank Senator Cash for their commitment to the permanence of this convention. In a chamber where no one party of government holds a majority, conventions such as these, that government and opposition senators hold the role of President and Deputy President respectively, matter.
This is the chamber in which executive government is held to account in a way that rarely occurs in the House of Representatives. Impartiality and objectivity are essential qualities for any president, and, as the opposition, we obviously look forward to you maintaining that even-handed approach. We also look forward to you being a defender of the place of the Senate in our constitutional system of government; of its mandate conferred by the people to review, reject or amend legislation; and of its privileges. I note, Senator Brockman, that you come to office with just over four years of experience as senator—significantly less than the average of 11 years for most senators assuming this position. This does mean you will bring a different perspective to the position from most presidents who preceded you. I hope and trust this will be a positive for the Senate.
I would also like to make some remarks about former Senator Ryan, who had served as our President since 2017. As I've said publicly, Scott Ryan deserves to be remembered as one of the great presidents of the Australian Senate, as a strong believer in liberalism and in democracy, and as someone who sought to defend and enhance the role of the Senate and the privileges of the parliament. He discharged the responsibilities fairly and with distinction, and he worked hard to be a consultative president—another essential quality of a holder of the position. Scott Ryan had a deep understanding of and a personal commitment to the role and importance of the Senate in our democracy. I have listened to you today, Mr President, seeking to emulate Scott Ryan in the discharge of your work as President.
Once again, on behalf of the opposition and personally, Mr President, I congratulate you on your election, and we look forward to working with you.
Senator MCKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (10:31): I rise today on behalf of National Party senators to congratulate you, Mr President, on your appointment to the highest office of President of the Senate. The last Western Australian Senate President was Michael Beahan in the years 1994 to 1996. Here we are, 25 years later, with a President and a Deputy President from the great state of Western Australia.
The office of President is an important one, Mr President, and I know you will take seriously the duty of fairness and impartiality that are, in my view, fundamental requirements for the role in this chamber. Whilst debate can occasionally become heated in this place, I know your calm manner and respect for the standing orders will be valuable in maintaining the productive and respectful debate that we're known for. The Nationals would also like to note your background as a proud advocate for rural and regional Australia, having grown up on a family farm, running it and working in the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and Australian Grains Champion. It's nice to have someone that understands the regions and what we need from parliament in a role such as yours. We look forward to continuing to work with you in your new role and we wish you all the very best. I know you'll do a great job.
Mr President, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank your predecessor, a lovely Victorian senator, former President Scott Ryan. Upon announcing his retirement, Senator Wong said that former President Ryan deserves to be remembered as one of the great presidents of the Australian Senate, and I agree. Speaker Smith and former President Ryan steered this parliament through a very difficult time during the course of the pandemic. It is a remarkable achievement that this parliament was able to continue to operate during these very difficult times, which has been vital to ensuring that the legislative arm of government was able to continue, and those in the opposition were able to hold government to account through the inquiries and committees that are so fundamental to our work as senators on behalf of the people who sent us here. On behalf of the Nationals, I'd like to thank former Senator Scott Ryan for his services in this place, not just as a senator but as a president who always put this chamber and its place in our democracy first.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:33): I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to offer my congratulations to you as our new President, Senator Brockman. Whilst there is a convention that the big parties agree upon who will fill the roles of President and Deputy President, the Greens don't think that that stitch-up serves democracy, and hence we nominated a strong and fabulous woman of colour who would have been a brilliant President. It was not to be this time around; however, President, I think you have a very good temperament to fulfil the role of President, and we wish you well in those endeavours.
I note that in your speech to Senator Siewert's valedictory, you spoke of your experience working with her as policy director for the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, where you learnt about the possibility of bridges being built across the partisan divides of this chamber. I look forward to working with you in continuation of that spirit and ensuring that this chamber continues to fulfil its role as a house of review and a place where we hold the government of the day to account.
I'd like to say a few brief words about former senator and President, Scott Ryan. During the time of his presidency he was an impartial and fair chair. We had a positive working relationship with him; whilst we have, obviously, fundamental differences of opinion on many matters, he always had an open door. I would particularly like to acknowledge and commend the work that he did on a remote parliament in a global pandemic. He has steered us and this chamber in a good direction over that time. The work of Senator Ryan in enabling the Senate to continue its role during those challenging times, along with all of the work that went into that by so many other people in this place to make that happen, deserves commendation. Of course, we wish him and his family well in his coming endeavours.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:35): I know I speak on behalf of the crossbench in saying that Scott Ryan was a fantastic President. He served the Senate very well. And I wish to congratulate you, Mr President, on your election to the role of President. I have served with you on the Senate Select Committee on the Multijurisdictional Management of the Murray Darling Basin and, indeed, on the Economics Committee, and you have always been fair. I haven't heard you raise your voice in the Senate, so I'm looking forward to question time today!
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (10:36): Mr President, I rise as Deputy President to congratulate you on your election this morning. I look forward to working with you. I note that you'll be the third President I've worked with; I'm not sure if that says something about the government or something about us as the opposition, but I do look forward to working with you. As I discussed with you when we met in Western Australia a couple of weeks ago, I've seen you work as chair of committees and you've always been very fair, and I look forward to that fairness.
I also pay my respects to Scott Ryan as the previous President. He had a very calm way of working and I know that you do too, and I look forward to that continued calmness. So congratulations on your appointment today.
The CHAIR: There being no further contributions, the sitting of the Senate is suspended until the ringing of the bells.
Proceedings suspended from 10:37 to 11:15
The PRESIDENT (Senator Brockman ) took the chair at 11:15, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Commission to Administer the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance
The PRESIDENT (11:16): I report that, accompanied by honourable senators earlier today, I presented myself to the Governor-General as the choice of the Senate as President. The Governor-General gave me a commission to administer to senators the oath or affirmation of allegiance. I table that commission.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the document s are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1)—today, from 3.30 pm from 1.15 pm, on Thursday, 21 October, 25 November and 2 December 2021.
Environment and Communications References Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), from 1.15 pm, on Thursday, 21 October, 25 November and 2 December 2021.
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by public meetings—
Tuesday, 19 October 2021, from 4 pm
Wednesday, 20 October 2021, from 11 am
Thursday, 21 October 2021, from 3.30 pm.
Job Security—Select Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 1 pm.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—private briefing on Tuesday, 19 October 2021, from 4 pm.
MOTIONS
COVID-19: Parliamentary Procedure
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (11:16): by leave—I move:
That the rules for remote participation in Senate proceedings recommended by the Procedure Committee in its first report of 2021 have effect during the sittings of the Senate from 18 to 21 October 2021.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Sen ator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (11:17): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the hours of meeting.
Leave granted.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I move:
That—
(1) The hours of meeting for Monday, 18 October 2021 be 10 am to 8 pm, and:
(a) divisions may take place between 6.30 pm and 7.20 pm; and
(b) the question for the adjournment be proposed at 7.20 pm.
(2) The hours of meeting for Tuesday, 19 October 2021 be midday to 8 pm and the question for the adjournment be proposed at 7.20 pm.
Question agreed to.
PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS
Australian Greens
Senator MCKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:18): I inform the chamber I will represent the Australian Greens as whip from today.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:18): I wish to inform the Senate that I will be the acting One Nation whip for this week.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (11:18): I move:
That the following bills be considered today at the time for private senators' bills:
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021; and
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:19): Mr President, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the role of President this morning. The very existence of this bill, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021, the fact that I'm up here needing to debate an antirorting bill from opposition, highlights the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in today. Day after day, month after month, over the past eight long years that the Liberals and Nationals have been in government, Australians have opened the newspapers or turned on the TV news only to learn about a new spending scandal ensnaring this government—sports rorts, the Building Better Regions rort, the pork-and-ride commuter car park scheme. And they're only the most recent and some of the most egregious examples.
Two weeks ago, on 2 October, I opened the Daily Telegraph to find one of the most galling examples of just how shameless this government has become with its rorts. In an article about the continuing saga of the National Party considering whether they'll agree to a net zero climate policy, an unnamed government MP told the Daily Telegraph that policy packages are going to be 'less important than the compensation package offered to regional Australia'. The quoted MP joked:
There's going to be a giant National Party green rainbow across regional Australia with crocs full of pork at the bottom …
That's where we're at after eight long years of this government. We have a government MP joking with a journalist about the flagrant misuse of taxpayer dollars to buy off members of this government—senior members, in fact, like the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce. What this quote says to me and the rest of Australia, and the Australian public, for that matter, is that the rorts have reached a crisis point. The government are at the point where they don't even care about being caught anymore and they're actually joking in broad daylight about what is to come in the lead-up to the next election.
To be honest, this sort of behaviour is so blatant, it's so brazen, you'd be forgiven for thinking that this sort of spending, this bankrolling of anyone or any seat that's a bit politically difficult, is a natural part of any government's activity. They do it so casually, in the hope that Australians also think that this approach to budgeting is a perfectly legitimate strategy. Australians work hard for their money and they should be able to have faith that those who find themselves in positions of power, making decisions about how Australian taxpayer dollars are spent, are doing so with the utmost honesty and integrity—which is exactly why we in Labor have been left with no choice but to introduce this bill for debate.
It's clear that the current Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines are part of the problem when it comes to a lack of transparency around government spending. At the moment, a minister who approves grants against the recommendation of their department or within their own electorate can have a free pass of up to16 months before their decisions are public. In some cases—and, indeed, in the case of the pork-barrelling that has been foreshadowed by government MPs in a newspaper—that will be well after the next federal election. That's what the Prime Minister and his ministers hope will remain the case. In a government that is already marred by a 'don't ask, don't tell' culture, this sort of lag time has undoubtedly helped the Prime Minister and others avoid accountability on dodgy spending decisions.
Labor believes that taxpayers deserve to know how their money is spent in as close as possible to real time, not 16 months down the track. That's why this bill will force ministers who award grants in their own electorate, or against departmental recommendations, to report the decision to the finance minister within just 30 days of the approval, and then the finance minister has to table that report in the parliament within five sitting days. This will dramatically reduce the time ministers are able to hide their dodgy decisions from the Australian community, and there is no reasonable argument for any senator in this place, particularly those on the government benches, to oppose this bill. The fact that we are even introducing this bill, though, is a sad indictment of the current state of affairs under Scott Morrison and the coalition. But rorting and pork-barrelling are just business as usual for this lot, as they have been for some time.
Since 2014, this government has created more than 150 funds or grants programs in the budget, totalling almost $70 billion in public money. Now, let's be clear. Some of these funds are legitimate, and we accept that. But what we don't accept is the pattern of behaviour that has become standard practice for the Morrison government. That behaviour is to hide money away in these funds for a rainy day and only open them up to coalition held or target seats, sometimes on the eve of an election, and, most importantly, to do so in a way that keeps it secret for as long as possible. Make no mistake; this pattern started when Mr Morrison, our current Prime Minister, was Treasurer. He learnt very early that it's a pretty neat way to campaign without ever having to touch your own Liberal Party campaign funds.
In the lead-up to the last election, we saw 91 per cent of the $30 million in round 3 of the Safer Communities Fund go to government, Independent or marginal Labor seats, with the government rejecting projects picked by experts and instead choosing to funnel the money into their own hand-picked projects. We saw a $150 million fund dedicated to building female change rooms appropriated for swimming pools in 11 Liberal and Nationals held seats. We even saw a Liberal seat holder announce $400,000 worth of Communities Environment Program funding before the program was even opened. Fancy that. These aren't even the most egregious of the examples. Who could forget sports rorts, where $100 million in funding was flung out the door, not based on the advice of Sports Australia but based on a colour-coded spreadsheet that passed between the Prime Minister's office and Senator McKenzie's office on the eve of the election, indeed, with final decisions being made after caretaker commenced? Or the latest one, the 'pork 'n' ride' commuter car park rort, which puts sports rorts to shame, really—a $660 million fund for commuter car parks with a view to reduce congestion in urban areas and ensure commuters get home sooner.
Who could forget the Treasurer of Australia on budget night announcing this fund to the Australian people in his budget speech? He said, 'We're going to have a commuter car park fund to beat congestion.' He didn't say: 'We're only going to canvass government members to be able to apply for this fund. We'll use your money and announce this fund and make it look like it's going to be open to everybody, but then we're going to have a secret process where only coalition members can be invited and canvassed'—I think that was the word—'for what we'd like and where we'd like it.' Lo and behold, the Treasurer of Australia gets four in his electorate. He announces the fund on budget night, pretends that it's open to anywhere with urban congestion issues, and then on the eve of the election, again, before any transparency or accountability, he signs off on four in his own electorate. That's what happened here.
The Treasurer of Australia is the apprentice of the Prime Minister when it comes to rorting funds. It starts at the top. This Prime Minister rewards ministers who take public funds, put a dodgy process around them and then allocate the Australian people's money into seats they want to either hold or win, or for a political fix with the National Party. That's the other option. That's how this government works. There will be no lecturing about fiscal responsibility from the government that has wasted more money than any other government since Federation. There will be no lectures on fiscal responsibility, because this is the behaviour they have engaged in year after year for eight long years. The Australian people are paying the price for it. The bill has to get paid. Once the pork-barrelling and the rorts are over and the government's kicked out, the bill will still be there. This is why we are introducing this bill today.
When government members are questioned about the appropriateness or otherwise of their spending, they fob it off and say: 'Oh well, we hold seats in those areas, that's why we're funnelling 90 per cent of the funding into those areas. We're sorry that there's only 10 per cent for the rest of you. That's where we hold a seat, and that's where we want to maintain our seat.' They don't even pretend. The Deputy Prime Minister was quoted as saying, 'Oh well, I don't care,' when asked about pork-barrelling in the regions.
Look at the Building Better Regions Fund rort. That has been a really special one for this government. It was one of the earlier performers in funnelling money into coalition seats. It started as a relatively modest program in the rorting schemes that we've seen established. It started out as a $300 million fund in 2016. It's been so successful at funnelling money into particular electorates without any accountability that it's been topped up several times, and the fund has now grown to a whopping $1.38 billion. The Deputy Prime Minister announced a couple of weeks ago that $100 million would be going into round 5 of the program, bringing the total round 5 funding to $300 million. Then, in the same breath—what a coincidence!—he said nearly 90 per cent of this funding, $270 million out of $300 million, went to coalition held or target seats.
So this shows that, even after sports rorts, even after the female change rooms rort, even after the commuter car park rorts and even after the Auditor-General has handed down scathing report after scathing report—and it still has reports into the Urban Congestion Fund going on—this government doesn't care, because it hasn't changed anything about the way it allocates money through these schemes.
We know that 112 out of 330 projects in round 3 of the Building Better Regions Fund and 49 of the 163 projects in round 4 were approved against departmental recommendation. When the government was forced, under a Senate order, to table the information about those decisions—it is inadequate; it takes months—and we had this at estimates, all of the detail in all of the attachments was blacked out under some confidentiality principle. So we have this situation where we have all of the details but nobody's allowed to see them. A straight black sheet of paper was released when trying to bring this government to some transparency. That's the approach.
This is an issue that we take really seriously. I would note that the usual defence is, 'You all do it too.' The finance minister used the argument on national TV: 'We took it to the people, the people voted us in and, therefore, we can do what we like.' The problem with that argument is that, when they announced the Building Better Regions Fund, the sports community grants program, the sporting infrastructure program, the swimming facility improvement program and the Building Better Regions Fund, they didn't say, 'We're going to have a dodgy process around them and funnel all this money into seats that we want to hold.' When that money is appropriated through the appropriation bill, the Australian people are right to believe that that money is there for all of them, because that's how this money's made available. It's made available through an appropriation bill based on the government saying, 'We are establishing this program.' But then there's this fine line and this small print when you get down into the detail which is never published when these funds are appropriated that says, 'By the way, 90 per cent of this billions of dollars is going to be allocated to our election priorities and is going to favour the seats we want to win.' That is not said to people before the election. I think if the government were honest and took that approach, saying, 'We're going to establish funds and then we're going to allow only our people to apply for them,' there might very well be a different election result. So it's dishonest to use that as a defence for the way these programs are managed.
This government has wasted more money than any government since Federation. Through JobKeeper, $20 billion was provided to companies whose profits increased and who didn't meet the turnover threshold test. That's the legacy of this government. So we want no more lectures on fiscal responsibility as they're pork-barrelling their way around the country. People should support this bill. (Time expired)
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (11:34): I rise today to make a comment on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021. This bill has some reasonable intentions around transparency of government expenditure, but it seems to have not taken account of some of the processes, rules, procedures and policies that this government has already put in place to ensure that we have transparency over those decisions. In making my contribution here today, I intend to provide some background as to what those existing frameworks look like and also highlight some of the issue with this bill, particularly regarding how it duplicates existing processes, confuses information and has the potential to create inconsistency when it comes to the manner in which government reports its grants.
The government is committed to transparency on government grants and government expenditure. Senator Gallagher's bill would significantly increase the duplication in existing reporting arrangements, creating, in effect, a fifth set of reporting rules that duplicates reporting that already operates under four other sets of rules. I will go into some background regarding that now. Currently, grants that are awarded by a minister, either contrary to official advice that it be rejected or in the minister's own electorate, are already disclosed to the finance minister. For corporate Commonwealth entities, this is required under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule, and for non-Commonwealth entities this is required under the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines. Currently, grant information is also disclosable in parliament under Senate orders of continuing effect Nos 16 and 23E. Order 23E covers most grants reported to the finance minister and order 16 covers all grants.
Transparency is achieved not only through periodic reporting to the parliament but also, directly and faster, through online reporting to the wider public. Indeed, this has already been happening at a federal government level for a number of years. In 2017, the government mandated the requirement to report all grants on the GrantConnect website, which is located at www.grants.gov.au. This site provides whole-of-government consolidated data on grant opportunities and grants awarded. Grants are uploaded regularly throughout the year to this site after grant agreements are signed. That's an important point that I will come to later. The GrantConnect website captures information on grant recipients, their location and the value of grant decisions. The website includes the guidelines for each program, allowing people to look up who is a decision-maker for the program and, thereby, identify which grants are decided by which minister.
This website shows not only grants previously awarded but also grant rounds currently open and grant rounds that will be opening in the near future, which enables community organisations to plan future ideas for grant applications. People can search by key terms for any grant they might be interested in, and they can also explore large datasets to find programs or decisions of greatest interest. GrantConnect can notify registered users on grant opportunities as they become available. This website really is the public interface through which Australians can access whatever information they need about the awarding of government grants and about any potential grants that might soon be up for consideration.
The bill that we're debating here today deals with one subset of grants specifically: those that are awarded on the basis of ministerial decisions. I know Senator Gallagher said that she had heard these comments before, but I'm going to repeat them here today: governments of all colours have considered it appropriate to use some ministers as decision-makers for some grant programs. Ministers often have greater opportunities than officials to consult extensively with their local communities, non-government organisations, industries and other stakeholders. They travel extensively around the country and hear frequently from constituents, including people who are referred by parliamentary colleagues from around the country. Therefore, ministers are often uniquely positioned as grant decision-makers, because they have a very broad understanding of community needs. This is a fundamental tenet of our democracy, because, fundamentally, what would be the point of having ministers in the first place if the bureaucracy always decided these things? Certainly, we on this side of the chamber would never attest that the bureaucracy always, 100 per cent of the time, knows best. The Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines state that where ministers decide grants they must consider official advice. But they are not rubber stamps. Ministers are obliged to use their own judgement, so they may take a different view to officials, .but they are always required in the first instance to receive and consider the official advice. That's where the control point is in this process—that ministers, first and foremost, must consider the advice from the bureaucracy and then determine whether or not they are going to overrule that advice. So that's the background, generally speaking, on the administration of grants and the awarding of grants at a federal level.
I will now outline for the chamber the five key issues that we see with this bill. The first is that the bill has an inconsistent manner of treating different agencies as it relates to their grants. The bill proposes to introduce a new term of 'reportable grant', which covers most grants that are currently reported to the finance minister by ministers in respect of 98 non-corporate Commonwealth entities. However, Senator Gallagher's bill doesn't cover any of the grants that are administered by the 71 corporate Commonwealth entities. This seems a slightly odd oversight. The bill is oblivious to the fact that there are separate requirements in the PGPA regulations that cover those 71 entities, several of which also administer grants. This bill would therefore create a divergence in the current approach, which is a line between the treatment of grants administered by corporate and non-corporate government agencies. That alignment was cemented in regulations on 17 July last year, regulations that Senator Gallagher might have missed in drafting this private senator's bill that we are discussing, because this bill would take these requirements to a position of inconsistency.
This bill also places in the PGPA Act detail covering practices that have until now been in delegated legislation. It would require agency officials to depart from following a consolidated set of rules and guidelines that provide a single point of reference today in the Commonwealth rules and guidelines and would expecting them to follow scattering rules that are separated between primary and delegated law. This will inevitably increase the risk of inadvertent rule breaches by officials and make for a confused structure of laws governing our grants processes. Procedural information more appropriately belongs in regulation, and key principles belong in primary law. This bill cuts against longstanding practice for procedural requirements around grants that have allowed officials to follow a unified rule book.
The second issue with the bill as I see it is duplication. This bill would require ministers who approve grants to provide reports to the finance minister within 30 days of their approval. This requirement relates to three types of grants: those the department recommended against, those within the minister's own electorate and those that did not meet any of the relevant selection criteria. However, that third category, at least to my mind, is overlapped completely by the first. It will mean that everything reported in category 3 will also have to be reported under category 1. If a grant doesn't meet any of the relevant selection criteria, it therefore follows that the department would be recommending against awarding that grant. That grant would therefore be reportable under category 1, just as it's reportable now under both the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines and under existing Senate orders. This bill will make that same grant reportable yet another time for no obvious purpose.
The bill is also unclear about the point in time at which an application is reportable if it didn't meet the criteria for a particular grant program. It's been acceptable under governments of all colours for opportunities to be afforded for applicants to improve their grant proposals in some circumstances—for instance, where there are few applicants in a given region or sector of the community—and this bill unfortunately deals with those situations quite poorly. This bill suggests that an application that is initially found not to meet criteria, but the proponent later agrees to changes that would bring it within the relevant program criteria before the minister approves, would have to be reported as if it were outside guidelines. That seems to be a somewhat misleading outcome, when all that has effectively happened is that there have been negotiations between the department and the proponent to ensure that the grant in question operates within the criteria or guidelines. The bill looks only at what is in a grantee's initial application, not what is in a final grant agreement after that negotiation between proponents and officials. The bill therefore may lead to reputational harm for proponents who have ultimately come into accord with program requirements.
The third issue we see in this bill is the duplication of existing reporting requirements of the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines 2017 relevant to Senate standing orders. It duplicates Senate order 16, which I previously mentioned requires ministers to table grants approved between estimate periods three times a year, at least seven days before each estimates round. Grant details are tabled to facilitate Senate scrutiny. This reporting covers many more grants that would be reported under the bill that we're discussing today. This bill also duplicates the requirements of Senate order of continuing effect 23E. This order requires tabling of reports from other ministers to the finance minister about grants awarded contrary to official advice, including those grants that I previously mentioned awarded in a minister's own electorate contrary to official advice.
The fourth issue I will briefly go into is inaccurate reporting. In the pursuit of rapid reporting, this bill would result in inaccurate reporting. Ministers would have to report to the finance minister within 30 days, and then the finance minister would be required to table the reports in the parliament within five sitting days of receiving them. And I think this bill confuses a decision by a minister with the award of a grant. A grant isn't payable until a grant agreement is struck, which occurs after a minister's decision. Variations can occur during the negotiation of an agreement between an agency and an applicant, as I previously mentioned, and this is why the existing regular reporting on that GrantConnect website that I mentioned earlier is based on grant agreements, based on actual legal undertakings, as opposed to ministerial decisions on allocations, which are closer in nature to policy decisions. In some cases grant applicants drop out—for instance, because the minister doesn't award as much funding as they were originally seeking or because the applicant might be unwilling to meet all of the conditions of funding that the Commonwealth requires. This bill would create several harms to the public interest by requiring public reporting of intended grants at a point prior to the finalisation of a grant agreement. First, this may hinder agreement negotiations with applicants and reduce value for money where officials are seeking better outcomes for taxpayer expenditure, and, second, in the event that an agreement is not signed, this would result in the publishing of misleading data that would contradict other more accurate public information reported on GrantConnect and reportable to the Senate. For instance, amounts reported under this bill may be different from what is actually and ultimately paid. Indeed, the bill may require publishing amounts that in fact may never be paid.
Fifthly and finally, I want to address the issue of the lowering of standards that may inadvertently result from this bill. The Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines currently require ministers to report to the finance minister about grants that occur in their own electorates as soon as practicable. This bill, by contrast, would seek to contradict this in primary law by requiring that this occur within 30 days. This creates real issues of interpretation and attention in how we interpret these guidelines. The current obligation is focused on drawing forward the obligation to the earliest possible point. That's why it says 'as soon as practicable'. Because this bill would redefine what is a reportable grant in primary law, it could override and therefore push that reporting time line back to the 30 days. All these reporting cycles inevitably depend on our public servants tracking decisions on behalf of their ministers and gathering up documents for each reporting cycle. If a new, conflicting standard is introduced around how soon they have to report, it's easy to see that officials might try to fold processes together, which would mean that reporting would ultimately happen later than it currently does.
As I said in my introductory remarks, this bill evidently has some reasonable intentions around transparency, but it is not taking into account the processes this government has already put in place to ensure transparent reporting of government grants.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:49): In the few minutes I've got allocated to speak on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021, I want to list all the rorts that have happened. We've got sports rorts 1 and 2. We've got the Safer Communities Program rorts. We've got the 'pork and ride' rorts—the Urban Congestion Fund. We've got the Building Better Regions Fund rorts. I'm going to run out of time to list all these rorts. Are there any buckets of public money that this government won't use for its own electoral gain? There are so many examples of grants being awarded contrary to selection criteria or merit, and, as we head into the election, I have no doubt that we will see more from this government. This is a government that feels entirely comfortable using public money to feather its own electoral nest.
We've got some Commonwealth grant guidelines. They require disclosures to be made to the finance minister, but that's where they stop. That's why last year, in May, the Greens moved an order of continuing effect, which passed, that made that information public, to try to reveal that these rorts are happening and to not let the government keep it all under wraps. This bill builds on that, and we support it. But it's not enough just to stop the rorts; we need a strong federal corruption watchdog. We've been waiting 1,000 days for this government to get on with the job. My bill passed the Senate two years ago, and it has been languishing in the House for all that time. I'll be moving again this week to force the government to bring that bill on in the House. The Australian public are fed up with the rorting and fed up with the corruption. They deserve better.
Debate adjourned.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:51): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I present the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021, which amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This bill provides for the routine auditing of the electronic component of Australian federal elections and for the provision of voter identification. It should be noted that this bill does not look backward to previous elections but, rather, forward to ensure confidence in the next election and future elections thereafter.
During COVID the actions of unelected bureaucrats and incompetent politicians have wiped out small businesses and jobs, disrupted lives and reduced many people to desperation. The next election will be a powder keg. It's essential, for that reason, to ensure that Australians can accept the result and move on. Suspicion of the outcome can be easily fuelled, especially on social media, and turned into violence by those who seek to manipulate the result for their own ends. The level of the trust in the result must be commensurate with the current heightened level of risk.
When I started researching election integrity, it was to show our elections are secure. That's not what I found. The Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO, conducted three audits of the 2013 federal election. Their report came out in 2016. This is what ANAO said about the Australian Electoral Commission, the AEC:
… the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (the Committee) wrote to the Auditor-General in February 2014 seeking a performance audit focusing on the adequacy of the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) implementation of recommendations arising from earlier Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audit reports.
The Auditor-General decided to conduct three related performance audits. All three reports found that the Australian Electoral Commission had not adequately and effectively implemented the earlier Australian National Audit Office recommendations. The reports concluded that, in order to protect the integrity of Australia's electoral system and rebuild confidence in the Australian Electoral Commission, these recommendations should be implemented.
The report went on to say:
The ANAO plans to undertake a follow-up audit following the next federal election—
in 2016—
to examine the adequacy and effectiveness of the AEC's implementation of the ten recommendations made across the three ANAO follow-up audit reports.
Those recommendations included that the Australian Electoral Commission must:
develop a strategy for deeper reform to ensure and demonstrate integrity in all aspects of election … including a fundamental overhaul of the AEC's policies and procedures to restore confidence in the electoral process
Let me say that again: 'a fundamental overhaul' to ensure election integrity.
The follow-up audit to test how well the Australian Electoral Commission implemented this fundamental review into election integrity never occurred. Perhaps someone should do a bill to bring on that audit. Hang on, I did! Were the Australian National Audit Office happy about this direction? Apparently they were not. In their submission to this bill, the Australian National Audit Office said my bill was not necessary, as they had the power to audit the Australian Electoral Commission at any time. If that's the case, then they should just get on with it.
New South Wales and Western Australia have provisions in their electoral acts to audit state elections. New South Wales conducts an audit before its election to ensure systems are fit for purpose and then audits again after each election to ensure integrity and to see what can be improved for the next time. Western Australia audits after every election. There is no audit function currently specified in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918—none.
My bill creates a function for the Auditor-General to audit the operation of the Australian Electoral Commission twice in each election cycle—first, in the lead-up to the election, and then, immediately after the election, from polling day to the declaration of the poll.
The audit provided for in this bill covers electronic measures and tests the following:
… whether the use of authorised technology
(a) produces the same result as would be obtained without the use of authorised technology.
Put simply, this is asking the Auditor-General to ensure that the use of computerised voter rolls, tallying, preference allocations and related matters produces a result that accurately reflects the will of the people, including the tallying of preferences electronically. The Australian National Audit Office felt that that was too high a bar to meet. Can you believe that? I consider ensuring that the will of the people is accurately reflected in the result is a bare minimum for any election audit. This bill does not specify what will be audited. The decision regarding the operation of the audit is best left to the agencies conducting the audit.
Secondly, this bill authorises the Australian Signals Directorate to audit and monitor computer systems for unauthorised access internally and externally. This would target both unauthorised access from within the system and unauthorised external access by malicious entities. The Australian Signals Directorate is currently conducting a cyber-uplift program at the Australian Electoral Commission. While the program is most welcome, there is no basis in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 or the Intelligence Services Act 2001 for that program.
My bill brings legislation into line with current practice. In May Senate estimates I asked the Australian Electoral Commission simple questions regarding their auditing. I was assured that audits are occurring. On no occasion then or since have the following fundamental questions been answered: Who conducted the audit? When was the audit conducted? What was audited? What was the result? Have any changes been made as a result of the audit?
It's disturbing that such an audit could happen behind closed doors, without direction or structure. It's more disturbing that this program has no legal basis in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. We should not have to rely on the admirable conscientiousness of the Australian Signals Directorate, who I applaud. We should be able to rely on the completeness of our legislation.
I looked at other issues around election integrity. First up was a simple question: at the Senate scanning centre, is the electronic data file containing each vote ever compared back to the paper ballot after the vote has been adjudicated? It was a simple question. The answer was 'no, never'. At no time is the electronic record of a vote checked back against the paper ballot once the ballot is electronically adjudicated. Some disputed votes are held back and adjudicated later in the accounting process, then filed away. There's no routine sampling beyond that point. That's not acceptable.
The third part of my bill relates to voter ID. Most of the recommendations in the Australian National Audit Office report that were never followed up went to failures in the integrity of voter rolls. It's too late to go back now and audit those rolls before the next election by way of recommencing residency checks, as the Australian National Audit Office recommended. It's not too late for a quick fix, which is voter ID. Asking for simple identification will act as an audit on the rolls in real time and ensure that every vote cast is legitimate. This is not my idea. Recommendation 21 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2019 federal election called for voter identification to be introduced. The House of Representatives and the Senate called for the identification to be introduced. This same finding was made in 2016 and 2013—three times. Schedule 2 of my bill is drafted to give effect to the committee recommendations as literally as possible. Voters must present a form of acceptable identification to be issued with an ordinary prepoll or election day vote. Authorised identification must be suitably broad so as to not actively prevent electors from casting an ordinary ballot.
This bill allows a wide range of acceptable voter ID. The Australian Electoral Commission is empowered in this bill to make further regulations to ensure voters are not disenfranchised. We want fair elections. The Australian Electoral Commission noted in their submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry:
… multiple voting is frequently the subject of media commentary and social media speculation. Such a degree of focus is entirely understandable: there can hardly be a more emblematic component of trust in electoral results than ensuring eligible voters only exercise the franchise [appropriately].
Multiple voting is a red herring in this debate. My bill is not concerned with multiple voting; it is concerned with ensuring every vote cast was made according to the law. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021 is about protecting confidence in our elections. The cyberintegrity of our election and the use of voter identification is essential to that confidence. I want to thank the finance and public administration committee for their inquiry and the secretariat for its work in compiling the submissions. We have learnt quite a few good points from that and we'll be amending this legislation.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (12:02): I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021. I indicate at the outset that Labor will not be supporting this bill. The bill seeks to do two things: it introduces a system of routine auditing of software used by the Australian Electoral Commission and it requires voters to present identification when they go to vote. I'll address the auditing provisions first. The bill requires the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of technology twice during an electoral cycle—at least seven days before the voting commences in a federal election and within 60 days after the return of the writs for a federal election. The bill also requires the Australian Signals Directorate to prevent and disrupt any interference with the cyberintegrity of federal elections.
This bill leaves one with the impression that our electoral system is dangerously exposed. But nothing could be further from the truth. The parliament should not give credence to baseless fears. For this parliament to do so would create a false impression that there is a problem, when there simply isn't. Irresponsible politicians in the United States have undermined their own institutions by promoting bizarre conspiracy theories about the conduct of elections. Australia's independent electoral system is the envy of Western democracies around the world. It will surprise no-one in this place to know that it was a Labor government, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke, that established the independent Australian Electoral Commission. The Labor government did this in 1984, at the same time as it introduced transparent political donation systems requiring that political donations above the figure of $1,000 be disclosed. Madam Deputy President, as you would know, that's blown out to $14,500 under successive Liberal governments, and it's Labor policy to bring the threshold back to that $1,000, because we are the party of transparency. Labor will never allow the weakening of the AEC or the undermining of this process.
Ensuring the integrity of elections is at the AEC's core. That is why the commission already has robust systems in place. The bill requires involvement of the Australian Signals Directorate, but the AEC already works with the ASD and other cybersecurity agencies to ensure the integrity of our systems and its compliance with the Commonwealth cybersecurity guidelines. The Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce has also been established to protect our democracy from foreign interference, disinformation and electoral fraud. There have been multiple independent audits and tests of the AEC's counting and its distribution-of-preference software. These have found no issues with the integrity of the vote count. We also shouldn't forget the important safeguards to the system that ordinary scrutineers provide. Scrutineers can view and challenge the count—and, indeed, very frequently do—including the scanning of ballot papers and the processing of all digital ballot paper images. In a further effort for transparency, the seat-by-seat results of our elections are published on the AEC's virtual tally room. This allows anyone to view the results in every seat and verify those results.
This bill was referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The bipartisan recommendation of that committee was that the bill not be passed. This was based on submissions received by the committee which identified several issues with the bill. The Australian National Audit Office, which had been tasked with conducting audits required by this bill, argued that the auditing function is best left to the AEC in support of its mandate. The ANAO submission noted that the ANAO already has the powers to audit the AEC's systems and processes. The ANAO also noted that, as an independent statutory authority, the AEC is oversighted by the parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The JSCEM has the power to inquire into all aspects of the AEC's operations and conduct of electoral events. Lastly, the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns can hear petitions disputing the validity of election results.
We deliberately have an independent and robust electoral system in Australia. We should pass legislation not based on unsubstantiated fear but, rather, based on fact. Senator Roberts is always talking about the facts, as I recall, so let's base our judgements here not on unsubstantiated fear but on the facts. Let's go through the facts. There's no issue with the integrity of the AEC, and we should support it to do its important job rather than seek to publicly undermine it.
The second major amendment the bill seeks to make is to introduce voter ID laws. Voter ID laws have been consistently opposed by the Australian Labor Party. We will never support them, for the simple reason that they undermine our compulsory voting system and discourage some people from exercising their democratic rights. It's a simple thing for us here to produce identification. We have it readily available. That's not the case for some more vulnerable members of our community. People living in remote Indigenous communities do not always have identification, and it's always problematic for homeless people and those escaping domestic violence. Voting is a fundamental right that comes with Australian citizenship. We cannot allow the erosion of that right by allowing people to be turned away from the polling places because they can't produce ID on that day. Wouldn't you agree, Senator McGrath?
Senator McGrath interj ecting—
Senator FARRELL: Oh, okay. Why am I surprised!
In an attempt to address the situation in which people don't have ordinary forms of ID, the bill allows a voter to produce a community identity document. The bill empowers the Australian Electoral Commission to prescribe the form of such a document In her submission to the committee's inquiry, constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey, a very good professor, said that, even with this allowance, 'the additional procedural burden, the effort required, the confusion that it can create and the message that it sends of being "suspect" or unwanted may be enough to suppress the vote'. Professor Twomey points to the evidence in the United States, which shows that voter ID laws suppress the vote among ethnic minorities, producing a clear partisan distortion favouring conservative candidates. We don't want that in Australia. The Australian Human Rights Commission noted the low Indigenous enrolment rate of approximately 78 per cent. The AHRC said, 'It is vital to avoid steps that would impede the progress made to increase rates of Indigenous participation in our elections.'
Voter ID laws would place an unreasonable burden on the AEC. They would require more staff at polling booths and place them in the invidious position of policing ID and assessing its authenticity. This would significantly slow down in-person voting, which could also have the impact of disenfranchising voters.
All of that aside, multiple voting in Australia is simply not an issue. It barely happens, and certainly not in an organised, deliberate way. Most instances of multiple voting are of older or infirm people who have simply forgotten that they've already voted. In his submission to the committee's inquiry, Professor Graeme Orr said, 'Voter ID in Australia is a solution in search of a problem.' The Electoral Commission has described the number of multiple voters as 'vanishingly small'. The few instances of multiple voting that we have had never affected the outcome of an election. Given this, it is simply not worth the risk of disenfranchising thousands and thousands of Australians.
The bill's explanatory memorandum claims it is acting on a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following its inquiry into the 2019 federal election. Coalition members of JSCEM have consistently recommended voter ID laws, which Labor members have consistently opposed. Labor members of JSCEM wrote dissenting reports for the inquiries into the 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections, voicing their opposition to voter ID laws. So, while it is a recommendation of JSCEM, it's important to note that it was not a bipartisan recommendation—which, generally speaking, is the way in which that particular committee works, and for good reason.
The government recently had the opportunity to legislate to implement voter ID laws, but, knowing that those laws would never have the support of Labor, instead chose to create a designated elector register. Voters against whom the Electoral Commission has a reasonable suspicion of voting more than once in an election will be placed on the designated elector register. Designated electors are only able to vote by declaration vote, ensuring that only one vote is counted. This will address any instances of multiple voting, and, as such, the introduction of a voter ID law is entirely unnecessary. In addition, the AEC is rolling out more and more electronic certified lists, against which voters' names are marked when they attend the polling place. At Senate estimates in March this year, the Electoral Commissioner talked about the impact that electronic certified lists are having on the very few instances of multiple voting:
The use of electronic certified lists will certainly aid in eliminating the incidents of multiple marks and mistakes at the point of voting. That is certainly the case as we deploy more and more ECLs, as we call them. That will have a significant impact on that issue.
So Labor will not be supporting this bill. In closing, I'd like to thank the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for their work on the inquiry into this bill, especially Senators Kitching and Watt and, in particular, the deputy chair, Senator Tim Ayres. Your thoughtful consideration of these issues is appreciated.
Senator MCGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (12:15): Senator Roberts, I strongly agree with you, in particular, in relation to the requirement for voter ID, a recommendation that the JSCEM made after the 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections. Indeed, as chair of the committee after the 2016 and 2019 elections, I personally made sure that that recommendation was there. We do need voter ID in Australia. Most Australians find it slightly bizarre that to get into a surf club or bowls club they are required to show ID but in order to exercise that most important civic duty of voting no ID is required. I, like many people in this chamber, spend a lot of time at polling booths. A number of people come to them and say: 'I don't have my ID on me. I will go back home and get it.' When you tell them they don't need ID, they're surprised and shocked that they don't need ID to vote.
We do need to make sure that our voting system and our democracy is not only transparent but seen to be transparent. That is the importance of voter ID. Voter ID allows all participants, all voters, all those who are members of political parties, to know that each vote that is exercised is treated exactly the same as every other vote that is exercised and that we do not see situations similar to what happened in the federal seat of Herbert in the 2016 election where there were over 200 cases of multiple voting and yet the seat was decided by fewer than 40 votes. So Senator Farrell is incorrect in that regard.
The question that must always be put to those in this chamber is: why are you so concerned about extra transparency for our electoral system? What are you trying to hide? Surely there is no issue with people having ID? The committee has been almost lenient in terms of the ID that would be required. We're not necessarily talking about photo ID. We've gone as far as saying a Medicare card would be sufficient. But also, if you don't have ID on you because you're homeless or because of some other situation, you could be issued with a declaration vote. So no-one would actually ever be stopped from voting because of the requirement of voter ID. Indeed, we do need to make sure that all those who are eligible to vote in Australia do show ID, but, if they don't have it on them, we're not going to stop people from voting. They will be issued with a declaration vote. That's a vote that will ensure that their say in the future of Australia is ensured. That is so important.
So, Senator Roberts, I commend you for bringing forward this bill. I commend you, in particular, for the provisions of voter ID. I also believe that the JSCEM report that came down some months ago had many provisions in it in relation to ensuring the protection of Australia's democracy. That is something we need to ensure happens after every election.
I also personally would like to see the introduction of optional preferential voting in Australia to make sure that voters have the ultimate power to decide where their votes go and, if they wish to just vote 1 for the Liberal-National Party in Queensland, the Greens or One Nation, they can. It gives choice and power to the voter. It does not compel the voter to vote for parties that they do not wish to support. So I hope that we do see optional preferential voting come into Australia. Senator Waters, I will give way to you in the few moments we have left. Senator Roberts, I commend you. Well done.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:19): I rise to speak ever so briefly on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill. The Greens won't be supporting this bill. In the 20 seconds that I have available—thank you to the other senators for allowing me that!—I want to note some things that really do need attention if we are to achieve improvement in the integrity of election campaigns: banning political donations from dirty industries seeking influence, and capping all other donations to $1,000; capping election spending to avoid elections being won by the parties with the deepest pockets; strengthening the rules about government advertising so the government can't use public funds in the lead—
Debate interrupted.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:20): I rise today to speak in support of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill. This bill seeks to broaden the range of transactions Export Finance Australia can finance by enabling EFA to make equity investments.
As an open trading nation, Australia has been a beneficiary of the multilateral rules-based trading system that has operated for decades. Australian businesses and Australian jobs have benefited from these rules supporting export growth. On average, Australian businesses that export hire 23 per cent more staff and pay 11 per cent higher wages than do nonexporters. People might refer to or recall my many contributions in support of various trading arrangements which refer to the impact on employment and wages to the benefit of working Australians.
The current lack of an equity investment power restricts Export Finance Australia to a narrow range of transactions. An equity investment power will complement EFA's existing suite of financing powers, which comprise loans, guarantees, bonds and insurance, and it will align EFA with export credit agencies in other countries, including the US, China, Japan, Canada and South Korea, and with other Australian government financing agencies like the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The increased financing power will be used to support important infrastructure investments in the Indo-Pacific or export-linked projects in Australia.
The bill will also give legislative effect to the decision to provide Export Finance with the ability to offer guarantees for overseas infrastructure transactions without needing to provide a loan to the same transaction. This will obviously improve flexibility and efficiency. Both the EFA and the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, AIFFP, oversee infrastructure financing activities, particularly in the Pacific, where transactions may be most appropriately financed in local currency. Export Finance providing a guarantee for another lender's loan in local currency is an effective way of facilitating local-currency borrowing. This will enable the injection of finance directly into emerging economies in our region. This equity investment power will also be available to the AIFFP, which relies on Export Finance Australia's governing legislation for the delivery of its loans.
We note that the bill has appropriate safeguards which constrain governments' spending. Any equity investment will be on Export Finance's national interest account, which requires government approval. There is obviously another account, the commercial account, which will remain unable to be utilised for equity investments. There is no legislated limit or cap on equity stakes, but every transaction would require ministerial approval.
I want to address some of the government's claims in relation to the Pacific and the Indo-Pacific. The government claims that this bill will support Australia's economic engagement in the Pacific and in the Indo-Pacific. In 2019, Export Finance Australia was granted wide powers to support financing infrastructure in the Pacific in line with the so-called Pacific step-up. Since then, we have had many flashy announcements from this government about investing in the Pacific, but Mr Morrison's failure of diplomacy has turned his so-called Pacific step-up into a series of Pacific stuff-ups. The Prime Minister announced the $2 billion Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific back in 2018. Two-and-a-half years later, it has provided less than $90 million of the promised $2 billion in Pacific infrastructure financing, and Mr Morrison's failure to take serious action on climate change, including the government's continued and very public failure to commit to legislating net zero emissions by 2050, continues to undermine its own Pacific step-up and damage Australian interests.
Australia should be a renewable energy superpower and we should be helping our neighbours address climate change and secure their energy supplies through our own renewable energy expertise. This is the unique role that EFA is equipped to play for our region, but it's a role that will be filled by others because the Morrison-Joyce government is dithering on climate change policy. Instead of making announcements, Mr Morrison needs to do the legwork and ensure Australia is a real partner of choice in the region. Let us also not forget that Mr Morrison's plan for an agricultural visa will directly undermine our Pacific labour mobility programs, including the Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme. I note that Senator Payne is in the chamber and I would say to her that this is another example where Mr Morrison is selling out our Pacific family to satisfy National Party colleagues, and it is a matter of great regret that this foreign minister, unlike Ms Bishop before her, has gone along with it. All at the same time, this government has failed to diversify what we as a country export and where we export.
Despite the talk about a Pacific step-up and despite the talk of engagement in our region, under this government we are in fact more dependent than ever on China for our exports and our jobs—more so than any other country in the world. At the same time, our economic and trade relationships with some other of our most important neighbours, including India and Indonesia, have gone backwards. Australia wants a region that is stable, prosperous and respectful of sovereignty, a region that is resilient to threats such as the pandemic, and other pandemics, and climate change. All of this requires deeper partnerships in the region, comprehensive support for pandemic recoveries and a genuine plan to boost Australia's trade and investment, especially as some of our neighbours now face a lost decade of development gains.
In conclusion, Labor will support this bill, because we need to invest in all of the levers of our national ability to boost our engagement to support and build the region we want. Central to achieving our objectives is ensuring that Australian businesses and investors can contribute to and benefit from our region's recovery and future growth. But the Morrison-Joyce government needs to do much more. It needs to boost Australia's support for the region's pandemic recovery, it needs to have a real plan for trade diversification and it needs to fully and properly commit to net zero emissions by 2050 and work with our partners to address the existential challenge of climate change. As long as the Morrison-Joyce government insists on being part of the problem rather than part of the solution, Australia will simply fall short of being a credible partner of choice in the Indo-Pacific region.
Senator COX (Western Australia) (12:27): This is not my first speech. I rise today to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I would like to note that this bill makes changes that affect Export Finance Australia, also known as EFA. EFA is the government's export credit agency. It provides finance to support Australian exporting businesses and overseas infrastructure projects. This bill expands a range of transactions that EFA can finance. The bill allows EFA to make equity investments and offer standalone financial guarantees for overseas infrastructure transactions. Under these changes, EFA will be able to help exporting companies by providing a guarantee to private banks that, if the company fails to meet its borrowing obligations, EFA will take responsibility for the repayment of the loan.
The Greens have significant concern about the expansion of EFA's powers. EFA has a track record of investing billions in propping up the fossil fuel industry. This includes providing guarantees for financially risky projects like the Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal and the Gladstone LNG project, which is along the Great Barrier Reef. In contrast, EFA has provided only $20 million in refinancing for renewables since 2009. As it currently stands, this bill imposes no restrictions on EFA making more investments into fossil fuels. This means even more public money could be used to prop up coal, oil and gas projects and accelerate the climate crisis.
As the global transition to net zero emissions gains pace, fossil fuel companies' banks and insurance institutions are finding it more difficult to access finance. Even if finance is secured, fossil fuel projects still face high risks of becoming stranded assets as global markets move to sustainable energy options. The Jubilee Australia Research Centre has found that export credit agencies providing guarantees or early-stage loans can give unwarranted confidence to private lenders by derisking large fossil fuel projects which they might otherwise have avoided.
This bill, like recent amendments in the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act, will allow more public money to be used to prop up coal, oil and gas projects that the private sector deems to be too risky. As Jubilee noted, this could leave the government holding a stake in stranded fossil fuel assets long after the market has lost interest in investing in them. DFAT and EFA advised that the equity power in this bill would only be used sparingly and that the majority equity position would only be taken in exceptional circumstances. The ministerial statement of expectations will also be updated to prevent EFA from taking majority equity stakes unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. However, no detail has been provided as to what exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons would justify significant investment.
Given this government's stubborn, negligent attachment to coal and gas, we need to explicitly prohibit EFA financing fossil fuel projects. This is why the Greens will be moving an amendment, in Senator Waters's name, to stop EFA from investing in fossil fuels and fossil fuel based infrastructure. I'd like to come to the second reading amendment that has been circulated by the Greens in relation to this bill. EFA has been a critical player in the development of Australia's LNG export industry. A $254.7 million loan from EFA to Santos was part of setting up their Gladstone LNG project in 2011-12. Last year EFA contributed $164.12 million to refinancing the Ichthys LNG project in the Northern Territory. And let's make no mistake: gas is as dirty as coal. Direct emissions of methane, a gas more than 80 times more potent than CO2, are responsible for over 20 per cent of Australia's emissions and are growing at a rapid rate due to the boom in Australia's LNG projects. The world is beginning to act, with the European Union and the United States now leading the Global Methane Pledge, which would require member countries to reduce their methane emissions by at least 30 per cent on 2020 levels by 2030. Over 30 states have signed up, including nine of the world's 20 largest methane emitters. If we hope to keep global warming in check and limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, then we must ensure that all parts of government, including our finance agencies like EFA and NAIF, are doing their part in reducing methane emissions. That's why we'll be moving a second reading amendment that calls for all investments by EFA to be in line with Australia also doing its fair share to reduce methane emissions according to the Global Methane Pledge.
When introducing this bill, the minister said this reform would align Australia with other countries, like the USA, China, Japan, Canada and South Korea, which are making equity investments to support development and commercial objectives. What the minister failed to note in his second reading speech is that many of these countries have taken steps to prohibit export finance agencies investing in fossil fuel. Earlier this year President Biden directed the US export credit agency to identify steps through which the United States could promote ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel based energy. The UK government has banned its export credit agency from funding any new coal and gas projects overseas. This was followed by UK Export Finance committing to net zero by 2050. South Korea has also committed to ending its public financing for overseas coal-fired power plants. While other countries do the heavy lifting on climate action, Australia continues to bury its head in the sand. If this government were serious about aligning Australia with other major economies, it would wake up and stop EFA from financing fossil fuel projects.
Alongside those climate risks, we also have concern around EFA's transparency and accountability. At the moment, EFA has a partial exemption from the freedom-of-information laws in relation to commercial and national interest account transactions. This makes it virtually impossible for taxpayers to find out where EFA directs its funds. Limited access to this information undermines the efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the projects that have been funded or assess the return on investment of public money. The government has ultimate fiscal responsibility for the operation of EFA and is EFA's financial guarantor, as sole shareholder. Given this, taxpayers should be able to access this information about the purpose of projects being funded, instead of being kept in the dark. The Productivity Commission has previously recommended that the FOI exemption be removed, and noted that the FOI Act already includes protections for national security and commercially sensitive data. Other jurisdictions, including the UK and US, do not provide a blanket exemption from disclosure for their export credit agencies, and there's no justification for Australia to maintain this exemption. It's clear that EFA's current practice falls short of the transparency expected for the investment of public funds. This is why the Greens are moving an amendment today to repeal EFA's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act.
Finally, I would like to highlight the concerns raised by stakeholders around EFA's processes for assessing the environmental and social impacts of its projects. There are a number of weaknesses, including the fact that EFA's environmental and social review policy and procedure rely on relatively weak international standards and do not refer to climate change or require an assessment of the carbon emissions of proposed projects. It is also unclear how gender analysis is embedded across EFA's work. I understand that EFA's environmental and social review policy is being independently reviewed. It is critical that this review ensures EFA's policies align with international best practice regarding social and environmental issues.
As I've articulated, the Greens have significant concerns with this bill. Our support for this bill hinges on the government explicitly prohibiting EFA's investment in fossil fuel projects, as outlined in our amendment circulated in the chamber. The IPCC's latest warning on climate was our starkest warning yet: a code red for humanity. The world is heating fast, and we don't have any time to waste. In order to avoid catastrophic change, we must commit to no new coal, oil or gas. Australia cannot continue to ignore these stark warnings, and we must get out of fossil fuel projects at home and abroad.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cox, are you moving that second reading amendment?
Senator COX: I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but any investment by Export Finance Australia must be compatible with the US-EU led Global Methane Pledge, which would require Australia to reduce our methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030 on 2020 levels".
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (12:37): At the outset, I would like to make two preliminary points. First, I note that I'm following Senator Cox's first contribution in the chamber, so I'd like to congratulate Senator Cox on her election. I listened carefully to a thoughtful, articulate speech, which was certainly in keeping with the philosophy and the traditions of your fellow Greens members. Accordingly, I disagree with most of it, but I respect it. Second, I'd like to leap to the defence of my good friend Senator Payne, who was referred to by Senator Wong in her contribution. Senator Payne has done an absolutely outstanding job in terms of engaging with our Pacific family. I'll highlight two matters in particular: first, in terms of their response to COVID-19 pandemic and, second, with respect to the status of women in our Pacific Island family of nations. So I really do commend Senator Payne on her efforts in that regard. She's been a tireless foreign affairs minister and an outstanding one at that.
In relation to the bill before the chamber, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021, from my perspective this is about opportunities. It's about opportunities for Australian businesses and Australian workers. It's about opportunities for the communities which will be positively impacted by projects which are provided finance by Export Finance Australia. Some of those communities are poor communities, communities which up to today haven't had the opportunities that we've had in Australia, and the finance provided by Export Finance Australia will help them tap into those opportunities for their communities and for their people. And it's about an opportunity for Australia to promote its strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region. So this bill is about opportunity.
There are five key points I'd like to address in my contribution on the bill. I say this as someone who has a reasonably long background in the mining industry: I have been involved in arranging finance or finance negotiations for projects in many offshore jurisdictions, including jurisdictions in South-East Asia and our Pacific region.
The first point is that the impact of Export Finance Australia and the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific being involved in a project is profound. It sends a message to many different stakeholders. It sends a message to other potential financiers, because of Australia's involvement through those agencies, that this is an opportunity which they should look at in terms of contributing finance to. It sends a message to equity investors that these are perhaps projects that should be invested in. It sends a message to all of our geopolitical stakeholders, and those with whom we engage, that we're interested in this region and we will assert our interests in the Indo-Pacific region. So it sends an important message and that message can translate into greater finance for a project, greater equity investment and greater opportunities to make the project a reality.
The second point is in relation to the type of finance. It is incredibly important that Export Finance Australia has the ability to be flexible with respect to the sort of finance which is contributed. That might be through direct advances of loan funds, but it needs to also be potentially through the provision of guarantees to address the point Senator Wong referred to—that in some countries the best approach is for a guarantee to be provided by an agency such as Export Finance Australia so that the lending is done by local finance providers in local currency. That's a real issue for some of our Pacific neighbours, in terms of currency, so I think that's a great benefit in terms of this legislation.
The third point is that this legislation provides flexibility in terms of equity investment. That is an important additional bow to add to the quiver. It is important that that flexibility is added but it is important that that is rarely done. I don't philosophically believe that the government should be a major investor in projects of this type. However, there will be a category of projects which are in the national interest—for example, in the critical minerals space—which on a very rare basis warrant an equity contribution from an agency such as Export Finance Australia.
The fourth point I want to raise is in relation to the Pacific step-up. I'm a passionate believer in the government's Pacific step-up policy. As someone who lived and worked in Papua New Guinea for about 2½ years I know how important our Pacific family is. And I know that Export Finance Australia, given this additional flexibility, will be able to do more good in our Pacific region and help bring projects to fruition.
The fifth and final point I want to make is that it's extraordinarily important that this legislation is passed in order to bring parity between Australia and some of our major trading partners—the USA, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Japan. Their export finance agencies have this flexibility. We need to also have this flexibility. We need parity in this respect. That's another important reason to support this legislation.
In conclusion, from my perspective this bill is about opportunity—opportunity for more jobs for Australians and greater opportunity for Australian businesses—and enabling communities in our Indo-Pacific region to translate opportunities into reality and for projects to be built which provide them with the employment opportunities and the infrastructure they need in order to progress.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (12:44): [by video link] I rise, both digitally and metaphorically, to speak to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I want to begin by congratulating my now affirmed and sworn-in colleague Senator Dorinda Cox on her first not-first speech in the chamber. It's a great shame that I wasn't there to be with you when you were sworn in earlier, matey, and I can't wait to be working alongside you in this space for the truth, for justice, for healing and for treaty and not to be stuck on the other side of a computer in doing so.
The coming of this bill at the beginning of this parliamentary sitting is in many ways really prescient. It comes at a moment when the community is alive with a desire to see two primary outcomes from their parliament this week. They want to see a strong response and a strong and urgent action plan in relation to climate change formulated and taken to Glasgow—they want to see a plan which has a strong target in relation to 2030 and doesn't continue to engage in the myth that, if we leave the action till 2050, we can actually address it—and they want to see an end to the drought of action, now 1,000 days long, in relation to the implementation of a national integrity commission. The Australian community are sick and tired of people who were elected to do the work of the community in decision-making spaces instead going into those spaces and working on behalf of vested interests, often fossil fuel corporations. Yet the first piece of legislation we're dealing with today is a bill arguably designed to facilitate the transfer of public wealth into private hands or, rather, to use public finances to facilitate support for private corporations—fossil fuel corporations, potentially—in building projects not only in Australia but also throughout the region. It really does speak to a fundamental disconnect. At a time when the community want to see action on climate change and want to see politics cleaned up because they believe there is too much closeness and a revolving door between the big end of the town and the fossil fuel powers in this country, the first thing we are dealing with is a mechanism by which public money may be given to private entities to develop fossil fuel projects.
Why do we have this concern in relation to these amendments? We as the Greens have these concerns primarily because if you look at what this agency does, as Senator Cox pointed out, it provides finance support to Australian exporting businesses seeking to invest in overseas infrastructure projects. It expands the range of transactions that Export Finance Australia can finance. It allows EFA to make equity investments and offer standalone financial guarantees for overseas infrastructure transactions. Under these changes, EFA will be able to help exporting companies by providing a guarantee to private banks that, if the company fails to meet borrowing obligations, EFA will take responsibility for the repayment of the loan. This comes in a context where it is very clear that global finance institutions do not want to touch fossil fuels. They have seen the writing on the wall that there needs to be urgent action and that investing in fossil fuels is a bad investment for them. So in sail these amendments to potentially offer support to projects that would not be able to get support through other mechanisms.
As Senator Cox articulated, the Greens have significant concerns about the expansion of EFA's powers, particularly given that this is an agency with a track record of funnelling billions of dollars into fossil fuel projects. It has invested, as Senator Cox rightly pointed out, nearly $2 billion in fossil fuel projects. Senator Cox made reference to the Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal and the Gladstone LNG plant adjoining the Great Barrier Reef. This is in the context of a measly $20 million in financing for renewables since 2009. So it is very clear where the priorities of the EFA currently stand.
We know that, as the globe transitions to net renewable emissions, fossil fuel companies, banking companies and insurance companies particularly are finding it more difficult to get finance. This is a global financial reality. It is the market responding to the risk of climate change. As I say that, I want to be really clear here. I am a member of the Greens and, as a member of the Greens for Western Australia, I am the last person you will ever find advocating for the free unleashing of the invisible hand of the market or to particularly put huge amounts of credence in the global views of international finance organisations. If the renewable energy transition is saving the climate and climate justice was left solely to global corporations and the machinations of the international global finance market, we would have a transition to renewable energy and to net zero but we would have climate action that would comprehensively come too late and leave out those most impacted by the climate crisis.
This is not an area that we can leave solely to the whims of the market or where we can read their indications as law. In this case, we see, I would argue, that global financial institutions are far too late to the party and have done the bare minimum in waking up to the reality that a room filling with smoke will eventually suffocate them. That's what they've done. They had an opportunity in the 1980s when they first found out that fossil fuels were causing climate change to advocate for a transition, and they decided instead to advocate for decades more of public subsidies for their projects. Having said all that, though, it is important that we factor the international financial reality into policy-making. But that is most certainly not the sole gospel upon which to make decisions.
The other thing that's really important to take account of when we consider this legislation is that, because we are ultimately considering a bill that is about the financing of projects beyond our shores as well, Australia is a member of the Asia-Pacific region and is a key actor within the immediate region in relation to island nations specifically. There is great focus among our regional neighbours in the Asia-Pacific on the need for climate action. There is a broad reality that Australia for the last 10 years or more has played the role of wrecker in international forum after international forum, blocking climate change action again and again and undermining our position within the Asia-Pacific and our relationships with our island neighbours. This has resulted in a historically poor and broken relationship between Australia and these countries, because our political articulation here within Australia has been diametrically at odds with the needs of Pacific island nations. We have, quite frankly, looked nations such as Vanuatu and Tuvalu in the eye and said, 'To be honest with you folks, the profits of BHP, Woodside, Andrew Forrest and Gina Rinehart and their willingness to continue to donate to us as major political parties is more important than whether you have a place to call home and whether your traditional island nations continue to exist.' This has been the message that has been continually repeated to Pacific island nations in international forum after international forum by virtue of not only our failure to act but our opposition to action.
This piece of legislation before us today is yet another demonstration of a lost opportunity and also an active failure to act. We could—and we will propose to, in our amendments—make it very clear that not a single additional cent spent by this agency would be spent on a fossil fuel project. We could do that, yet the government is refusing to do so in the legislation before us today. That is an absolute shame, and, quite frankly, in the context of the upcoming international meetings in Glasgow, it once again reveals the coalition's credibility in the climate space to be absolutely zero.
The final thing I'll say here is on the absence of transparency in relation to this kind of facility of government. As Senator Cox pointed out, the EFA is exempt from the FOI Act process, making it very difficult for us to get a clear picture of what is actually being done, in using public funds, by this vital agency and authority. That is not okay; that wouldn't be accepted in many other contexts. Again, we have an example of the material disconnect between what major party MPs, particularly those in the coalition, believe is acceptable in relation to the drafting of legislation and what the community expects. The community expects that we come to this decision-making place, to which we have been elected, and make decisions that move forward the community's collective agenda. It has been clear for more than a decade—in fact, for decades in some cases—that the Australian community want action on climate change. They do not want to see their money, public money, spent propping up poisonous, polluting, stranded assets, because doing so ensures the continual cycle of corporate money coming in and out of the major parties. They want to see action.
This bill could have been an absolute opportunity for the government to demonstrate its willingness to listen to the call of the student strikers that gathered together in Western Australia over the weekend to demand urgent action. It could have been an opportunity to echo calls from every part of the nation—from Mandurah in my state, where members of the community are fighting against the impacts of dirty developers and their connections with government in relation to Sterling First Projects, through to the desires of people across the state to see that nexus between the gas industry and the Labor government broken. It could have been an opportunity to take a step in the right direction and at least ensure that this agency is subject properly and fully to freedom-of-information requirements and that not a single cent of the money invested by this agency, public money from the Australian public purse, is spent on any new coal, oil and/or gas facility, particularly in the context where some of the most unscrupulous organisations that have ever existed in the world—that being global international banking organisations—won't touch it with a 10-foot barge pole. I thank the chamber for its time.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (12:59): The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021 grants Export Finance Australia the power to make equity investments. The intention is to enhance the ability of EFA and the government to support important overseas infrastructure investments and export-linked projects in Australia. The equity power will also be made available to the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, supposedly to further support Australia's Pacific step-up. The bill will also grant EFA the ability to provide stand-alone guarantees to oversee infrastructure transactions, improving EFA's and the facility's overseas infrastructure financing capabilities.
I think, though, it is important to put this bill into its proper historical context. It is important that there be investment in the Pacific countries to provide sustainable growth and to respond, most importantly, to the core priorities of Pacific island people. But equally important is that they not be saddled with heavy debt burdens. Development partners need to take into account the economic vulnerabilities of the region, as many countries have small formal economies.
Countries like Australia and Japan are committed to high standards of transparency in our overseas development assistance, and we encourage the same of all donors, including China. Our primary concern is to encourage effective ODA delivery that supports sustainable growth but does not impose heavy debt burdens. Whilst debt sustainability has made it on to the regional agenda, regrettably the debt-to-GDP ratios of Pacific island countries have deteriorated. When I became Minister for International Development and the Pacific in January 2016, it was very evident that Australia's soft power in the Pacific had steadily deteriorated. The Pacific should have been front and centre of our foreign policy. It is our neighbourhood, and our allies had expected that our focus should have been firmly in the Pacific. Regrettably, we dropped the ball. For example, under the coalition, vital short-wave radio services were cut. While some islanders had access to internet and FM, electricity is the first thing to go down in a cyclone, a tsunami or an earthquake, resulting in communication gaps. The stability, security and prosperity of our region should remain the primary objective of Australia, second only to the defence of Australia.
I pushed very strongly for the Pacific to be one of the five priorities in the Foreign policy white paper. Having travelled extensively in the Pacific—I did about 35 trips—I came to understand firsthand the talanoa and the importance of respecting the established regional framework of the Pacific Islands Forum and other bodies in the Pacific. Most especially, it became important that any unilateral action not cut across regional initiatives and hence jeopardise support for what we may want to do. Above all, I was careful that Australia was not seen as patronising. I took my guide from the great work Australia had achieved through RAMSI. I also strongly advocated for Australia to shift its overseas development assistance footprint to the Pacific. Indeed, while I was minister we had a record spend of $1.3 billion for aid in the Pacific. I advocated for us to spend a higher portion of our ODA in the region, including extending our diplomatic posts in each Pacific island country, given the vast distances and travel challenges that exist in the Pacific.
My activities and observations on my many trips and during my many conversations were well documented, including the necessary debriefings upon my return. I saw firsthand what the communist regime was doing in the Pacific. My honest and forthright public comments in January 2018 about debt-trap diplomacy and the CCP's activities not only started an international debate but highlighted that the Pacific is where the difficult and complex issues are and where the focus of our diplomacy should have been. Rather than heeding my prescient warnings, those driving our foreign, trade and defence policy chose to ignore Beijing's skulduggery in favour of a policy of appeasement of the communist regime.
My comments about debt distress in the Pacific reflected concerns raised by the IMF, academics and commentators. At that time, the external debt to GDP ratios of these vulnerable economies ranged from 25 to 90 per cent. At the time I was minister, the debt level in the Pacific was about $5.5 billion, of which about $2 billion was owed to international banks, and about $1.5 billion was owed to China and Chinese banks. At the time, the Lowy Institute released its Pacific map which showed that Australia remained the highest grants donor in the Pacific. About 70 per cent of China's aid was in the form of loans, and little was known about the arrangements of these opaque debts, including how many were debt for equity, like the Port of Hambantota in Sri Lanka.
Whilst every country has the sovereign right to borrow, invest and run their own economies, debts need to be repaid when they become due. This means that scarce government resources have to be diverted to debt repayment and away from critical spending such as health and education. When a vulnerable country with limited resources owes such vast sums to one country, it places the country in a vulnerable position. We have seen that Beijing has not been forthcoming in forgiving debts. We have seen countries in the Pacific with large debts due. Some have had interest concessions from Beijing, but they have been forced to sign up for the Belt and Road Initiative.
After leaving the role in August 2018, we started to see the rollout of some of the extensive work that I had started as a minister. However, Scott Morrison's downgrading of the role to an assistant minister, and the subsequent revolving door of L-platers, has seen us lose the momentum that I had generated over my constant engagement and interaction. Indeed, I was very surprised by the announcement of the $3 billion Pacific step-up, of which $2 billion was for the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific. It had three components: this facility, the export financing component and grants. It was supposed to be for the Pacific. However, I note that the goalposts have now shifted, and the government is now focusing on the Indo-Pacific rather than just on the Pacific, which is what it was intended for. In all the work I did as a minister, this facility was never raised with me. Given my public comments about debt levels in the Pacific, I certainly have grave concerns about increasing those debt levels through more lending. It seems that this was another thought bubble emanating from the 'prime marketing office', with little regard to its application and how such unilateral decision-making would be received by our Pacific neighbours. I labelled it the 'DFAT bank'. One thing DFAT should never do is run a bank!
I said that I would put this in a historical context. I go back to the Pacific Island Forum in 2016, where we committed to a framework for regional disaster preparedness and development, and its key component, the Pacific Resilience Fund. I advocated that this would be an independent fund that Australia and other key development partners should contribute to capitalising—in short, a fund that Pacific island countries can draw on without owing one country. The fund would enable Pacific island countries to borrow small amounts at very concessional levels to do basic climate-proofing of vital community infrastructure such as schools, community halls and hospitals. This is the critical infrastructure so vital to the life of small island communities. Hence, it makes much better sense to weatherproof them before they are damaged or destroyed.
The Pacific is one of the most disaster-prone areas in the world. Seven of the 10 most disaster-prone countries are in our region. Adverse climatic events exacerbate existing development challenges. They constrain economic growth, affect oceans, fisheries, marine and coastal ecosystems, and have the potential to affect the stability and security of the region. There will always be another cyclone or tsunami. This is the reality of the Pacific and climate cycles. Surely we can assist our neighbours to weatherproof the region as best we can so that critical infrastructure can be preserved rather than having to expend funds to rebuild post cyclone or tsunami.
Now, the Pacific Resilience Fund remains a key regional priority driven by the Pacific Islands Forum, and it is clear, from my many discussions with key Pacific stakeholders, that this was what the Pacific needed, and we should have been responding accordingly. Capitalisation of the fund would require about $1.5 billion. The fund would be independent, transparent and ensure that Pacific Island countries who borrow from the fund would not be beholden to one country.
It is eminently more preferable for us to be contributing to this fund rather than international climate funds or Beijing's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, to which we also contributed $1 billion, and its associated Belt and Road initiatives. I have argued that Australia, as a key partner, should lead the way and not only commit a substantial initial capitalisation of the fund but encourage other development partners in our region to do likewise. A better option would have been to use a sizeable portion of the $3 billion Pacific step-up to contribute towards capitalisation of the fund, rather than saddling the Pacific with more debt through the more dubious $2 billion so-called Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific.
It is all very well to support the development of large infrastructure, but, before you do so, you need to secure basic infrastructure like schools, hospitals and community halls so that they remain intact during storms and cyclones. This critical infrastructure is vital to building resilience in villages on those small islands in those communities right across the Pacific. Neighbours need our help in practical and meaningful ways. The Pacific Resilience Fund is a far more sensible and practical way of helping the people of the Pacific as they face the day-to-day challenges of storms and cyclones.
Now, the other key component of the $3 billion Pacific step-up was the allocation of $1 billion in callable capital to the export financing agency. One of the challenges in the Pacific is private sector investment. Opening up markets and greater business expansion is good for Australia and Pacific island countries. I supported this component of the step-up because it will enable Australia to support investments effectively as a guarantor to private enterprise and afford more innovative financing options rather than impose greater debt.
The establishment of the trilateral partnership between the US, Japan and Australia for infrastructure investment, with the objective of mobilising private capital, has also been important, especially in the energy, natural resources and connectivity sectors, where there is private sector interest. The partnership can assist Pacific island countries with the logistics of getting projects up and running—including cost-benefit analysis and all those other things that are important to put deals together. But my concerns remain about this Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific. Thus far, our ODA to the Pacific has been in the form of grants. It still remains unclear how much dialogue, if any, was undertaken with Pacific island countries or the Pacific Islands Forum before the announcement of this loan facility.
Given my past comments, I am conscious that we do not increase debt levels in the Pacific. Loans need to be repaid with interest. Loans are made using Australian taxpayers' money. In view of these existing debt levels, I expect that very few countries can meet the requirements for repayment. So, if you know the debt is not going to be repaid, why are you lending it in the first place? Is it not better to give assistance to our neighbours in the form of ODA and focus on those things that are going to be of greater benefit to a greater number of people across the Pacific and, therefore, support this fund? We all know there will be more adverse weather conditions, and so, in the spirit of talanoa, let's help our neighbours prepare for those events and help communities. Let's help the Pacific to help itself.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:14): I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I'm a big fan of Efic. I sat here listening to Senator Fierravanti-Wells and she made some very, very good points that will play on my mind as I enter the chamber when the bells ring.
The main reason I came into the chamber was to talk to the Greens amendment, which is basically seeking to prevent investments in areas of coal, oil and natural gas. I think it's a good amendment and I'm going to spell out why that is the case. And I do that not from some far-left Green perspective but simply from my knowledge of the commercial world. Right now, what we're seeing in relation to oil, gas and coal products is a collapse in the market. That's probably not true for coal but it is certainly true for the other two. Here in Australia, perhaps to the benefit of the gas cartel, we are seeing less consumption of gas. As the states switch across to their programs of renewable energy, we are now seeing negative electricity prices appearing on the market in South Australia. If you go to AEMO's quarterly report for the first part of this year you'll see that from 8 am until 5 pm, the time of manufacturing, there's a good chance that the spot price of electricity in South Australia will be negative. Whilst I accept that electricity prices are in fact quite complex—with AEMO intervening in the market to get inertia into the system—it is a tell-tale sign and one that interested me when I saw it. I'm not pretending it was something that it wasn't, but it is an indicator.
We are seeing the gas market dry up. We will be forced, over time, to reduce our oil consumption simply by the arrival of electric vehicles. That is not necessarily helped by this government in terms of its national strategy. Simply, the reality is that car manufacturers have announced that they are moving away from internal combustion engine cars—that's all going. And that means, eventually, we will be dragged kicking and screaming into the electric vehicle market, which will reduce our dependency on oil. And that is happening overseas as well.
So the Greens amendment makes sense in terms of the economics, the way in which markets work. And I note that Senator Steele-John stood up and talked about the banks no longer being willing to invest in these areas. That ought to alarm people. If the banks aren't willing to invest in these areas then we shouldn't be putting government money into these areas. We shouldn't have underwriting of oil and gas investments in circumstances where the banks understand better than anyone in this place exactly where this is all going. I saw a tweet this morning by Senator Canavan counter to the banks. He said:
… My rule of thumb is, if something is good for the banks it is probably bad for me.
I was forced to tweet back to say that my rule of thumb is that if something is good for the Nationals, it is almost certainly bad for South Australia and indeed the Murray-Darling.
Senator McKenzie interjecting—
Senator PATRICK: I'm glad that Senator McKenzie is here trying to interject. She has the Nationals streak through her. Did anyone not see the dumbest idea for 2021 coming from the Nationals over the break? They suggested that we invest $250 billion of taxpayers' money into investments that the banks won't touch. That is the dumbest idea in 2021, coming straight from the National Party.
I'm looking forward to seeing all those Nationals ministers who will have to resign when the cabinet make decisions on reducing emissions. They will have to make those decisions because that's the will of the Australian people, and they know it. So I will be interested to see when Mr Pitt, Senator Mackenzie or Mr Joyce resign because their position is somewhat different to that of the cabinet. Although we do know that Senator McKenzie wandered in here and tried to remove the 450-gigalitre requirement from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. She was big and bold when she did that, but when she became a cabinet minister she sat quietly because she knows the cabinet's position is that the plan be delivered in full. So while the Nationals—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Senator McKenzie?
Senator McKenzie: Senator Patrick knows there was no opportunity to discuss the 450. That can only be delivered if there is no socioeconomic detriment to the people that live in the Murray-Darling Basin. That is actually the test of whether that 450 will be delivered, and he knows that there was no opportunity to have that conversation in this chamber.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDE NT: Senator McKenzie, order! I don't think that's a point of order.
Senator PATRICK: I will just make the point, Acting Deputy President, that if you let people interject and run a five-minute speech without a point of order this place will become rather disorderly. So I'd just ask that you might—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, Senator McKenzie did not speak for five minutes, but I will take your point and allow you to continue with your contribution.
Senator PATRICK: Some timing there would be good, thank you, Acting Deputy President. I know Senator McKenzie is a bit touchy about this, because she—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie?
Senator McKenzie: On a point of order, my name does not appear in the bill before the Senate at all. So I am struggling to understand why the senator feels the need to continually insert my name into debate on a bill before the Senate that he should actually be talking about, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill. Please stick to the bill before the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator McKenzie. You have reminded Senator Patrick of the bill that we are discussing today. Senator Patrick, please continue your contribution and be relevant to the bill.
Senator PATRICK: I'll make it very clear: I am being relevant to the bill. I am talking about investment in fossil fuels, oil and gas, and I am talking about investment in coal. The link with the amendment bill is that the Nationals suggested over the break, in the dumbest idea of 2021, that the taxpayer set aside $250 billion to contribute to these investments. This is actually entirely relevant to the bill. Then I was just making the point that I will be interested, when decisions are made by the Liberal side of the coalition—because they must be made—to go down an emissions-responsible path in relation to these investments, to see how the Nationals stand and whether or not they will put their ministry ahead of their big coal, oil and gas investor-donors.
But I will come back to where I was going, and that is that we need to understand that, as the market dries up for these commodities, the investments that are being proposed under this bill will go bad. I put it to you that they will go bad more quickly than anyone imagines. They will go bad more quickly than the analysts think, because that is what happens. You end up seeing a collapse. That is the danger of the sorts of investment that could come into play under this bill. That is why the Greens amendment is important. I say that looking at it from an economic perspective, and I know that Senator Steele-John approached it in that manner as well. I found it very difficult to disagree with what he said, even though from time to time I do disagree with what he says.
So we need to rethink what we are doing. Investing in the export of these sorts of commodities or even assisting our Pacific friends to do such things is a bad idea. When it comes to exporting these products, the writing is on the wall. The writing is on the wall, and, unfortunately, the Liberal coalition is not reading the writing.
If we look at the UAE, the history is really interesting, in that, unlike other Middle East countries that have squandered and through corrupt processes distributed the wealth associated with the oil that had flowed from the Middle East, and we find that the UAE took a very country interested approach and invested in things that were going to be around when the oil dried up. They invested in tourism, an international airline, an international transport hub, manufacturing and other sorts of capabilities, rather than something they know won't be there forever. We need to be thinking about the same thing. We need to understand that these commodities that we are exporting are going to be turned off at some stage—not because the Nationals are standing behind, trying to pump the gas as it leaves the country, but because there won't be a market for it.
This goes back to the sort of thing that I've been pushing for for some time: in our consideration of where this country's going, we've got to stop thinking in terms of exporting rocks. We've got to stop just exporting rocks. In Whyalla we're struggling with the steelworks there, and there is an intention to turn that to green steel, and there are some good hydrogen projects that are spinning up there. But we've got to make sure that, instead of just exporting iron ore, we invest in exporting steel; instead of just exporting lithium, we export batteries—that we develop capabilities, we develop IP, we develop products that are exportable and we create jobs. That's the future. In looking at this bill and what it may allow or permit to happen, the reason we need to clamp down on it is the very thing that the Greens are putting up today, which is that investment in these false future markets will end in tears. We have to start rethinking the way we do business. The change is coming. Unfortunately, our thinking has lagged for too long and we've got to move forward, and I think their amendment goes a little bit towards that.
Senator MCKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:27): I think honourable senators for their contributions to this debate on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill. These amendments will support infrastructure development in the Indo-Pacific and export linked projects in Australia as well as provide enhanced financing capabilities to the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, further supporting Australia's Pacific step-up.
I welcome the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's endorsement of the bill and its purpose and its recommendation that the bill be passed. The government notes the Australian Greens' dissenting recommendations in the committee report but respectfully disagrees. The government sees no need to delay the bill or to remove Export Finance Australia's existing exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act.
As noted by the committee, the bill maintains Export Finance Australia's robust processes for assessing commerciality risk and environmental and social impacts. Furthermore, Export Finance Australia's partial exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act provide certainty to its customers and other financial institutions that their sensitive commercial, financial and other information will remain confidential.
The government wants to ensure Export Finance Australia has the tools it needs to continue supporting Australian export trade and overseas infrastructure development. The amendments will bolster Export Finance Australia's ability to support Australia's national interests and priorities. They will enhance Export Finance Australia's capabilities and will complement its existing suite of financing powers, comprising loans, guarantees, bonds and insurance. However, the equity investment power will be used sparingly where there is a national interest case. Debt solutions like loans, guarantees and bonds will continue to be the mainstay of Export Finance Australia's support to Australian exporters and for infrastructure development in the Indo-Pacific region.
In conclusion, the bill—
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS
International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:30): On Friday 15 October, Australia observed International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day, a day to honour and remember all babies lost to miscarriage, stillbirth and perinatal death. In February this parliament passed a motion that I moved to eternally recognise this day. I thank Senators McCarthy, Polley, Rice, Molan, Bilyk, Waters and Hughes for their support of the motion.
In Australia, hundreds of thousands of parents marked this day. In Australia, one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Six babies are stillborn every day. Perinatal deaths—that is, the death of a baby in the weeks just before, during or after birth—number around 3,000 a year in Australia, and, of those deaths, 2,200 are stillborn.
Today I also want to honour John and Kate De'Laney. Kate and John have been instrumental in ensuring that 15 October is recognised in Australia, including via a campaign to light up public buildings, from coast to coast, in pink and blue. John and Kate have been incredibly generous in sharing their story of loss, and, in doing so, they have given so many parents the opportunity, the courage and the support to share theirs. My husband, Ben, and I also marked 15 October, as our daughter Caroline was stillborn in 1999. I acknowledge that many other senators and MPs also know the loss of their babies. Ben and I join all parents in Australia who know the loss of a loved and cherished baby through either miscarriage, stillbirth or perinatal death. We remember you, tinged with sadness but in recognition of the love that you have for your children.
International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (13:32): On Wednesday last week, my stillborn granddaughter Emily Charlotte Sutton would have turned 14, but instead we commemorated the 14th anniversary of her shattering death. On Friday last week, her mother—my daughter Sarah—turned 40, a milestone birthday. It wasn't celebrated with family and friends, but only because of COVID health orders in all states.
Today I stand in this place as a former soldier not unfamiliar with death and violence, as a senator for New South Wales who has devoted much of my time to national security and as an ordinary Australian returning to the workplace after a five-month period of medical treatment in which the magnificent healthcare professionals and health services of this nation essentially saved my life. For the good wishes I received from you, my colleagues, I thank you most sincerely. However, I am absolutely incapable of thinking of any sentiment more important to me today, or of any commemoration more significant, than to mourn the cherished children whose loss through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death is suffered each year by thousands of Australian families.
I was honoured to be a member of the Senate Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education, which, in 2018, examined in great detail the significant and far-reaching impacts of stillbirth in Australia. I welcome the National Stillbirth Action and Implementation Plan, published in December last year and developed under the oversight of the National Stillbirth Project Reference Group—again, established by the then Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. This plan has ambitious goals, but, with the commitment and support of the many Australians invested in the recognition of stillbirth and pregnancy loss as a public health issue in need of a strategic approach, I am hopeful that these goals will be met and that, when we meet again, we will see rates reduced, equity gaps abolished and respectful support extended to all. (Time expired)
Youth Voice in Parliament Week: Climate Change
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:34): I rise today to give voice to young Australians. As part of the Youth Voice in Parliament Week, run by Raise Our Voice Australia, I'm going to read a speech by Chloe Ames, a 14-year-old constituent from South Australia. Chloe wrote this speech to tell policymakers here in Canberra what her vision for Australia in 20 years time is. She writes:
In 20 years, I would like to see a clean environment around me. When I walk on the street, I want it to be clean of rubbish, no gum, nothing. When I order takeaway, I don't want to be eating out of plastic. I want to be able to travel around and see so many different animals. I want to see the oceans clean and all the coral come back in colours. I want to see the colourful wildlife.
Climate change is a massive problem right now and our world is slowly dying because of it. Humans are the only reason this is all happening. We are burning fossil fuels. Deforestation is taking away the wildlife's habitats. We are farming livestock, and we use single-use plastic for pretty much everything. The world has lost half its wildlife in the past 40 years. We are the problem, and we need to fix our mistakes before it is too late.
Climate change can be stopped if everyone spoke up about what is happening to the world. By powering our homes with renewable energy. By reducing water waste, stopping food waste, and donating cans you are not going to consume to people in need. Getting rid of plastic straws is not enough. We need to eliminate plastic cups, plastic bags, and all single-use plastics. We need to consider going vegetarian or vegan, live sustainably and grow our own food in our backyards.
Thank you, Chloe, for sharing your vision of a safer, cleaner and kinder world.
International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
Senator MCCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:36): [by video link] Friday 15 October was International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day, when we remember the babies lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death and acknowledge the ongoing loss experienced by their families. It was back in February that the Australian parliament officially recognised the day and determined that it would be observed on 15 October, alongside the international community.
The work of the Senate Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education has helped shine a light on what can still tend to be a hidden tragedy, and I am certainly proud, still, to have been a chair of that committee and to have worked with my Senate colleagues on it. We've seen so many things done on many fronts, in terms of stillbirth prevention, as a result of the solid efforts of senators and of those individuals and organisations that gave evidence and made submissions. But we must continue to drive this change. There is still an enormous amount of work to do to tackle the fiscal, social and emotional toll of stillbirth in this country. In Australia, six babies are lost to stillbirth every day. That is approximately 2,200 babies every year. The rate of death from stillbirth is higher than the national road toll, and stillbirth is the No. 1 cause of death for infants. There are still too many babies lying unclaimed in hospital wards in Australia.
I am proud of the work of the Senate select committee, in that it has gone some way to breaking the culture of silence around stillbirth. Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month is all about providing a space for those hundreds of thousands of Australians who suffer in silence every year when they are experiencing what is often the worst moment of their lives. I acknowledge those lost babies—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order, Senator McCarthy. Senator Hanson, remotely.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (13:38): [by video link] I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the increasing risk to its sustainability. One Nation strongly supports the principle of the NDIS and ensuring that Australians with disability have the support they need that is reasonable. The NDIS was the necessary response to a situation in which many disabled Australians, mostly young people, were falling through the cracks. It was intended to help people who could not otherwise get the help they needed. But, as is often said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The hell facing the NDIS is one of sustainability.
It was recorded in August that the average payment per NDIS participant had increased by 11.8 per cent per annum over the past three years. Total participation costs were $6.6 billion in the quarter to 30 June this year, a 33 per cent increase over the same period last year. The total cost of the scheme is $25 billion per year, and it's expected this figure will rise to $40 billion by 2025, only four years away. In fact, the number of people that the NDIS supports is approximately 460,000 and growing, and the NDIS will cost more in 18 months than the cost of Medicare for all Australians. This is unsustainable and needs to be brought under control, or the people who really need NDIS support will be the losers. Unlike every other taxpayer funded scheme, the NDIS is not means-tested, meaning very wealthy people can access it. One Nation supports a review of the NDIS with a focus on ensuring the scheme is meeting its original intention of helping people with a disability which requires assistance and helping only those who need it and ensuring NDIS funding is not supporting those for whom sufficient support is already available through mainstream health, education and—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order, Senator Hanson.
International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (13:40): I join Senator Keneally and others today in recognising last Friday's infant loss awareness day. As we've heard today, in Australia the number of families who suffer stillbirth, miscarriage or loss of an infant's life within the first month is significant. I'm very proud that our government, on the back of the select committee's work earlier, has extended the Red Nose Hospital to Home program to provide intensive support to these grieving families, because the grief is unique. I know these experiences are very hard to talk about. I know the awkward silence from people who don't know how to respond. I know the feelings of awkwardness that extend into the family members, with mothers, fathers and siblings who also don't know how to respond. To those who've been through it: we all have unique experiences, we all grieve differently, and that's okay. We all have different reactions and different ways of dealing with it. I want you to know it's okay if you want to grieve in silence. It's okay if you want to keep this experience personal. I also want you to know that it's okay to grieve publicly. If you want to talk about it, if you want to share your pain, if you want acknowledgement of the life just lost, that's okay too and should be welcomed. We must all as a society recognise that grief is a personal experience, particularly with such an early loss in your lives. So please know—to those families who have been through this—that how you deal with your loss is up to you and it's okay, but you are not alone.
Ryan, Senator Scott
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:42): [by video link] I would like to speak briefly about our outgoing President, Senator Ryan. Senator Ryan is well known for his deep political convictions, and initially there was a question of how these might affect his conduct as President. Any misgivings proved to be totally unfounded. As President, he has been fair, reasonable, sensible and impartial. In being so, he set the standard for us all. He rose to the stature of his new office and put the dignity and responsibility of the office ahead of himself. We all know how easy it is to play the maverick, to grandstand and to win attention and praise from social media. But we also know how empty and meaningless that is, how it strokes the ego without doing anything to help the Australians we are here to serve. It is much harder to put that aside and do the work of parliament, but Senator Ryan did just that. In doing so, he set a standard to which we all should aspire. I thank him for his service and wish him very well in his future endeavours.
Before concluding, I would like to congratulate Senator Brockman. I don't know our new President particularly well but I know he is well regarded by his colleagues and has been a presence in this place for longer than most. I'm sure that experience will serve him well and that we will all come to share his colleagues' regard for him. I wish him well and very much look forward to working together with him.
International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (13:44): [by video link] I too wish to recognise International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day, commemorated on Friday 15 October, and I thank all the other senators for their contributions on this issue. Today is a bittersweet day. It is the first time we have commemorated Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day since both houses of parliament resolved to recognise it. I welcome the efforts we're making to commemorate this day, including by our national parliament, but, at the same time, I deeply regret that a campaign like this still needs to exist. On this day, we pay respects to the more than 100,000 babies lost to miscarriage, over 2,000 lost to stillbirth and over 600 lost to neonatal death each year, and to their families.
The report of the Senate Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education pressed the need to break through what it called the culture of silence around stillbirth. It's this culture of silence, this taboo, that has led to policy inertia in addressing Australia's unacceptably high rate of stillbirth and compounded the grief of families suffering pregnancy loss and infant loss by silencing and isolating them.
I say to anyone who has suffered loss from miscarriage, stillbirth or neonatal death: you are not alone. The culture around discussing pregnancy and infant loss has to change, and it will. I'm confident of that because those of us who have experienced this loss will not be silent. I've always talked to Timothy since 1983, when he was born, even if it made others feel uncomfortable. We need to be able to share our stories and our grief if we choose to do so. We need to acknowledge our babies and how they died. We need to talk about our love for them. We will say their names. My first child has a name. His name is Timothy Robert Bilyk.
Tasmania: Health Care
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:46): [by video link] The federal government's promise to all Australians is that we'll get free, high-quality health care whenever we need it—by God, we pay enough taxes! But that's not how things work in Tasmania. Here elderly people die before they can see a doctor in an emergency ward. Here we travel for hours, pay through the nose and wait for weeks before we can see our closest GP. Here thousands of Tasmanians who show up at Launceston General Hospital needing urgent medical care don't get seen on time. That's why Tasmanians rate our health system lower than Australians in any state or territory on the mainland. We have a massive problem down here and it cannot be swept under the rug any longer—no more.
I'll tell you what won't help: the Tassie Liberals' plan to give GPs extra money to charge more patients out-of-pocket costs. That's not going to get us anywhere. Haven't we been trying this for years anyway? It is not fair to our local GPs and specialists who stay here with their children. We're ripping them off. What we should be doing is helping the nurses and doctors who work in our emergency departments. We've got to lower the pressure they're under. We have to give people somewhere else to get medical help, somewhere that isn't in accident and emergency.
This is what I'm proposing: that Launceston, the north-west coast and Hobart should have urgent care centres that provide free medical care, fast. You'd visit the centres for everything from cuts and burns to broken bones, wound dressings and fevers. They'd be run by professional registered nurses and would provide immediate high-quality care seven days a week, including after hours. You wouldn't pay a cent for it either. While you get looked after, the people who need emergency help would get it. Instead of waiting hours in an ambulance on the hospital driveway, they could see the hospital staff who might otherwise have been treating you. Tasmanians should get the quality health care that's promised to every Australian. Urgent care centres are the answer.
For those Tasmanian politicians that haven't seen it, have a look at Canberra's— (Time expired)
Pathways Tasmania
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (13:48): Drug addiction is a scourge, as is homelessness. The plight of homeless drug addicted young men is stark, it's ugly and it demands empathy and willing hands to assist them to find a pathway out of their tragedy.
This is where Pathways enters the morass of human wreckage in my home state of Tasmania. Pathways Tasmania is a charity which, as its name suggests, delivers a pathway out for drug addicted men. Pathways relies heavily on the generosity of Tasmanians. Part of Pathways' fundraising is an annual charity dinner. This year's dinner, put together by the dynamic Pathways CEO, Aldo Antolli, was another sell-out, showcasing the changes made to individual lives. The Tasmanian community came together to raise much-needed funds to support the Pathways team.
For me, the work of Pathways is particularly heartwarming as it is the successor organisation to YASTAS, Youth Accommodation Services Tasmania. I had the privilege of serving on its inaugural committee and as its honorary legal advisor. Indeed, I made reference to YASTAS in my first speech.
The work of Pathways, and thus the number of rehabilitated young men, has grown ever since Aldo Antolli took over as Pathways CEO. Every young man assisted is a life turned around from drugs and despair onto a pathway of hope, self-esteem and self-reliance—a profound good for each individual and a wonderful restart to their lives. As each life is put on the right pathway again, so our society benefits, with lower incidence of antisocial behaviour, criminality and welfare dependency. Pathways, so ably led by Aldo Antolli, deserves the Tasmanian community's full support.
Youth Voice in Parliament Week: Inclusion
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:50): As has been mentioned, this week is Youth Voice in Parliament Week, so with your indulgence, Madam Acting Deputy President, I will be reading a short statement prepared by one of my constituents: 'My name is Hugo Taheny. I'm 20 years old and I live on Narungga country in the electorate of Grey in rural South Australia. I live with an intellectual disability. My vision for Australia in 20 years would be for a more inclusive life for everyone. I hope that people of all abilities, cultures, communities and backgrounds would be working together in a more friendly way to enjoy the beautiful land that we live on. I would like to be treated like a person, not a person with disabilities. I would like people to include me, to talk to me and to help me and my friends contribute positively to make our society a better place. It is so important to be inclusive in every way so that all people feel welcomed and equal. Everyone should be given the same opportunities for school, health care and jobs. When my friends and I are included, we feel proud. When we're not included or treated differently, we feel sad and lonely, like we don't matter as much as others do. It is really important that everyone embraces diversity and opens up to being inclusive in every way to help make the world a better place. Thank you.' Good on you, Hugo, for preparing such a well-considered and articulate speech. I'm honoured to have been allowed to read it in the Senate today.
Coalition Government
Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:52): Eight long years—that's how long this government has been in power. It's been eight long years of opposing action on climate change. It's been eight long years of the government running around regional Australia, lying through their teeth about what action on climate change means for our regions. It's been eight long years of 21 energy policies, constantly changing, with the government constantly unable to make up their minds and constantly stopping investment in renewables and the jobs that come with them. It's been eight long years in which this government, which says it's about the regions, has been sending regional jobs offshore and stopping our regions from getting those jobs that other countries are grabbing with open arms. It's been eight long years of holding our regions back and stopping them from gaining the opportunities for jobs and the prosperity that other countries are grabbing with open arms. It's been eight long years of regional Australians paying the price for this government refusing to take action on climate change and handing to other countries jobs that should be going to places like Rockhampton, Gladstone, Mackay and Townsville. After eight long years, still they are squabbling. Eight long years isn't enough for this incompetent mob of people who want to chase jobs offshore rather than put them into regional Queensland. We've had enough of the fake farmers and the fake miners in the National Party. We need to listen to real farmers and real miners, who know that net zero emissions is how they will create jobs in the future and support their communities.
Indigenous Heritage Protection
Senator COX (Western Australia) (13:59): Last week I had the privilege of attending the Yamatji On Country forum in Carnarvon. Over the two days, people gathered from the Mid West, Murchison and Gascoyne to talk about their important issues and solutions. There was a strong focus on the WA government's draft This bill will enable the destruction of and harm to First Nations cultural heritage. It undermines our right to self-determination and dismisses our cultural heritage. Traditional owners are asking the WA government to stop all proceedings on this bill. It cannot go ahead in its current form.
The government needs to go back to the drawing board and engage in public consultations with traditional owners. This would allow traditional owners to co-design more-culturally-inclusive conditions in the bill. Any changes to cultural heritage legislation must put First Nations people at the centre of decision-making about our land, culture, language and heritage. This bill provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to implement best practice cultural heritage protections in WA, standards that ensure that the destruction that occurred at Juukan Gorge can never happen again. I'm urging the WA government to listen to the traditional owners and to act to protect and preserve First Nations culture and heritage and our climate.
Youth Voice in Parliament Week
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (13:55): [by video link] As part of the Raise Our Voice campaign, I have the great honour of reading two speeches prepared by two outstanding young Victorians. The first is from Annabel Bryan:
Hello my name is Annabel Bryan and I am 10 years of age I live in Northern Victoria. I believe that social media has a major impact on primary school students as much as high school students. The bullying via social media can attack children's mental health as much as it does face to face. That's why I believe schools should have more education about these sorts of topics. There should also be more consequences for those whom have a part in these bullying situations. For instance if a Childs bullying behaviour is detected, teachers and parents should take action. These situations should be openly talked about in the class room. Over all I believe the government should make legislation for all schools across Australia to add awareness about social media bullying and the impact on mental health to their weekly curriculum.
Well done to Annabel. From Cate McNeil:
My name is Cate McNeil, I am 13 years old, and I live in the Corio electorate. I have been interested in politics from a young age, and I am passionate about trying to make the lives of people better. Here is my proposal for a better Australia in 20 years: We need to educate Australian youth about how to be financially literate for when they grow up and leave home. Right now, kids my age and older still don't know that much about finance. There is so much to learn with superannuation, compounding interest, good debt, bad debt and more. This can be daunting and therefore they just don't learn it. This is a big problem because it means that youth grow up to not know about banking and how to make educated money decisions, and this can result in poverty.
I commend both Annabel and Cate for their inspiring words, and perhaps one day we will see them advocating for what they believe in in the national parliament.
Morrison Government
Climate Change
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (13:57): It is eight days before COP26 in Glasgow, and what have we got from the Morrison government? Complete disarray on climate policy. After eight years and 21 policies, we still have nothing. Goodness knows what will be taken to Glasgow. Right now, we have a handful of National Party members holding the government to ransom. What an absolute disgrace! A handful of National Party people are now trying to distance themselves, trying to pretend that, somehow, they're not part of the government, and they are holding the government to ransom.
Today we heard Mr Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, say on radio, 'We mightn't have a view before Glasgow26.' Australians are very clear on this issue. They want climate change policy and they want action on it now, not eight years of nothing from those opposite, the government of this country. What cowardice we have seen from our Prime Minister in not staring down his party and not creating a vision for Australia. We need a vision for the private sector, who are clearly calling out for vision; a vision for farmers, who want action on climate change; and a vision for workers, who also want action on climate change. Instead, what have we got? We have a handful of government backbenchers, some of their ministers and the Deputy Prime Minister of this country holding everyone to ransom. Australians are watching. I can let you know that in the electorate of Pearce the No. 1 issue is climate change. They're pretty disgusted with their local member, as well. They think $1 million hidden away in a trust fund is not okay. Australians are watching. It is time the Prime Minister stood up and let us all learn exactly what is being taken to Glasgow and not allow himself to be held to ransom.
The PRESIDENT: It being very close to 2 pm, we will proceed to questions without notice.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Climate Change
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Indeed, Senator McKenzie is not here!
Senator Wong: I'm not sure where any of the—oh, Senator Birmingham and Senator McKenzie are here. We will ask that question time proceed a few minutes further to reflect the delay.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, I will ask you to, please, start your question again.
Senator McALLISTER: My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Liberal senator Alex Antic has said that net zero by 2050 is 'an absolute folly' and:
There is no way to achieve net zero without costing us jobs, without winding back our economy.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with Senator Antic?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:01): I thank the chamber for giving me a few minutes to catch my breath! Thank you, Senator McAllister, for your question. I think the National Party have been very, very clear on the only thing that is exercising our minds this week and, in fact, on the only thing that's exercised our party room for the last 14 years that this place has had this debate—that is, the impact of our country's climate policy decisions on rural and regional Australia and the people that live there. The poorest people in our nation live out in rural and regional Australia, and when electricity prices go through the roof they are the ones that feel the impact. The transport workers who drive our food and fibre up and down the highways and byways of this nation are the ones slugged by former Labor governments' follies in this area. It was only one political party that stood in the way—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator McAllister, on a point of order?
Senator McAllister: My point of order is on direct relevance. The question went to a quote that was provided by Senator Antic and whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister agreed with that. Senator McKenzie has not really touched that question. I would like her to answer it.
Senator McKenzie interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator McAllister, as you know well, I cannot direct the minister how to answer the question. The question had a long preamble, including a quote. It—Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: Mr President, I recognise this is your first question time and that it will take—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, what is your point of order?
Senator Wong: We disagree with your ruling, and we would ask you to reconsider the suggestion that there was a very long preamble as the basis of your ruling. I would ask you to read the Hansard, take account—
The PRESIDENT: I will—
Senator Wong: I haven't finished, if I may, Mr President. I haven't finished my submission.
The PRE SIDENT: Senator Wong, please continue.
Senator Wong: Thank you; I appreciate it. I would ask you to reconsider your ruling, so early, to rule out an issue of direct relevance on the basis of a very long preamble. It was not a very long preamble. I reiterate the opposition's point of order as to direct relevance. The minister has not even got close to Senator Antic's quote.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, you did not actually wait for me to complete my ruling. I said there was a long preamble in the form of a quote—if you had allowed me to finish—that contained a particular assertion I believe the minister was being directly relevant to matters contained in the question.
Senator McKENZIE: As for Liberal Party senators and MPs—Senator Antic being one of them—and their contributions to this public debate, I have no comment to make. I am, absolutely, prepared to stand by the Deputy Prime Minister's public commentary—and, in fact, the National Party's public commentary—around the debate before the public at this time. It is our whole, sole focus as representatives of the 30 per cent of Australians who don't live in capital cities—our miners, our manufacturers, our farmers and those in our regional capitals—to make sure their interests are served in this place in this debate. That is all we're interested in. That is the only question before us as a party, and that is the thing we are taking very, very seriously.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?
Sen ator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:05): Mr Antic has declared, 'From a personal point of view, I certainly don't have any appetite for net zero.' Does the Deputy Prime Minister think it is reasonable for Mr Morrison to ask the Nationals to sign up to net zero by 2050 when, after eight long years in government, members of his own party room aren't signed up?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:06): Again, I'm not going to reflect on Senator Antic's commentary; someone else in this place can. What we are actually focused on as the National Party is absolutely ensuring that every single policy that our government prosecutes and puts before the people has rural and regional Australia's best interests at its very, very centre. That is absolutely the thing. We are not ashamed to be standing up and saying: 'Hold your horses. Let's not gallop off to Glasgow. Let's make sure that what we are considering as a government has actually gone through the prism of how it will affect the poorest in this country and the most highly energy intensive industries in this country.' You know what? If it wasn't for us, no-one would be raising this. You all would have signed up in a heartbeat. The only one standing up for the regions is the National Party.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:07): With two weeks until the COP26 conference in Glasgow, this morning Mr Joyce refused to rule out sending Mr Morrison to Glasgow empty-handed and without a climate deal. After eight years, three Prime Ministers and 21 energy policies, will the Deputy Prime Minister agree to the Liberal plan on net zero emissions by 2050 before Mr Morrison steps on the plane?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:07): One thing that all National Party MPs, senators, ministers and the leadership group more broadly have made very, very clear is that our party room will be the determinant of what our party room does. I won't be answering a question from the Labor Party in this place and surpassing the supremacy of the party room in determining my actions and the actions of our ministers and our party room more broadly. I think, though, what rural and regional Australians need to understand is the biggest risk to their industries, to their jobs and to their children's future is an Albanese-Bandt government that has no plan and never has had one. It's why, on this question, they do not trust you and they do not trust them. So, for as long as you two are in partnership, you can forget the working class of this country backing you at any election.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Molan, you have the call. May I say, it is great to see you back.
COVID-19
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (14:09): Thank you, Mr President. It's just great to be back, I've got to say. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. With Australians responding magnificently to the call to get vaccinated against COVID-19 so we can safely return to normal life, can the minister advise the Senate how the Liberal and National government is supporting our safe reopening and economic recovery from the pandemic?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:09): I, too, would like to warmly welcome back Senator Molan. It is wonderful to see him back in this chamber and, indeed, to see him looking so well. Congratulations on your battle, Jim.
Australians have been responding magnificently to the call to get vaccinated, as Senator Molan said. More than 32.6 million vaccines have been administered across Australia. Some 84.8 per cent of those over the age of 16 have received their first dose of a vaccine, and 68.3 per cent across the nation have received their second dose, being fully vaccinated. This comes when Australia's comparison in the saving of lives to the rest of the world remains an incredibly strong one. We remain the nation amongst the 38 OECD countries to have the second-lowest incidence of COVID cases per capita. We're in a nation where we have seen far fewer deaths. In fact, if you look at the UK or the USA, they've seen some 40 times the number of deaths per capita that have occurred in Australia from COVID-19. By avoiding the OECD averages in terms of COVID-19 deaths, we've seen some 30,000-plus Australian lives saved and the time for millions of Australians—the vast majority of Australians now—to turn out and to get vaccinated, enabling us to see those states who have been battling lockdowns, such as Victoria, New South Wales and here in the ACT, begin the steps of reopening and other states begin the steps of looking at how they transition to the next stages of a more vaccinated population.
I welcome the news from the Queensland government, just prior to question time, indicating that the vaccination targets set out in the national plan our Prime Minister released, informed by the Doherty institute modelling, will see Queensland open its borders at those 70 and 80 per cent thresholds. That is welcome news and a sign of the progress being achieved.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Molan, a supplementary question?
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (14:11): Despite the recent challenges of the delta outbreak, how does Australia's economic and health performance compare internationally?
Senato r BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:12): Australia is one of the few countries in the world that, after the COVID-19 recession of last year, saw its economy grow back to be larger than it was prior to the pandemic starting. Whilst the delta strain and the lockdowns across parts of the eastern states have caused an impact, on the whole our labour market remains strong. Despite the havoc of the delta variant, the outlook for the Australian economy is incredibly strong. This was reaffirmed last week by one of the three major global credit-rating agencies, Fitch, who not only reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating but indeed upgraded our outlook. They had previously indicated that Australia was on the negative watch list. They've removed Australia from that, reaffirming the AAA credit rating, removing that negative watch list and pointing to the strength of the Australian economy and to their confidence in terms of the jobs rebound that we've seen before when coming out of COVID lockdowns and that we will see again. Australia stands tall in the world for saving both lives and livelihoods, and that is something that we should all be grateful for. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Molan, a further supplementary question?
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (14:13): Minister, what further measures will help to ensure confidence in our economic recovery and secure Australia's reopening in a safe and responsible way?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:13): What we'll see is that the continued opening up in accordance with the national plan that is happening across New South Wales and that we're now seeing Victoria and the ACT take steps to follow will give that confidence. The encouragement of seeing greater freedom in terms of international movements to come will enhance business confidence. The news from Queensland today will be one to enhance business confidence and I hope will be looked at by other state and territory premiers and chief ministers in relation to decisions aligned with the national plan, because what we've able to achieve as a country is not just saving lives but providing the scientific framework for decisions to be made, the scientific framework of the Doherty institute modelling demonstrating that at 70 per cent and 80 per cent fully vaccinated rates we can not only take the steps to reopen but do so while keeping Australians safe and do so in ways that enable us to manage COVID-19 as more analogous to the flu and that create an environment of confidence for Australian businesses and for Australia. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:14): My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg has said, 'It is quite clear that we should be looking to commit to net zero.' Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with Senator Bragg?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:14): Thank you very much for the question, Senator Ayres. I've made it very, very clear that we as a party room are considering the question of committing to net zero by 2050 and what the implications are for rural and regional Australia. Labor senator after Labor senator is going to quote me Liberal Party senators. Well, they don't sit in my party room. The people who are actually considering this question are National Party senators and MPs, who have been very, very clear—whether it's Anne Webster, who a couple of months ago said, 'We're not signing up to a blank cheque,', whether it's Matt Canavan—you can probably catch him this evening on Sky—who has often made his views, very, very clear on this issue, or whether it's Senator Perin Davey. On Chris Kenny's show, she made it very, very clear that it's our agriculturists and our farmers who paid the price of our Kyoto targets.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: This may not resonate for you because you don't live where we live and you don't serve the people we serve. Out of sight is out of mind for the major parties in this building.
So it is the National Party who, once again, stand before a policy that, if not implemented appropriately, will severely impact on rural and regional Australia and will severely impact on mining, agriculture and manufacturing. We need to make sure that we've assessed the plan that's being put to us to understand the implications and to proceed in a calm and reasonable manner, with the Liberal Party, on a pathway forward. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:16): Liberal MP Jason Falinski has said economic benefits for Australia in signing up to net zero by 2050 are 'overwhelming' and 'can't be understated'. If Mr Falinski is correct, why are the Nationals still refusing to sign up to net zero by 2050?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:17): For 100 years, rural and regional Australians have been sending National Party and, before us, Country Party MPs to Canberra to do one thing and one thing only—to stand up for the interests of rural and regional Australia and our industries. All we are doing is our job. We are doing our job. We are seeing a pathway to net zero that's been put to us in our party room and are carefully considering that. That is what our constituents expect of us. That is a sensible and rational thing to do. We are two parties of government. This most successful coalition has been maintained in this country for 75 years, and we have delivered not just for the regions but for the whole country. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a further supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:18): Liberal MP Trent Zimmerman has said net zero by 2050 is 'the right thing to do'. Does this minister agree with Mr Zimmerman that net zero by 2050 is the right thing to do? If not, why not?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:18): I'm happy to table my opinion pieces of recent times on this issue on why I think we need to adopt a cautious approach. We need to make sure we're doing the right thing by our people. If we're not standing up for those with the lowest median income in the country, who are in National Party seats, then we aren't doing our jobs.
If it is such a good idea, what happened under Rudd and Gillard? What happened when you had the chance to do the miracle dream team deal between the Greens and Labor? You walked away from it. You never really assessed what happened to the regions. If I asked you today, 'What would be the impact of Anthony Albanese's climate change policy on rural and regional Australia?' what would you say? You'd have no idea because you have no plan.
The PRESIDENT: I will just remind the chamber that we should address those from the other place by their correct titles, even if they are former representatives.
AUKUS
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (14:19): Mr President, congratulations on your election. My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister explain the importance of the AUKUS announcement and how the partnership will contribute to security and stability in the Indo-Pacific?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:23): Thank you, Senator Abetz, for your question. AUKUS is a significant and historic enhancement of Australia's cooperation with the United Kingdom and the United States to promote both security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific in line with our shared values. This is a task on which we've worked together for more than 70 years. But today we face a growing set of challenges in our region. Military modernisation is occurring in our region at an increasing rate and capabilities are advancing rapidly with ever-expanding reach. To meet these challenges and to help deliver the security and stability our region needs we are taking our partnership to a new level, building on our three nations' longstanding bilateral ties. The AUKUS partnership will provide a foundation for deepening cooperation on a range of emerging security and defence capabilities.
As announced, the first initiative is the acquisition for the Royal Australian Navy of a nuclear powered submarine fleet, leveraging decades of experience from both the United Kingdom and the United States. As a three-ocean nation, it is necessary for Australia to have access to the most capable submarine technology available. However, beyond that, the initiative will see wide cooperation in the most critical areas of innovation that will shape the 21st century, including cybercapabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and additional undersea capabilities. Through AUKUS, we will foster deeper integration of security and defence related science, technology, industrial bases and supply chains. AUKUS is a partnership where our technology, our scientists, our industry and our defence forces will work together more closely than ever before to deliver a safer and more secure Indo-Pacific that ultimately benefits all nations.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Abetz, a supplementary question?
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (14:22): I thank the minister for that detail. I further ask the minister to outline the ways in which AUKUS complements our existing network of partnerships.
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:23): Working with partners is essential to shaping our region for Australia's foreign policy. AUKUS will complement our network of partnerships with ASEAN, with the Pacific, with our European partners and with the growing Quad. It is a partnership that seeks to engage, not to exclude. We look for opportunities to enable and empower rather than control or coerce. Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States are committed to strengthening our partnership with ASEAN and to deepening collaboration with our partners in Europe, including on the European Union's new Indo-Pacific strategy. We understand—and have said clearly that we understand—France's disappointment that we are not proceeding with the Attack class program. We place great value on our relationship with France and we look forward to continuing to work with France on our many shared interested, including in the Indo-Pacific.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Abetz, a final supplementary question?
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (14:23): In the context of the historic AUKUS agreement, can the minister advise the Senate of Australia's nuclear non-proliferation commitments?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:23): I thank Senator Abetz for his question. Australia's commitment to nuclear weapons nonproliferation is unchanged. We are embarking on a nuclear propulsion program. Australia has clearly and explicitly stated that it will not acquire nuclear weapons. Australia has the strongest non-proliferation and safeguards standards and one of the best nuclear non-proliferation reputations in the world. For the fifth time in succession Australia has ranked first globally on the Nuclear Threat Initiative's 2020 Nuclear Security Index. We ranked first among 24 states for measures against the theft of nuclear material and first of 47 states for measures to prevent the sabotage of nuclear facilities. We will adhere to the highest standards of safeguards, transparency, verification and accountancy. We are committed to fulfilling our obligations as a non-nuclear weapons state and to meeting our non-proliferation obligations, such as the South-Pacific nuclear— (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The countries going to the climate summit in Glasgow that have significantly increased their 2030 targets in this critical decade are the US, the UK, the EU, Canada, South Africa, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Kenya, the United Arab Emirates and many others. Australia and Russia have not increased their ambition. Will you, as foreign minister, allow the National Party to throw this country's global reputation in the bin?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (12:25): Thank you very much, Senator Waters, for your question. To be very clear—and you and I have discussed this before in this chamber and I've made it pretty clear what the government's commitment is—I absolutely reject the last part of your question, quite frankly. It really is important to note, Senator Waters, that Australia's emissions are at their lowest levels since records began in 1990, that emissions in 2020 were more than 20 per cent lower than in 2005, which, of course, is the baseline for the Paris Agreement, and that Australia, since 2005, has achieved reduction in our emissions faster than have Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. We're on track to beat our 2030 Paris target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent. On a per person basis, that's a reduction of 48 to 49 per cent on 2005 levels. That is more than France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand or Japan are expected to achieve.
In 2020 alone, Australia deployed more renewable energy than in the six years of the previous Labor government, but I don't hear that welcomed by those at the end of the chamber. I don't hear any commentary in relation to that. In fact, we are building wind and solar around three times faster than is Europe or the United States on a per person basis. We have the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar, with one in four homes having rooftop solar panels. Our government is building Snowy 2.0—one of the largest pumped hydro projects in the Southern Hemisphere—Tasmania's Battery of the Nation and an interconnector. I don't hear much about that from the end of the chamber either. There will be enough clean energy stored to power around a million homes. We're also investing in transmission projects to support our record levels of renewable and to continue to deliver affordable, reliable energy. That's the record that this country will take to Glasgow.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, do you have a supplementary question?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:27): Will the government go to Glasgow and do what the science requires for a safe climate and triple our targets for 2030, or will you confirm reports of Minister Taylor's party room briefings that the government will not increase the 2030 targets?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:27): I thank Senator Waters for her question. I'm not going to comment on party room deliberations, nor, I would have thought, would those at the end of the chamber. What we have said we will take to Glasgow and what we have said we will commit to is being worked through by the government, in terms of the discussions that many have commented on in recent days.
As I made clear in the answer to the previous question, many countries in the OECD can't claim Australia's achievements. I know you want to ignore achievements. I know they're an inconvenient truth for those of you at the end of the chamber, but, Mr President, through you to Senator Waters, what Australia will take will be to deliver a long-term emissions reduction strategy, one that we will release ahead of COP26. It's an economic strategy that will be underpinned by delivering affordable and reliable energy in a way that positions Australia to be successful in a lowered and ultimately net zero emissions global economy of the future. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a final supplementary?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:28): The International Energy Agency has said that, to reach net zero, not one single coal, oil or gas infrastructure project can be built. How can you go to Glasgow, ignoring 2030 and pledging net zero by 2050, when Australia has 72 new major coal projects and 44 major gas projects planned in the coming years?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:29): I know those at the end of the chamber want to ignore all of the achievements that I've spoken about, but let's be very clear about what we will be able to focus on, and what we can focus on as a nation, importantly. Notwithstanding the intransigent and small-minded approach of those at the end of the chamber, we can develop practical, scalable, technological solutions that will enable Australia to reach net zero while partnering with other countries to decarbonise and grow our economy. I know you don't care what the developing world can afford, but we do.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Pratt!
Senator PAYNE: We do. We have a priority of supporting the access to technology of the developing world. Low-emissions technology, low cost—that is our focus, and that's what we're delivering.
Climate Change
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (14:30): My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Mr Morrison has previously claimed electric vehicles would end the weekend, and claimed emissions reduction targets would wreck the economy. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with those views?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:30): Thank you very much for another hit out and another chance to respond on behalf of rural and regional Australia. People are berating the Nationals right now. You can't pick up a newspaper in this country without it saying, 'You know what? The Nats are the last man—man and woman—standing.'
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, you have a point of order?
Senator Wong: Thank you, Mr President. Direct relevance. This is a question about whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister, whom the minister represents, agrees with a statement the Prime Minister has made. I would ask you to draw the minister to the question.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Birmingham?
Senator Birmingham: The minister has had 16 seconds to respond. The minister is responding, as the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Leader of the National Party, to a series of questions that are clearly related to National Party decisions and National Party deliberations and discussions. The minister was clearly on a trajectory of talking about those National Party decisions, those National Party discussions, and, in doing so, obviously addressing the broader issues that are raised. It is certainly very premature, and probably erroneous, for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to suggest that the minister is at any point yet not being relevant.
The PRESIDENT: I was going to make the point that the minister had only been addressing the question for around 16 seconds. You have had the opportunity, Senator Wong, to bring the minister's attention to the question. Senator McKenzie, you have the call.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you very much. And within the first 20 seconds I shall address the sacrosanct nature of weekends to rural and regional Australians, and the fact that we like to—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: Honestly!
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: Rural and regional Australia, and, indeed, the broader Australian public are very thankful for the National Party. There are no friends for the National Party at the moment—not a friend in the country. The peak bodies have deserted us; there's not a friend internationally. But do you know what? If it wasn't for the National Party, our country would have a carbon tax right now. It had the Labor Party's carbon tax. And do you know what our country, under a Liberal-National government, has been able to achieve without a carbon tax since it came to government? A 20 per cent decrease in emissions—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: you don't want to hear that, do you?—while increasing our mineral exports, while increasing jobs in agriculture. So for you to argue that the only way, back then, to actually lower emissions in this country was to tax us was wrong. And you admit it now because it's your own policy! It is the Labor Party's policy not to instigate a carbon tax. So you need to be saying thank you—
The PRESIDENT: Minister.
Senator McKENZIE: to the National Party—
The PRESIDENT: Minister.
Senator McKENZIE: for saving you from yourselves.
The PRESIDENT: Minister! Please resume your seat. Minister, I would ask you, when I call you, to resume your seat. Senator Watt?
Senator Watt: We've given the minister a good go on relevance. It was a simple question about whether the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with opinions expressed by the Prime Minister. We haven't had an answer remotely close to that, and I'd ask you to bring the minister to order.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, you've had a chance to remind the minister of the question.
Senator McKENZIE: I think that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, as I alluded to in an earlier answer—the coalition between the Liberal and National parties has been the most successful political partnership this country has ever seen. It has delivered more and has kept us more secure for the 75 years it has been in place, and long may it continue.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Green, a supplementary question?
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (14:34): Mr Morrison has previously described renewable energy targets as 'nuts'. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with this view?
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:34): Good question, Senator Abetz. Thank you very much for that supplementary question, Senator Green. It is rural and regional Australians and the MPs that represent them that actually see renewable projects in their backyard. We're the ones that have the wind farms. We're the ones that have the solar farms.
Senator Colbeck interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: And the hydro power stations, obviously, in areas with a lot of water, Senator Colbeck, like Tasmania. So we know very well the benefits that renewable projects bring to our communities—
Senator Watt: Mr President, a point of order on relevance: it's a very straightforward question about whether the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with the view of the Prime Minister. We don't need a long fairytale from the minister; we just need an answer to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, on the point of order.
Senat or Birmingham: Senator Watt, at the conclusion of his point of order, seeks to try to define how the minister should answer the question. It is clearly not the role of the Senate to define how a minister answers the question. The minister, from what I heard in the first 10 seconds of her answer, turned to renewable projects and their impacts in regional Australia. The question, indeed, went to renewable energy.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Birmingham: Perhaps this just shows that the Labor Party thinks targets don't result in projects or action or change. That seems to be it, Senator Watt. I'm sorry, Mr President. I apologise.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham has apologised. Senator Watt was interjecting.
Senator Birmingham: The point being that Senator Watt clearly does not have a point of order in this case.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I believe the minister was being directly relevant. I cannot direct a minister on how to answer a question.
Senator McKENZIE: I think it's pretty clear that, if you look at the international evidence and the evidence here at home, setting targets without plans to achieve them or, indeed, the will to achieve them is actually meaningless. So there are a lot of vacuous promises that are made, and the Greens are championing those promises in this place, where countries overseas make very bold, ambitious targets and then fail to deliver on them at all.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Green, a second supplementary question?
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (14:37): Last week this minister said, 'We've had all of these promises before, and I'll tell you what, the lived experience out there in the regions isn't what was promised prior.' If the government doesn't trust the government to deliver what it says it will, why should anyone else?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:37): Thank you very much for giving me the chance to clarify a comment I made in an opinion piece last week. When we talk about the sale of Telstra, which both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party supported, who dealt with the poor telecommunications? Who couldn't call an ambo? Who couldn't homeschool their kids? It was no-one in Woolloomooloo, and it was no-one in any of your electorates. It was our electorates. On the Murray-Darling Basin plan—the water policy in this country—it was our seats that paid the price. Out of sight, out of mind.
Senator O ' Neill interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator O'Neill!
Senator McKENZIE: I'm sorry, you don't like to hear it, but it's true. It is absolutely the same on this issue. We need to be assured, on behalf of the people who sent us here, of the impact on them, and that's all we're doing.
COVID-19
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:39): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. I note that the department of statistics data for Australian fatalities has not been updated since 30 June 2021. At that time, deaths in Australia during 2021 were noticeably above the five-year moving average, even after allowing for a small number of COVID deaths. Given that, until 30 June this year, the Australian Bureau of Statistics posted that data six weeks after the period, why is the reporting of death data now 15 weeks after the period?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:39): I thank the senator for the question. I'll have to take that question on notice. It may very well be that there's some delay in data being transmitted between agencies. For example, we know in Victoria that the deaths due to COVID are reported into their public health emergency system, or PHESS, which is where we use our death data and report our death data for COVID deaths. That is then transmitted across to their database for births, deaths and marriages, and there is sometimes a period of cleansing required to certify whether or not a death has been caused by COVID, for example. I will undertake to get some information on that, but I suggest that that may be part of what's occurring, because there has been some movement up and down in the reporting of deaths over the last 18 months or so. I've had some experience with that, particularly in relation to COVID as deaths are recertified. In fact, in the last few days, I had the number of deaths from COVID in aged care reduced because somebody who was thought to have passed away actually hadn't. So there are some issues with respect to reporting and translating that information through the system. I'm happy to take that on notice and report back to the chamber.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:41): I did advise the minister's office of the subject of my question today and directed his office to my question on notice No. 3970 asking for the same information. It's been outstanding for 12 weeks. Minister, how many people died in Australia in July, August and September of 2021?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:41): In the circumstance that you did advise my office, I haven't been advised of that. I can only apologise to you for not having the data with me right now. But I clearly don't have that information. If there is a delay in the reporting, I suspect it has something to do with the explanation I gave you in response to your primary question, but I am happy to chase that information up and come back to the chamber as soon as possible.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:42): Minister, this information is critical to trust in vaccines, and its omission raises serious doubts and serious questions. How is it possible that you don't know? What are you hiding?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:42): I reject the assertion that the government, or anyone, is hiding anything. I've given the chamber a quite plausible rationale for the fact that there are some delays in the reporting of deaths in this country. There is no reason for us to hide at all. I also reject the assertion that somehow the death data has any relationship, or should have any relationship, to vaccines. The overwhelming data in this country right now indicates to us that vaccines work. We can see that in the data. We can see that in the circumstances in the general community right now. If anybody has any questions with respect to the fact that vaccines work, just look at the data that's available right now. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Income Support Payments
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (14:43): Congratulations, Mr President, on your new role. My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister update the Senate on how the government has supported Australians who have been unable to work during the COVID lockdown?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:44): Thank you so much, Senator Bragg, for the question and for your ongoing advocacy for the people of New South Wales. Throughout this entire pandemic our government has stood side by side with Australians and carefully monitored their needs to ensure that our recovery remains on track. More than 65 per cent of the eligible population have done the right thing and rolled their sleeves up and are now fully vaccinated. But a few states are leading the way, and there is no doubt this is due to the fact that they have had to endure lengthy lockdowns that have meant millions of workers have been unable to work or have seen their hours significantly reduced.
The Liberal and Nationals government has been there to support those Australians and it has paid more than $11 billion to over two million people throughout this period through the COVID disaster payment. That's a payment that was always intended to be temporary and to ensure the financial viability of Australians while we slowed the spread of the virus and increased vaccination rates. It's a payment that has kept food on people's tables, kept fuel in the car, kept the heater on and removed financial stress at a time of such uncertainty. Without these payments, a lot of people wouldn't have made it through.
As more and more Australians are getting their vaccination, states and territories have been able to safely ease restrictions and we are finally beginning to see the end of these lockdowns. This has meant that people have been able to not only get back to work but get back to doing things they love and they are learning to adjust to living with the virus. This week, we have seen Victoria, the state with the longest lockdown in the world, bring forward their plan to ease restrictions. Canberra has one of the highest vaccination rates of any city across the globe, with over 99 per cent of the population having received their first dose. The transition back to normal life means there will be less need for the COVID-19 disaster payment. It served its purpose and will continue to do so until vaccination rates reach 80 per cent in states and territories.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bragg, a supplementary question?
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (14:46): New South Wales endured a lengthy lockdown and we are now seeing getting people back to work and a normal life. Can the minister update the Senate on what support has gone to New South Wales?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:46): It's been a very long lockdown, indeed, Senator Bragg and it's good to see we're opening up. It was over 100 days, in fact, and it was 100 days of limited to no income for some. That's why we were supporting the people of New South Wales to be able to come out of lockdown in a strong economic position. The Liberal and Nationals government COVID disaster payment has provided more than $1.3 billion in financial support for those in New South Wales alone. They did the right thing. They stayed at home. They got vaccinated, reaching both the 70 per cent and 80 per cent milestones before any other state in the country. They did this with the hope that at some point their lives would return to normal.
I'm so pleased to see that coming to life, and I am sure you are too, Senator Bragg. Our support has extended to businesses across the state. In partnership with the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals government, we've seen more than 200,000 businesses receive nearly $6 billion through the JobSaver program. Our government will continue to support the people of New South Wales as they transition out of this pandemic.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bragg, a second supplementary question?
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (14:47): As we begin to see the safe relaxing of restrictions and our workforce opening back up, how will the government support Australians through their transition back to work?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:47): We know that people want to just get back to normal. It's been an incredibly tough period for our country. They want to be able to travel without restrictions. They want to be reunited with loved ones, their friends and their colleagues in the workplace and to put this pandemic behind them. This means when states and territories reach 80 per cent double vaccination rates our support won't stop. It will wind down, though, over a period of two weeks because the COVID disaster payment is just that: it's a disaster payment. It was never intended to be long term. Once phases B, C and D of the national plan are reached, we will no longer be in a state of disaster. We are not abandoning workers, like those opposite have claimed—a claim that is completely unfounded, given the continued commitment throughout this pandemic of the federal government to both individuals and business support payments. After the disaster payment is tapered down over a two-week period, we will continue to support Australians who have been unable to transition back to their usual employment through our existing strong safety support network that is run through Services Australia. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:49): My question is also to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Nationals senator Matt Canavan has said that Mr Morrison does not have a plan for net zero but is instead relying on 'a prayer that hydrogen comes along and saves all these jobs'. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with Senator Canavan?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:49): What Senator Canavan is concerned about, what the Deputy Prime Minister is concerned about, what the entire National Party is concerned about, is the impact of any move towards net zero on regional jobs. It's that simple. We only wish that the Labor Party and the Greens could have a similar concern. The reality is: you actually have no plan to get to net zero by 2050. You walked away from your 2030 target at the 2019 election. You don't have a medium target. You don't have a plan to achieve—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: On a point of order on direct relevance: there are longstanding precedents that a discussion of opposition policy is not directly relevant to a question about government policy.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, I will bring you back to the question that was asked. I ask you to resume your answer.
Senator McKENZIE: As I was saying, Labor doesn't currently have a medium-term target, nor a plan, to get anywhere near—
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, I will bring you back to the question.
An opposition senator: It's not about Labor!
Senator McKENZIE: No; it's about Senator Canavan and the Deputy Prime Minister, and whether they agree. And they agree. They agree on the need to protect regional jobs for not just the next three weeks, not just the next three months, but the next 30 years. They are absolutely agreed on that, as we all are in the National Party. The National Party has a broad range of views on the substantive issue of climate change; there's no secret there. But what we are all united on is ensuring that any climate policy that this country agrees to does not disadvantage the regions. We're taking our time to assess that and come to a position.
But, in this place, it isn't just talking about the Nats—as much as I could do that all day—and what our plans for the regions are; it is to put before the Australian people what the alternative is, and the fact is that you don't have one. You have no idea how you're going to get to your plan of net zero by 2050—absolutely none. You will have to form a government with these guys, and you know who is under attack if Labor and the Greens get into power—the fishing industry, the forestry industry, the live cattle export industry, the mining industry, the gas industry, the coal industry— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:52): Senator Canavan has also said:
… the Prime Minister might believe in miracles, but I don't think we should gamble people's jobs on a wing and a prayer.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with Senator Canavan?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:52): Well, I believe in miracles too; I do! I think you were phrasing that particular quote you put to me in the context of the last election, which was actually the miracle win; Australians actually woke up to what a racket the policy positions being put before them by the Labor Party and Bill Shorten and his leadership group were, and the negative impact they would have not on the top end of town but on mums and dads out there right across regional Australia and the suburbs. And they rejected them wholeheartedly. So, yes, I believe in miracles, absolutely.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a second supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:53): Given Senator Canavan also declared in a piece entitled 'Woke net zero targets will weaken us':
Net zero emissions is the public policy embodiment of corporate bullsh*t …
does the Deputy Prime Minister think Mr Morrison should still be confident he can wrangle a climate deal with the Nationals just two weeks from the COP26 conference in Glasgow?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:54): It's good that you're actually reading Matt's articles. I suggest you also sign up to his YouTube channel. You can usually find him with most Sky After Dark commentators. If you're a fan of Matt Canavan, that's where you'll find him.
You know what, Senator Watt? We don't shy away from having 20 very proud rural and regional Australians in our party room who all have a view on a range of matters. They are actually able to speak freely not just in the party room but outside of it.
What we are committed to doing is making sure we keep you out of government. That's actually what the National Party and the Liberal Party want to see happen: stopping the Labor Party, whose policies would decimate this country, decimate the regions and decimate our industries, because you don't care. That's why they don't vote for you.
Domestic and Family Violence
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (14:55): Congratulations on your election earlier today, Mr President.
My question is to the Minister for Women's Safety, Senator Ruston. Can the minister outline to the Senate how the Liberal and Nationals government is assisting women who are escaping domestic violence?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:55): Mr President, I too add my congratulations on your appointment to the auspicious role of President of this amazing place.
I thank Senator Chandler for her question, a question that is so incredibly important to all Australians. It's about ending violence against women and their children. Sadly, we know that one in six women, from the age of 15, will experience violence at the hands of a partner. It is an absolute blight on our society, and I can assure everybody in this chamber that this government is committed to doing something about it.
We must aim to prevent violence before it happens, but unfortunately when it does happen we also need to be there to support women and their children, to help them rebuild their lives. That's why today I was pleased to announce the escaping violence payment, which is a $144.8 million initiative that is part of the $1.1 billion investment in women's safety in the budget. The payment aims to help 12,000 women—however, it is a demand-driven payment—to make sure that we provide them with the necessary supports so that they are able to overcome the financial barriers to leaving violent relationships and, in doing so, alleviate one of the main reasons why women stay in violent relationships or potentially go back to violent relationships.
The flagship investment will give women more security when they make that extraordinarily brave decision to leave a violent relationship and all of the forms of domestic, family and sexual violence, including physical violence, coercive control and financial abuse. The escaping violence payment is up to $5,000 to help women rebuild their lives free of violence. Fifteen hundred dollars of this will be in cash, perhaps for something as simple buying as the kids a new lunchbox. The other $3½ thousand can go towards things like paying for rental bonds, whitegoods, school fees et cetera. It's not taxable, it's not reportable and it doesn't impact on other payments. I look forward to continuing to update the Senate on this initiative.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Chandler, a supplementary question?
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (14:57): Can the minister explain how the escaping violence payment responds to our growing understanding of the ways women experience violence?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:58): It is an extraordinarily important issue and one which we know that we must continue to address as we work towards developing the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Since the first plan was implemented, in 2010, our understanding of what violence is and how it manifests has certainly grown. New and emerging forms of domestic violence—things like coercive control, financial abuse, technology facilitated abuse—are absolutely insidious and make it near impossible, in some circumstances, for women to gather the resources to make the decision to actually leave an abusive relationship. These barriers to leaving an abusive relationship are exactly what the escaping violence payment is making sure we address. Importantly, as I said, the payment is not means-tested in the traditional sense. We want to make sure it's available to every women no matter where she comes from, because we know it's not uncommon for bank accounts to be frozen or credit cards to be cut off. It doesn't matter what size the house the woman comes from; she needs our support— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Chandler, a second supplementary question?
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (14:59): Can the minister please advise the Senate how women can access the new escaping violence payment?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:59): I'm really pleased that, as of tomorrow morning, the UnitingCare Australia Consortium, our preferred and selected partner, will start the three-year trial to support this program. UnitingCare has extensive experience in supporting victims-survivors of domestic, family and sexual violence, and they also have a footprint that covers a huge amount of Australia. The support that is being provided under this program will be tailored to meet the individual circumstances, and we will also be working, through UnitingCare, with state and territory governments to make sure that we have seamless support for women when they leave a domestic violence situation. Eligible applicants must be experiencing domestic violence and have had changed living circumstances, or may find themselves in changed living circumstances, and be under financial stress. Evidence can include, but is not limited to, things like domestic violence orders, referral from a domestic service provider— (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, Senator Birmingham. It is reported that Mr Morrison is preparing to fork out more than $20 billion to get the Nationals to support his net zero plan. How much taxpayer money is Mr Morrison willing to spend to buy a political fix?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:00): I thank Senator Gallagher for her question, because, certainly, what our government is quite proudly doing at present is preparing the commitments and plans that the Prime Minister will take to the climate change conference in Glasgow. Those commitments and plans entail planning in relation not just to what the emissions reduction framework and commitments will look like but how we will protect the jobs of those communities across Australia facing change brought about by a changing international environment—how we will protect the jobs, how we will protect those communities, how we will ensure that they can have confidence that they will be supported through the transition that is going to occur as a result of a changed global investment environment and a changed environment in relation to many of our key export markets and the commitments they're making. These are changes that are happening.
It sounds to me, from the tone of the question by Senator Gallagher, that she's happy to leave those communities behind—to not care about the jobs and to think that if there is some investment in protecting those communities, in supporting them to take advantage of the opportunities to come, that that should just be ignored. Those of us on this side—the Liberals and the Nationals—will certainly not leave regional Australia behind. We will not leave regional communities behind. We will make sure that, just as we invest to pursue lower emissions and to work towards net zero, we equally invest to protect Australian communities and the regions that we have relied upon as a nation for so long for so many export communities, and to ensure that they have a bright future—that they can seize the opportunities ahead, be they new energy opportunities or be they other new opportunities that can be created.
For Senator Gallagher to come here and want to ask a question about wasting money, I saw her yesterday—she seemed to walk away from the $300 vaccine payments. Talk about a $6 billion waste of money—paying people to do something that Australians have, thankfully, already turned out to do in their millions.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:03): It has been reported that one government MP has said:
There's going to be a giant National Party green rainbow across regional Australia with crocs full of pork at the bottom.
Is there any upper limit to how much taxpayer money Mr Morrison is willing to spend to buy a political deal?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:03): I could equally ask: is there any point at which those opposite will acknowledge the importance of those regional jobs or those regional communities? We are going through these discussions asking all the right questions. On this side we ask all the right questions. We don't make a commitment and then try to work out how to do the plan in place. We are, in parallel, working through the questions of how we deliver the commitments in relation to climate change but do so in ways that support the regional communities and jobs of Australians. That's the responsible way to go about these policies—to do it in alignment, to do it together and to make sure that you can present plans that do provide the support and respect to Australians. It's unsurprising, given the question that Senator Gallagher is asking, that those opposite simply make the promise without consideration for the consequences. They make the promise without actually thinking about the plan. They jump out of the plane and then see whether they've packed the parachute. We're making sure that we have everything answered in advance.
Senator Gallagher: Everyone knows what you're up to!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, that's not helping. A second supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:04): The Minister for Finance has said it's critical for the Morrison-Joyce government to have 'a target and a plan'. Will the minister guarantee that any last-minute political deal with the Nationals will meet the standard he himself has set?
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:05): Indeed, as Senator Abetz, I think, just alluded to, I do agree with my own words. I'm happy to confirm that to the Senate. That is precisely, if the senator had been listening to I think the previous two answers I've given, what I have talked the Senate through. The fact is that we are working concurrently through the process in relation to targets and the process in relation to the plans to meet those targets, and not just the plans to meet the targets without consideration of the consequences of meeting the targets but the plans to meet the targets whilst considering the consequences of that for different communities across Australia, not just looking at it at a national level or a macro level but drilling it down to consider the impacts across different states and territories, across different regions and across different industry sectors, because that's how you do the job properly. That's how you take care of Australians. That's how you ensure that Australian regions, communities, states and families have the strongest possible future, which is what we wish to secure.
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.
MINISTRY
Presentation
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:06): I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list. I apologise for not doing so at the start of question time, albeit there's no change to representation arrangements in this chamber. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
SECOND MORRISON MINISTRY
Title |
Minister |
Prime Minister |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Minister for Women |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Indigenous Australians |
The Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet |
The Hon Ben Morton MP |
Minister for the Public Service |
The Hon Ben Morton MP |
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention |
The Hon David Coleman MP |
Assistant Minister for Women |
Senator the Hon Amanda Stoker |
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development |
The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP |
Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia |
The Hon David Littleproud MP |
Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport |
The Hon Scott Buchholz MP |
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister |
The Hon Kevin Hogan MP |
Assistant Minister for Local Government |
The Hon Kevin Hogan MP |
Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories |
The Hon Nola Marino MP |
Treasurer |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
Assistant Treasurer |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Minister for Housing |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy |
Senator the Hon Jane Hume |
Minister for Women's Economic Security |
Senator the Hon Jane Hume |
Minister for Finance
|
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Special Minister of State |
The Hon Ben Morton MP |
Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia |
The Hon David Littleproud MP |
Minister for the Environment |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Minister for Resources and Water |
The Hon Keith Pitt MP |
Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management |
The Hon Trevor Evans MP |
Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries |
Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam |
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment |
The Hon Dan Tehan MP |
Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
Senator the Hon Zed Seselja |
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment |
The Hon Dr David Gillespie MP |
Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism |
The Hon Michelle Landry MP |
Minister for Defence
|
The Hon Peter Dutton MP |
Minister for Defence Industry |
The Hon Melissa Price MP |
Minister for Veterans' Affairs |
The Hon Andrew Gee MP |
Minister for Defence Personnel |
The Hon Andrew Gee MP |
Assistant Minister for Defence |
The Hon Andrew Hastie MP |
Attorney-General |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Industrial Relations
|
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General |
Senator the Hon Amanda Stoker |
Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations |
Senator the Hon Amanda Stoker |
Minister for Health and Aged Care |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
Minister for Sport |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
Minister for Regional Health |
The Hon Dr David Gillespie MP |
Minister for Families and Social Services |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for Women's Safety
|
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for Government Services |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Assistant Minister for Children and Families |
The Hon Michelle Landry MP |
Minister for Home Affairs |
The Hon Karen Andrews MP |
Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon Alex Hawke MP |
Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon Jason Wood MP |
Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction |
The Hon Angus Taylor MP |
Minister for Science and Technology |
The Hon Melissa Price MP |
Minister for Resources and Water |
The Hon Keith Pitt MP |
Assistant Minister for Industry Development |
Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam |
Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction |
The Hon Tim Wilson MP |
Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Minister for Education and Youth |
The Hon Alan Tudge MP |
Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services |
The Hon Luke Howarth MP |
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
STATEMENTS
Personal Explanations
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:06): I seek leave to correct the record about a statement I made in question time.
Leave granted.
Senator ROBERTS: I said to Senator Colbeck that my question on notice 3970 has been outstanding for 12 weeks. That was correct, but I also said that my staff had tried to contact his office today. While that's correct, they didn't get through and did not follow up later. So Senator Colbeck's staff was not advised of that question today.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions on Notice
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:07): Under standing order 74(5)(a), and on behalf of Senators Wong, Gallagher, Watt and Kitching, I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham, as to why 71 questions placed on notice through the Table Office between 15 September 2020 and 12 September 2021 remain unanswered. I further seek an explanation on behalf of Senators Wong, Gallagher, Chisholm, Marielle Smith, Kitching, Keneally and me as to why 61 estimates questions placed on notice through the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet remain unanswered. I note I provided an itemised list to the minister's office earlier today.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:08): Firstly—Deputy President, through you—in response to Senator Ayres, I ask the new President to consider in relation to this standing order what has become an emerging practice of senators not just asking in relation to questions that they have asked that may be unanswered but also seeking to do so in relation to other senators. I am not sure that that is truly in keeping with the letter of the standing order, and I would encourage the President to take a look at that and to reflect upon it following advice.
In relation to responses to questions, this government in this parliament has been more responsive to more questions than at any time in recent memory. Through the course of this parliament we have received some 4,313 parliamentary questions on notice. That is almost as many questions on notice through the parliament, through this chamber, in the life of this parliament as in the two previous parliaments put together. When it comes to Senate estimates questions on notice, we have responded since the 2019 election to 31,486 questions on notice.
So I make the point, as I said, that, in terms of parliamentary questions on notice, we have been more responsive to more questions than in either of the last couple of parliaments, and we are at the point where this parliament and this government have done more in responding to questions than the previous parliaments combined. In total, across parliamentary questions on notice and Senate estimates questions on notice, we indeed are now tracking close to 36,000 questions that have been asked of and answered by the government during this time.
The government well and truly lives up to the expectations of accountability. In fact, most people would be incredibly surprised to learn of that sheer volume of questions asked, answered, tabled and responded to in this place. That does not include the myriad other committees, including, for example, the COVID select committee that was established, which have posed many additional questions, nor does it count the many, many hours spent in estimates and committee hearings or in this place answering questions that were not taken on notice.
So, yes, I know there are a handful, in relative terms, compared to the tens of thousands of questions that have been answered, that remain outstanding. The government work through these things as best we can with the record volumes of questions that we have continued to face. We have not just handled a record number of questions but provided a record number of answers. We will continue to work through the record numbers of answers as much as we possibly can.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will respond to the question you asked. I have ruled on this before, and it is in order for a senator to combine a number of unanswered questions from different senators in the one motion.
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:12): I move:
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
I make this point gently to the Senate: that, notwithstanding Senator Birmingham's preprepared response, the problem that this government has with responding to questions in the chamber is that the culture of secrecy, the entire lack of accountability and the commitment to avoiding transparency are the characteristics that will define this government. When it's finally gone, it will leave no lasting legacy in policy terms or in terms of achievements. It will only leave a giant hole in public finances created in large part through its failure to deal effectively with the COVID-19 pandemic, the greatest public policy failure in Australian history. Even its own supporters say it's the greatest public policy failure in Australian history. The lasting legacy that will be left that will need to be swept aside will be the culture of secrecy, servility, complacency and lack of accountability that it has infected the upper echelons of Australia's Public Service with. That is why there is so much obstruction to questions being asked on notice. That is why we have 71 questions through the Table Office, provided over just the space of a few days, treated with utter contempt by ministers and by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. That's why 71 questions placed through the committee I have the honour to be the deputy chair of, by Senators Wong, Gallagher, Chisholm, Smith, Kitching and Keneally and by me, remain unanswered.
The thing that's interesting about those questions is that they are all questions directed to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and we saw last week the culture of secrecy that surrounds that department, when they came before the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. Mr Gaetjens is the secretary of that department—the Prime Minister's friend appointed to be the secretary; the most partisan departmental secretary in Australian political history. There is a relationship between being the most partisan secretary of that department in Australian history and having the greatest public policy failure in Australian history, because this government is all about partisan politics. It's all about the announcement; it's never about the delivery in the interests of the Australian people.
We saw that when the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill that the government proposes to submit to the parliament at some point, if it can find some friends for the bill, was the subject of scrutiny early last week and Mr Gaetjens refused to turn up. The effect of the bill would be to draw the black veil of cabinet confidentiality over the deliberations of national cabinet. There's a pattern here: a refusal to answer questions, a refusal to deal with questions on notice, an ever-creeping extension of opposition—lifting the costs and providing every procedural barrier—to freedom-of-information applications.
The government and the department in particular got smashed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal through a decision of Justice White which said that their pathetic attempt to define the national cabinet as a subcommittee of cabinet could not be sustained. The government's position was trashed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It was an utterly humiliating defeat. And what is the response? The department and the government draft a piece of legislation which is designed to say that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of cheese—that the national cabinet is somehow a subcommittee of cabinet. It has none of those features. This government is desperate to pull the shroud of secrecy over the operations of government when there is no possible public interest in doing so.
The government has so debased the notion of effective government accountability in this country, has retreated so far from its own responsibilities to be open with and accountable to the Australian people, that this process of dealing with questions on notice by just pretending they're not there should come as no surprise to anybody.
That bill, the COAG bill, is entirely friendless. Not a single coalition senator stood up or moved a muscle the whole day while that bill was torn apart by all of the legal experts. All of the witnesses, anybody who had any interest in public accountability and transparency, pulled that bill apart, and not one Liberal senator moved a muscle. Do you know why, Madam Deputy President? Because they're ashamed. They're ashamed of the direction that Mr Morrison has taken this government in. They can't defend the position that Mr Morrison and Mr Gaetjens have taken around public accountability and transparency. And, while they'll be in here thumping the table and shouting and hollering about questions on notice and Senator Birmingham will be in here with a prepared response, they know that it's gone way too far—that the culture of secrecy and covering up and acting in its own political partisan interest, rather than in the public interest, has entirely captured this government and has entirely reduced it to a government whose capacity to act in the public interest is disappearing so fast, in terms of the place that it should hold in the Commonwealth, that it's collapsing under its own weight.
Question agreed to.
Question No. 3985
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:20): Under standing order 74(5)(a), I rise to seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Prime Minister as to why question No. 3985 has not been answered.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:20): Senator Patrick, through the chair, I don't have specifics in relation to that question. I appreciate that you're asking about one particular question, but I've not been able to get a specific update. I draw your attention to the broader points that I made before, albeit in relation to a much more general question from Senator Ayres. But I respect that you are asking about one particular question, and I will follow that up upon leaving the chamber.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:21): I move:
That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.
I'm not intending to cluster a whole range of questions. For every question I put on notice, I read the answer when it comes back. They're provided to me by my staff, and I read them and consider them. This is an important question, and I'll run through it. It deals with two matters. Both matters relate to costs in relation to AAT freedom of information matters, where the Commonwealth sought to uphold what were later found to be erroneous and cavalier FOI decisions. One of them relates to the Hawkei audit conducted by the Auditor-General in 2018 and the fact that the Auditor was censored by the Attorney-General, who issued an Auditor-General Act section 37 certificate to censor information provided to the parliament. Of course, Deputy President Britten-Jones found that the Attorney-General was simply wrong in issuing that certificate. I've asked three or four times about the cost to the taxpayer of the government resisting the release of information that should have been made available in public.
The second matter relates to the costs associated with national cabinet. The question was about the Australian Government Solicitor's estimate, when it was engaged, of the costs to the taxpayer and whether or not invoices have been finalised. I actually have had an answer through the estimates process: that the national cabinet matter has cost $107,000 to date. A hundred and seven thousand dollars went to the AGS to try to defend that particular matter—and I'll come to their performance in relation to that. It follows another FOI answer I got the other day relating to a matter on foot where the government has spent $250,000 opposing access to what effectively is one number. I wonder what the Hawkei matter will cost. I've asked on several occasions. On several occasions the answer that has come back is that the invoices haven't been finalised. I will be raising that with the AGS when I see them at estimates. That particular matter is over a year old, so it's hard to believe they haven't properly invoiced that matter. I think the tally in relation to the government opposing my access under FOI must be coming up to $1 million. That's shameful. That's a guess, but we know it's at least $350,000. I haven't added up all the other wins that I've had and the costs associated with them. Maybe I should do that. This is real money being used to oppose transparency.
I will just go to the decision on national cabinet. I know Senator Ayres talked about this. Obviously, the history of that matter is that, in the face of a pandemic, the Prime Minister called together all of the first ministers—the premiers and territory chief ministers—to conduct regular meetings. No-one has any objection to that. It's actually quite a sensible thing to do. The offensive thing that was done was that the Prime Minister, consistent with his secrecy obsession, decided to pull the wool over the Australian public's eyes and suggest that it was a committee of the cabinet.
Of course, Justice White examined this and found that the national cabinet wasn't even established as a committee of the federal cabinet; it was actually established by COAG. Justice White found that there's no cabinet solidarity and no collective responsibility in the national cabinet. Justice White pointed out there is no one single parliament to which the national cabinet is responsible. In fact, it's responsible to a whole range of different parliaments and, therefore, can't be a cabinet. It's interesting. If people read the decision, they will see that, along the way, Justice White was quite frustrated with the approach of the Commonwealth and the way in which it handled the matter, not putting primary evidence on the record. His view on evidence received from Mr Gaetjens and Ms McGregor was that it couldn't be relied upon. In fact, it was found that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet advanced some facts that turned out not to be facts. On affidavit, they swore certain facts that were not true, and counsel for the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had to concede during the proceedings that in fact they were wrong.
That disturbs me not just because someone put on an affidavit something that is not true but because this is the premier department in our government. Everyone's supposed to look at Prime Minister and Cabinet and say, 'They set the example.' I am greatly disappointed by the way in which that matter was conducted. Senator Ayres is right. There's no room to manoeuvre in relation to that very solid judgement by Justice White. There is no appeal. You can't appeal what he put in his judgement, because it is legally correct. Yet one of the astounding things in the affidavit of Mr Gaetjens to the tribunal at some stage was that it said, 'Don't worry about all these judicial precedents on what national cabinet is, because we're the authority on it.' It really bothers me that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet think that words in a statute—such as 'cabinet' or 'committee of the cabinet'—get defined by the Prime Minister and not a judicial officer. That's not how it works. Sure, in this place, we can provide clarity, but, if there's any question as to the meaning of a word in a statute, that is clearly in the purview of the judiciary. That, not a department, is clearly the decision-making place. So it is very surprising that such a statement was advanced in the context of those proceedings.
In response to the trashing—I think that is what Senator Ayres said—of the argument of the Commonwealth, what have they done?
They've introduced a new law, so there is more cost associated with the taxpayer to try to keep matters that are not cabinet matters secret. They've introduced a new law which, as Senator Ayres correctly said, has no friends. I went to the committee hearing and found there were no friends of that bill other than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Professor Twomey, Mr Geoffrey Watson SC and whoever appeared before the committee just rejected that piece of proposed legislation. We then got Senator Rennick committing to cross the floor on that one. Good on him for doing that, for standing up for what is right. Hopefully we'll see some other people who have some loyalty to the courts do exactly the same thing if the government dares to even bring it into this place.
On the back of that, interestingly enough, I spoke to Senator Gallagher the other day, in the COVID committee, where Prime Minister and Cabinet had advanced a public interest immunity claim on the basis of national cabinet, about whether or not those documents had been returned to the COVID committee. The answer is, no, they haven't. I know she is looking at that now, but imagine that. We've had a judicial officer rule that the national cabinet is not a cabinet, and yet we still see the government hanging onto that and denying information to Senator Gallagher's committee. That's just extraordinary.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator PATRICK: Senator O'Neill, I actually think you're wrong. It's not that they're a rule unto themselves; it's actually an affront to the rule of law. Under the separation of powers in our Constitution, we have a parliament, an executive and a judiciary. We must respect the boundaries. To have a judicial member state that it is not a national cabinet and then to have the department say, 'We're not going to comply with that,' is hugely problematic. I know you're really in support of me, Senator O'Neill, but you haven't properly expressed the gravity of this situation. It's an affront to the way in which our Constitution is set out. That's a problem.
I'm simply asking in my question: What was the cost? What was the estimate when the Commonwealth went into the proceedings? People may not know this but, when you engage a lawyer to conduct proceedings on your behalf, you're entitled to get an estimate of the costs. I asked what that estimate was, I asked what the real cost is, and I asked whether or not the answer I was going to get would be the final answer.
I'll move to the other part of the question, which related to the Hawkei audit. As I said, this is a really strange one. For the first time ever, the Attorney-General censored an Auditor-General's report. The Auditor-General, in every audit he does, considers what he's putting in his reports, to make sure they don't include information that damages national security or international relations or any commercial interests. He does that day in and day out, and yet, three years ago, the Auditor-General tabled a report where he was told to censor some information, because somehow the then Attorney-General, Mr Porter, knew better. The JCPAA did an inquiry into this and had a look at the whole matter. That's what spurred me to seek access to that particular document under FOI. Thankfully it went from the department, who simply did the tick and flick on, 'This is all confidential,' to the Information Commissioner, who flicked it on to the AAT straightaway, because she recognised the complexity of the issue. But the matter then was heard by the AAT, and the AAT found that pretty much all of the redactions that were made by the Attorney-General were in fact wrong. They should never have been redacted. To be accurate, there were a couple of numbers that were redacted that I agreed might have been sensitive from a commercial perspective and I did not contest them in the proceedings.
One wonders how much that cost. That matter concluded in 2020. It concluded a year ago, yet there has been no answer to this parliament. Despite my asking on three occasions what the cost of that was, there has been no answer to this parliament. I think people are entitled to know. How much does the government spend on falsely defending FOI claims? I'm sure I'm not the only one who goes through this. I think the government are entitled to know the cost of the Prime Minister's secrecy obsession. Just as we like to know how much drug addiction or alcohol addiction costs, I want to understand what the secrecy addiction of the Prime Minister costs the Australian taxpayer, and it's troubling that I simply can't get an answer. Whilst this question is more than 30 days old, it's the third time I've asked it. Each time I asked it—perhaps foolishly, I asked for the total cost—a very sneaky answer came back saying, 'Well, we haven't received all the invoices.' So I finally changed the question and asked: 'What's the total of invoices to date then?'
The government are just not answering these questions. They've got to be open and transparent to the Australian taxpayer about the cost of these matters. How much are they costing? I don't know. Maybe this particular matter was a favour for Thales and they've paid him back through some blind trust; I don't know. I take that back; I'm sure Thales didn't do that, but the proposition lies. I just don't understand why people are trying to hide the value of all of this and I think the minister should see why this question hasn't been answered. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Climate Change
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:36): 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 Gallagher today relating to climate change policy.
In question time today we again saw how hopelessly divided this government is on the question of action on climate change. In observing the government during the answers that Senator McKenzie gave to a series of questions, and then Senator Birmingham as well, what was patently clear was the chasm that stands not just between the National Party and the Liberal Party but within elements of the National Party and elements of the Liberal Party.
I notice Senator Scarr is sitting there, ready to have his turn speaking. I'm sure that Senator Scarr, someone who would regard himself as a modern Liberal, would probably be horrified to hear the views of the other two Liberals who are in the chamber, let alone those of Senator Rennick, the one whom they all want to disown. The reaction on the faces of Liberals was there as they had to listen to Senator McKenzie bang on and on and ramble all around the countryside about the Nationals' position on net zero emissions and climate change. It's no wonder that so many Liberals regard the National Party as the mad uncle who turns up to Christmas lunch. They are so embarrassed by their National Party coalition partners and the resistance that they have put in place year after year to taking action on climate change and to grabbing the economic opportunities and the jobs that await a country like Australia.
What has become clear over the last few days, and was reinforced in question time today, is that the National Party has become the antijobs party of Australian politics. For years they've been going around crowing and saying how much they care about jobs in regional Australia, ignoring the fact that they have cheered on big mining companies who have casualised their mining workforces and brought in labour hire in droves, undermining wages and undermining working conditions. They are a bit sensitive about casualisation.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, please resume your seat.
Senator Scarr: Deputy President, on a point of order: on many occasions you have correctly brought me to order, in terms of this section of business, to make sure that I have confined my remarks to the actual answers to questions, which is the subject of this section. I note that there was no discussion of casualisation of the workforce in the mining industry or of some of the other matters that Senator Watt is touching upon, so I ask you to bring him to order.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Scarr. As you know, this is a broad-ranging debate. I have been listening carefully. I will remind Senator Watt to take note of the answers given by Senator Birmingham to questions put to him by Senator Gallagher.
Senator WATT: We are always interested to see how sensitive Liberal and National senators from Queensland are when their selling out of mining workers through casualisation and labour hire is raised. And here comes Senator Canavan, the biggest sellout of the lot—the man who likes to raid his fancy-dress drawer, put on his coalminer clothes, smear a bit of dust on his face and come down to Canberra and sell out those very coalminers by backing in the big mining companies over casualisation and labour hire year after year. Senator Canavan and the National Party are so worried about jobs in regional Queensland that they have assisted the big coalmining companies to casualise their workforce and bring in labour hire year after year, and they do nothing about it.
Senator Gallagher's question to Senator Birmingham was all about the cost of the LNP's plan for dealing with climate change. We already know that that cost involves the thousands of jobs which have already been lost across regional Queensland and regional Australia as a result of this government's failure to put forward policies about climate change and renewable energy. We already have seen thousands of jobs that should be going into places across regional Queensland be sent offshore by the National Party because they just can't come to grips with the present, let alone the future. And we've learned over the last few days, from comments from various National Party members, that that is not the limit of the cost of the LNP's climate change plan. It's not good enough for the LNP to send thousands of jobs offshore rather than see them grow in regional Queensland and regional Australia; they also want to put in place a $250 billion coal fund. They want to give mining companies $250 billion of taxpayers' money to prop them up. These are profit-making companies to whom they want to give $250 billion worth of taxpayers' funds. That is $10,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia that they want to hand over to big profit-making mining companies.
Senator Canavan wants to impose a mortgage tax on every Australian rather than do something positive about creating jobs through renewables. He's been reported in the media as saying, 'If we just have to jack up mortgages by a few percentage points that's not a big price to pay.' He wants every man, woman and child in Australia to pay more for their mortgages—and again, Senator Scarr is embarrassed by his National Party colleagues—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Watt. Senator Scarr, on a point of order?
Senator Scarr: In fact, I'm very enamoured with my National Party colleagues—far from embarrassed! Once again, there was no discussion in terms of taxes on mortgages in question time, and I ask you to bring Senator Watt to order, or the debate will be extremely broad ranging over the course of the next 45 minutes.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Scarr. The question was about net zero, and Senator Watt is talking broadly about climate change and net zero. So he is still within the scope of the question.
Senator WATT: Again, we know the Liberals are sensitive to the National Party's crazy ideas.
Finally, we've learned in the last couple of days that the Nationals want to have a $20 billion rort fund. They've already got the spreadsheets drawn up in Senator McKenzie's office; they're ready to go, colour coded and all! It's rorts, mortgage taxes, coal funds and jobs lost across Queensland.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, are you seeking a point of order?
Senator Canavan: I was, but it's a little redundant now.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then please resume your seat.
Senator Canavan: I do make a point of order, and draw your attention to—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, please resume your seat, thank you.
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (15:44): Senator Watt did indeed broadly range over a number of matters during his contribution to the debate, but did try and connect them in some way to Senator Gallagher's question of Senator Birmingham. At the outset, can I say that there is no greater champion for regional Queensland than Senator Matt Canavan. He is recognised in Central Queensland by the people who live there, by the people who voted at the last federal election, as a champion for that region, for those businesses and for those jobs. That's why he's in the position he's in today, and it is absolutely no surprise whatsoever to me that Senator Canavan is advocating for the region and advocating for the livelihoods of those Queenslanders who he stands up for every single day. That's what Senator Canavan does, that's what we expect him to do and that's what the people of Queensland voted for him to do, and what they will vote for him to do again come the next federal election.
We've got to look at some facts in this debate around climate change and net zero. The fact of the matter is that Australia's emissions are at their lowest level since 1990. Emissions in Australia in 2020 were more than 20 per cent lower than in 2005, which is the benchmark baseline under the Paris Agreement. Since 2005, we have reduced our emissions faster than Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the USA. We're on track to beat our 2030 Paris target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent. On a per person basis, that's a reduction of 48 to 49 per cent. And we've done that on the basis of a policy that is technology not taxes. That is the pathway forward. That's the responsible pathway forward for the Australian government and for the Australian economy—technology not taxes.
You will not see this government adopt an overly ambitious, reckless plan—reckless target, I should say, without a plan—for 2030 that will cost jobs in our regions, that will decimate our regions. You will not see that coming from this side of the chamber. One of the reasons you won't see that coming from this side of the chamber is people like Senator Matt Canavan and the National Party, representing their constituents in regional Australia. What you will see is a reasonable, proportionate response to the realities of the world. That's what you will see: reasonable and proportionate.
There is no doubt that the world is changing in terms of its demand for its energy sources, so it's absolutely fit and proper that the government prudently and soberly consider a long-term plan in relation to net emissions. As part of that plan, you only have to look at our technology road map to see what needs to be part and parcel of it. It includes appropriate investment in industries such as the hydrogen industry—blue hydrogen, green hydrogen. We have to work with our trading partners, and there are great Japanese and Korean partners who we have been engaging with—today, yesterday, over the past 12 months—who have been engaging with great Australian companies in relation to hydrogen investment in this country, and that's the pathway where we can achieve milestones in the longer term in a prudent fashion. At the same time, our coal industry, where we produce some of the best quality thermal coal in the world, will continue to supply coal-power plants in our region. At the same time, our gas industry—the Gladstone LNG project and other great gas projects—will continue to provide energy sources to the world, continue to do that effectively based on the efforts, the enterprise of great Queenslanders and great Queensland companies.
We are having a debate on this side of the chamber, and the National Party is an important part of that debate—as are all of the views and considerations put forward by members of the Liberal Party. They will be considered soberly, and, at the end of that process, we'll have a reasoned, proportionate plan tied to a target. It won't be a reckless proposal that will hurt regional Queensland and hurt regional Australia. It will be considered, and it will be based on technology advances not taxes. Technology not taxes. (Time expired)
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:49): I rise to take note of the answer given by Minister Birmingham to the question asked by Senator Gallagher, who's still here in the chamber. Sometimes my breath is just taken away by the crazy statements that I hear coming from those opposite, who have been in government for eight years—eight years already! They've had three terms in government. They've had 493 weeks to have the kind of debate of which Senator Scarr has just said, 'We are having a debate in this house, on this side of the chamber.' After 493 weeks and 21 energy policies—they're on the cusp of the 22nd—they're still having a debate. That's not leadership; that's a joke.
Senator Birmingham, in his defence of this failure in climate policy, actually commenced his answer here in the chamber this afternoon, in response to Senator Gallagher, by saying, 'We will not leave regional and rural communities behind.' I've got news for him: he's left them behind. For those 493 weeks, they know that they have been left behind, and they know that they are being taken for granted by this National Party set of representatives who come to Canberra, who are here to look after themselves and who have jettisoned the good interests of the people of regional Australia—people who are dying at a higher rate than their cousins in the cities because they have no access to proper GPs or any health care. The regions have well and truly been left behind by this government, which does not deserve another term.
If there's anything that the last three years of the Morrison government have taught us, it's that the Prime Minister is prepared to spend any number of taxpayer dollars to keep his spot in the Lodge. But he's a miser when it comes to NDIS staffing levels. He was a miser when he refused to reintroduce JobKeeper during the most recent lockdowns, when businesses across the great state of New South Wales, which I represent, were getting absolutely slammed. But, when it comes to buying voters or buying the compliance of his coalition partner, Mr Morrison has shown that he's willing to spend as much as $20 billion to try to keep this rabble, which considers itself the Australian government, loosely cobbled together. Twenty billion dollars—that's the sum that it's reportedly going to cost the taxpayers of Australia in order for the Nationals to stay in the cart with Mr Morrison. The Nationals are finally being bought off, despite their continued ignoring of the science and their failure to back climate change. This all should have been figured out eight years ago. We've had eight long years of government, and here, at two minutes to midnight, with the horses bolting off to Glasgow, we've got $20 billion of discussion underway because Mr Morrison's found that he actually can't work with his coalition partners, so he's going to buy them off and grease the re-election of his government by using billions and billions of dollars to buy votes.
Farmers throughout New South Wales have struggled through adverse weather, including bushfires, tornados and droughts—all caused by the rapidly changing climate. The National Party have continued to bury their heads in the sand while farmers, agricultural business owners and investors in that sector in Australia have actually seen what's going on and have tried to get this out-of-touch National Party rump on board with reality. Senator McKenzie's in here saying, 'It's great. We've had a 75-year effective partnership with the Liberal Party.' This is not a partnership; it's a debacle. It's delivered for Australia what Senator McKenzie described today as the poorest people in the country, the most marginalised people and the most vulnerable people. It's been 75 years of a supposed partnership—it sounds more like a toxic relationship—that is not delivering for the people of Australia, and $20 billion of good Australian taxpayer funded money should not be invested in some sort of fanciful way to appease the National Party, who don't even represent the people in this nation who live beyond the Great Dividing Range. They've sold their votes in an easy lie, rather than face the hard truths that—(Time expired)
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:54): As a senator from the National Party here today, I can say that there are a lot of people upset with us. Gee, we are not flavour of the month down here in Canberra! Today, everybody's at us. The press are all over us—we're doing all these terrible, evil things. I suppose my message back to the people of Central and North Queensland is: that's the way I like it. If we're doing things that are making people down here in Canberra upset, we're probably doing something good for you, because—I tell you what—the people down here in Canberra are not on your side. They're always trying to find ways to kill your job, to take away your industries, to deny opportunities for people in regional Australia. So you can take it as a given that, if people in Canberra are upset with the National Party, the National Party are fighting for you. That is the test, and, boy, are we meeting that test this week! Everybody is angry with us. Everybody is upset with us.
As I say, that is the way I like it, because I don't come to this place to make friends. I don't come down to Canberra, leave my family and have to go back through quarantine—that's the way it works now—to make friends in Canberra. That's not why I'm here. Other people might be interested in doing that; I don't care. I don't care that the restaurants haven't been open here in Canberra, because I don't care about making friends. I'm here to fight for people's jobs. I'm here to fight for people's futures. I'm here so that families in Central and North Queensland can have a future for their children working and living where they live. I don't want people's kids to have to move to a capital city just to get a job. That's why I fought for the Adani mine. There are 2,000 people working at that mine right now. It's about to export coal into a market that is absolutely desperate for coal right now.
Let's judge people on how good they have been at predicting things in the last few of years, because we were all told a few years ago that the Adani mine had no commercial case, it was never going happen and there were going to be robots. Do you remember that, Senator Roberts? Robots! There were going to be robots, or Indians maybe, sometimes, working as miners. Well, go out to Carmichael now. When has any Labor senator turned up there? Go out and meet the 2,000 people who have jobs, thanks to the fight and effort that we put in. That's what I and many of my Nationals colleagues are continuing to do here.
We learned today that this whole idea that we should sign up to net zero is actually because the US and UK want to us do it. That's apparently why we've got to do it. We didn't get a vote. There were a lot of concerns about the US presidential election last year. There were allegations of dead people voting and other people voting. There were no allegations that Australians voted. I don't think anybody here got a vote. But apparently now, because the US wants us to do it, we've got to do it too.
Well, I don't know if that's true, but what I do know is that signing up to net zero would be a massive sellout of Australia's interests. How would we build anything anymore under a net zero target? How are we going to build another Adani mine, given the demand for coal is through the roof? Everybody wants our coal. There is enough coal out there in the Galilee Basin for another five mines that can employ another 15,000 people if we have the guts to open them up. How are they going to do that if we sign up to a net zero target, because what will happen. We've all seen this before.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I'm not saying anything about your heritage here, but you've been here a while. You know how it works here in Canberra. If we set a net zero target we will weaponise the bureaucracy here in Canberra, which is not on your side. They will take an inch and run a mile, and anyone who wants to build a mine in this country need not apply because they'll have to offset all their emissions. What does that mean? They'll have to pay people to plant trees or do other things to get to this net zero. When they have to pay that—guess what?—that is a tax. That will mean a tax on every mine built in this country. It will mean a tax on every dam built in this country, because farming creates emissions too. There will even be a tax on airports. If you want to build an airport at the Great Barrier Reef to open up a new island for tourism, that will attract a tax. Already overseas courts in the UK have stopped airports because the UK government signed up to net zero. That has happened, and that is about to be our future. Our future is about to be what the UK is getting right now, which is petrol lines and energy shortages. They can't even feed themselves, because—guess what?—in the ultimate irony, they don't have enough carbon dioxide. They're running out of carbon dioxide, because you need gas to make that, and they now get all their gas from Putin, who's not giving it to them. This is madness, and we should put a stop to it.
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (15:59): It's always a pleasure to speak after mortgage-tax Matt Canavan and talk about North Queensland and Central Queensland. It's where I have spent the last couple of weeks before coming back to Canberra. I've been in Gladstone, Emerald, Townsville and Mackay, all the way up to Bamaga and Cape York and, of course, in my home town of Cairns. In Gladstone they're talking about hydrogen and in Townsville they're talking about the minerals that you need to power renewable energy. In Cairns we already have hydroelectric power and renewable energy projects.
Those people over there don't stand up for the regions. They're not standing up for the national interest. They're not listening to what people are saying in regional Queensland, because if they were they would understand that people in regional Queensland want the job opportunities that will come from making a decision and a plan around net zero. It is self-interest that drives the National Party. It is self-interest that drives the Liberal National Party in Queensland. We know the job opportunities that we are losing because this government has failed to back renewables in regional Queensland. They are going missing. Those jobs are going overseas. People in Queensland are missing out on those jobs because this government has failed to deliver a plan and a target for net zero.
We're not talking about hypotheticals here. The government literally vetoed a wind farm in Far North Queensland which would have created 250 jobs. They stood in the way of 250 jobs because it was against the government's energy policy to create jobs in renewable energy. We know that the increase in insurance prices, the increase in severe weather events, drought and rising sea levels are all going to happen in regional Queensland. It's happening right now. Then there's the impact on the Great Barrier Reef and the jobs that rely on the reef. Those are also in regional Queensland.
When you have those people over there talking about the fact that they stand up for the regional areas of our country, what they really mean is they stand up for themselves. They stand up for their own political interests. We've seen that time and again. What we expect from our government is for it to govern for our whole country, and a pathway to net zero is significant to every Australian, know matter where they live.
The past eight years have shown us that in Scott Morrison we don't have a leader who is willing to fight for us. He's weak and unable to act in the national interests. He's more interested in making hollow announcements than actually delivering when things are tough. What about the backbone of these so-called moderate Liberals who aren't prepared to step up and show any leadership? Where are they on this? I'll tell you where they were about half an hour ago. They were voting with the Nationals against net zero. They've always sat next to them in parliament, they've always voted with them, they're in government with them, they're in cahoots with them and they're still so silent on this important issue.
The pantomime of the last few weeks and the last eight years has been about avoiding responsibility and accountability in every corner of this government. It's quite cute, isn't it? The Nats pretend that they aren't even members of the government and so they're not responsible or accountable for the fact that after eight years Australia has no climate policy. They're in cabinet. They have the Deputy Prime Minister. There are ministers in the National Party. But apparently it's not up to them to govern the country. Then we have the Liberals on this side, who conveniently are able to pretend they're not responsible for the Nationals and so it's nothing to do with them and they're not responsible or accountable for the fact that there hasn't been a climate policy for the last eight years. They are in government. The Liberals and the Nationals are in government. The Prime Minister is the leader of the government. But, according to him, it's not up to him to lead the country. Minister Angus Taylor said today, 'The Nationals' interest is aligned with the interests of the Liberal Party.' But the problem is that neither are interested in the national interest. After eight long years of this Liberal-National government we still have no climate policy. It's clear whatever deal gets cut, whatever $20 billion pork-barrel fund gets created, the only way to fix this mess, the only way to get action on climate change, is to get rid of Scott Morrison and his entire Liberal-National government at the next election.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Green, I remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles.
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:04): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow.
The UN climate summit in Glasgow is coming up in a matter of weeks. Australia is being left behind. I asked the foreign minister: why is Australia keeping company with petro states like Russia when so many other nations have agreed to strengthen their 2030 targets? The US, the UK, the EU, Canada, South Africa Norway, South Korea, Japan, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Kenya, the United Arab Emirates and so many others have agreed to do so, and yet the government are allowing the pathetic Nationals junior coalition partner to dictate their climate policy and they're having a squabble about 2050 while the rest of the world is talking about 2030 and while the science is saying we need strong 2030 targets. It is the ultimate coalition response to be talking about something that is irrelevant and 30 years out of date, when in fact we need to talk about strengthening our 2030 targets if we are to avoid climate catastrophe.
The science says we have to triple our targets here in Australia to have any hope of meeting the 1½-degree aspiration from the Paris climate summit. That would mean we could save what's left of the Great Barrier Reef, protect our farmland from worse extreme weather events and more drought and protect our people from more severe and more frequent bushfires. But this mob are too in hock to big mining and the coal and gas industries to actually take the science seriously.
The International Energy Agency says that we can't have a single new piece of coal, oil or gas infrastructure opened if we want to stick with 1½ degrees. I asked the minister why, according to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, there are 72 new major coal projects proposed in Australia and 44 major gas projects planned in the coming years. How on earth are you going to stick with a net zero target for 2050, with new coal, oil and gas happening? What an absolute farce. They're having this dangerous distraction about 2050 while they use public money to open up more coal, oil and gas, meanwhile ignoring the science on the table that says 2030 is what we need to tackle. We need strong science based targets. Shame on this government. I cannot wait to see the back of them.
Question agreed to.
COVID-19
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:07): 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 Roberts today relating to mortality data.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I have a duty to ensure reasoned and accurate debate in this chamber. The Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck, has the same duty and must ensure data central to reasoned and informed debate is made public. For many years, following the standardisation of mortality reporting between the states, mortality data has been made available six weeks after the period to which it relates. The latest mortality data covers a period to 30 June 2021. It's now 18 October. Suddenly and without explanation, data is being held back 15 weeks. The minister should have been prepared for this question. My question on notice, No. 3970, has been outstanding for 12 weeks. The data to 30 June shows deaths in Australia 2021 are above the seven-year moving average and consistently above anything we have ever seen before in this country. It's troubling that New South Wales and Queensland no longer make this information public.
In the absence of Australian mortality data, I will quickly reference official British data, which shows an increase in deaths among 15- to 17-year-olds of 20 per cent following the start of vaccination of that cohort, trending towards 25 per cent at younger ages down to four. More worrying is that this distribution is not even. The mortality rate—deaths—among boys was up 20 per cent and among girls eight per cent. This may result from one of the 268 known adverse interactions between COVID vaccines and other prescription drugs documented by the United States FDA. Logic would dictate that, before giving a patient a COVID vaccine, one would check to see what drugs they're already using and what natural immunity they may have resulting from a previous COVID injection. I don't think the 33 Bunnings stores in Queensland that offered vaccinations to the public last weekend asked for any of that information. I'm concerned that this parliament's reckless vaccination crusade is killing people. Sadly, this government and this parliament are neither prudent nor caring. Our community, our nation, deserve better. Release the data.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (16:09): On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting to withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of 25 legislative instruments as set out in the list I have provided to the Clerk. I advise the chamber that the list will be circulated to senators with today's 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 Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
(a) the time for the presentation of the final report of the Joint Select Committee on
Australia's Family Law System be extended to 16 December 2021; and
(b) a message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in this variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting days after today—
That the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Principles 2021, made under the Aged Care Act 1997, be disallowed [F2021L00923].
That the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012, be disallowed [F2021L00863].
That the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, be disallowed [F2021L01043].
That the Civil Dispute Resolution Regulations 2021, made under the Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011, be disallowed [F2021L01031].
That the Education Services for Overseas Students (Exempt Courses) Instrument 2021, made under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, be disallowed [F2021L00877].
That the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (No-Anchoring Areas) Regulations 2021, made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, be disallowed [F2021L00843].
That the Industry Research and Development (Regional Decentralisation Agenda— Securing Raw Materials Program) Instrument 2021, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2021L00973].
That the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2021, made under the Legislation Act 2003, be disallowed [F2021L00859].
That the Migration Amendment (Subclass 417 and 462 Visas) Regulations 2021, made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2021L01030].
Senator Whish-Wilson to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by no later than
2 November 2021, the following documents:
(a) the Aboriginal heritage report relating to the Robbins Island Renewable Energy Park proposal (Tasmania),
(b) the Aboriginal heritage report relating to the Jim's Plains Renewable Energy Park
proposal (Tasmania),
(c) assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 relating to the windfarm development application for Jim's Plains (EPBC 2017/8065); and
(d) any survey, study or other documentation concerning the Tasmanian devil in relation to the Robbins Island or Jim's Plains Renewable Energy Park proposals.
Senator Ruston to move on the next day of sitting:
That, on Wednesday, 20 October 2021, the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Fuel Security (Fuel Security Services Payment) Rule 2021 be called on following the placing of business, and the question be put after 30 minutes.
Senator Ruston to move on the next day of sitting:
That 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 their first speeches without any question before the chair, as follows:
(a) Tuesday, 19 October 2021—Senator Cox; and
(b) Wednesday, 20 October 2021—Senator Grogan.
Senator Birmingham to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
(1) The Senate notes:
(a) the duties and responsibilities of senators and their staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984;
(b) that all senators and their staff have obligations to comply with all applicable Australian laws, including understanding workplace health and safety duties and the steps to take to satisfy those duties, under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and other workplace laws; and
(c) the establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, which provides for an Independent Parliamentary Workplace Complaints Mechanism for serious incidents in a parliamentary workplace.
(2) Where the Parliamentary Services Commissioner makes a report in writing to the President:
(a) finding that a senator has not cooperated with a review under the Independent Parliamentary Workplace Complaints Mechanism or has not acted on the recommendations in a review conducted under the Independent Parliamentary Workplace Complaints Mechanism; and
(b) requesting that the President refer the report to the Committee of Privileges;
the President must confidentially refer the report to that committee and the report may not be considered by any other committee.
(3) In considering a report under this resolution, the committee must meet in private session.
(4) The committee must confer with the Parliamentary Services Commissioner in seeking additional information for its report.
(5) The committee must make one of the following recommendations, and report to the Senate accordingly:
(a) that a senator cooperate with a review conducted under the Independent Parliamentary Workplace Complaints Mechanism;
(b) that a senator act on the recommendations in a review conducted under the Independent Parliamentary Workplace Complaints Mechanism; or
(c) that no further action be taken by the Senate; and must not make any other recommendations.
(6) The committee must provide a statement of reasons for the recommendation made in the report.
(7) The committee must make its report referred to in paragraph (5) within 30 days of receiving a referral under this resolution, unless an explanation is provided in writing to the President with the nomination of a new reporting date. The President must inform the Parliamentary Services Commissioner of the new reporting date. The Parliamentary Services Commissioner must inform parties to the report of the revised date set by the committee.
(8) Any senator who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a recommendation of a report referred to in paragraph (5), and which has been adopted by the Senate, shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the Senate and shall be dealt with by the Senate accordingly. The question of whether any contempt has been committed must first be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report to the Senate and may not be considered by any other committee.
(9) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in the event that the President is the subject of or directly and personally involved in a report by the Parliamentary Services Commissioner, the Parliamentary Services Commissioner must make a report in writing under paragraph (2) to the Deputy President. In this event, references to the President in this resolution shall be read as the Deputy President.
Senator Chisholm to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia has a severe timber shortage,
(ii) a report by the Master Builders Association and Australian Forest Products Association concludes Australia is heading towards a deficit of 250,000 house frames by 2035,
(iii) the Department of Agriculture states that numerous studies show the need for 400,000 hectares of new plantations over the next decade to meet
Australia's demand for timber,
(iv) data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences reveals there are only 2,750 hectares of new plantations of softwood,
(v) the Government first promised to expand Australia's timber plantations by
1 billion trees in 2018,
(vi) answers to questions in the Senate reveal the concessional loan program set up to help meet the 1 billion trees target is yet to even open after the Government promised $500 million before the last election; and
(b) acknowledges the impact the timber shortage is having on the construction and forestry industries and those Australians undertaking building and DIY projects; and
(c) conveys its disappointment that the Government has failed to do the necessary work for Australia to have sovereign capability to provide softwood and to grow jobs across the forestry and construction sectors.
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) COVID-19 lockdowns have seen in a decline in the cognitive, psychological and physical wellbeing of people living with dementia, it has also led to an increase in the early onset of new symptoms,
(ii) there is still a lack of data on the impacts of COVID-19 on people living with dementia in residential aged care, despite the prevalence of dementia in this setting being as high as 70% and residents accounting for 7 out of every 10 deaths due to COVID-19 in Australia,
(iii) a Dementia Australia report found that 43% of people living with dementia postponed regular checkups as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, and
(iv) there are concerns that COVID-19 has further exacerbated under detection of dementia as fewer people have received medical checkups since the start of the pandemic, this is critical because early detection is important in improving health outcomes;
(b) acknowledges the tireless work of both formal and informal carers who endured significant personal hardship associated with the increased responsibilities and risks of caring with people with dementia throughout the COVID-19 pandemic; and
(c) calls on the Government to improve the understanding of the experiences of people living with dementia throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and its long term implications.
Senator Waters to move on 21 October 2021:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Senate passed the Australian Greens' National Integrity Commission
Bill 2018 (No. 2) (NIC Bill) on 9 September 2019,
(ii) the NIC Bill was introduced to the House of Representatives on 10 September 2019, and
(iii) further Senate resolutions on 10 February 2020 and 15 June 2020 called on the House of Representatives to debate the NIC Bill, but the bill has yet to be debated;
(b) calls on the Federal Government to bring on the NIC Bill in the House of Representatives for immediate debate; and
(c) transmits this resolution to the House of Representatives for concurrence.
Senator Patrick to move on 20 October 2021:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Federal Integrity Commission, and for related purposes. Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021.
Senator Pratt to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, by no later than
7.20 pm on Wednesday, 20 October 2021, the internal review of ASIC's handling of the Sterling Group produced by a litigation counsel in the chief legal office, which contains a factual analysis of the work undertaken by the relevant ASIC business units in relation to Sterling Group.
Senator Pratt to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 8 December 2021:
Sterling Income Trust, with particular reference to:
(a) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's oversight of the Sterling Income Trust,
(b) the need for legislative and regulatory reform to prevent such losses in the future,
(c) access to justice for victims of the Sterling Income Trust Collapse,
(d) the novelty of the products of the Sterling Income Trust,
(e) the scope of the proposed compensation scheme of last resort,
(f) why the scheme collapsed and where the money went; and
(g) any related matters.
Intention to withdraw: The Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation (Senator Fierravanti-Wells), pursuant to standing order 78, gave notice of her intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion standing in her name as follows:
No. 1 for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme) Instrument 2021 [F2021L00222].
Nos 1, 2 and 6 for five sitting days after today for the disallowance of the following instruments:
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Health Measures No. 1) Regulations 2021 [F2021L00290]
High Court of Australia (Building and Precincts—Regulating the Conduct of Persons) Directions 2021 [F2021L00391]
Legislation (Telecommunications Customer Service Guarantee Instruments) Sunset-altering Declaration 2021 [F2021L00277].
No. 1 for eight sitting days after today for the disallowance of the following instruments:
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]
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].
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Meeting
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:10): by leave—I move:
That the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 3.30 pm.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:11): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
(a) Senators Antic, Askew, Fawcett, Hanson, Lambie, McDonald and McMahon from 18 to 21 October 2021, on account of state COVID-19 travel restrictions; and
(b) Senators Duniam, Griff, Henderson and McLachlan from 18 to 21 October 2021, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
Leave of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:11): by leave—I move
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
Senators Bilyk, Marielle Smith, McCarthy, Kitching, Sterle, Dodson and Brown from 18 to 21 October 2021, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
Leave of Absence
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:12): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
Senators Whish-Wilson and Steele-John from 18 to 21 October 2021, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
Matter of privilege notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Patrick for today, proposing a reference to the Standing Committee of Privileges, postponed till 19 October 2021.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senator Rice for today, proposing the disallowance of the Fuel Security (Fuel Security Services Payment) Rule 2021, postponed till 19 October 2021.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson for today, proposing a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee, postponed till 20 October 2021.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 5 standing in the name of Senator Patrick for today, proposing the disallowance of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2021, postponed till seven sitting days after today.
COMMITTEES
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020—from 20 October to 8 December 2021.
Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund Bill 2021—from 13 October to 3 November 2021.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 [Provisions]—from 14 to 19 October 2021.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021—from 14 October to 5 November 2021.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime—from 2 December 2021 to the last sitting day in March 2022.
Family and partner reunion visas—from 25 November 2021 to the first sitting day in March 2022.
REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021
Disallowance
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (16:13): Pursuant to order agreed on 2 September, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of two disallowance motions.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (16:13): At the request of Senators McKim and Brown, respectively, I move:
That section 7 of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, be disallowed [F2021L01043].
That section 7 of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, be disallowed [F2021L01043].
Labor is proud to have created the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, in 2012. We did that to support the technologies that are building our future energy system and creating jobs for the future. We invested $2½ billion in ARENA in 2012, and those opposite have consistently, every day since, tried to gut it and tried to abolish it. They've tried to undermine the integrity of ARENA every single day for eight years.
Now it's the lead-up to COP. There's a little bit of pressure. The royal family is not so happy about the behaviour of Mr Morrison and his climate-denying government. So now, to make up for all of this—the compete failure to have any kind of energy policy and any kind of climate policy of any meaning for eight years—we have those opposite parroting the achievements made by this same agency, ARENA. This is the agency they tried to abolish and undermine. Now they're trying to make all the right sounds. They talk about their climate ambition in the lead-up to the COP meeting, but let's pay attention to their actions, because nowhere are their intentions clearer than in their attempts to use our renewable energy agencies to fund pet fossil fuel projects and in their willingness to circumvent the law to do so.
It's important to note how we got here. The government, desperate to again undermine our clean energy agencies, introduced a bill in February to make the Clean Energy Finance Corporation invest in fossil fuels. The government deserted this legislation because their coalition partner, Mr Joyce, went up to them, ambushing the government with his own amendment for the CEFC to fund not only gas but coal. And then his colleagues in the Senate added nuclear to their list of desires. We haven't seen that legislation since. It has disappeared, chucked into the ever-growing pile of failed policies on climate and energy under this government.
That's where this ARENA regulation comes in, because, not content to undermine the integrity of our clean energy funding bodies, the Prime Minister and Minister Taylor also wanted to do it without the scrutiny of parliament, without debate. So they attempted to change the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency so as to fund non-renewable technologies, without even passing the necessary legislation. After having the first set of dubious ARENA regulations disallowed by the Senate in June this year, the government remade the regulations in another attempt to avoid scrutiny and undermine ARENA.
These concerns weren't held just by Labor, the crossbench and numerous stakeholders. The government-led Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation raised its concerns about whether these regulations were lawful. It raised those concerns with Minister Taylor. After the minister provided further information to the committee, the committee—chaired, I remind senators, by Minister Taylor's own Liberal party colleague—has recommended that the regulation be disallowed. In fact, the committee itself intends to give notice of motion to disallow. That's right. So we have a Liberal led committee notifying its intention to disallow the government's own regulation. The committee says it retains 'significant concerns regarding the instrument'. It said it was 'unable to resolve these technical scrutiny concerns with the minister'. The committee takes issue with the similarities between this regulation and the earlier regulation that this Senate has already disallowed, and it highlights that, while not identical, 'both instruments permit ARENA to invest in non-renewable technologies'. It goes on to say, 'This issue is ultimately a matter that could only be resolved by judicial consideration.' Most significantly, though, the committee finds that the regulation 'expands the remit of ARENA beyond what was envisaged by parliament when the act was passed'. To quote directly: 'The purpose of the ARENA Act is made clear in the title of the act itself'—that is, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act. The committee said this:
… the interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act … is one that limits the functions of the ARENA to investing in renewable energy technologies.
It's not rocket science, is it? The Renewable Energy Agency is there to invest in renewable energy. It is not a slush fund for the Prime Minister or for Minister Taylor.
This parliament has seen all manner of scrutiny, transparency and due process eroded under the current Prime Minister. As we debate this today, I call on senators to think about this and stand up for the chamber that we sit in and the people we represent in heeding the committee's recommendation to disallow. The Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee is a critical committee for the Senate, helping provide much-needed checks and balances on a government, as an upper house in a democracy should.
The findings of the committee vindicate the Senate in its disallowance of the first iteration of this regulation in June. The Senate has never rejected a recommendation from this committee that an instrument should be disallowed. In fact, this matter is so serious and the regulation so egregious that it is very rare for a committee to make this recommendation. But it's very clear what we're being advised: if you seek to expand the remit of ARENA's functions, you must do it through legislation. You can't circumvent that. That's the reason we have a parliament; that's the reason we elect representatives to a parliament—to vote on legislation.
A little trip down memory lane reminds us of why those opposite are trying to circumvent the parliament and their own party room on energy legislation. We had a National Energy Guarantee. It was possibly the first bipartisan policy on energy in a long time. But Minister Taylor was critical in killing that off, along with its champion, then Prime Minister Turnbull, just a couple of years ago. More recently, we had the CEFC fiasco. That was crowed about for all the important new investment and grid reliability it would deliver, and that's disappeared from the House of Representatives entirely. Instead of debating all this on the floor of the parliament and trying to settle an energy policy here in the place where we should settle it, the government decided that its own internal divisions were difficult to manage and should take priority over the proper democratic process of decision-making. It's just more sneaky tricks. It is a sneaky government that, instead of developing a climate policy ahead of COP26, develops an advertising campaign.
Those opposite like to say that this is about the cost of solar going down, so ARENA needs to broaden its remit. Well, absolutely. The cost of solar in Australia has gone down, in no small part thanks to the commercialisation and innovation work that ARENA has done. We want to see ARENA keep doing this work across a number of other clean technologies to hasten emissions reduction and create jobs. But ARENA already does much more than solar and wind, and it is dishonest of those opposite to characterise it otherwise. ARENA is already working to accelerate the adoption of hydrogen, creating opportunities for hydrogen export to lock in Australia's rightful place as an energy exporter well into the future. ARENA has been critical in backing mines in regional Australia to increase their use of renewables and, in turn, cut down their running costs. ARENA invests in bioenergy, getting gas out of landfills to create power for tens of thousands of homes. They invest heavily in the grid, including transmission, storage and batteries, ensuring stability as the uptake of renewables increases and the household and industry sectors cut the cost of their power bills. There are many other technologies that ARENA can and does invest in. Any suggestion otherwise is dishonest and more sneaky tricks from the government trying to get our renewable agencies to fund fossil fuels.
Labor created ARENA in 2012. We will always protect it. Because it has maintained its integrity, it's been able to provide jobs for Australians and deliver returns on investment for taxpayers. We don't need sneaky tricks in this place to fiddle with it. I urge senators to support the disallowance.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (16:24): If successful, this motion will stall funding for critical projects that will implement the government's technology investment road map. Expanding ARENA's mandate will reduce emissions while creating jobs in projects including healthier soils, hydrogen, low-emissions aluminium and steel production, and carbon capture and storage. Developing these technologies is critical to any serious attempt to reduce emissions while supporting our traditional industries. ARENA has welcomed the expanded mandate, and there is also extensive support from industry and climate organisations. The Business Council of Australia reiterated their support for the expanded mandate just last week. The continued opposition to this regulation is bad for jobs, bad for emissions reduction and bad policy.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:25): I rise to speak on this motion to disallow a regulation by this government to try to force the Renewable Energy Agency to give money to fossil fuels. Honestly, if it weren't so serious, it would be hilarious. This isn't the first time they've tried to do this. It's like Groundhog Day. We were here in June and we got the numbers to knock off this dodgy attempt to force ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, to fund carbon capture and storage and gas.
The reason we, thankfully, managed to knock off that dodgy attempt was the support of One Nation at the time. They, rightly, formed the view that, when these big gas companies aren't actually paying the tax that they're meant to pay, they shouldn't be getting extra public handouts. That situation hasn't changed. These big gas companies are still renowned for avoiding their tax obligations, yet they still have their hands out for public funds. So I'm hopeful, and I expect, that we will again say to the government, 'No, you can't force the Renewable Energy Agency to fund gas and so-called carbon capture and storage so that you can keep polluting in line with business as usual.' But we'll see how we go on the vote shortly to come.
It's also very interesting timing, isn't it? We're on the eve of Glasgow, and we have the whole world—many, many nations—talking about increasing their 2030 targets. The Australian government is completely out of touch with the community, with the science and with many in the business community, all of whom are calling for strong 2030 targets. This mob, the Liberal Party, is having a little spat with its coalition partner about a date that's almost 30 years in the future, when none of the current members will still be in parliament, while avoiding talking about the real issue of 2030.
What's worse is that the first piece of legislation that they brought into this chamber today, after a six-week break, was legislation to allow Export Finance Australia to give more public money to fossil fuels. You might be sensing a theme here. This is what they do. Either they want to use taxpayer dollars to fund their own re-election by rorting all of these community funds or they want to simply give them to fossil fuel companies, with no strings attached and without making sure that those companies pay their fair share of tax.
So I'm very hopeful that the Senate will again disallow this dodgy attempt by this dodgy government to force the Renewable Energy Agency to give money to carbon capture and storage and to gas. The clue is in the name: Renewable Energy Agency. It's an important point, because most people might realise, when you have a piece of legislation that says, 'This is a body to fund renewable energy,' you can't actually have a piece of delegated legislation like the one we're seeking to disallow today that goes beyond the powers of the head act. So, in fact, it's arguable that this attempt by government is ultra vires, or beyond power.
It's not just we who think that; it's many lawyers, and it's also the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation. I sat here and heard the chair of that committee, one of the government's own senators, speak on this piece of delegated legislation and say that the committee had significant concerns that it was against the law for the government to seek to do this, because the parameters of the legislation are about renewable energy and not about gas or carbon capture and storage. So here is a committee chaired by one of the government's own senators saying, 'You're potentially breaking the law here, folks.' It's very telling, isn't it, that this government is so desperate to give more public money to fossil fuels that it will break the law to do it.
So I hope that the chamber makes the same decision today as it did last time and sees the wisdom of stopping this government giving more handouts to big polluting companies that don't even pay their tax. Honestly, you just couldn't make this stuff up. I've already mentioned that the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee chair has said that this is beyond power. The Parliamentary Library have also agreed that they could see no way that this regulation can be lawfully made. A barrister, Fiona McLeod, has provided some legal advice saying that on multiple fronts this piece of delegated legislation was unlawful. So not only is this bad policy; it is unlawful policy.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time the government has sought to give public money to fossil fuels. The Beetaloo fund announced several months ago was an attempt to give $50 million to gas companies to open up the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory against the wishes of First Nations owners of that land, against the wishes of the farming community in that area who are desperately worried about their groundwater—and have very good reason to be worried—and against the wishes of all the climate scientists, including the International Energy Agency, which says you can't open up new coal or gas or we're going to blow any chance of keeping our climate targets. Against all of that advice, this government is giving $50 million to open up the Beetaloo basin for gas fracking. That's yet another example of the fossil fuel cosy relationship that this government has sewn up. We've seen today's piece of legislation to do the same, and now we have a further regulation by this coal-and-gas addicted government to tip in yet more taxpayer money—good money after bad.
We were in the room negotiating the Renewable Energy Agency legislation back in 2011. Martin Ferguson was the responsible minister at the time. That was before he left parliament to become the chair of the gas lobby. But we weren't going to give him an inch, so we ensured that this legislation was drafted tightly. That's exactly why this legislation today is beyond power. It is unlawful. I think in future it will be used as a textbook example of an attempted use of unlawful executive power. If you want to waste money on a lawyer's picnic, this regulation, if it's not disallowed today—and I hope that it will be, because I hope those same arguments still apply—will go to court. There are many people who've said they would challenge this. What a waste of money and time it would be to spend more time arguing about this in court when we could just stop it today. We could just say to the government once again, like we did in June: 'You can't make the Renewable Energy Agency give money to coal and gas. Find another community fund to rort. Don't use this one.' Sadly they probably will find another fund, because it's how they roll—sports rorts 1 and 2, the Urban Congestion Fund, Building Better Regions. I've got a piece of paper that goes to two sides with the number of community electorate funds that are being rorted by this government. I'm sure they will have other ways of tipping money into the fossil fuel sector, but they shouldn't be using the agency to do.
I make one final plea to this chamber to stand firm, just like we did in June. We shouldn't be letting big gas companies get more public money when they're not even paying their own tax obligations. I hope that that argument remains persuasive and we can stop this government from attempting to prop up the fossil fuel sector while taking generous donations with the other hand. There's a pretty good return on investment there! I haven't done the figures on the grants and handouts the sector gets versus how much this government receives in donations, but it was looking like a pretty healthy return on investment when I last looked about two years ago. We can stop this here today. I urge those in the chamber, whose vote will be crucial in determining this outcome, to make sure we get the same outcome as we got last time and knock off this dodgy ultra vires delegated legislation that would tip more tax money into the pockets of big corporates that don't even pay their tax.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:34): The core issue here is integrity. We see the National Party and the Liberal Party tying themselves in knots. The coalition is unravelling, according to some. The coalition is all over the place, according to others. It depends who we listen to. But the core issue is a complete lack of integrity from the Labor Party and the Greens. According to Senator McAllister, this parliament has seen 'all manner of scrutiny'. Oh really? I can remember Senator Ian Macdonald standing here saying this parliament has never debated the climate science—never. So this is all being done on nonsense. In fact, the science that says that we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity and that we need to go to renewables has never even been brought into this chamber—never. The parliament always tends to go to the second question, which is, 'How do we do it?' rather than going to, 'Should we do it?' The core question, if we're really being faithful to and serving the people of this country—the taxpayers and the energy users, who are being bled dry—is, 'Should we do this madness?' not, 'How do we do it?' The question of how we do it comes second. The parliament too often in this country goes to the second question.
No-one in this parliament—either house—has ever presented the empirical scientific evidence that says carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. It is now day 770 since I asked Senator Richard Di Natale and Senator Larissa Waters this fundamental question: where is your empirical scientific evidence that shows that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut? That's it. They dodged it. They have never come back with the evidence. They refuse to debate me. I asked Senator Waters this almost 11 years ago—in fact, it is 11 years ago this month—and she refused debate me then. Then, Senator Waters talked about a waste of money. Oh, really?
We're spending $19 billion a year on this rubbish. We're destroying our energy sector, destroying manufacturing jobs and exporting them to China. We send them our coal, they generate electricity using our coal after we've shipped it thousands of kilometres, and they sell it for 8c a kilowatt hour. We use the same coal here in this country—some of the best coal in the world—and we sell that electricity for 25c a kilowatt hour. Why the difference? Why is it three times as much here? It's because of all the renewable regulations, subsidies and climate rubbish. That's why. Not only do we export our coal, but we export our manufacturing jobs, because the No. 1 cost of manufacturing these days is electricity. It's not labour anymore; it's electricity. We're gutting jobs and throwing people on the scrap heap—with no livelihoods—for nothing, because no-one has ever presented the science that says we need to do this. They run from it.
In One Nation we welcome the debate. We welcome a debate on the science. We will welcome putting both coalitions, the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor-Greens coalition, under scrutiny. The policies of the Liberal-National coalition are so close to the policies of the Labor-Greens coalition. Where's the difference, other than slightly in degree? What we're doing to this country—what this parliament is doing to this country, to the taxpayer and to the jobs of real people—is an absolute disgrace. The jobs of everyday Australians are getting gutted, and it's based on a lie. Al Gore's making like a bandit, because the crook has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of this scam, along with several other people, including academics and politicians, and government agencies. It just goes on and on and on. This has got to stop.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (16:38): We seem to be living in a parallel universe here. We've got a government that wants to put more money into fossil fuels, more money into polluting our atmosphere, more money into destroying our climate and more money into helping to exacerbate the climate crisis. The planet is on fire. The climate crisis is the most existential problem facing humanity and facing the planet. When I arrived in Canberra this morning, it was great to be back here, and no more so than to meet the brave climate protesters out the front of Parliament House—particularly Frances, who was in her yellow onesie, as she has been, rain, hail or shine, every parliamentary sitting day this year. She was joined this morning by a whole troupe of people in yellow onesies—Extinction Rebellion and other protesters—because they know this matters. Our future is at stake.
Last Friday we had young people all around the country protesting and rallying, both in person and online, about their future—about our future. We are in an absolutely existential dilemma as a world. We need to take urgent action to reduce our carbon pollution now, urgently. 2050 is too late. Delay is the new denial. 2030—this is the decade. This is the decade when we can take action to save the Great Barrier Reef and save ourselves from a future of more intense and more frequent fires and floods, of sea level rise and of being unable to grow food in our current food areas. The climate where we grow most of our wheat today, under three degrees of warming, would be more like the climate of the central deserts. You cannot grow wheat in a desert.
So it's pretty clear. This is the crisis that we're in. What we need to do is to stop the mining, burning and export of fossil fuels. Yet this government actually wants to put in more money and to change regulations, as my colleague Senator Waters said, in a way that is probably unlawful so as to actually support more mining, burning and export of fossil fuels, just at the time when the government really need to be seriously saying—as governments all around the world, including conservative governments, are saying—'Okay, maybe it's going to be a bit tricky, but we've got to work out how to get out of fossil fuels, safely transition away from the mining, burning and export of fossil fuels, and transition our economy to protect jobs as well as protecting our environment.'
There are so many ways forward. If we had a government that was actually willing to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem and play a role as part of the global community, we could do it. We could make those massive investments and supercharge our investments in renewable energy, in encouraging more forest cover and in doing everything across all of our economy and our society to shift to a zero-carbon economy. But what have we got? We've got a government that wants to introduce regulations that have already been knocked off by this Senate—regulations that actually make it easier to keep on burning, mining and exporting coal, gas and oil.
As I said in the beginning, we seem to be in a parallel universe where the world—Australian society and global society as a whole—knows that we need to be determined, resolute and focused. On every bit of legislation that goes through this place, we should look at it and say, 'Does this mean that we are going to have less carbon pollution or more carbon pollution?' There is no doubt that, if these regulations aren't disallowed today, it would result in more carbon pollution, the exact opposite of what we need to be doing.
I call upon this government: please think of your children, your grandchildren and even yourselves. There is action that we can take here. We can take action. It is not too late now. We've already got massive losses. Our society and our environment are already being damaged, but we can take a stop. We can say, 'Now is the time that we are going to move in another direction.' That means taking serious action. It means leadership. It means leadership here in Australia and joining with other countries around the world. It is possible to do it, but not by going in the direction that this government is taking us in.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that, pursuant to order, the two disallowance motions as moved be agreed.
The Senate divided. [16:49]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:52): I briefly seek the call pertaining to the vote that was just taken—
The PRESIDENT: Are you seeking leave to make a short statement?
Senator WATERS: I'm seeking to potentially recommit the vote. I seek leave to make a 30-second statement to explain why.
Leave granted.
Senator WATERS: Folk will remember that, last time, the vote on this first disallowance had to be recommitted, and Senators Hanson and Roberts voted differently on that last occasion. I note that Senator Hanson has logged in remotely, but her vote has been recorded as with the government this time around. Given that this was such a close vote, I'm simply seeking clarity from Senator Hanson that she has, in fact, changed her position from the previous vote, when she abstained, and now wishes to make it a positive vote. Given that it's a tied vote, that will make the difference as to whether this regulation passes or not.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (16:53): I'm seeking some clarification in regard to Senator Waters' last comment. I wonder whether she is asserting that the government has, in some way, been inappropriately behaving in relation to a vote. My understanding is that the whip has appropriate instructions, which are provided, so I'm seeking to understand whether you are making an assumption or an assertion that we have somehow put—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, this is not an opportunity to debate. Senator McGrath, you were seeking the call?
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:53): by leave—As explained, this morning Senator Roberts said that he was the whip for One Nation and gave clear instructions to me in the chamber just then that he and Senator Hanson are voting to oppose this disallowance. I did explain that to you and also to Senator McKim in relation to Senator Roberts's advice.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, I am prepared to rule. It's up to a senator who believes their vote has been recorded inaccurately to raise a matter such as this. Pairing arrangements are matters between the whips. I don't hear either the government or the opposition whips raising this matter. My opinion is that the division stands as recorded.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:54): I'm seeking leave to contribute to this.
Leave granted.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:54): I want to put on the tables that the pairing arrangements are blind to the crossbench. So I think the question wasn't being unfair and it wasn't actually making an allegation against the government; it's just that we are blind to it.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, I appreciate the point—Senator Waters, I'll get to you—but if a senator believes their vote has been recorded inaccurately then they have the right to bring that to the attention of the chair. That has not happened in this case. Senator Waters, I think we should move on. Are you seeking leave, Senator Waters?
Senator Waters: Very briefly—30 seconds.
The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?
A government senator interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: No, leave is not granted.
Senator Waters: I was going to apologise to you, but, fine, if you haven't given me leave you miss out.
The PRESIDENT: I did not deny you leave, Senator Waters. We will move on to the MPI. For those who are not participating, I would ask you to clear the chamber rather than discuss things here.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
COVID-19: Morrison Government
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Walsh ) (16:56): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 17 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the letter from Senator Pratt 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:
The lives at risk because with Mr Morrison it is always too little, too late and he is more interested in picking fights with premiers rather than taking action on expert advice to address the expected shortage of beds, overcrowded emergency departments and longer waits as a result of COVID-19 patients in our hospitals.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The ACT ING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers for today's discussion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator SHEL DON (New South Wales) (16:57): I rise to speak on this very important motion that's been put forward by Senator Louise Pratt. This matter of public importance is incredibly important to this country and to my home state of New South Wales, which has been suffering lockdowns but is now emerging out of those months of lockdowns. Months of lockdowns were only necessary because the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, utterly failed on the vaccine rollout and quarantine, because of Mr Morrison's insistence that the vaccine rollout was not a race. Because of Mr Morrison's insistence that the COVID-19 pandemic is a problem for the states and territories, there have been lives lost; there have been many more who have suffered serious illness; there have been billions of dollars lost from the Australian economy, billions of dollars that have been drained out of the pockets of small business owners and working Australians; there has been severe financial hardship; and there have been severe impacts on mental health. It will be some time before we truly understand the full toll that Mr Morrison's failure on the vaccine rollout and quarantine has had on Australia.
It is only thanks to the extraordinary response of the Australian people that we have managed to begin turning Mr Morrison's failures around, but now Mr Morrison is moving on to other matters. He is now entirely preoccupied with internal fights about climate change. He is a Prime Minister held hostage by his junior coalition partner. He is no longer even in the room where the decisions his government makes on climate are made. He is held hostage by the New South Wales Premier, who makes announcements about international borders without even telling the Prime Minister.
The COVID-19 pandemic hasn't ended. It certainly isn't over for Victoria, which continues to suffer through lockdowns created by Mr Morrison's failures. It isn't over for those workers around Australia who continue to be out of work as a direct result of Mr Morrison's vaccine failure. And rather than support people who remain without work at this critically important time, Mr Morrison is instead cutting the safety net. He is ending COVID-19 support payments for workers around Australia. International students haven't come back, but he's cutting support for university workers. International and domestic aviation has been recovered, but he has already cut support for aviation workers. In fact, Mr Morrison excluded outsourced aviation workers from support payments.
Perhaps Mr Morrison isn't aware, but the vast majority of the ground-handling work at Australian airports is now outsourced. Qantas outsourced 2,000 jobs last year while simultaneously receiving $2 billion from the government to keep those workers in their jobs, and the Federal Court recently ruled that outsourcing was illegal. I still haven't heard a peep from the Prime Minister about those workers, but Mr Morrison certainly made sure the 2,000 workers whose jobs were illegally outsourced will not have any access to COVID-19 support payments. I would find it very surprising if this was just an unfortunate oversight, because many of those aviation workers live in his electorate of Cook. And what do workers at Sydney airport get from their local member for Cook? They get their jobs outsourced, and then they get cut off from support payments for their trouble.
The fact is COVID-19 has not gone away. Those jobs have not come back. So why are the payments disappearing? If only Mr Morrison were as quick to roll out the vaccine as he is to cut the safety net for Australian workers. And it isn't just support payments that Mr Morrison has gone missing on. While the Premier of New South Wales has taken over control of Australia's international borders, the Prime Minister has gone missing on rapid testing for aviation workers. We all want to see international aviation begin. Aviation workers desperately want to get back to work, but they are rightly concerned about COVID-19 safety, particularly as we open back up to the rest of the world. Aviation workers want to know what Mr Morrison is going to do to ensure they can be safe at work. They have heard nothing in response.
The Transport Workers Union produced a COVIDSafe national transport road map. It is a road map for how we can safely reopen our road transport and aviation sectors—sectors where workers are uniquely exposed to COVID-19 transmission risks. A key part of that road map is rapid antigen testing. Rapid antigen testing will reduce transmission on planes, it will provide aviation workers with peace of mind and it will keep planes in the sky. Rapid testing is already being used in international airports across the world to detect positive cases early. These airports include London's Heathrow and terminals in the USA, Ireland, Germany and Turkey. Sydney international airport has rapid PCR testing installed, with results given in just 20 minutes. Even before international borders open, we've seen, time and time again, domestic flights listed as contact sites and hotspots for transmission, so how can we open up our aviation sector again without a road map and a plan for minimising COVID-19 risks? We already know how it can be done. The TWU's road map has been endorsed by the leading Australian epidemiologist, Professor Adrian Esterman from the University of South Australia. Professor Esterman said, 'It is a major step forward and, if implemented, would greatly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus.' It is time for Mr Morrison to come to the table and commit to government-funded rapid testing across the network, and to do so immediately.
But, no, Mr Morrison has nothing to say about rapid antigen testing. Mr Morrison doesn't care about keeping aviation workers safe at work, just as Mr Morrison doesn't care about the tens of thousands of workers around Australia who are about to lose critical COVID-19 support payments. What has Mr Morrison been focusing on, other than fighting the Nationals on climate policy? He's been telling state and territory governments to look elsewhere if they need support with the hospital system as we emerge from lockdowns. Mr Morrison is telling state and territory governments that he's not going to stump up any money to help them deal with increased pressure on ICUs and hospitals. How unbelievable is that!
Mr Morrison was happy to dish out $40 billion to big businesses. Over $20 billion was paid to companies that made an improvement in their income. But if you need funding for intensive care units struggling through a surge of COVID-19 cases or if you need funding for emergency support payments for people without work due to the pandemic, Mr Morrison turns his pockets inside out and cries poor. It's just the latest chapter in the sorry saga of the Morrison government. There has been no end to the amount of money that can be dished out for government rorts or in handouts to big business that doesn't deserve it, but if you're doing it tough, if you need money to put food on the table or to pay for an ICU bed, then you're tough out of luck.
The necessity for there to be a fifty-fifty funding arrangement with the state government was raised by the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union. A survey of Queensland health workers was carried out recently. They're calling for funding to address the dire safety issues in hospitals. A survey of nurses and midwives reveals that 72 per cent worry about facilities that cannot cope with COVID-19 outbreaks. The Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union questionnaire revealed that 58 per cent of respondents do not believe that facilities are safe for patients or staff. Queensland is part of Australia. New South Wales and the rest of the states make up Australia. It's critically important that the Prime Minister act, and act now.
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (17:07): I think that today we've seen some of the hypocrisy that we've come to expect on this from the Labor Party. Louise Pratt, a fellow senator from Western Australia, has proposed a matter, supposedly of public importance, calling attention to the dire state of our health system in Western Australia. But, in doing so, she has completely failed to front up here today and put that case; she has also left out the true story. The true story, if we look back over the period from 2012-13 through to this financial year, is that coalition federal governments have increased federal funding for the health system in WA by an incredible 72.8 per cent. Over the same period of time, the state government has increased funding by 18.4 per cent. That's right, the federal government has increased health funding to Western Australia at four times the rate of the state government for the health system that the Labor Party, Premier Mark McGowan and Senator Pratt hypocritically accuse us of neglecting.
Indeed, Premier Mark McGowan and Minister Cook went so far as to blame older Western Australians and NDIS recipients for the overrun of our state's emergency departments. Although that's shameful in itself, it takes place in the context of not a single case of COVID community transmission in Western Australia. For that, I know I and my colleague from Western Australia Senator O' Sullivan do commend the McGowan government for their effective management of the evolving situation with the pandemic. However, I think we can be rightly critical of the abject failure to prepare the health system for the pandemic, despite us being some 18 months down the line. The health system exists to protect us. We mustn't manage our economy to protect the health system they have neglected. We're not asking for anyone to open up on a whim; we are asking the Labor Party to level with the Australian people and be honest with the facts, and that would start with acknowledging that in Western Australia the state Labor government has chronically underfunded our health system to the point that ambulances can't get into hospital car parks, let alone get their patients into the emergency department. That takes place in the same context of the federal government pouring four times more money than the state's own Labor government into that health system.
If we're going to level with the Australian people, I think we should also be honest around a few other home truths. Despite the fact that this government was the first to close its international border to the world, that this government declared COVID-19 a pandemic a full 14 days before the WHO did so and that Australia's vaccination rollout is occurring faster on a per capita basis than either the UK's or the US's, the Labor Party do nothing but continue to snipe and undermine the success of our economic and health management of this pandemic. I've heard nothing from those opposite to celebrate the fact that our vaccination rate here in Australia now outstrips not only the United States' but also Israel's, which has been lauded for its high vaccination rates. Those opposite totally neglect the fact that here in Australia, due to our effective management of the pandemic, the death rate has been one-fortieth of those countries the Labor Party senators would like to compare us with. Not only have we outstripped the US in terms of the speed of our vaccination rate; we've suffered a death toll less than one-fortieth of that experienced in the United States.
The reason we put our vaccination through a normal approval process by ATAGI and the TGA was that we didn't have dead bodies piling up in the streets. Instead, due to Australia's effective health and economic management, this government, protecting lives and livelihoods from the onset of the disease, was able to take a slow, considered and ultimately very, very successful approach to this pandemic where we have not only saved the lives of those Australians who are still here today and who would have died in any other circumstance, such as we've seen in other advanced economies in the OECD; we've also seen the success of the Australian economy in being able to thrive with economic support from the government.
Whilst those opposite snipe, undermine and seek to underhandedly detract from the success we've seen here in Australia, we on the government side are levelling with the Australian people: once you get vaccinated, in accordance with the national plan, we will safely reopen to the world. Our health system is robust. Our health system has been adequately resourced by the federal government, and we're asking for that same commitment from the states. Indeed, when we look at the assessment of the ICU capacity here in Australia and feed that into the Doherty modelling—which the national cabinet accepted as the appropriate way to assess our readiness—the premiers and the Prime Minister together reached an assurance that the surge capacity in Australia's hospital system was sufficient to deal with the small number of cases we can expect in a vaccinated nation. That is the key point that seems lost on those opposite.
The discussion has continued to evolve in the course of the pandemic because the information in front of us has changed. Back in February and March, not only did we not have vaccines; we didn't even know if vaccines would ever be developed for this disease. Of course, the actions taken by the government were cautious, considered and appropriate in the circumstances that that decision was taken. Now, 18 months later, we find ourselves at the tail end of a successful vaccination rollout, with an economy poised for a strong economic recovery in the fourth quarter as, particularly, the eastern seaboard reopens and businesses reopen. Employees have unfortunately suffered the impacts of being stood down, but they received support from this government through things like initially the JobKeeper program and later the COVID-19 disaster payments. As they go back to work and as people continue to spend and get ready for the Christmas we will all enjoy hopefully as a reunited country, I think that is when we level with the Australian people that this was a Team Australia moment, despite the wrecking, sniping and undermining we heard from across the chamber. That is what we need to take away from this when we look back on COVID-19—that this government was bold in its policy-making at times of national crisis. That bold policy-making has ultimately been so incredibly successful on both the health and economic fronts.
So, again, I question why my fellow senator from Western Australia, Senator Pratt, would fail to come to the Senate today having submitted such an outrageously baseless MPI that seeks to blame the federal government when in fact the responsibility for the situation with the Western Australian health system lies squarely at the feet of the McGowan state government and completely ignores the fact that this government, together with our state and territory leaders through the national cabinet process, has agreed to a safe plan for reopening. It's not on a whim. It's not incautious, but it is appropriate and it is necessary. That is why I am so proud to be part of this government that has delivered such effective management of the pandemic.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (17:16): [by video link] The reality of this pandemic and the rollout of the vaccine for disabled people here in Australia has been one of fear as we have watched our government fail us time and time again. It is a hard truth to hear that your government purposefully, strategically and outrageously made the decision to deprioritise four million Australians as it panicked to make up for its own incompetence in the early days of the vaccine rollout—but that is what happened. That is the truth. We have our royal commission to thank for the clear knowledge of the absolute failure of this government's vaccine rollout in relation to disabled people.
As a result of this failure, vaccination remains scandalously low among our community, well below the average in the wider population. We must urgently ensure that all disabled people who want to be vaccinated can get vaccinated right now before the country opens up and COVID inevitably rips through. There is absolutely no time to waste in this endeavour as Victoria and New South Wales radically change the way in which they manage COVID-19 in the community. We know that disabled people are at greater risk of COVID-19 and are more likely to become seriously ill or die if infected. Once again, the Greens call on the government to rapidly upscale the accessibility and the appropriateness of the vaccine program by making it a proactive program that goes to people where they are, sets a clear target of 90 per cent of the disabled population and prioritises disability support workers and disabled people's close contacts while making sure that all vaccination portals and websites are fully accessible.
Contrary to what the government's attitude seems to show us, the lives of disabled people are not expendable. The Greens have prioritised and always will prioritise committing to putting disabled people at the centre of this vaccine rollout as we change the way that we manage COVID-19. As we do that, we must also provide a proper plan to make sure that children in our schools have access to ventilation and air filtration and we must provide a proper set of socially distanced requirements to keep kids safe in schools as well.
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (17:19): Earlier we heard Senator Small tell a fairy story about what's happened with COVID-19 in this country. Self-deception runs right through this government. The truth is that, as an island nation with a good health system, we had an enormous opportunity to withstand the ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic that have affected the world so badly. We had an enormous opportunity. An island nation in the Southern Hemisphere, we had to get two things right: No. 1, we had to get a decent system of quarantine and, No. 2, we had to get the vaccine strategy right. Both of those things were so utterly bungled that we have squandered this opportunity. How dare he or Mr Morrison wander around saying, 'We've saved 30,000 people's lives'? It's a bit like Mr Morrison a few months ago, when the women's march was out the front, saying, 'It's lucky people weren't shooting at them.' It's a very low bar this government sets itself in terms of achievement.
The lockdowns in New South Wales and in Victoria were entirely a product of the greatest public policy failure in Australian history. The Morrison government were utterly incapable of doing what was required to protect ordinary Australian families from the ravages of this virus. Billions of dollars worth of economic activity was stopped dead in its tracks, leaving hundreds of thousands of jobs gone and public finances in absolute tatters. These jokers who say so much about economic management have trashed the Australian economy and trashed public finances because they couldn't manage the health response.
There's a famous quote from Catch-22, where Joseph Heller wrote:
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
This bloke, the Prime Minister, has, in a stunning achievement, managed all three of those things in the same three years. There's no crisis that this Prime Minister can't ignore until it's too late. He has not grown into the job; he has shrunk. There is no opportunity that he can't squander, no problem that he can't hide from. Even this week, while preparing for the most consequential international summit of his prime ministership, he is somehow absent. Until a few days ago, we didn't even know if he was going to have the courage to appear, to turn up.
He has a task in front of him. I think people have been generous in saying that his problem is the National Party. The problem that he has is not just the National Party; it's the rump of backward ideologues—antiscience, antiempiricist, backward reactionaries—in his own Liberal Party backbench. You know the reason that they're there? He encouraged them to be there. He and former Prime Minister Abbott went on this long antiscience, antiempirical, backward-looking thing—Robert Menzies would have been ashamed of the conduct of the modern Liberal Party—and they encouraged all these characters to emerge in their branches, and suddenly it turns out they've all got a vote. Suddenly they all turn up in parliament, because of your failure of leadership. And now guess what? They're in charge of the show. You can't manage to pull off the most basic requirement of leadership. It requires leadership and conviction from a man who has no capacity for leadership and no convictions at all. He's delegated the task of leadership in this instance to the Deputy Prime Minister, who in turn has denied the very possibly of leadership at all. And they've left an ocean of space for the fringe dwellers on the backbench. Minister Pitt has proposed a $250 billion fund. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone out the door because this government can't manage its COVID vaccine response, and now they want an extra $250 billion of public money for a loan facility. That makes the Khemlani loans affair look like a corner shop operation. They know, Senator Canavan knows, that that will have the effect of pushing up home mortgage rates for ordinary Australians and pushing up the cost of doing business for ordinary small and medium enterprises. And do you know what that will mean? Falling living standards and lost jobs. It will mean power prices go up, not down. It is the most backward-looking response you can imagine.
And Senator Rennick? What a surprise he's in here with nuclear power stations! Where are the nuclear power stations going to be? Why on earth do we want to put up the price of electricity and have unaffordable energy approaches in this country? Why? Because all these backward-looking characters on the backbench, who actually run the show, have been told they can frolic with any dumb idea they like. Where will these nuclear reactors be? Will they be in Jervis Bay? Will they be in Fremantle? Will they be in Port Stephens? Will they be in Hervey Bay? Those are the places that have been recommended before—and the Latrobe Valley and Portland in Victoria. They are all on the list drawn up by former chief scientists. What a joke! So we've had eight years of shambolic failure on climate policy, a shambolic response to this grave national crisis.
If the National Party fails to endorse the Prime Minister's net zero policy before he leaves for Glasgow, are the Nationals going to leave the cabinet? Who's going to be the Deputy Prime Minister? Who's going to be the Acting Prime Minister when this conference starts? This is an utter shambles, and all this swirling chaos comes back to one thing: an utter incapacity for leadership from this man, the Prime Minister. The backbench isn't the only group that's reacted to this failure of leadership, this vacuum. Last week featured the astonishing scene of the New South Wales Premier announcing the end of the international border. He forgot—it's so easy to forget—that it's a Commonwealth responsibility. Why? Because the Prime Minister is utterly absent. He's spent the whole of this pandemic in the shadow of the state premiers.
The national cabinet has descended into a farce. It's not national and, after the decision of Justice White, it's certainly not a cabinet. The national plan is scarcely national and it's certainly not a plan. And last week the man who built his political career saying, 'I stopped the boats,' is suddenly no longer in charge of the international borders. You can't chalk this up as unfortunate miscommunication. It's entirely consistent with this Prime Minister's total absence, his total lack of vision. So even as Sydney and Melbourne emerge from the Morrison lockdown, the country still faces enormous challenges. There remain pockets of unvaccinated, vulnerable people, particularly in the regions. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say on Insiders a month before the lockdown, 'We're well ahead in the regions. We're ahead of the cities,' and I wondered if he had access to some secret trove of information that we've been denied. It turns out that he was entirely making it up. Vaccination rates and the supply of vaccines in his own electorate of New England are 10 to 15 per cent behind the rest of the country. Populations in far west New South Wales are at critically low levels of vaccination. So where is the Prime Minister? He's nowhere to be seen. We've seen it so many times before. We saw it during the bushfires. We saw it in response to the women's march. We've seen it in the consistent failure on democratic responsibility. We saw it in the failure to adequately prepare for the evacuation from Afghanistan. We've seen it in the failure to denounce far-Right conspiracy theorists on his backbench. This bloke is just not up to the job.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (17:30): I actually thank Senator Pratt for moving this motion. But I have to say that, when I read it this morning, I thought to myself that this must have been moved by an eastern state senator because they didn't actually know what was going on in WA—it wasn't possible. I thank my colleague Senator Small for his contribution earlier, and he made a very similar point. But, no, it was actually moved by a Western Australian senator, Senator Louise Pratt. This is quite remarkable. Maybe those on the other side don't take the opportunity to think much about Western Australia or know much about Western Australia. If you did, you'd know that the Western Australian health system is in absolute crisis right now—absolute crisis. We don't have COVID, though; it's got nothing to do with COVID. The health system is in a state of crisis because of poor management by the Labor government over there in Western Australia.
This isn't hyperbole. On Saturday, the AMA WA president revealed that Western Australia has the lowest rate of ICU beds per capita in the nation, despite the fact that the McGowan government announced a $5 billion surplus. When asked about this statistic, the AMA president in Western Australia had this to say:
Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me because the McGowan government effectively flatlined operational budget for WA health over the last four years …
What is even more galling about this ICU bed figure is that it's actually less than what was available last year. It's actually 10 per cent lower than before we went into the COVID pandemic. The big announcements that were made, absolutely necessarily, because of the pandemic, were that we needed to shut everything down, go into lockdown and have social distancing. We had to do all the things that were necessary to help the system to be able to deal with COVID, and part of it was to build up our capability within the hospital system. It was to get the extra beds that were necessary, to get the staff that were necessary, to get the equipment that was necessary. But, when it comes to ICU beds, there are actually 10 per cent less than before we even went into the pandemic.
Senator Pratt's motion mentions 'shortage of beds, overcrowded emergency departments and longer waits as a result of COVID-19 patients in hospitals'. But, as I said, there's no COVID in Western Australia, so how this motion really should read is, 'The WA health system is facing a shortage of beds, overcrowded emergency departments and longer waits as a result of serious underinvestment and mismanagement by the WA Labor Party.' Since the coalition government came into power, we have increased funding to WA hospitals by 72.8 per cent. The WA government, over the same time, has increased it by 18.4 per cent. So some four times more investment in WA hospitals has been delivered by the Morrison government, and state Labor are found wanting.
Premier McGowan's rigid insistence on his hard border was necessary; we accept that. It was, however, responsible in part for staff shortages across the state health system. And it's not only there but also in our resources sector. Senator Small and I were recently in Kalgoorlie, and we went out to the goldmine there, right in the centre of town, and they've got a shortage of truck drivers; they need 60 truck drivers. They estimate that there's about $100 million in revenue for this country if they could fill those jobs, but there isn't because they can't get the staff. And that's what we're seeing in our hospital system right now.
A recent survey of more than 600 doctors has highlighted a number of other contributing factors, most of which can be laid directly at the feet of Western Australia's health minister, Roger Cook. There have been reports of staff at hospitals across Perth having panic attacks and taking stress leave due to staff shortages, which is a sad irony, as it's making the situation even wors The Australian nursing federation secretary—a union boss, nonetheless!—recently suggested that Roger Cook should find another job. I'll add my name to that: the health minister in Western Australia should find a different job, because he can't manage the administration of WA hospitals. Staff at King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Perth's dedicated maternity hospital, recently rallied to protest the abysmal staffing at their place of work. These are health workers and union members protesting the 'dangerous conditions' that staff are required to work under. My wife is a nurse; my sister is a nurse as well. The stress that they and other members of that workforce are under in Western Australia right now is horrendous. The nursing federation representative spoke about dangerous conditions.
In 2017, Roger Cook declared that monthly ambulance ramping of 1,030 hours under the Barnett Liberal government was a massive failure and a crisis. Since being elected to government in Western Australia in 2017, Labor has overseen an average monthly ramping of nearly double that figure, with ramping breaking past their self-imposed crisis level some 41 times. In August alone, ramping hours hit 6,528 hours. Ramping hours for October are already at 2,950. This is why I'm saying that it's in a state of crisis. These figures represent the hours Western Australians spend sitting in an ambulance, unable to get appropriate care because the hospital is full. This is often combined with code yellows, which signify that the hospital is completely full. We don't have COVID in Western Australia. There are no cases of COVID in WA; thank God for that. I acknowledge the efforts of the McGowan government for that, but they have completely abandoned their responsibility for looking after the health system of Western Australia.
Earlier today, we saw a bold and appropriate move from the Queensland government. They've provided a road map to the people of Queensland for what they can expect when they hit their 70 and 80 per cent targets. Of course, that is to open in a safe way. There'll be testing and the need to show their vaccination certification. Appropriate measures are being put in place for when they get to those levels. That is good. It gives people a plan. It means that businesses can plan. It means that families can plan to reunite at Christmas time. In Western Australia, we don't have any plan whatsoever.
Senator Small and I have done a fair bit together over the last few weeks. We had a meeting with events industry representatives. They spoke to us about the opportunities to have some major identity concerts and big sporting events in Western Australia next year. But they're deciding about whether they can come or not based on the status of our borders. It's more about the lack of a plan. Right now, we've got a situation where there is uncertainty. So I call on the McGowan government—and I'm so proud to be a Western Australian in this place right now—to be upfront with Western Australians about what we can expect when we get to 70 and 80 per cent.
On the current trajectory, with the current vaccine rate, we know that we will get there around 4 or 5 December. That's fantastic. We're on track. We're going to get there. We're a bit behind other states, and I understand that. There hasn't been that sense of urgency in Western Australia. There haven't been any COVID cases, so people haven't been really focused on it. But, on the current trajectory, we know that that's when we're going to get there. The government should be making it clear what we're going to do when we get there. It's actually very good logic that you've got to give people that are a little bit hesitant a little bit of extra time to get themselves sorted. I understand that. There's great logic in that, because there is some hesitancy in WA. But why don't you give people that certainty now?
We know that we're going to be at 80 per cent come early December. Give some certainty now. Make known to Western Australians what it is we can expect when we get to that point. There are measures that can be put in place with testing and with vaccination certificates. There is an ability to provide a safe re-entry, and that's going to deal with the issues that we've got with staff shortages, including in our hospitals, our resources sector and right across our agricultural sector, which is having a bumper season right now but can't harvest because of the closed borders. (Time expired)
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:40): When Senator Pratt talks about delays in responses and lives being at risk, the senator and the Labor Party fail to understand the need to provide Australians with a full range of safe options for COVID. State and federal parliaments have chosen bullying to force mandatory vaccination on everyday Australians. They have driven a wedge into the Australian culture and left many in fear, without jobs, stressed and in tears.
Australians need a guarantee that the pharmaceuticals being rushed to market without proper approvals are 100 per cent safe, not just to this generation but to the next. Now Labor is pushing for more healthcare staff and resources when we may need them for only a few months. This will leave us with more debt for decades to come, simply because federal and state parliaments—Labor, Liberal and Nationals—refuse to consider a better way, using treatments alongside vaccines.
Healthcare heroes have been defending our health and lives. Now those same professionals are being intimidated and terminated by Liberal, Labor and Nationals governments for choosing, for daring to choose, not to be vaccinated and not to be injected. How can healthcare workers go so quickly from hero to villain? One Nation values all our healthcare and emergency services personnel. In many cases stress on the system is coming not from inadequate resources but from mismanagement and inefficient practices. Given the worldwide demand for healthcare resources, where are Senator Pratt's extra practising healthcare professionals going to come from? Is Labor going to rehire the unvaccinated people they're sacking? Because of the sackings we've seen AHPRA rush to requalify retired health professionals to practice without adequate retraining, support or professional development. Their skills may be out of date, and that puts lives at risk. The government's hasty ill-researched acceptance and $300 million purchase of molnupiravir is another example of selling pharmaceutical hype over proven treatments. It is Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals who are putting Australian lives at risk. (Time expired)
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (17:42): I'm very pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance, which deals with a lot of the issues that we are facing across the country. We know that we are in a situation that we have been led down. We have been led into this situation by this Prime Minister, who failed to lead on vaccines, who failed to lead on quarantine and who is now failing to lead on our health response to COVID-19.
The Prime Minister was too late to order vaccines, and as a result, we've had more lockdowns across this country. Families have been separated and businesses have been devastated. These Morrison lockdowns this year didn't need to happen. We could all have been vaccinated by October. Instead, we were behind the rest of the world in ordering vaccines and in getting vaccines to people. Supply of vaccines was the No. 1 issue when it came to vaccinating vulnerable people and people throughout Queensland. As we've gone through the process of getting vaccines to the people who need them the most in Queensland and throughout the country—albeit slowly, delayed by this government—the government has now been patting itself on the back for a job well done, sending out messages about how many people have been vaccinated. This government isn't responsible for those vaccination levels. Queenslanders themselves are responsible for those vaccination levels. They've done the hard work. They've gone in and been vaccinated. They've sought out the vaccination. This government hasn't done that, and yet it is here to celebrate that hard work.
The hard work isn't done yet. We know that there are members of our community, vulnerable members of our community, who are still not vaccinated. In Cairns, for example, around 52 per cent of people have been fully vaccinated. That's great. People have been getting out. They've been doing the hard work in getting out and getting vaccinated. But we know that only 21 per cent of First Nations people in Cairns are vaccinated. They were meant to be a priority group, but under this government's delays and dithering we have seen our First Nations people being left behind. We also know that these are the members of our community who will be impacted first and foremost when we see cases of COVID-19 circulating through our community. We know that these are the people that the government has wiped its hands of. It doesn't care about whether they are protected when that time comes. I would like to see the government strongly consider those people in their rollout of the vaccine and consider what they can do to increase participation, because at the moment they've said it's someone else's problem and it's only the states that are responsible. So all they've done is to delay and say it's a state matter. Quarantine is in the Constitution, yet the government still said that it was a matter for the states.
Most importantly, what we need to do now is get our health response right, and what that requires is a constructive conversation between the federal government and the state governments. But what we've got is Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister for New South Wales, talking about politics instead of getting things done during this pandemic. We know that our health system is a whole system. In Queensland, particularly regional Queensland, at the moment it is really hard to get in to see a GP. I've been travelling all across regional Queensland. The place where people go when they can't get a GP is the emergency department. We've seen this throughout Queensland. We've got the numbers. The number of people who appear at emergency who don't have urgent illnesses is going up in Queensland because nobody can get in to see a GP.
This government will stand up and tell you that, on our health response and our hospitals, all of that is somebody else's problem and the state government is responsible. But the primary health system is impacting on our hospitals right now, and this government needs to stand up and work with the states. What we won't be doing is to be lectured about health and hospitals by the party of Campbell Newman, a party who sacked nurses when they were in power in Queensland. What we want is constructive conversations.
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (17:47): Let's look at the actual facts. The facts are these: when Campbell Newman and his government lost power, ambulance ramping in Queensland was at 15 per cent. Those are the facts. A month before the COVID pandemic broke out in Queensland, it had gone up to 29 per cent. It had doubled, I say through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to Senator Green. It had gotten twice as bad. I have dear, dear friends who are paramedics and ambos, and they tell me about the shambles the Queensland ambulance system has come to from a management perspective. That is entirely the fault of the Queensland Labor government. Right now, ambulance ramping sits at 41 per cent. It was 15 per cent when Campbell Newman left office. It is now at 41 per cent. In the Metro South health district in Brisbane, an area with which I'm intimately familiar, it's in excess of 60 per cent. Six out of 10 ambulances that present themselves to the emergency departments are ramped—60 per cent. It was 15 per cent when the LNP left government. It has gone from 15 per cent to 60 per cent. That's the state of the Queensland health department and our Queensland ambulance system. It's an absolute disgrace under the Labor government.
Let me quote from an ABC News story posted on Friday 15 October 2021 at 8 am:
In the early hours of April 24, QAS headquarters was advised of "multiple pending Code 1 cases in excess of 1 to 2 hours" in and around Brisbane.
For code 1 cases, the most serious cases, it took one to two hours to get an ambulance. The article continues:
Code 1 patients refer to those requiring urgent care for potentially life-threatening situations. Ambulances are sent to them under lights and sirens.
This is what the brief said, Senator Green, under Queensland Labor:
"Nil available resources to respond," the brief said. "Nil divertable [sic] resources. Multiple units ramped and hospital for several hours."
That's nil available resources to respond to Queenslanders needing urgent aid from their health system. Just as is the case in Western Australia, Queensland has a handful of COVID cases. This is the situation today in Queensland under a Labor government that has been in power for 25 out of the last 31 years. Hospital ramping under Campbell Newman was 15 per cent and up to 60 per cent in the metro south region. You want to blame the federal government? The federal government has increased funding to Queensland hospitals by 100 per cent. In the same period, Senator Watt, the Queensland government has increased it by 51 per cent. You want to blame the coalition government? Look internally at what is happening to Queensland's health system. We now know what's happening at Caboolture Hospital—the horror stories coming out of the Caboolture public hospital. They're reminiscent of what came out of Hervey Bay. Again, under a Labor government, there is this managerial incompetence. Hospital ramping at the end of Campbell Newman's tenure was 15 per cent. In metro south—south of the Brisbane River, an area I'm intimately involved in—it was 60 per cent. In six out of 10 hospitals, ambulances attending our emergency departments were ramped. It's an absolute disgrace and our public health workers are at the end of their tether. Let me quote from an AMA Queensland announcement from 27 April 2021:
Queensland doctors say public hospitals are at crisis point, with clogged emergency departments, too few beds and an exodus of burnt-out staff.
This is what Dr Kim Hanson, from the Australian College for Emergency Medicine, says:
Emergency departments are the canary in the coalmine. They bear the burden when other parts of the health system are over capacity … It's awful, like putting a Band Aid on a stab wound.
That's how she describes the Queensland government's response: it's like putting a bandaid on a stab wound. Whoever was involved in putting forward this MPI for discussion this afternoon obviously wasn't aware of the current situation in the WA public health system and the Queensland health system.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:52): This government has got a lot wrong in its pandemic response, and one of its most egregious failures is how it has ignored and marginalised people in immigration detention in the middle of a pandemic.
Heartbreakingly, tragically and eminently foreseeably, we now learn that there's been a COVID outbreak in the Park Hotel in Melbourne, one of this government's hotel prisons. Remember, this hotel prison is full of innocent people who asked our country for help over eight long years ago. They've been locked up every day since and they continue to suffer as a result of this government's cruel indifference to their fate and horrific persecution of them. The government has chosen to cram these people, who have pre-existing medical conditions and illnesses, into hotel prisons and other immigration detention facilities without putting effective COVID prevention measures in place. We now know, confirmed by the government, that at least three of these people have caught COVID, and there could be many more, because many more are feeling sick and are symptomatic, as we debate this issue today. This is a massive failure in the government's duty of care. This was predictable and it was entirely avoidable.
The Greens, along with many other people—including, most importantly and most critically, the refugees and people who sought asylum who were locked up and remain locked up in these hotel prisons—warned the government at the start of the pandemic that exactly this would happen, that this tragedy would come to pass, unless people were released from hotel detention into the communit We warned about the overcrowding of people and the impossibility of proper hygiene in these facilities, and we and they were ignored.
These innocent people have been detained now for over eight years. They've been exiled. They've been brutalised. They've been deliberately dehumanised. They've been illegally imprisoned. They've witnessed violent assaults, rapes, the sexual assault of children and murder. They are now being infected with a potentially life-threatening disease. We call again on the government to release all low-risk detainees being held in detention into community detention, with appropriate medical care and precautions to ensure that they and the broader community are safe from COVID. (Time expired)
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (17:55): Australia's hospitals face a most testing time as the government lifts COVID-19 restrictions. The hope is that 80 per cent vaccination rates will keep the severe cases and hospitalisations low to avoid stretching our hospitals. The Doherty institute modelling predicts the biggest COVID-19 health challenge may come from a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Will our hospitals cope? Adelaide's major public hospitals regularly ramp ambulances, a sign of stress under ordinary circumstances.
On 1 October, Professor Brendan Murphy updated the non-national cabinet on our health system's ability to manage COVID-19 cases during phases B and C of the national plan to transition out of pandemic restrictions. The Prime Minister and the premiers and chief ministers received some 100 pages of data and analysis covering the ability of hospitals to cope with the likely surge. Is that information publicly available? No. In keeping with the PM's secrecy mantra, it's locked away. Imagine how informed this debate would be if we had access to that information. I've sought it under FOI, but I don't expect a positive response anytime soon.
Despite being told that the national cabinet is not a committee of the cabinet, the government are still claiming cabinet confidentiality in defiance of a ruling by a member of the federal judiciary. Is there a legitimate reason to withhold this data? No. It's to avoid embarrassment because the preparations should have been made months ago, and it hasn't been done. Again, it's too little too late.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): The time for the discussion has expired.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
Documents tabled earlier today were considered as follows:
Documents tabled earlier today (see entry no. 2 in today's Journals) were considered as follows:
Motion to take note of documents nos 22 and 35 moved by Senator Patrick.
Consideration to resume on Thursday.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
COVID-19: Vaccination
COVID-19: Children
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (17:58): I table responses to two questions taken on notice during question time on 25 February and 26 August 2021 asked by Senators Watt and O'Neill, relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. I seek leave to have the documents incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The documents read as follows—
INCORRECT VACCINE DOSAGE—LETTER FROM THE MINISTER FOR SENIOR AUSTRALIANS AND AGED CARE SERVICES
Dear Mr President
I write with regard to a question from Senator Watt during Senate Question Time, Thursday 25 February 2021, of which I undertook to provide further information on the matter of a Queensland general practitioner administering an incorrect vaccine dosage. I apologise for the delay in responding.
I can advise that the medical officer who administered an incorrect dose in Queensland on 23 February 2021 was engaged by HealthCare Australia (HCA). The contracted provider is responsible for ensuring that all employed vaccinators have the required qualifications, which is part of the contractual agreement. The Department may conduct audits relevant to performance through the contractor's obligations under the contract.
Vaccine workforce providers engaged by the Department of Health to administer the COVID-19 vaccine are contractually obligated to:
a) ensure that each individual who will administer the vaccine has completed the training provided by Australian College of Nursing Limited;
b) provide evidence of completion of such training to the Department prior to the individual administering the vaccine to any person;
c) ensure that its personnel administer, store and otherwise handle the vaccine in accordance with the training and the specifications relating to the vaccine.
I have copied this letter to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and Senator Watt.
Yours sincerely
Richard Colbeck
IMPACT ON CHILDREN—LETTER FROM THE MINISTER FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Dear Mr President
Please find enclosed a response to a question asked by Senator Deborah O'Neill, taken on notice during Question Time on 26 August 2021.
Yours sincerely
Linda Reynolds
ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE
Senator Deborah O'Neill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth, Senator Reynolds at Question Time on Thursday, 26 August 2021:
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth, Senator Reynolds. Reports suggest that around 30 percent ofCovid-19 cases in NSW and 40 per cent of cases in Victoria are in those 19 and younger. How many children have contracted Covid-19 in NSW and how many in Victoria during the current delta outbreak?
As of last week, 40 per cent ofCOVID-19 cases in western New South Wales were in First Nations children. How many First Nations children have contracted COVID-19 in the current delta outbreaks in New South Wales, and how many in Victoria?
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC-The answer to the Senator's question is as follows:
Table 1: Locally acquired ^ COVID-19 cases among children (<20 years), I January 2020 to 7 September 2021
Source: National Interoperable Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, extracted 8 September 2021
State |
Total |
|
Indigenous |
|
|
2020 |
2021 |
2020 |
2021 |
VIC |
3,204 |
1,029 |
14 |
|
NSW |
265 |
9,384 |
14 |
484 |
All Australia |
3,540 |
10,654 |
29 |
487 |
* Represents the number of cases reported as being Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.
^ Includes interstate locally acquired cases
DOCUMENTS
Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling program
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) (17:58): I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program.
COMMITTEES
Treaties Joint Committee
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ) (17:58): The President has received a letter requesting a change in the membership of a committee.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (17:59): by leave—I move:
That Senator Rice be discharged from and Senator Cox be appointed to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Governance and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021
Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021
Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021
Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021
Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Bill 2020
Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021
National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021
Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Bill 2021
Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021
Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021
Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021
Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2021
National Health Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021
National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the Senate that he had assented to the bills.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) 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.
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (18:00): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (18:00): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
When Vincent Lingiari and other Gurindji people walked off Wave Hill station on 23 August 1966, their dignified call for land rights and justice resonated around the nation. They paved the way for land rights in the Northern Territory.
In 1976, the Fraser Government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act with historic bipartisan support. The previous Whitlam Government had established the Woodward Commission in 1973 to inquire into land rights and tabled the first legislation in 1975.
Enactment of the Land Rights Act by the Commonwealth, just ten years after the Gurindji sat down at Wattie Creek to demand the return of their country, remains a proud day for the nation.
Today, that history is continued through the introduction of this bill by the Government, the most far-reaching set of reforms to the Land Rights Act since it was enacted in 1976 - and almost 55 years to the day after the Wave Hill Walk-off in 1966.The Gurindji people had organised the Freedom Day Festival for this coming weekend but unfortunately the event has been cancelled for the second year in a row due to COVID-19. It is hoped the Gurindji people will be able to reschedule this Festival for the near future.
Importantly, Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have asked for these reforms and they have been extensively co-designed with Traditional Owners in the Northern Territory and their Land Councils over the last three and a half years.
The co-design process, and the intent of the reforms themselves, put the Government's Closing the Gap commitments into practice, through shared decision making, working in partnership with Aboriginal people, and supporting strong economic participation and Indigenous peoples' relationship with their land and waters.
The Land Rights Act provides the strongest form of traditional land title in Australia. It enables the grant of land title to Aboriginal land owners in the Northern Territory, and sets up Aboriginal Land Councils to represent Traditional Owners and help manage that land.
It also continues the Aboriginals Benefit Account (known as the ABA), which was originally established in 1952 by then-Minister for Territories (and for whom the electorate of Hasluck is partly named), the Rt Hon Sir Paul Hasluck, to collect amounts equivalent to royalties from mining on Aboriginal land. It is these amounts that fund the land rights system in the Northern Territory for the benefit of Aboriginal Territorians.
The ABA has accumulated substantial wealth from the abundance of Aboriginal land resources. Recently, the mining boom has seen the ABA almost double from around $634 million in 2016-17 to over $1.3 billion today.
While the fight for land rights is ongoing for some families, for many in the Northern Territory their hopes and dreams for the return of their land have been realised. More than 47 per cent of the Northern Territory is now Aboriginal land and Aboriginal Territorians, along with Indigenous peoples all over Australia, are seeking new ways to activate the potential of their land.
The Morrison Government is unlocking the ABA to empower Aboriginal Territorians to do exactly that. As our Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP said in his 2021 Closing the Gap address, it is economic opportunity and a culture of responsibility and empowerment that provide the foundation for the transformation of local communities.
The centrepiece of these reforms is the establishment of a new, Aboriginal-controlled corporate Commonwealth entity - the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation (the new Corporation).
Currently, all decisions about ABA funding are made by the Australian Government. This includes the beneficial payments, where the Minister for Indigenous Australians makes the final decision on payments, on the advice of the ABA Advisory Committee. Despite the fact that ABA money largely reflects royalties from mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, Aboriginal Territorians are not the decision makers for how the money is spent. This is about to change.
The new Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation will be funded from the ABA to invest in projects that will grow wealth, create jobs and support sustainable Aboriginal economies in the Northern Territory for the long term - for generations ahead. It will have the ability to invest in a wide range of projects from agriculture and aquaculture, tourism opportunities and community art centres. It will also make decisions about and administer beneficial payments shifting decision making from Canberra to the Northern Territory.
For the first time, an Aboriginal-controlled body will be able to use funds derived from the ABA to strategically and proactively seize and generate economic and social investment opportunities.
The Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation will be led by a Board of eight Aboriginal representatives from the Northern Territory, two Government-appointed directors, and two independent directors, appointed by the Board. This Board composition captures the representation, cultural and financial expertise and independence required to make these critical investment decisions.
The Bill guarantees a substantial amount of ABA funding for the new Corporation. It will receive from the ABA an initial $500 million endowment, $60 million per year during the first three years of its operation and subsequent funding each year.
With these assets the new Corporation will be a significant new economic vehicle in the Northern Territory. Increased investments will support long-term, large scale Aboriginal economic development, building the productive capacity of the Northern Territory economy, growing Aboriginal enterprise and jobs and improving the intergenerational transfer of wealth for Aboriginal families and communities. The effects of growing Aboriginal economies will flow across the Northern Territory economy benefiting all Territorians, with an estimated boost to Gross Regional Product in the Northern Territory by $484 million out to 2029-30.
To hold the new Corporation accountable at the local level, its investment priorities will be set out in a Strategic Investment Plan based on consultations with Aboriginal people and organisations in the Northern Territory and tabled in the Parliament.
As a corporate Commonwealth entity, the new Corporation's governance structures will also ensure accountability at the national level. A strong Investment Committee will provide business advice and support to the Board. Investments over $100 million will require the agreement of Government and rules set by the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Finance Minister will govern the new Corporation's ability to loan, borrow and provide guarantees.
This is a reform which is long overdue, with recommendations for changes to the ABA stretching back to 1984. The Northern Territory Land Councils have provided their support to the introduction of these historic reforms.
In addition to these momentous changes, this Bill also enables other mechanisms for activating the potential of Aboriginal land.
Current processes relating to exploration and mining under the Land Rights Act can be unnecessarily time consuming and costly for all stakeholders. These problems were identified in an independent review published in 2013. We have worked with peak industry bodies, the Land Councils, and the Northern Territory Government to develop workable solutions to these problems.
The changes to the exploration and mining processes create clarity and build confidence for industry and investors by:
improving the processes for consideration of exploration licence applications;
reducing the length of time for an application to be granted once Traditional Owner consent has been provided;
saving money and time as a result of more flexible Traditional Owner consultations; and
updating definitions to align with relevant Northern Territory legislation.
Importantly, the rights of Traditional Owners are maintained.
The final component of this Bill is a package of land administration amendments which strengthen Aboriginal control over decision-making, address operational gaps, and remove unused provisions.
Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory recognise the cultural and economic value of township leasing, which provides for decisions about land use to be made locally by Traditional Owners. Under the leadership of Dr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, it was the Gumatj Traditional Owners in East Arnhem Land who, in partnership with their Land Council, first proposed and advocated for an intergenerational community lease held directly by a local Aboriginal-owned corporation. The Government worked with the Gumatj people to develop the first locally held township lease over the Gunyangara Township, executed in 2017.
More recently, this year the Jabiru Township Lease commenced operations: held and governed by local Mirarr people. Township leases on the Tiwi Islands, in Central Australia and on Groote Eylandt each have designated provisions to allow them to transfer their leases from the Commonwealth Executive Director of Township Leasing to another entity, ensuring other Traditional Owners will be similarly empowered to have a community-controlled lease over their land.
The amendments will embed the community-controlled leasing model by providing a process for nomination by a Land Council and approval by the Minister for Indigenous Australians and set out a general budget process from the ABA. All community entities will be required to incorporate under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006, thus codifying existing practice.
The amendments will standardise the community-controlled leasing model in the Land Rights Act and provide for greater local decision making on Aboriginal land to deliver housing, business and government services outcomes that meet the needs of the local community. This in turn establishes a secure and certain environment for investors, critical to fostering economic development opportunities on the Indigenous estate.
The Bill repeals section 28A, which currently allows the delegation of certain Land Council functions to non-statutory organisations, such as local Aboriginal corporations. Section 28A was introduced into the Land Rights Act in 2006 but has never been used. Removing this redundant provision will simplify land administration on the Indigenous estate and will clarify that community-controlled township leasing is the preferred mechanism for local decision making.
In a further effort to maximise the opportunities to promote local Indigenous control over decision making, the Bill clarifies that Land Councils can enter into agreements in respect of land that is the subject of a deed of grant held in escrow. This will provide increased certainty for residents, businesses and government service providers, particularly in towns that are transitioning to local Aboriginal control because mining operations in the area are winding-up.
A further measure in the Bill clarifies arrangements for issuing and revoking permits to access Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. This issue became apparent as a key risk during early days of the emergency response to COVID-19 with Northern Territory remote travel restrictions. The amendments repeal section 74AA of the Land Rights Act, which currently prevents Land Councils from revoking permits for access to Aboriginal land issued by minority groups within a Traditional Owner community.
The Bill demonstrates this Government's respect for and commitment to protecting Aboriginal land. It increases the penalty for unauthorised access to Aboriginal land from 10 penalty units to 50 penalty units. This will deter people from unlawfully entering or remaining on Aboriginal land. Commencement of this increase will be delayed to allow the Northern Territory Government to amend its Aboriginal Land Act 1978 to enable consistency.
Taken together, the reforms provided in this Bill realise the long-standing aspiration of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory for greater control over decision making and realise the potential of their land.
Aboriginal stakeholders in the Northern Territory have strong voices through their Land Councils and this Government has committed to only amend the Land Rights Act with their support.
At all stages of the process, the Land Councils have consulted around 220 elected Aboriginal landowners, from whose land the ABA monies are generated, agreeing to principles and providing input to the design of the reforms.
The Government would like to take this opportunity to thank the Northern Land Council, the Central Land Council, the Anindilyakwa Land Council and the Tiwi Land Council for the strong partnership that produced this highly significant set of reforms. We acknowledge the outstanding leadership of their Chairs Mr Samuel Bush-Blanasi, Mr Sammy Wilson, Mr Tony Wurramarrba and Mr Gibson Farmer Illortaminni.
The Government also acknowledges the members of the ABA Advisory Committee who have contributed to the reforms and provide Government such valuable advice on funding needs in the Northern Territory, including the Chair Ms Leanne Caton and Ms Barbara Shaw who made important contributions to the reforms.
The global pandemic has prevented these strong Aboriginal leaders and many more from witnessing the introduction of these historic reforms in person but they are watching from afar.
These reforms are about creating enterprise opportunity. They are about supporting Aboriginal Territorians to manage the land that has been the lifeblood of their lore and culture for at least 60,000 years and still is today.
The reforms are about activating the economic potential of Aboriginal land to grow the prosperity of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory for the long-term. Through the new Corporation we are supporting our elders and our youth, our Aboriginal business-women and men, our artists and our rangers to take the destiny of their communities in their hands.
This is a new era of land rights - one that empowers Aboriginal people to unlock the potential of their land and grow their communities, their businesses and their culture for generations to come.
I commend this Bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Northern Australia Joint Committee
Report
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:02): I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia on the destruction of 46,000-year-old caves at Juukan Gorge and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
Senator URQUHART: I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I understand that Senator Dodson wishes to speak to that report.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Walsh ) (18:02): Senator Dodson?
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (18:02): [by video link] I wish to speak to the final report, tabled today by the Joint Committee on Northern Australia, on the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia. Firstly, I commend the chairmanship of Mr Warren Entsch, who conducted the inquiry with fairness and sympathy. The committee's interim report, Never again, was published in December last year. It focused largely on what went wrong within Rio Tinto before and after the explosions on 24 May last year which destroyed the caves at Juukan Gorge. The nation was shocked and outraged. Australia's international reputation was seriously damaged, and we're still on trial about it. The caves have provided shelter to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples for over 40,000 years. Our committee was able to visit the site and hear firsthand the grief and trauma that the PKKP people had suffered as a result of the destruction of their heritage.
If indeed there's never to be another Juukan Gorge catastrophe, governments must act with integrity and urgency to fix the legislative regimes around the country that have been shown to be wholly inadequate. Let's not forget that the destruction of Juukan Gorge was licensed by the laws of Western Australia. The Aboriginal Heritage Act was never fit for purpose, if in fact that purpose was ever meant to adequately protect Aboriginal cultural heritage. That wholly inadequate legislation remains in law today. Section 18 exemptions have allowed wholesale destruction of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites across Western Australia. Mining companies continue to hold section 18 exemptions stating they can legally destroy similar cultural heritage without penalty. But the laws of other jurisdictions are just as deficient.
First Nations people are fearful that their already diminished heritage is at risk of further ruin and, with it, so is essential evidentiary material that supports their native title rights and interests. That's why our report recommended Commonwealth legislation to provide minimum standards for all states and territories. Some government members of the joint committee say there's no need for overarching Commonwealth legislation. I just cannot believe they hold that view after all the stories of heartache and distress in all parts of Australia that we heard about the loss of Aboriginal culture and that we heard from Aboriginal witnesses in the course of our inquiry. Theirs is not a majority position. It's very clear where the balance of public opinion on this issue is.
On this side of politics, we want to see urgent legislation that gives real meaning to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, emphasises the concept of free, prior and informed consent and gives people a right to say no to the destruction of their cultural heritage. We want to see ministerial responsibility for Indigenous heritage matters moved from the Minister for the Environment to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Existing Commonwealth laws, as unsatisfactory as they are, should have provided remedy for the PKK people when they came knocking on the door of Canberra. Instead, the PKKP got the run-around and experienced only inertia and uninterest in ministerial and departmental offices.
For too long, governments have turned a blind eye to the widespread destruction of the heritage of First Nations peoples. It's been nearly a year and a half since the explosions at the Juukan caves reverberated across the world. What has this government done over that time to give comfort to First Nations peoples that they'll never see another Juukan Gorge? Very little—in fact, nothing at all. All we hear from the other side is this nonsense about how better laws and regulations can be used as deliberate weapons against the resource sector. But the evidence we heard from the sector itself during our inquiry acknowledges that things must change. Especially we heard support from the mining industry for upholding the principle of free, prior and informed consent and removing from contracts gag clauses that limit the rights of First Nations peoples that seek redress when their heritage is threatened.
From the earliest times of colonial settlement, there's been no appreciation of the intrinsic value which First Nations peoples attach to their heritage. The widespread, enormous destruction of ancient materials that accompanied the occupation of this land of the First Nations peoples has served to obliterate the connection to country and the prima facie proof of their native title in these lands. Real property rights have been trashed without compensation.
What became apparent during the joint committee's inquiry was the weight of demand endured by native title holders who have to deal with the well-resourced mining sector, especially in the Pilbara. Native title representative bodies and prescribed bodies corporate are clearly underresourced. Some have had to use compensation money to respond to the demands placed on them by the industry, therefore limiting their own capacity to leverage their opportunities. There's a fundamental imbalance here.
But getting governments to face up to their responsibilities has always been a difficult exercise. The private sector has shown itself to be more ready and willing to improve its performance. It's demonstrated more leadership than this government. Driven, perhaps, by commercial imperatives and the pressure from shareholders, the outrage over the destruction of the Juukan Gorge prompted investors to call for sanctions. The protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage is now not only a moral and ethical issue; it's now an issue of economic risk. The government should at least recognise that, in this space, that alone should be sufficient reason for the Commonwealth and state governments to reshape their cultural heritage laws and their relationships with First Nations.
The nexus with the Native Title Act was also a matter that came to our attention, and the real need for an inquiry into various sections of the future acts regime under which many of these native title holders operate. They feel very much under duress and at a disadvantage, even to the extent of criticisms about the National Native Title Tribunal itself.
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (18:10): I wish to speak to the Juukan inquiry report, tabled today. I want to acknowledge the traditional owners, elders and land defenders who not only took the time to come and speak to the inquiry but also opened up their lands for us to come and visit, to see for ourselves. I'd like to acknowledge their resistance, their fight and their ongoing connection to country, land, culture and song, which are all affected. As we heard through the inquiry from those people, it is not just about a piece of land; it is about a piece of us. We are no separate to our land, our water and our animals; we are the same as. We don't own them and they don't own us; we care for one another and we protect one another. We don't look at our animals and our land in the way that the colonisers do—that is, to dig up, destroy and make as much money as they possibly can in a very quick, short time. That won't sustain you for thousands of generations, like it has sustained us, but we'll see about that, hey!
I want to acknowledge all those people who were involved, and I also want to acknowledge my colleagues on the committee. There were people who knew about the destruction, who'd been personally affected by destruction on their own lands, and there were also people who got a greater understanding of what this means to people on the ground. I think people in places like this lose track of what is happening to communities and everyday people out there. It was an exercise for people to gain some empathy; instead of doing the training around it, they can create some empathy of their own by hearing real stories.
As we know, in May last year the incredibly magnificent Juukan Gorge caves on the country of the PKK were destroyed by mining giant Rio Tinto. It sent a shockwave not only through that country and those people; it sent a shockwave throughout the world. It was compared to Notre Dame. It's as simple as that; it is our place of prayer, it is our place of connection and it is our place to speak to our ancestors and our country, the same way a Christian would go to church and speak to their God. Our gods, our waterways, our mountains—that's who we pray to. That's who we connect to, because that's what's going to keep us alive at the end of the day.
During the inquiry we heard from so many First Nations people and communities about the struggles they face around the country—not just in WA, not just at Juukan. Right across this country we heard stories of destruction, stories of dodgy deals and stories of mining companies coming to communities saying: 'We'll give you a four-wheel drive. We'll give you some money for your family. Just sign here, uncle, aunty, brother.' I saw it with my own eyes. The con job that goes on in these communities is unconscionable, illegal.
So I acknowledge the struggle that our people are facing out there with these dodgy deals and the coercion that goes on to manufacture the consent—these so-called consultation processes. Consultation—may I remind everybody in this place, particularly the government and Labor—is not consent. The word 'consultation' is different to the word 'consent', okay? Be clear about that. You have no consent to destroy any part of this country. You've never been given consent because there's never been a treaty. So you can't say: 'But I consulted. I went to the land council. We had a meeting. We got buses there. We paid for people'—the same old story that you hear, the con job. You know which family is blueing which family, so you just get the one that's going to agree. Come on. We're awake up to that. It's the 21st century. There are a lot of blackfellas educated out there, and we know exactly what you're up to.
The inquiry clearly showed how broken our heritage protection laws are in this country. They not only fail to protect in most instances, but they are even designed to favour the developers and the miners. I wonder if the system's really broken at all, or is it that the system was actually designed for the developers, and the blackfellas come later, because we are on the bottom rung here in these lands? Miners and those developers who want to destroy country get given this really high precedence, and the blackfellas are on the low rung. We see that all the time. It's not going to happen anymore, not on our watch anyway.
Traditional owners should be the ones making the decisions over their country, otherwise stop doing acknowledgements to country and getting your welcomes done. The system does not provide for adequate consultation and consent and the possibility to say no to a proposed activity. The system doesn't even allow this to happen. It encourages coercion. It brings division into our communities, and in the end it is the minister, not the traditional owners, who has the last say on what happens to our land. Hello? The minister says what happens, not the traditional owners? Talk about being part of the colonial project!
The committee recommends that a national framework be developed so that we can better protect our cultural heritage, which at the end of the day is yours too, if you opened your eyes and connected with it some more. The whole process needs to be First Nations led. We need to start putting First Nations people at the centre of any decision-making, and we need to be careful of the word 'co-design', because it's not. Come on. That's just another gammon word. 'Gammon' means 'pretend' in blackfella way. Co-design is a bit gammon. It's not really talking to us; it's telling us how you want to do it. Free, prior and informed consent, which Senator Dodson raised and which came through very clearly in the inquiry, is what we have to look at, not co-design.
May I also say that neither Juukan nor any other site in this country would have been destroyed if we had a treaty in this country. You know we've been at war against the first people of these lands for more than 240 years. There has never been an agreement to even settle this country. That really questions the legitimacy of this government and this whole place, doesn't it? Until we have a treaty, we have so much unfinished business. It's time to mature as a nation and come on this journey to protect everybody.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (18:21): I too wish to speak to the report tabled today regarding the Juukan Gorge inquiry conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. It's a pleasure to follow on from Senator Dodson and Senator Thorpe. Of all the committees I've been involved with in the five years I've been here, this is the one where I learned the most of the way traditional owners have been treated, the way native title has been used, and the complexity of how this is managed around the country as well. I sincerely hope the report tabled today leads to change that means these things are better managed into the future.
I want to go to some of those complexities that I saw at play. The inquiry was commenced after Rio Tinto destroyed the two rock shelters at Juukan Gorge on 24 May 2020. The rock shelters were sacred to the PKKP people and contained evidence of continuous occupation stretching back 46,000 years. The legislative frameworks that govern the protection of Indigenous heritage are complex. They comprise state, territory and Commonwealth laws and international treaties. However, clearly none of these frameworks adequately encompasses the complexity of Indigenous heritage, which is living and evolving and is connected not just through historical artefacts but through song lines, story lines, landscapes and waters. I particularly thank the traditional owners who came and gave evidence to us and explained some of those connections to us, which I found really significant.
Whereas the interim report focused on the events of Juukan Gorge, the final report reviews the inadequacy of legislation across Australia to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, which has resulted in widespread destruction of heritage. The report recommends legislation to give real meaning to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It emphasises the concept of free, prior and informed consent and the need for First Nations people to have primary decision-making power in relation to their cultural heritage. It calls for a new standalone framework for cultural heritage protection, including minimum standards for state and territory heritage protections, to be developed in a co-design process with First Nations people. It also calls for a review of the Native Title Act, with the aim of addressing inequalities in the negotiating position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the context of the future act regime. And we saw many examples of this in the limited work we were able to do as part of the committee process.
Consistent with the committee's interim report, it also recommends measures that transfer ministerial responsibility for First Nations heritage protection to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, as well as legislative prohibition of gag clauses or clauses that prevent traditional owners from accessing current Commonwealth heritage protections.
It was a challenging inquiry due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented us from being able to travel and meet with more people on country and in community. I want to thank in particular those senators and members who were able to do a significant amount of travel. From my side, my colleagues Senator Dodson and the member for Lingiari covered off on the Northern Territory and Western Australia, which was obviously a significant part of this inquiry.
The report covers a number of areas. Chapter 2 reviews the events that occurred at Juukan Gorge, the decision-making processes undertaken by Rio Tinto leading up to the destruction, and actions undertaken by Rio Tinto since the committee's interim report was tabled. Chapter 3 gives voice to other destructive events that have occurred more broadly in Western Australia because of inadequate cultural heritage protections. Chapter 4 analyses the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and the deficits that gave legal authority for the destruction of heritage sites at Juukan Gorge. Chapter 5 outlines the relevant legislation governing the protection available for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage in the states and territories and considers the benefits and critiques of each of these frameworks. Again, it goes to the complexity that I talked about in different states and territories. Chapter 6 discusses the Commonwealth legislative framework governing the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and the international laws and covenants that bind Commonwealth obligations.
The committee thanks the PKKP people and other traditional owners for engaging with this inquiry, and the resources industry for also participating. Despite the hurt and losses that the traditional owners have experienced, the committee acknowledges their strength and resilience in the face of this pain and loss. The committee has prioritised the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples throughout the report. The committee acknowledges that there are many companies within the resources industry taking strong measures to protect heritage sites, and it commends these companies. But the committee considered it important to highlight Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices above all others as part of this review.
The committee's view on the destruction is that the evidence presented to the committee suggests that a combination of factors were responsible for the destruction of the heritage sites at Juukan Gorge. State and Commonwealth legislative frameworks enabled Rio Tinto to exercise excessive power over the PKKP peoples in negotiation, but it was also Rio Tinto's internal processes that made the destruction of the Juukan Gorge heritage sites almost inevitable. Changes to the corporate structure at Rio Tinto introduced in 2016 by the then CEO saw appropriately skilled and experienced staff replaced with less experienced and unsuitably qualified replacements, resulting in a drop in adherence to internal standards and an organisational culture focused on securing quick and easy approvals. Certain community relationship responsibilities were taken away from mine managers on the ground and redistributed to other corporate roles that were removed from being on the ground.
The events at Juukan Gorge were not one-off. Rather—as evidenced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experiences outlined in chapter 3, which only highlighted a few cases—the destruction of cultural heritage sites is an alarmingly common occurrence. The committee is heartened to see the reckoning over the events of Juukan Gorge. Some companies in the resource industry are reflecting on their previous relationships with traditional owners and trying new models of engagement that are more culturally appropriate. Nevertheless, while commitments have been made to review and modify agreements, there is little transparency about how this is being done. The protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage across the states and territories is at best complex, with no consistency in how legislative frameworks are developed or applied. The committee acknowledges that Western Australia is not the only state pursuing an inquiry into Aboriginal heritage legislation. Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania are also conducting inquiries into cultural heritage legislation.
We finished with the pathway forward:
The Committee is therefore making the following findings:
1 The Australian Parliament should legislate for an overarching Commonwealth legislative framework based on the protection of cultural heritage rather than its destruction, in line with the principles set out below. State and territory legislation should also be required to meet the principles set out in this report.
2 The Commonwealth, state and territory governments should endorse a set of standards that set best practice in the management of cultural heritage sites and objects and the development of cultural heritage management plans.
3 The economic benefits of protecting and celebrating cultural heritage sites should be promoted.
In conclusion, it is clear that there is a need for strong federal leadership to ensure that heritage protections across the nation are clear, consistent and effective in protecting the living culture and heritage of First Nations people. Unfortunately, we haven't seen any concrete action from the federal government in the 18 months since the Juukan disaster. It is time for the government to stop dragging its feet and come clean about what reforms it intends to make to improve protections for First Nations cultural heritage.
As the committee's report indicates, the mining industry has recognised the need for change, and is beginning to step up to the plate by reviewing existing section 18 permits and agreements with traditional owners. But without further reform, we will continue to see the destruction of precious heritage that forms part of the oldest continuing culture on earth. At a minimum, Ministers Ley and Wyatt should explain what improvements have been made to prevent the kind of bureaucratic mishandling that we saw from both officers when they were approached by the PKKP people in the days before the explosions. There is no excuse for inaction at the federal level.
I want to put on record my thanks to the committee staff and to those people who gave their time to appear as witnesses, particularly given the complexity of travel over the past 18 months. I want to thank the committee chair, Warren Entsch, and other members for the way they worked as part of the committee process. I want to give thanks to my fellow Labor colleagues on the committee: the member for Lilley, Senator Dodson and the member for Lingiari. I particularly want to thank Senator Dodson and the member for Lingiari, whose vast experience in this area was invaluable for me as one of the participating members of this committee. Thank you.
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (18:30): In the very short time that is available to me, I would just say that I was very happy to give way to Senator Thorpe and Senator Dodson to make their contributions, and I concur with some of what Senator Chisholm has also had to say.
Eighteen months after the destruction of the Juukan Gorge, which we know to be of such tremendous heritage value to Indigenous people in my home state of Western Australia, people should ask themselves, 'What has changed?' In the report there are some additional comments from myself and others that make it very, very clear that Rio Tinto should not get off scot-free. To date there has been little or no financial penalty to Rio Tinto. This is outrageous.
In addition to those comments, I also make the point that Rio should be held accountable, and Rio's actions should not reflect on the resources industry in my home state of Western Australia or, indeed, across the country. I encourage you to read the additional comments. I absolutely support a judicial inquiry into Rio Tinto's actions. Thank you.
Senator COX (Western Australia) (18:32): This is not my first speech, but I rise to make a contribution to the tabling of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's final report in this inquiry, A way forward. I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands I'm on, the Ngambri and Ngunawal people, and traditional owners all over the country. I pay my respects to the elders past and present, and to their continued practice of caring for country and culture.
This was a significant inquiry that shone light on the many ways in which First Nations cultural heritage is destroyed, and sometimes how that is even encouraged in this country. While Juukan Gorge was the wake-up call for many Australians, the legal and wilful destruction of cultural heritage is not new for First Nations people. As the final report clearly shows, First Nations people across WA have been experiencing the impact of inadequate legislation for decades—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McGrath ): Sorry, Senator Cox; the time for your contribution has finished.
Senator Cox: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
BILLS
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add ", but any investment by Export Finance Australia must be compatible with the US-EU led Global Methane Pledge, which would require Australia to reduce our methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030 on 2020 levels".
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (18:33): In continuing the contribution of summing up on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021, I can say that the bill boosts Export Finance Australia's important role in supporting Australia's economic growth and facilitating stronger links between Australian businesses and the Indo-Pacific region while maintaining its robust processes for assessing commerciality, risk, and environmental and social impacts. I commend the bill to the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question before the chair is that the second reading amendment, as moved by Senator Cox, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator COX (Western Australia) (18:35): I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1406:
(1) Page 7 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3 — Fossil fuels
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991
1 Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
fossil fuel-based infrastructure:
(a) subject to paragraph (b), includes infrastructure for:
(i) the extraction or transportation of fossil fuels; or
(ii) fossil fuel-based electricity generation; and
(b) does not include electricity transmission infrastructure.
fossil fuels includes any of the following:
(a) coal;
(b) oil and other petroleum-based products;
(c) natural gas;
(d) products, by-products and wastes from extracting or processing fossil fuels to which paragraphs (a) to (c) apply.
2 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Northern Australia economic infrastructure )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
Northern Australia economic infrastructure:
(a) subject to paragraph (b), has the same meaning as in the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016; and
(b) does not include fossil fuel-based infrastructure.
3 Subsection 3(1) (definition of overseas infrastructure development )
After "of infrastructure", insert "(other than fossil fuel-based infrastructure)".
4 Before section 81
Insert:
80A Prohibition on assistance for fossil fuel-based infrastructure
(1) Assistance must not be provided under this Act if the assistance is for purposes relating to, or is expected to result in, the development of fossil fuel-based infrastructure.
(2) It must be a condition of any assistance provided under this Act that the assistance not be used (whether directly or indirectly) for the development of fossil fuel-based infrastructure.
(3) Assistance includes a guarantee, indemnity, loan, insurance, reinsurance, financial service, financial product, subsidy or investment.
This amendment seeks to prohibit Export Finance Australia from investing in fossil fuel projects and fossil fuel based infrastructure. Since 2009 EFA has invested at least $1.57 billion in fossil fuel projects, and we can't afford to be propping up fossil fuel projects anymore. It's bad for the climate and it doesn't make any economic sense. In order to respond to the global climate crisis we need to ensure export finance is not being used to invest in fossil fuels. There is a very real possibility that the government will want EFA to fund gas import terminals throughout South-East Asia in a desperate attempt to find more customers for our gas. We cannot let this happen if we want to stay below the 1.5 degrees of warming. The International Energy Agency has said that to meet the Paris objectives, not one new coal or gas infrastructure project can proceed. By voting against this amendment both parties are abandoning a chance of a safe climate.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (18:36): I might take a few moments to respond to some of the matters raised in the contribution just made by Senator Cox, who I welcome to the chamber, having seen her sworn in today. EFA's equity powers will be focused on overseas infrastructure development and export linked Australian businesses and sectors of economic significance. That includes, for instance, critical minerals. EFA assesses requests for its financing support on a case-by-case basis consistent with its mandate to support Australian export related businesses and overseas infrastructure development that delivers benefits for Australia. As a key export industry for Australia, EFA offers support to the fossil fuel sector, including small and medium-sized enterprises that are involved in supply chains.
EFA investments are carefully screened. There are robust due diligence processes in place that assess any financial, social, environmental or other risks. There's a range of policies, rules and guidance that impact upon EFA's ability to finance fossil fuels. They are in various places, including in the statement of expectations that is issued by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, the OECD rules and the Equator Principles.
The minister's statement of expectations for EFA sets out criteria that all resource related projects, including fossil fuels, must meet to qualify for financing, and those are: (1) there is a demonstrated market gap in the availability of finance; (2) the transaction doesn't come at the expense of SME transactions; (3) the project has significant Australian content, including through SME supply chain participation and/or benefit; and (4) that the project is commercially viable.
The government also requires EFA to align its environmental policies with several internationally recognised environmental and social standards, including the International Finance Corporation's performance standards, which set out a process for assessing project related greenhouse gas emissions; and the Equator Principles, a risk management framework adopted by financial institutions for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk in projects. And these policies and practices will also apply to the EFA's use of its equity power.
In closing, it's also worth noting that EFA is increasing its investments in the renewable energy sector. For example, EFA recently provided a $41 million loan to facilitate the development of three onshore wind farms in Vietnam. I think all of those matters go really to the essence of the concern that is expressed in this amendment and demonstrate substantially why it's not required.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:39): I think the Greens have moved the amendments on sheet 1406—subsection 3, part 1 and part 2. Is that where we're up to?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): No. My understanding is that the question before the chair is amendment (1) on sheet 1406.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:40): Can I just clarify that subsection 4 is being moved separately. Is that correct?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That would be the case. It's up to the Greens to formally move it. We're dealing with amendment (1) on sheet 1406.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:40): Thank you. I'll, therefore, use this opportunity to outline Labor's response to those issues. It is our approach to be informed by scientific evidence rather than by ideology, including in regard to the financing of fossil fuels and associated infrastructure. We recognise that there will continue to be international demand for fossil fuels for some decades, even in the context of reducing global emissions. I come from Western Australia, where we see a large proportion of national income and exports being derived currently from these exports. We need to work with industry to bring down and manage those emissions so that we can meet a net zero target.
In that context, we don't believe that Australia, as a resources trading nation, should be pulling up the ladder from beneath it while emerging economies are trying their hand at producing energy and trading resource commodities. We can't leave them behind when we've had so much economic benefit from this already. Labor stands by the Paris Agreement principles, which encourage developed economies to assist emerging economies on their slower journey to decarbonisation rather than starving them of fair financing. If nations like this do not get this pivotal investment from ethical countries like Australia, then they will risk falling into debt diplomacy traps from unethical actors in the region.
We see here unintended consequences of the proposed amendment if we were to exclude Export Finance Australia from supporting developing economies to transition to cleaner fuels. For example, under its overseas infrastructure powers Export Finance Australia can provide finance to assist developing economies to build energy projects that support transition to cleaner fuels. Export Finance Australia can then monitor the implementation of these projects through the life of the loan, including through the use of independent environmental and social consultants where appropriate. We are concerned that, had the Greens party's proposed prohibition been in place, Export Finance Australia could not have funded an Australian electrical firm's work on an LNG power station in PNG—the POM power station near Port Moresby that has replaced diesel electricity with LNG and significantly reduced PNG's carbon footprint. So we're concerned that other critical infrastructure could fall foul of the prohibition that's been put forward in this amendment—for example, airports or marine ports that require construction of fuel infrastructure for ships or aircraft or critical minerals and rare earth projects. On that note, Labor does not support this amendment.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (18:44): I beg the indulgence of the chamber and ask that the position of the Australian Greens on the second reading amendment, for which a division was not held, be recorded: that we support our own amendment. I'm not sure if our colleagues were popping that on the record at that time, because we've left them in a pickle on the first day, and our apologies to them for that.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): I'm sure that can be accommodated.
Senator WATERS: I'd like speak on amendment (1) on sheet 1406. I'll speak briefly to it, in addition to any comments that my colleague Senator Cox would like to make. This is an amendment that's been circulated in my name that says that Efic, or EFA, the subject of this bill, should not be giving money to fossil fuel infrastructure. It's somewhat reminiscent of the discussion that we had when we were debating the northern Australia infrastructure bill, the NAIF bill, where, likewise, this government sought to allow equity investment to be made by that investment vehicle. This is a similar bill. It wants Efic to be able to take an equity stake in projects but, also, there's no prohibition on such investment being made in fossil fuel infrastructure. We are concerned that this bill will facilitate yet another body simply investing public dollars and taking an equity stake in fossil fuel projects.
This is five seconds before Glasgow. This is when we are in a climate emergency, and it is somewhat distressing, but perhaps not surprising, to hear the opposition say they're worried that this will stop the Commonwealth from funding airports. That is not, in fact, the case. The drafting of the amendment is very clear. This would apply to the Export Finance Insurance Corporation. As we previously said when the NAIF bill was up for debate, we do not think governments should be taking an equity stake in fossil fuel infrastructure, and we do not think taxpayer dollars should be used to fund fossil fuel infrastructure. So the intent of this first amendment, amendment (1) on sheet 1406, is to do just that: it would cover coal, oil, petroleum, natural gas and by-products related to that.
It's a very simple choice for the chamber to make. Do you want public money to prop up fossil fuels and government to be taking an equity stake in fossil fuel projects or don't you? I'm looking forward very much to the vote on this one, because this is a crucial point of distinction. I think the Australian public expects that the opposition—but perhaps not this government—would not be supporting public money and an equity stake being taken by a government in fossil fuel projects. I commend this amendment to the House.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1406, moved by Senator Cox, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:51]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator McGrath)
Senator COX (Western Australia) (18:55): I move Australian Greens amendment No. 2 on sheet 1406:
(2) Page 7, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 3), add:
Schedule 4 — Freedom of Information Act 1982
Freedom of Information Act 1982
1 Division 1 of Part II of Schedule 2 (item dealing with Export Finance and Insurance Corporation)
Omit "4 or".
2 Application of amendments
The amendment made this Schedule does not apply to documents brought into existence before the commencement of this item.
This amendment seeks to remove the EFA's partial FOI exemption. This will increase the transparency and accountability, ensuring that the public can understand what projects are being funded by EFA. Just as the government seeks to hide the investments of the Future Fund, which poured money into Adani and the Myanmar military, it wants to hide where our public money is being invested overseas. The government is also seeking to exempt all national cabinet discussions from FOI. This is yet another move designed to hide decision-making from the public. This is a government addicted to secrecy, and this has to stop.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:56): I want to put Labor's position in relation to this further amendment. We have been engaging with stakeholders in this area, particularly about increasing transparency, and we note that the FOI Act provides partial exemptions for Commonwealth agencies. The government has argued that the existing exemption is important, providing certainty to Export Finance Australia customers and financial institutions so that they're assured their sensitive financial information, even including the fact that they might be seeking finance, is confidential. We have the view that we need to look more closely at this area. We will continue to work with stakeholders regarding the impact of the current FOI laws and exemptions on Export Finance Australia's financing practices and we are open to developing genuine standalone policy in this regard.
However, we also note that Australian exporters are facing significant difficulties at the moment because of the inability of the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, to manage the relationship of Australia with China. Therefore, we don't believe the Senate should be put in a position where we hastily tack on an amendment in this area that risks significant unintended consequences for this critical export agency and the businesses it works with. We therefore oppose the amendment.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (18:58): Far from it being hastily tacked on, this is an amendment that would make sure that the investment decisions that are made by Efic are not exempt from freedom of information. This is just classic form from the government that want to hide anything, mostly because they're up to their necks in it and it's dodgy stuff that they want to hide. But it's not just us who have recommended this. The Productivity Commission have previously recommended that the FOI exemptions for Efic be removed. They noted, rightly so, that the FOI Act already has protections for national security and commercially sensitive data. There's no good reason for this additional shroud of secrecy to be applied to Efic, and that's exactly what this well-considered and succinctly drafted amendment would achieve. We need more transparency about government spending of public money in this place, not less. It's shocking that the opposition is once again siding with the government to let the government give money to and take an equity stake in fossil fuel projects, and is happy to let that continue to be concealed from freedom of information. I'm incredulous, sometimes, at the lack of opposition from this opposition.
I want to point out that the submission from Jubilee Australia Research Centre, ACF and ActionAid—a joint submission—to the Senate inquiry into this bill also objected to the lack of transparency around the investment activities of EFIC and called for the removal of EFIC's exemption. They made the valid point that limiting access to this information undermines efforts to audit the effectiveness of the fund or the projects it funds, or to even assess the return on investment for public money. It's like putting this money into a black box, and then no-one can ask any questions about it. And this government now wants an even bigger blank cheque to say, 'We want to be able to take equity stakes now, but, no, you can't ask anything under freedom of information about whether it's good value for money or whether there was any environmental or social assessment undertaken in a decision to fund this project.' It is a complete black-box process. It's an absolute farce, and that is exactly why we are moving to say: do as the Productivity Commission recommended and remove this FOI exemption. This is public money being spent. It should be made public. It's not a difficult concept.
I object to the notion that this was hastily tacked on. This is a fundamental principle. The expenditure of public money should be made public, and the deliberations of an agency which has been given a massively expanded jurisdiction should be subject to scrutiny by the public, considering it's their money. With that, I commend the amendment.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (19:01): In my contribution on this amendment, I think it's important that I put on the record the answer to this question, which really goes to the heart of why the Greens have put this forward: why does EFA need a freedom-of-information exemption? I think that if I can answer that, members of this chamber will feel comfortable to not support this amendment.
The exemption that exists for EFA from freedom-of-information laws provides certainty to EFA's customers and other financial institutions that the sensitive information they provide as part of those deals will remain confidential. The exemption is partial and only applies to transactions EFA is handling. It doesn't apply in a broader sense to, for instance, its accountability to government. Removing this targeted exemption in the way that is proposed by this amendment would have an impact on EFA's ability to safeguard the legitimate interests in the financial or business sense of its customers, which would, in turn, have a negative impact on those businesses' ability to work with EFA. It becomes a bit of a self-defeating proposition.
I should also put on the record that it's not correct to assert that EFA doesn't provide transparency on transactions. EFA is required to disclose its participation in all transactions, no matter what industry that transaction touches upon, within eight weeks of the finalisation of that transaction. Those details include: the name of the client; the sector in which they operate; the goods or services involved; the overseas infrastructure involved; the country; the type of facility; and the value of the facility of the export or overseas infrastructure support.
EFA discloses its proposed involvement in transactions with the potential for significant environmental and/or social impacts, in addition to all the things I've set out, on its website prior to making a decision on the provision of finance, giving that extra layer of transparency should it be anything that might be a matter of a sensitive nature. I'd suggest that senators can feel assured that the exemption is limited only to what is necessary to give commercial efficacy to the transactions involved, and otherwise provides that there needs to be disclosure within eight weeks of finalisation of key information here in Australia.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (19:04): I rise to contribute to the discussion on the amendment. I will point out that I do a lot of FOIs, so I understand this space quite well. Everyone must understand that FOI has the unique characteristic of being the only tool that citizens have to directly engage in oversight and access information to be able to participate in debate. We in this chamber can ask questions on notice, seek orders for the production of documents and do Senate inquiries. We also have other institutions that conduct oversight, like the Auditor-General, who does a fantastic job. But the only method for citizens to be able to engage is through the use of FOI. They directly control that.
The FOI Act has a number of exemptions already in place. Section 45 is one of the business ones. There is also section 47, relating to commercial activities and so forth. There's a certain reality about FOI. If I were to make an FOI request of EFA right now, in the middle of a transaction, I can assure you I'd get a redacted return. I would probably go to the Information Commissioner, and it would be likely to take two years to come out the other side of that and then perhaps get to appeal to the AAT—a very lengthy process. So it's not as if FOI requests would generally seek to interfere with commercially sensitive transactions that are on foot, because of the way in which our system is quite broken.
Another point to make, just so senators understand this, is that you can make an FOI request and have it knocked back because of some sensitivity. Five years later, you can make the same FOI request and you might find that it doesn't get knocked back, because of the time that has passed since the original application was made. There's a requirement in law that FOI decisions be made on the basis of the circumstances at the time the decision is made, and often you will see, in FOI decisions that are published by the Information Commissioner or the AAT, that they've given consideration to the time that has elapsed since the information was first brought into existence, and often that gives rise to access to the documents.
So I just say that it's very difficult under the current regime to get access to information that is truly sensitive from a business perspective, but, even in circumstances where you might normally seek access to it, because of the time it takes to get through the FOI challenge, it's unlikely to be sensitive by the time you get to the point of getting it. At that point, you are dealing with a very experienced Information Commissioner or with the AAT, whose examination of any claims of commercial sensitivity is very deep and precise. For that reason, I don't think there is a requirement for additional exemptions or class exemptions to be put in place, and that's the basis upon which I will be supporting this amendment.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): The question is that Greens amendment (2) on sheet 1406, moved by Senator Cox, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [19:12]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ) (19:16): The question is that the bill stand as printed.
The Senate divided. [19:16]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)
Third Reading
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (19:19): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (19:19): by leave—I ask that the Australian Greens' opposition to the third reading be recorded.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O'Neill): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Sport
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (19:20): For the last two years, I have been campaigning for the protection of women's single-sex sport. With the support of female athletes—from Olympic medallists through to women playing local sport, academics, parents, volunteers and many others—I have been making the simple and obvious point that women's sport was created specifically to cater for the differences in physical capabilities between males and females and that it's unfair and often unsafe to have biological males competing in women's sport, because males have a whole host of advantages in strength, stamina and physique.
The vast majority of Australians know these things to be true, yet for some reason Australia's peak sporting body in 2019 began claiming the opposite—that sport should be based on self-affirmed gender identity rather than sex. Over the last two years, Sport Australia has ignored a spate of expert findings demonstrating the importance of single-sex sport for women. When World Rugby found that females were at hugely increased risk of serious head injuries when playing against transwomen, Sport Australia dismissed it. When peer reviewed research was released demonstrating the advantages males have over females, even after testosterone suppression, Sport Australia ignored it. When the IOC allowed a young female athlete to miss out on the Olympics so a 42-year-old biological male could compete in the women's category based on guidelines the IOC has since admitted are not fit for purpose, Sport Australia refused to comment.
Thankfully for female athletes around the world, not all sporting bodies have turned a blind eye to the evidence. Earlier this month, counterparts in the UK released new guidance for transgender inclusion in sport after an extensive project consulting with athletes and looking at the scientific evidence, something that Sport Australia has since admitted it didn't do. The UK sports council has made findings which mirror exactly the points I and many other advocates have been making for years. They found:
Categorisation within the sex binary is and remains the most useful and functional division relative to sporting performance.
… … …
Competitive fairness cannot be reconciled with self-identification into the female category …
Based upon current evidence, testosterone suppression is unlikely to guarantee fairness between transgender women and natal females …
These findings are in direct contradiction to Sport Australia's submission that women's sport should be based on gender identity rather than sex. What did Sport Australia have to say about the UK findings when they were asked by the media for comment? Absolutely nothing. There was no acknowledgement of the work the UK sports council had done, no reflection on the council's findings and no commitment to take a look at the evidence that had been found. An anonymous spokesman said, 'The guidelines would only require updating if the federal Sex Discrimination Act was changed.' This is an extraordinary statement for an agency to make when presented with clear evidence about unfairness to women. It amounts to: 'Bad luck. No amount of evidence and no number of concerns from women can make us listen.' It is also a strangely strident commitment to a position that they didn't know they had until 2019, six years after the most recent change to the section of the Sex Discrimination Act, when they suddenly decided they needed clarity.
Many Australians scratch their heads and wonder how we found ourselves in the position that our taxpayer funded peak sporting body isn't prepared to acknowledge that single-sex sport for women and girls is vital and necessary to give female athletes a fair go. 'Why didn't female athletes speak up and say something?' they ask. Once again the UK sports council's report is revealing. The same report said:
… current female athletes suggested that although all or most athletes considered transgender athletes have an advantage if they compete in women's sport, almost no-one would be brave enough to discuss this in public. One athlete said that the potential for a social media "pile on" would be too great, so it is easier to keep quiet and acquiesce. … Other athletes said that they had been warned not to discuss this topic by their NGB and had been threatened with sanctions such as non-selection if they disobeyed.
This is an extraordinary indictment of the attitude of sports administrators towards women. 'We'll decide how to be inclusive even if it's directly against your interests, and you'll shut up and take it or you'll be punished for it.' As someone who has spoken to many female Australian athletes, both at the professional and at the community level, and to volunteers and administrators about this issue, I'm afraid to say I wasn't shocked at all to read that. It's consistent with what I've heard from many about the situation in Australia.
To anyone who cares enough to pay attention, it's no secret that activists use social media, traditional media, the bureaucracy and the legal system to create an intensely intimidating environment for women to speak up in defence of single-sex sports and other sex based rights. The UK might be fortunate to have a sports council prepared to acknowledge reality, but look at how women are being treated elsewhere simply for acknowledging biological reality and for standing up for their own rights. Hopefully senators are aware of the disgraceful attacks on philosophy professor Kathleen Stock, who has been targeted by anonymous activists to the extent that police have told her not to attend her place of work. UK Labour MP Rosie Duffield didn't feel safe to attend the Labour Party conference because of the abuse she's received from Labour members for saying that only women have a cervix. Instead of defending Rosie, her leader and numerous colleagues threw her under a bus. Here in Australia I myself was summonsed to a compulsory conciliation hearing 12 months ago by an antidiscrimination bureaucrat because I wrote that women's sports and facilities were designed for females and should remain that way.
Because I've campaigned for the protection of women in single-sex sport and for sex based rights, making the exact same points that sensible national sporting organisations are making internationally, I've received all sorts of abuse from anonymous keyboard warriors. Earlier this year, I posted a collection of examples from a single four-day period of emails and messages I received, calling me all sort of expletives and derogatory terms: the C-word—and they weren't talking about conservative—F-ing idiot, TERF, bitch, and a pathetic excuse for a human being. There were messages telling me to die and to shut the F up. One email concluded 'I'm surprised you're out of the kitchen'. Bear in mind that the people sending me these deranged messaged are doing so in the name of inclusion. The most infuriating thing about receiving these messages is that I know that the people calling me these things are getting exactly what they want from our institutions.
All of this is sadly consistent with the language that is being used publicly on social media to denigrate and threaten women all over the world who speak up for women's rights. In any other context, this abuse of women would cause a media storm. But, when I posted those messages on Facebook as an example of what women have to put up with for speaking in defence of single-sex sport and sex based rights, an Australian journalist mockingly tweeted them to his followers with the caption 'TERFs posting their Ls.'
This is why we are where we are. If a woman dares to express an opinion which is off the progressive script, there is a horde of Twitter warriors, journalists, media outlets and Labor and Green politicians out there to make it as intimidating as possible for you. It doesn't matter if you're a Left-leaning feminist. It doesn't matter if you're a lifelong Labor or Green voter. You'll be labelled a TERF, the universal social media language that says it's okay to send abuse to this woman, it's okay to lie about what she said, it's okay to try to end her career because she's not one of us.
The beneficiaries of this culture are the lobby groups who are pushing for women's single-sex sports and services to be replaced by women's services that males can identify into, and the bureaucracies who are doing their bidding and don't want their actions to be scrutinised. The people who suffer the consequences are women. All it takes to stop this madness is for people who know that single-sex sport and services for women are sensible and necessary to speak up and say so, and all it takes for it to get worse is for people to stay silent and keep letting bureaucrats give away women's rights, because it's easier to stay out of it.
McCarthy, Mrs Thelma
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (19:29): Last Saturday, an icon of the New South Wales New England region, Mrs Thelma McCarthy, received life membership of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. It wasn't our traditional New South Wales Labor conference. It was digital, it was short and it lacked all of the theatre and the clash of ideas that makes the New South Wales Labor conference the greatest of all Australian political conferences. Of course, COVID meant that we couldn't have her there in person and that we haven't been able to organise a dinner in her honour in Armidale. This last thing will happen, and it will be quite a dinner. I can think of no more deserving recipient—or a recipient who better epitomises Labor values and principles, particularly in the country—than Thelma McCarthy. Her decades of community work and leadership and the extraordinary details of her life represent the highest expression of Labor's values. She was also an important figure in my early life in the Labor Party and has set a very important example for people in the Labor Party, like me, to consider.
Thelma grew up on a property in south-west New South Wales. After the bombing of Darwin, she joined the Royal Australian Air Force, becoming one of the first women to serve in the Air Force. She was 17, having told a few fibs about her age. She became a wireless operator, and she taught herself Morse code in just six weeks. At that time, it took most of the men who entered the RAAF 18 months to learn. She was a born leader and was quickly promoted to sergeant. Her service, and the service of her colleagues, was critical to the defence of the country at a time of extraordinary danger. It also paved the way for thousands of women to serve across our defence forces.
It was while serving with the RAAF in Canberra that she met her first Labor prime minister, Prime Minister John Curtin. When, one evening, he called the signal station she was working in, she thought it was a hoax. During her years in the RAAF, she also met a flight officer called Bill McCarthy, who was friends with a young navigator called Gough Whitlam.
After the war, Bill and Thelma were married and moved to Armidale. They stayed close friends with Gough and became prominent members of the Armidale branch of the Labor Party. In 1978, Bill McCarthy won the seat of Armidale in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly as part of the 1978 landslide election. He would go on to hold Armidale, later renamed Northern Tablelands, for nine years. Thelma was widely considered to be the de facto local member, as she filled in for Bill when his parliamentary duties took him out of the electorate. Tragically, Bill resigned from the parliament in 1987 and died from cancer only three days later.
Thelma ran as Labor's candidate for the seat in the by-election that followed her husband's death. The Australian described Thelma, in 1987, as the Labor Party's unlikely political saviour, and it quoted the local organiser—my notes don't say it, but I'm sure it was Lawrie Daly—during the campaign as saying, 'It's a seat we should really lose, but we think Thelma might just be able to win it for us.' It was a close-run race indeed, much closer than the subsequent general election in New South Wales. I've no doubt that she would have been an extraordinary local member had a few hundred votes gone the other way.
That loss hasn't prevented her from representing the people of Armidale or being engaged in a leadership role in that community. It's a rural city that will be forever shaped by her passion for her community, for the Labor Party and for her life in the local Anglican church. She was deputy chair of the New South Wales council for the bicentenary, she served on the NSW Ministerial Advisory Committee on Ageing and she has mentored generations of Labor members in New England and across country New South Wales, including me.
Her commitment to the people of New England hasn't ended there. This month, a feature in the Weekend Australian by journalist Greg Bearup, who famously comes from the town of Guyra, very close to Armidale, described the struggle between the congregants of St Mary's Church and the Anglican Bishop of Armidale. The organist in that church, Peter, has been excluded from performing at their services because he's married to a man. Both men are in their 60s and are lifelong churchgoers. And who is leading the congregants in revolt? None other than Thelma McCarthy, at the age of 96. The article quotes her:
Can they just get out of people's bedrooms? … If people are loving and caring, what goes on in their private lives is none of anyone else's business.
The article also quotes another parishioner describing a confrontation between Thelma and the local Anglican officialdom:
My God, she cut loose … It was a sight to behold, this 96-year-old little-old-lady—she's four-foot tall—giving it to the … Dean.
I wish to note my support for the congregants and for Peter Grace and Peter Sanders. They deserve justice and to experience their faith without discrimination among a congregation who so clearly love them and want them to stay within their faith community.
Thelma McCarthy's extraordinary life in the service of others continues apace. I'm proud to be part of the political tradition that she forged in New England. I'm proud to know her and her family, particularly her daughter, Annette, who has also been a terrific servant of and contributor to the Labor Party. I hope that others across New South Wales can take inspiration from her life and her passion for justice. I wish her all the very best and look forward to seeing her in Armidale very soon indeed.
Amess, Sir David Anthony Andrew
Senator VAN (Victoria) (19:36): I rise to pay tribute to Sir David Amess, the Conservative MP who was tragically murdered last week. He was the MP for Southend West, a town that I lived in for a short while earlier in my life. He was the MP at that time, but I never got to meet him; I wasn't involved in politics at that point in my life. But much of his work I've heard about through those of my friends and family who are still living there. I have a beautiful goddaughter, Natasha, who still lives there, and she and her family have been quite troubled by this. Sir David was described as one of the kindest, nicest, most gentle people ever to have served in politics. Even his opposition have described his profound sense of duty as something that we all should aim to be like, and I would certainly like to do that myself.
Sir David was the lead parliamentarian for the Conservative Friends of Israel. I and some of my colleagues in this place are patrons of the Liberal Friends of Israel. I share his deep passion for Israel and for the Jewish community. He famously said:
Although I myself am not a Jew but a Catholic, there is Jewish blood in each and every one of us.
Having been brought up a Catholic, but my life partner being a Jewish woman, I understand his sentiments very well. He said:
I would certainly have been proud to have been born a Jew, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with our local Jewish community—
a sentiment I share and one that I think we in this place should all think about.
While it was a terrorist attack, and no doubt violent religious extremism was involved, I'm sure even Sir David would have said this is not a time for racism. This is a time for forgiveness. This is a time when we can bring our communities together. So I rise, even so briefly, to pay tribute to Sir David. I send my prayers and thoughts to his family and his constituents and to all of the UK parliamentarians. Vale, Sir David.
Senate adjourned at 19:39