The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Slade Brockman ) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—20 October 2021
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—today and 20 and 21 October 2021
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
MOTIONS
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:01): I seek leave to move a motion in relation to a target for emissions reduction as just circulated in the chamber.
Leave not granted.
Senator WATERS: Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to provide that a motion relating to a target for emissions reduction be moved immediately, determined without amendment and take precedence over all other business for 30 minutes.
This is a matter of urgency and that's exactly why we need to suspend standing orders today to deliberate this, because this is the last chance parliamentarians will get to debate before the Prime Minister goes to Glasgow and embarrasses our entire nation and isolates us on the world stage with his climate-denying big-fat-zero offer for 2030. Forget all the stage-managed theatre about 2050 targets; 2030 targets are the price of admission to the Glasgow climate summit, and Mr Scott Morrison has given in to Mr Barnaby Joyce on 2030 targets.
The Prime Minister is going to Glasgow with empty hands, offering nothing for the summit's purpose of increasing our 2030 pollution targets, but he will bring home a gift from our trading partners—carbon tariffs on our exports. The EU ambassador is reported today as saying that the world is running out of time on climate action, that the EU is running out of patience with Australia, which is out of step with the rest of the world, and that the EU intends to put a carbon tariff on high-emitting imports on countries not doing enough. Well, when the EU and other countries put a carbon tariff on our exports, what do you think that is? It is a carbon tax. But, instead of Australia collecting this revenue and reinvesting it back into society, our trading partners overseas will collect it. Mr Scott Morrison not lifting 2030 ambition means that Australian exporters will pay a tax collected overseas, while the cost of capital for Australian businesses will increase. We are becoming a riskier place to invest in.
To drive investment and innovation in Australia, we have to set an ambitious target based on the science. That means a target of at least 74 per cent below 2005 by 2030. It's not just the Greens saying this; it's the independent scientists, the climate science experts. It's the climate target panel's recommendation. That would triple the wholly inadequate target that Mr Tony Abbott committed Australia to last time and what the Prime Minister, extorted by the National Party, seems determined to stick with. That strong 2030 target of a 74 or 75 per cent reduction is ambitious but it's achievable and it will be good for farmers, who can make money from abating carbon. It will be good for jobs. It will be good for energy prices. It will be good for manufacturing and shipping. It will be good for everyone except the coal and gas industries and the political parties that they donate to.
Commitments for 2050 mean a big fat zero; 2030 is the year that matters, and climate scientists have told us clearly that we need to halve global pollution by the end of the decade or we risk losing control of climate change. Once the genie of chain reactions and feedback loops is let out of the bottle, we can't put it back in. Without strong 2030 targets 2050 does not matter, it is too late: 2050 is a slogan—it's a mirage—while we do nothing except expand coal and gas exports, which the government and the opposition are encouraging. We have the Beetaloo, Adani and Scarborough gas fields, the Barossa gas field and the two new coal mines that Minister Ley approved last week. The International Energy Agency has said that to reach net zero by 2050 not one new coal, oil or gas project should proceed. But the department of industry currently has 72 new coal projects and 44 new gas projects proceeding, and this government is throwing even more money at its fossil fuel mates to make it happen. Delay is the new denial, and if they don't have a plan for coal and gas then they don't have a plan for the climate.
This is exactly why we need to suspend standing orders to talk about this today, because our nation's climate policy is being stitched up behind closed doors by a party that gets five per cent of the national vote, with no ability for parliamentarians to input into the setting of that target. And there's no ability for the science to see the light of day and to permeate the veil of corporate donations from the coal and gas companies that is so shrouding the eyes of this current government. It is exactly why we need to debate this urgent matter. The EU is warning us that it will put a tariff on our exports. Surely this government will listen to the money, if it won't listen to the science?
The Australian people are fed up with this government just doing the bidding of the big coal, oil and gas companies. They know what is at stake. They know that the future of our Murray-Darling, our Great Barrier Reef and our agriculture is at stake. It's time to listen to the science and time to debate a strong 2030 target. (Time expired)
Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:07): I will just speak briefly to put the Labor position on this motion—a motion which we found out about about 10 minutes ago.
Senator Canavan: You've had years to come up with your climate policy!
Senator WATT: Senator Canavan, my friend, you've had eight years to work out your position and I know that you're still trying to work out if you're back to being Marxist Matt, or KPMG Matt or Productivity Commission Matt. Labor will be supporting the suspension of standing orders because we do think that it is an important time to debate climate change policy in this country. However, we will be opposing the Greens motion, which as I say, we have just been handed a copy of. The motion does not reflect Labor's position when it comes to mid-term targets. We have been very clear all along that we will be releasing our position on mid-term targets after the Glasgow conference, once we have a clear idea of what the rules of the road are for the world on this matter. So we won't be supporting a Greens motion which seeks to set a particular mid-term target at this point in time.
I might say that it is disappointing, at a moment when there is broad community support for serious action on climate change—including net zero emissions by 2050—that, rather than focusing on the government, the Greens have put up a motion which they know will divide non-government parties. So, yet again, we see the Greens more interested in stunts and wedges rather than actually working together against the government, which is seeking to take us backwards.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:09): I move:
That the question be now put.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the question be put.
The Senate divided. [12:13]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
The PRESIDENT (12:24): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:24]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
BILLS
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (12:28): Mr President, as I think this is the first time I've had an opportunity to congratulate you on your recent appointment, I wish you all the very best in the role.
I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. This bill is in response to the very tragic death of Ms Ann-Marie Smith in April last year, which all South Australians will be aware of. As all in this chamber will recall, Ann-Marie Smith was a 50-year-old Adelaide NDIS participant who died on 6 April of severe septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy after being confined to a cane chair, 24 hours a day, for more than 12 months. Ann-Marie Smith's NDIS package included six hours of support per day. Reports are that she only received two hours of care per day and had not been seen outside her house in years.
Her death shocked Australians, and rightfully so. Australians were left wondering how this could happen and where the system failed her so terribly. Following pressure from the community as well as Labor's shadow minister—and South Australian shadow minister—the Morrison government were forced to undertake a review into the circumstances of Ann-Marie's death.
While Labor had being calling for an independent inquiry into the NDIS safeguarding, the government had tasked Federal Court Justice Alan Robertson with reviewing the adequacy of the regulations of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith. This review did not have statutory powers and submissions were not made public. In addition, there was no wider sector or parliamentary engagement communicated by the government into the Robertson review, evidence-gathering process and the development of the bill. The review held a number of meetings in Adelaide on 20 and 21 July 2020 with those who provided a submission or an outline of what they wished to say.
When released, the report stated that it does not identify any failings in how the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission carried out its functions around Ann-Marie Smith's death. The review found that there was no wrongdoing when the commission, which is set up to protect NDIS participants, issued, firstly, a fine of $12,600, for failing to notify the commission of Annie's death within 24 hours, a month and a half after she died. As far as we know, this is the only fine the commission has issued against a provider since it was set up in 2018. Secondly, there was a banning order on the provider Integrity Care four months after she died. We know now that this was the only infringement the commission had ever issued, in two years of operation. A year later there have been only a handful more.
In the course of the review, Mr Robertson did take the opportunity to consider wider issues of safeguarding of people with disability who are particularly vulnerable. The report highlights buck-passing between the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. The problem is that the NDIS commission only regulates providers and that the NDIA is set up to administer the scheme to participants. Robertson says that the two agencies are not sharing information and people could easily fall through the cracks of patchy oversight.
The Robertson review and some of the recommendations appear to have merit, including those around greater communications between the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Between Robertson's recommendation and this bill, there has been no meaningful consultation with disability stakeholders as to whether, in their lived experience, these reforms will be effective, in practice, or whether more or other recommendations from the review should have been legislated.
In the absence of proper and meaningful engagement, the bill was sent to the Senate inquiry for review. The inquiry raised a number of issues with the bill. The first of these was a lack of consultation with people with disability as part of the drafting of the bill. People with disability and stakeholders, including DROs and the state and territory governments, were not included at any stage in the process to draft the legislation.
The absence of direct consultation with people with disability is concerning, because the displacement of people with disability from involvement in decisions about their lives directly contradicts the core person centred principle of the NDIS. It's part of the reason why people such as Ann-Marie Smith are frequently put in situations that place them at risk.
In addition, there were concerns raised about the information sharing positions and the unintended risk this posed to participants who would have the information shared without consent. In its current form the bill does not have a requirement for the NDIA or the commission to seek the consent of a participant or notify them that their personal information has been recorded, shared and used for the purposes of safeguarding. The threshold for recording, sharing and using participant information for the purposes of this bill has also been lowered. Stakeholders were concerned about the situation where the commission and the NDIA staff are able to make critical decisions about people's lives and their information without clear processes for ensuring that the privacy rights of the individual whose information is being shared is being protected. Both the issues around the consultation and privacy are significant.
While the report recommended passing the bill, Labor senators noted the unresolved concern of the stakeholders. These concerns are the subject of some sensible amendments put forward to this bill today and which I hope will have the support of all in this chamber. Fundamentally, Labor welcomes the Morrison government's decision to act on the recommendations of the Robertson's review, even if it's taken 12 months since former Judge Alan Robertson handed down his report and 16 months after Ann-Marie Smith passed away. However, Labor also notes the lack of consultation and continuing failure of the Morrison government to consult people with disability on changes which directly impact their lives. That being said, Labor believes everything possible should be done to protect people with disability from neglect and abuse.
While the bill does not address gaping holes in the NDIS safeguarding, such as the lack of proactive checking on service providers and an ineffective and understaffed NDIS commission, it is supported. The concerns of stakeholders and the people with disability in relation to privacy and information sharing have not gone unheard. Labor recognises the right to privacy is just as important as the need to protect. That's why Labor will join with the Greens in moving amendments in the Senate to ensure that there is a proper process for the disclosure of participant information.
In addition, Labor, along with the Greens, will be moving amendments to ensure that all of these concerns are able to be looked at in detail as part of the review of the NDIS safeguarding expected later this year, which will involve close consultation with stakeholders and people with disability. These amendments will seek to ensure that if the government fails to conduct a review the bill will cease to operate. These are important amendments, and I hope that all senators will give consideration to supporting them.
Ann-Marie Smith's terrible demise was nothing short of a tragedy; she should be alive and thriving. Instead she was neglected, abandoned and died. And devastatingly we know that this is not an isolated case. We have a duty of care to ensure that vulnerable people receive the care and support they need, and we must do all we can to prevent tragedies like this ever occurring again. As such, Labor supports the bill.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (12:39): [by video link] I would like to thank Senator Farrell for his contribution and for the ALP's support of the Greens' amendments to this bill. First of all, it's really important to place this overall piece of legislation in context. The context in which we consider this bill today is one in which we know that right now across our community, across our country, many, many disabled people, particularly disabled women, are subjected to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability held hearings recently, and some of the testimony and evidence given at that hearing spoke in vivid terms to the experiences of many across our community. We know that this is both a historical fact and a present reality for many, many people—some of whom are also participants within the NDIS. As we consider these facts and realities, it is really important, therefore, to ensure that the safeguarding mechanisms that exist for participants within the NDIS are strong, so that violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of participants is avoided. When we talk about safeguards, it's important to acknowledge that institutional safeguards, systemic safeguards, legislative safeguards, are an important element of an overall spectrum of safeguarding approaches that can and should be taken to eliminate violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation. It's really important that they sit well alongside community based safeguards, what's called 'natural safeguarding'. In many ways this boils down to the importance and value, in terms of safeguarding, of facilitating people to be active in the community, to engage and to have social relationships and connections.
This bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, is also being brought to us today in a context where the nation, and particularly South Australians, are reflecting upon the absolutely horrific murder of Ann-Marie Smith. It was and is a case which serves as a gruesome window into the lives of so many disabled people. One of the facts that always stick out to me when we look at Ann-Marie's case, in addition to horrendous abuse, the exploitation and the squalor in which she was left by people charged with her support, is that, when they investigated her death—or the 'incident', as it was termed initially—nobody had seen Ann-Marie Smith in a decade. Nobody had seen her. I think that speaks to the urgent need for those natural safeguards to be put in place and, in many ways, for the NDIS to function as it should to enable people to participate in community. When it comes to the systemic and legislative safeguards that should exist, and that are currently administered and watched over by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, it's important that they work.
The Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS has been conducting a detailed inquiry into the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission for a while now, and it has revealed a number of ways in which the commission can do better. The legislation before us today seeks to translate only three or four of the recommendations of the Robertson review, which was instigated by the commission after the manslaughter of Ann-Marie Smith. In putting these recommendations into law, the government made a significant initial misstep by making the assumption that, simply because a review had been conducted and that review had engaged with disabled people's organisations, the recommendations of that review would be translated into law without additional scrutiny to ascertain whether the recommendations taken in relation to one case were applicable to the entire population, or indeed that the legislation crafted and designed to implement those recommendations faithfully reflected those recommendations, and, finally, critically, to ensure that in trying to do good, in trying to strengthen safeguards, other dangers, other risks, other harms, were not created or enabled.
Initially, the government attempted to pass this legislation a few months back, in the non-contro section of the Senate agenda—believing that it should get unanimous support. Many disabled people, many disabled peoples organisations reached out to me—and this was in the context of the campaign against independent assessments at the time—and said, very clearly, that they had not been consulted, that the Department of Social Services, the NDIS, the minister's office hadn't reached out to them. They were more than ready and willing to engage, even though they were otherwise busy with the campaign against independent assessments. They would have been more than happy to engage with the crafting of this legislation, because the issue is so critical to them and their members.
The government were initially resistant to an inquiry of a necessary length, but eventually we were able to persuade them that an inquiry was needed. That inquiry took its course, and heard some critical recommendations about how this legislation could be strengthened and how we could ensure that this legislation didn't do harm as it was trying to do something good. As Senator Farrell noted, our amendments seek to turn the feedback gathered into law and into shifts within the legislation.
The amendments that we've set out will ensure that there is a full review of the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework within 12 months. It will ensure that if a person is designated as an at-risk participant, and their information is therefore shared on that basis, then they are informed that information has been shared on their behalf. It will ensure that there are proper, transparent processes in relation to the handling of that information, and that those processes are reviewed by the Australian Information Commissioner. And, finally, it will insert critical elements within the legislation that will enable the definitions within the bill to be clearer. When we talk about vulnerability, when we talk about at-risk participants, it is really, really important that we acknowledge and recognise that someone's so-called vulnerability is not an inherent product of their impairment or disability. It is the creation of environmental factors, contextual factors that cause them to be at risk from abuse, exploitation, neglect or violence at the hand of somebody seeking to exploit that environmental context. So our amendments also tighten up those definitional aspects.
I also say here in the second reading debate, in the time that I have left, that I'm also aware of two political realities, as I talk to this amendment. One is that there is an important principle that we are discussing here, which is the principle of 'nothing about us without us'. This has been a catchcry of the disability community for a really long time. It's a clear articulation that if you're going to make a decision or change a policy that effects disabled people, then those disabled people should be included and should co-design that process. Initially, that wasn't the road the government wanted to go down. We have now been through a process where disabled people have given their views on this important piece of legislation, and my amendments give us the opportunity, as a chamber, to implement those recommendations and to make real our commitment to the principle that nothing should happen in relation to disabled people. Critical policy changes shouldn't happen in relation to disabled people without us being involved in the process, because that is how you get good policy outcomes that will achieve the goals that you want. Nothing in this set of amendments will impede the central function of the bill. It will only serve to make it a better bill, reflecting the feedback of disabled people.
I would also acknowledge that there is an amendment coming up from One Nation in relation to the broader question of the funding and the sustainability of the NDIS. I know this is an issue which One Nation has spoken a lot about recently. The Greens and One Nation are on different pages when it comes to the financial sustainability of the NDIS. I am of the view that we do not yet have a clear enough picture of the financial trajectory of the agency and the drivers of that trajectory to enable us to say conclusively whether there is a cost overrun and, if so, what is driving that cost overrun, which I think kind of puts the cart before the horse when we're talking about whether or not the NDIS needs to be constrained or whether that's appropriate. I don't think it is appropriate. I don't think we should be kicking people off the NDIS. I think that a lot of the conversation around our National Disability Insurance Scheme has been shaped by facts and figures presented to the public out of context, by individuals who want to achieve policy outcomes by presenting those figures in the way that they have. So I will make clear that the Greens will not be voting for that particular One Nation amendment.
Regardless of our differences of opinion on the question of the finances of the agency and what should or shouldn't be done to address that, the bill before us today does not deal with the financial sustainability of the NDIS. It deals with changes to quality and safeguarding and what is to be done to ensure that disabled people who are scheme participants are not subject to abuses. The amendments that I've offered strengthen that bill with some commonsense recommendations made by disabled people who are experts in how to get this done properly. They require transparency and accountability and ensure that a proper and fulsome review of the overall framework will be done within the next 12 months. They reflect that baseline principle of listening to disabled people when we speak and adding our input into the policy creation process.
On those grounds, I would wholeheartedly urge the crossbench—and, indeed, the government at this moment—to come on board with these amendments. Let's make this a whole-of-Senate activity, to come together and endorse some sensible improvements to a piece of legislation, having reviewed it, which is ultimately our job to do. In doing so, let us send a message to disabled people across Australia that the Australian Senate actually does believe in that core principle of 'nothing about us without us'.
It may well be that the initial creation process of this bill was rushed, for whatever reason. It was a very intense time for everybody on every side of the disability debate when these pieces of legislation were initially offered, and I wonder whether, if people had their time over again, more consultation would have been done in the exposure draft phase of the bill and whether actually the bill sitting before us today would look remarkably like the bill would look if our amendments were to pass. But let's put that aside. We all miss things in the process of putting together the sausage of legislation, and I reckon we could take this opportunity right now—I was about to say, to make that sausage a bit tastier; that's a bit weird!—to make the bill overall a better thing for people. That's something which, I think, regardless of your political inclination, we can, together, at this moment, get on board and get done.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John, I note you have a second reading amendment. Is Senator McKim moving that later when he speaks, or is one of the Greens in the chamber moving that now?
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I believe that Senator McKim may move it now or may move it when we are later in the debate, Chair. I [inaudible]—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim is not in the chamber. I don't know if someone else from the Greens wishes to move that or leave it till Senator McKim speaks.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I'll get him to move it later.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks, Senator Steele-John. Minister.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (12:54): Could we just clarify which one that is, because I don't have a record of any second reading amendments from the Greens. Which one is it?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I believe it's sheet 1421, Minister. Thank you, Senator Steele-John. I'll call Senator Hughes.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (12:54): The one thing I think we can all agree on is that the case of Ann-Marie Smith is heartbreaking. There is absolutely no way—with or without the NDIS, pre or post the NDIS, or anywhere in our society—that this should have been allowed to happen. It is an absolutely appalling reflection on society as a whole that this woman was allowed to endure what she did, and that ultimately led to her death. The more I think about it, the more incredulous I am that this was allowed to occur. We're talking about a woman who had a profound disability—a woman who was unable to toilet herself, shower herself or feed herself. At no point in what's alleged to have been one year was she taken out of a cane chair. I mean, how is this even possible? It's just extraordinary that a woman with a profound disability was left sitting in a chair for one year—not even taken to the toilet or showered. And God knows if she was ever fed. This is just abuse in every shape and form, and it's an absolute abomination.
But how did it occur? How can anyone who purports to be a service provider or carer allow this to happen and to persist? One woman has been charged with Ann-Marie Smith's manslaughter—because, allegedly, there was one carer allocated to Ann-Marie Smith. We know that Ann-Marie Smith was in the chair for a year. So if a carer was due to come to her three times a day—why was it only one person? Did this woman never have a day off? Did this woman never have a holiday? Did she work seven days a week for that year? I think there are a lot of questions for the provider, who I understand has been struck off as a provider of NDIS services. I think questions need to be asked as to how does that provider ever allowed a situation to occur where one woman was in charge of the care of a severely and profoundly disabled woman. No-one has accepted responsibility. How can one carer, who has been charged and has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, ultimately have been responsible for 365 days of care, seven days a week, with no other person visiting the house? We probably know that that woman didn't go out all the time, but the provider, that organisation, should have been up to the task and ensured that there was more than one provider attending to this woman. I am sure they have a roster, where staff are rostered on and off, so who else was put on in place? I think there are significant things that need to be looked at with some of these providers. We need to ensure that providers are not given an opportunity to throw all the blame on one carer employed by them—in some cases I believe they're claiming this was subcontracted to them—when we're talking about provision of care for 365 days a year, seven days a week. It is absolutely extraordinary.
I welcome that the NDIA and this bill will provide more oversight and more opportunities for us to ensure that these situations are never allowed to occur again. But it is important when we look at the context of the NDIS that part of the tier 2 supports that are supposed to be in place—the tier 2 that, unfortunately, to this stage hasn't been a high enough priority; but I do commend the minister for now taking a much more serious look at the tier 2 community supports part of the NDIS—are becoming a reality. The community supports were designed to ensure that those organisations who wanted to participate in community activities outside of the disability providers could receive training, guidance and communication on how best to deal with a person with a disability who wants to use their services and that there is more community awareness, acceptance and understanding of what people with a disability require.
Where we see shortfalls in our community—we've talked about it through COVID. Loneliness is real and it is a scourge in our community. People have really felt loneliness through the isolation of lockdowns. When we saw that people who were living alone weren't allowed to interact with others, it took some convincing of the state governments that perhaps they should allow friend bubbles or singles bubbles so people were not forced to isolate alone. We've talked about this in this place many times, and I know we don't have any direct figures, but I am sure we will learn over time what the consequences have been of some of the desperation and loneliness that people have felt through enforced isolation via COVID.
You can only imagine the isolation and loneliness that was experienced by Ann-Marie Smith. We have to understand she didn't live in a group home. She was living in a home that had been provided by her parents prior to their deaths. Some of the neighbours in her street had not seen her for a decade. The ones that had seen her more recently were saying they hadn't seen her for five years. As a society, how do we say that's acceptable? How do we say that we haven't seen the disabled woman that we know lives alone, whose parents have died, who's no longer sitting in her front yard and who's no longer sitting in her driveway with her dogs when we used to regularly see her sitting in the sun and at no point say, 'Clearly something is amiss here'?
So we as a society need to do better, and I know that we as a government and everyone in this place are looking to legislate how we can improve things, how we can provide frameworks and how we can ensure that organisational failures like this aren't allowed to occur and, when they do, punishment is significant and immediate. But we cannot enforce community standards in the way where, as I would have hoped, her neighbours would have kept more of an eye out and, when they hadn't seen her for a while, maybe thought to ring the police and say, 'Can you do a bit of a welfare check?' I know my office rang around doing a lot of various checking on some of our older constituents. We quite often sent police around to homes under very distressing circumstances to do welfare checks on people who were not coping with the isolation. But this is absolutely demonstrative of how some in our society have very little care or regard for their neighbours. It is something on which I think we can all look to do better.
I think it also points to one of the other issues. I know the independent assessment report from the joint standing committee is being tabled at around midday today. That, again to the minister's credit, has now been disbanded as an idea. But it is about how we need to look at what functionality needs to be assessed, how we look at goals and how we ensure people are achieving them, because I'm pretty sure if someone had actually gone to see Ann-Marie Smith they would have understood that one of her goals was to sit out in the sun with her dogs in the front yard, which she used to do. That functionality and those goals need to be supported so that people have an assurance that they can live the quality of life that they should.
Unfortunately, this is what we have seen as we have moved away from the group homes and as we have moved away from the old block-funding model. As I said in my maiden speech, this was always going to be something we were going to have to continue to tweak to make it fit for purpose. It is such a huge and fundamental change. It's the biggest social reform since Medicare. It was always going to take time to make sure we ironed out the kinks, got it right and made sure that we were delivering it in the best way possible. If there has ever been an example of why parents and carers of people with a disability are some of the people most focused on ensuring the sustainability and correct running of this scheme it is Ann-Marie Smith. Her parents hadn't known when they passed that this level of neglect would be allowed to occur, but it is the fear of every parent of a child with a disability. We need to know that our children are going to be supported well after we are gone. That is why there is no-one more focused on scheme sustainability than the parents and carers of a loved one with a disability. We need to know that, once we're gone, they will be safe, they will be cared for and they will have quality of life. They may not be loved in the same way as by their own family, but we need to know that they will be appreciated, they will be supported and they will enjoy the quality of life that they should.
I commend Senator Steele-John on the work that he's done with me on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, along with Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies, as well as Senator Brown. This area is one that I feel is genuinely bipartisan. It is one we can work on together because we are working for the betterment of not only the people currently on the scheme, the people that require the scheme, and their families. I think we all appreciate that this is a scheme for every Australian, because you just never know when you might need it.
So I support this bill and I commend this bill. I absolutely hope to continue working with all colleagues across the chamber from every team and with the minister to ensure that the NDIS is as fit for purpose as it can be and that people who require it are supported in a way that gives them dignity and true quality of life.
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (13:05): [by video link] I also seek to make a contribution on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. Before I do so, I want to acknowledge the heartfelt contributions of senators before me. I know we will have many more contributions from senators in this debate, who I acknowledge too.
This bill comes in response to the Robertson review, an independent review into issues surrounding the death of South Australian woman Ann-Marie Smith in April 2020. Ann-Marie was an NDIS participant who died in what we know were disgusting and degrading conditions. Those conditions have been detailed by the senators before me; I won't detail them again. But I will reiterate that what happened to Ann-Marie was devastating. It completely shocked my state and it sickened us all. It left so many in South Australia with many, many questions about how this could happen—how this could happen in our community and how this could happen to Ann-Marie Smith. It was an horrific death. It was a death that should never have been allowed to occur. Before her death on 6 April 2020, police believe Ann-Marie spent up to a year confined to a cane chair for 24 hours a day. It is a grotesque image of what Ann-Marie was subjected to and how she spent her final days.
Labor at both the federal and state levels, as well as others in our community, called for a review into the circumstances of Ann-Marie's death. We called for answers into how this could happen. The review, which was limited to consideration of her individual circumstances, found that she had died after a substantial period of neglect, having been living in squalid and appalling circumstances. Despite its narrow scope, the report made 10 recommendations aimed at addressing broader system failures in the NDIS.
For the most part, the recommendations this bill would address relate to the sharing of participant information between the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. But the government's bill today fails to address some fundamental issues when it comes to NDIS safeguarding. Specifically, it doesn't address the lack of proactive outreach to monitor service providers and it fails to strengthen what Labor knows is an ineffective and understaffed NDIS commission.
The government have taken 12 months to respond to the review. It has now been over 16 months since Ann-Marie's death. I wish to note the continued failures from this government to establish any sense of trust among the disability community. Their approach has been marked by a lack of real substantive consultation on issues that directly impact the lives of the disability community. This directly contradicts the NDIS's core principles of person centred care and respecting the choices of those with disability. We saw this in the government's attempts to rush through the introduction of mandatory independent assessments for NDIS participants, no matter how loudly Australians with disability expressed their opposition.
The government should be—must be—working every day to establish positive, collaborative and respectful relationships based on mutual trust with those in our disability community to fulfil the promise of the NDIS to give every Australian the support necessary to participate fully in our society.
Labor, of course, supports efforts to ensure the NDIS and its providers are held accountable. So we will be supporting this bill, as previous senators have acknowledged. We support this bill in order to ensure no further delay in improving protection for at-risk NDIS participants. But we will move amendments to ensure the privacy of NDIS participants by ensuring a proper process for the disclosure of participant information. Labor has listened to the concerns of stakeholders, the disability community and disability rights organisations.
The government has committed to a review of the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework, and it is scheduled to begin later this year. This review may make recommendations that expand on or even contradict the changes this bill seeks to make. It should be broader in scope and must involve close and meaningful consultation with people with disability and disability organisations. Labor will work to ensure this review is robust as possible, and we will work to strengthen the currently understaffed and ineffective NDIS commission.
What happened to Ann-Marie Smith in South Australia should never have been allowed to happen. It shocked, disgusted and saddened the people of my state, who had many, many questions, and some of those questions remain unanswered in terms of what we need to do to make sure the NDIS and the supports and services within it are purpose-built and fit to care for people in our community with disability. What happened to Ann-Marie Smith should never have been allowed to happen, and we must do everything in our power to make sure all Australians with disability can live lives of independence, dignity and joy.
Labor built the NDIS. It is one of our proudest achievements. We believe in its power to deliver Australians with disability a better quality of life, to deliver them better supports and to deliver them full participation in our community and our society. But, at the moment, too many parts of the system are letting Australians down, and it's on that that we must be fully focused.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:11): [by video link] The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 has its origins in the tragic and preventable death of Ann-Marie Smith, who died of neglect on 6 April last year. The wilful neglect, suffering and appalling death of this South Australian shocked all of us. Ann-Marie, a NDIS participant, was neglected by those paid to care for her, in ways that are totally unimaginable. It's hard to comprehend that cruelty so vile could be inflicted on someone so vulnerable. Ann-Marie was a person deserving of respect, yet she was mistreated in such a callous way. She spent the last year of her life in an almost sedentary state, living in putrid conditions in a cane chair, totally wasting away. She died of severe septic shock, multiple organ failure and issues connected with her cerebral palsy. Many of her cherished personal belongings went missing. Large loans were taken out in her name, and her car racked up over $2,000 worth of traffic fines, even though she couldn't drive. There was no aspect of her life that wasn't used or abused.
The person who was meant to provide care for Ms Smith was responsible for her death and finally pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The maximum penalty for manslaughter in South Australia is life imprisonment, and nothing less than the maximum sentence would be appropriate in these circumstances. Earlier this year, Ann-Marie's NDIS provider, Integrity Care SA, was banned from operating and had its registration revoked because of a number of contraventions of the NDIS Act. That prevented the organisation from providing services through the NDIS. Recently, one of the three directors of Integrity Care SA, Ms Amy-June Collins, was banned for life from working in the disability services industry. All three directors remain under investigation by the South Australia Police major crimes detectives. All of them completely failed in their responsibility to provide oversight and proper care for Ann-Marie.
The NDIS was only made aware of Ms Smith's appalling death on 20 April, a fortnight after she died, which was a breach of the act by the provider. For that breach, Integrity Care SA was only fined a paltry $12,600. So much of the system failed Ms Smith. Following her death, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission appointed former Federal Court judge Alan Robertson to conduct an independent review of the safeguard failures which contributed to Ann-Marie's death. This was after the South Australian government launched its own review into safeguarding gaps in the system, and pressure was exerted on the former minister, who had preferred an internal review. The Robertson review was completed on 31 August last year, some 14 months ago. It made 10 recommendations, of which the government now seeks to legislate just five.
It has been over 18 months since Ann-Marie passed away and it has taken too long to legislate to prevent further deaths. The recommendations in this legislation are an acknowledgement that the current oversight of at-risk NDIS participants is failing them. However, two key recommendations remain unlegislated and require urgent action by government. These are recommendation (3), which is that 'for each vulnerable NDIS participant, there should be a specific person with overall responsibility for that participant's safety and wellbeing'; and recommendation (4), which is that consideration should be given to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission 'establishing its own equivalent to state- and territory-based community visitor schemes to provide for individual face-to-face contact with vulnerable NDIS participants'. Now, these are vital recommendations that need to be implemented.
In a letter tabled by Minister Reynolds in response to questions I asked in question time on these recommendations, she stated: 'These involve complex Commonwealth state policy issues, are being considered through the review of the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework due to commence by the end of the year.' It is astounding that consideration of these recommendations will not occur until the end of the year—and action on them could still take years.
A critical issue in Ms Smith's case was that she was isolated except for her so-called carer and that she became invisible to everybody but one person, who wilfully neglected her. No-one else was specifically and personally responsible for her safety and wellbeing. It is vital that case managers be introduced into the NDIS who have overall responsibility for at-risk cases.
Similarly, it is crucial that a nationally consistent community visitor scheme be implemented as a matter of urgency. Alan Robertson SC said in his review:
… there is a place for a Community Visitor Scheme because it can be that extra pair of eyes of somebody coming in and being able to talk to individuals about how things are going in their lives and having some kind of external input. Then the community visitor can refer any matters of concern to the appropriate investigating authority.
He added:
The advantage of the NDIS Commission having this function in relation to NDIS participants is that the result would be national and uniform in circumstances where two of the States and Territories do not have a Community Visitor Scheme, and as between those jurisdictions which do have such a scheme there is some variation.
These measures are about reducing the risk of having a single point of contact and about creating systemic changes so that what happened to Ms Smith can never happen again. Her death was tragic, and, tragically, it is not the only death which has arisen from NDIS mismanagement and through those who prey on people with a disability. This bill proposes to address some safeguarding issues but, regrettably, not all of them. It is time for this to change.
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (13:18): I start by acknowledging the feeling and the passion behind the contributions that have been made so far by all senators in this debate. There's a lot of similarity between this debate and the stillbirth issue that we dealt with so well many, many years ago. There is so much agreement on all of this because there needs to be agreement on so much of this.
We've heard Senator Farrell speak, and he said that fundamentally Labor agrees with this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. They have some differences, but generally they agree with it. We have heard Senator Steele-John speak remotely, and the people that he represents—the people who know the NDIS because they are participants in the NDIS—are telling him certain things, and the intention is to make this situation much, much better. Again, Senator Hughes knows this issue from top to bottom and, as we all say to her, she could talk for days on this particular issue. Of course, Senator Griff took us through some of the appalling, sad, terrible details and agreed with Senator Hughes that the situation that applied to Ms Ann-Marie Smith was an incredible situation, and not just that; it was sad and unforgivable. As Senator Smith said, it was sickening. It's something which we cannot allow in this nation of ours or in the legislation that we put in place, which the parliament uses to express its humanity in respect of this situation.
Let me try and put some context to this bill. The objective of the bill really revolves around the fact that it will strengthen the support and protections for people with disability by ensuring a clear and effective legislative basis for the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner's powers, for his or her compliance and enforcement arrangements, for the provider registration provisions and for efficient information sharing across government and government agencies. So that's the objective of the bill.
I think what is particularly important at the moment is that we don't lose sight of the big picture, and this is a big picture. It is an enormous picture. If we're talking generally about a failure—and what a failure it was in one particular area, in the appalling tragedy of one particular person—we must always remember that the NDIS is one of the largest social reforms in Australia's history and probably in the world's history. It's a globally unique scheme and it's now eight years old. There is much to be proud of and much to celebrate, despite the fact that, as we acknowledge, we have had an appalling failure. The scheme is now available in all corners of Australia, and it illustrates the humanity of this place and of the Australian people.
As at 30 June 2021, the NDIS was supporting more than 466,000 participants, with more than 52 per cent of these receiving supports for the very first time. It's always important to point out that you can only do this if you are a rich country. We are a rich country, and those riches depend on primary industry, including mining, and on the hard work of Australians. At the end of September, the 466,000 from June of this year had increased to 484,700 Australians. This compares to just 30,000 people in June of 2016. The participant satisfaction level is 77 per cent across the access, preplanning and plan review process. It's always the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, as they say, but 77 per cent have expressed satisfaction in what the NDIS is doing. The number of young people in residential care, something which has always been on everyone's mind, has dropped by 33 per cent since September 2017.
After eight years of operation, now is the time to listen, to take the lessons and to learn from the lived experience. We need to listen to the comments of the senators who have spoken, passionately and with a good sense of equity, on this issue today, and we need to turn those lessons into an even better NDIS. We need to improve the participant experience, but not just the participant experience; we need to improve the affordability and fairness of the scheme. It's comforting to know that Labor supports this bill. Everything should be done to protect the participants. We have had those views put to us by a number of people today, and they're the right views.
Let's have a very quick look at the principles behind the bill. The bill responds to a number of recommendations of the independent review which was caused by the tragic death of Ms Ann-Marie Smith in April 2020. That was conducted by the Hon. Alan Robertson SC, at the request of the commissioner, and it makes technical amendments to better support the operation of the NDIS commission, based on early implementation experience. All amendments seek to improve or clarify NDIS quality and safeguard arrangements to better protect participants from harm.
The necessity and support for this bill are for the following reasons. The Robertson review made a number of recommendations to improve the NDIS quality and safeguards arrangements for at-risk participants. The bill addresses important recommendations around information sharing and reportable incidents, and a number of our senators have addressed this particular point. It provides for improved information sharing between the NDIS commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency to better protect people with disability. The present clauses in the NDIS Act establish a relatively high threshold for sharing information. They establish that the disclosure must be necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to an individual's life, health or safety. So that's a fairly high threshold. This bill enacts a less restrictive threshold in recognition of the Robertson review recommendation.
The bill removes qualifiers like 'serious' or 'necessary' to ensure that any threat to life, health or safety is sufficient grounds for the recording, use or disclosure of protected NDIS commission information. It also amends provisions for disclosing information in a number of other specific situations, including the NDIS commission is able to disclose information to worker screening units and other agencies as required. The NDIS commission can publish and maintain information about historical compliance and enforcement action. The bill also provides for greater clarity around reportable incidents, including broadening the scope, and their reporting to the NDIS commission in the commission rules.
There are a number of other technical amendments in this bill, and they're important. Currently, quality assurance of registered NDIS providers is undertaken by approved quality auditors who are engaged by providers directly. The market for quality auditors includes a wide range of experience levels and sector knowledge. As such, this bill will allow the commissioner to place conditions on the approval of quality auditors and makes explicit the commissioner's power to vary or revoke approval of quality auditors. These decisions of course will be reviewable.
This bill makes a number of amendments to ensure consistency and procedural fairness in the application of the NDIS commission's regulatory response, including compliance notices and that compliance notices can be varied or revoked, and decisions in relation to these requests are reviewable decisions. Also, banning orders can now have conditions attached.
The NDIS market is diverse, including non-profit organisations, large private companies and individuals running their own businesses. The NDIS Act recognises this by placing obligations on providers, workers and anyone who is engaged otherwise by the provider. However, there is some concern that this definition is not broad enough to cover the range of potential governance arrangements, and, for the avoidance of doubt, this bill ensures that obligations and regulatory responses also fall on the key personnel of a provider, which can include the CEO, the board of directors and any other relevant personnel. I hope that certainly satisfies the points that Senator Griff brought up.
While the NDIS Act gives the commissioner the power to ban an NDIS provider or worker on the grounds that they are not suitable to deliver NDIS services and supports, it does not presently set out how suitability is determined for banning orders. The bill provides the power for the commissioner to make rules in relation to suitability for that purpose, aligning with existing provisions in relation to provider registration.
The bill also clarifies elements of the process that providers must follow when registering to deliver NDIS services and support. This includes that applicants are able to withdraw applications and applications for renewal of registration are deemed to have been withdrawn if the registered provider in question becomes the subject of a revocation or a banning order during the renewal process. These amendments and other minor technical amendments will strengthen the support and protection for NDIS participants and ensure their wellbeing.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order, Senator Molan. It being 1:30 pm, we will move to two-minute statements. You'll be in continuation.
STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
Youth Voice in Parliament Week
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:30): It is a privilege to give this speech on behalf of Alexis Pallister, as part of Raise Our Voice Australia. Alexis says:
• My name is Alexis Pallister, I am 20 years old and currently live within the Pearce electorate in Western Australia. In 20 years, I would like to see an Australia which emphasises consent, promotes autonomy and diminishes stigmas surrounding sexual education.
• In 20 years, I hope Australia has enacted change to our education curriculum, making consent mandatory and, in turn, has seen a reduction in violence against women.
• I hope women feel safe and our culture endorses consent, encouraging a sex-positive mindset amongst all.
• Changes to our curriculum need to be implemented, with consent being at the forefront of all conversations.
• Sexual education should promote autonomy, diminish stigmas and most importantly, inform young adults on the most fundamental principle of sex—consent.
• Students deserve a comprehensive sexual education, which includes a broader base of topics and educates everyone including, those belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community.
• Our future generations should have the right to be informed. They deserve to be taught consent because consent education saves lives.
• Explicit and informed consent education acts as a violence prevention stagey, as it changes the narrative on what a healthy relationship should adhere to by encouraging boundary setting and fluid communication.
• In 20 years, I hope to see an Australia that I can be proud of, where women feel safe, violence has ceased, and consent is understood.
• Make consent education mandatory!
National Water Week
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (13:32): [by video link] Leonardo da Vinci said, 'Water is the driving force of all nature.' None of us could survive without water. It is a vital ingredient in our daily lives, and our greatest resource. This week is National Water Week, so I want to highlight the role water plays in my home state. Tasmania has some of the best drinking water in the world. Besides this, and the obvious water and sewerage services we all rely on, Tasmania's water resources have been used effectively to grow the state's economy. This includes the hydropowered stations that play a major part in delivering 100 per cent renewable energy to the state, as well as having an irrigation scheme envied across the nation.
State-owned company Tasmanian Irrigation was established to manage water assets like dams, irrigation schemes and river works. The irrigation scheme operates on a joint public-private funding model between irrigators and state and federal governments to deliver irrigation infrastructure and water around the state. By 2025, Tas Irrigation will manage an infrastructure portfolio valued at more than $680 million that can deliver almost 170,000 megalitres of water via 1,451 kilometres of pipeline, 55 pump stations, 24 dams and three power stations. This means better productivity, efficiency, sustainability and growth, not just for the high-quality agricultural produce Tasmania is so well known for, but also jobs in our design, engineering, earthmoving, construction and civil firms.
In partnership with states and territories, the Australian government is investing $3.5 billion towards a 10-year rolling program of water infrastructure projects, such as the Tasmanian irrigation scheme. These projects will supply billions of litres of water for productive use each year, and enhance the national water grid, growing Australian agriculture, increasing water security, building resilience to drought and supporting regional prosperity. Water really is our most valued resource.
Youth Voice in Parliament Week
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:34): [by video link] Today in the Australian Senate I speak the voice of Cooper Meikle, a young Tasmanian. This is part of Raise Our Voice Australia, lifting the voices of diverse young Australians in parliaments, politics, domestic and foreign policy. Cooper says: 'In 2041, Australia can be in one of two places—a global pariah and climate outcast, blazing with bushfires, washed away by floods and having lost thousands of unique species, or we can be a success story, a country that chose to turn around the path of inevitable demise, ushering in a new green future. My vision for Australia is for our country to be a world leader in renewables, social standards and green manufacturing, a nation at the forefront of research and development to tackle the challenges that lay ahead. "Our land abounds in nature's gifts" is a line from our anthem, and in this decade it has never been more true. Our country is brimming with sunshine, rivers, raw materials and skilled workers. In 20 years, I want to see Australia be the leader of a new green industrial revolution. In 20 years, Australia's strengths can be practically silent, with only the hum of electric cars to disturb you. Getting your electricity bill can be a pleasant surprise when you see the money earned from selling your excess solar power. My vision is that our cities will be filled with urban farms, parks and wildlife instead of being littered with the current waste. In this vision for our future, we need not worry about the impending doom of a climate emergency and environmental catastrophe. Instead we can live life to its fullest, creating a beautiful world for all.'
Cooper is one of many young Australians adding their voice to the Raise our Voice Australia campaign. Coincidentally, I heard Cooper speak today at the climate strike in Launceston, where young Launcestonians and Tasmanians are coming together to demand, in this time of code red, real action for their future, to make that sure we in Canberra, the decision-makers, understand our responsibility to future generations. (Time expired)
Climate Policy
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (13:36): You would think Halloween would be a good time for Prime Minister Morrison. After all, this is a Prime Minister who just loves a good scare campaign—a Prime Minister who generally prefers the dark shadowy places rather than the bright light of day. But 31 October will bring something new for the Prime Minister to be afraid of: fronting up to the Glasgow climate summit. We know exactly why he should be very afraid. On climate, his government is a two-headed beast that just can't move in one direction. After eight years in government Mr Morrison just does not have a climate plan, and after three years as Prime Minister it seems he doesn't even have the authority to make one.
But what the Prime Minister should really be afraid of is Australia missing out on the opportunities of the future—opportunities to generate thousands of new jobs in renewable energy, opportunities to export that energy to the world, opportunities to rebuild Australian manufacturing with cheaper energy and to make more of what we need right here. Instead the Prime Minister is letting Australia be dragged further behind the rest of the world, clinging to climate policies that are based on the zombie views of the government benches, zombie views declared dead eons ago. The Prime Minister's trick-or-treat approach to climate just doesn't cut it—political tricks instead of real action, and treats for the National Party. Australians need a plan on climate, they need a plan for the jobs of the future, and they need a government that has the courage and the unity to deliver it.
Media Influence
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:38): This parliament's descent into a one-party state could not have happened without the media's complicity. The cancelling of Jessica Rowe's interview with Senator Pauline Hanson is the latest manifestation of a power structure that George Orwell gave these words to in 1941 following a failed attempt to publish his seminal work Animal Farm: 'The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics by employing veiled censorship. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.'
In 80 years, nothing has changed. Media and multinationals have the same wealthy owners who use their power to corral thought and enrich themselves. Orwell's Animal Farm is a metaphor: animals overthrew their farmer to create a fairer society—only for that power to corrupt, leading to less freedom, with the pigs assuming the role of dictators. Ironically, not only are the media acting like the pigs in Animal Farm; the book has been wiped from our curriculum for the crime of making children think about the power paradigm. Our media are not some noble fifth estate; the media are a fourth column, advancing their billionaire owners' interests at the expense of truth and integrity.
The only solution to the problem of media propaganda is introducing competition, removing federal support for commercial media and expanding the market through a ballot of spare spectrum open to only new media organisations. Instead of the media being protected under the power of their oligopolies, let the media earn their survival on the worth of their coverage. Instead of conflicted journalists promoting the orthodoxy, our community and our nation must have honest, independent journalists who challenge the orthodoxy. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation and we want our human rights and freedom restored.
Energy
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (13:40): The world cannot get enough of the great Australian coal we produce. They cannot get enough of it. Right now lights are going off right across Europe, Asia and North America because they don't have enough coal. We have lots of it here and we should be exporting it to the world because it creates so many jobs for hardworking men and women in this country.
The other week, when I got out of my government enforced quarantine, I hit the road and got around Central Queensland. There seemed to be plenty more coal trains than usual out on the tracks. That was a great thing for our nation because it was making wealth and creating jobs. Each one of those trains had more than $5 million going to port. There's about 85 tonnes, on average, in each of those wagons. With the coking coal price yesterday at over $600 a tonne, that is $50,000 in coal in each wagon. There were 100 wagons per train set. So that's over $5 million for our nation. That's what the world wants and that's what the world is doing.
The world is moving away from net-zero targets just as we are about to embrace them. We have got our timing wrong. The Chinese government the other day said they are going to review when carbon emissions peak because they need to prioritise the energy security for their people. Russia told the UK government the other day that they are in no rush to meet net zero but they're happy to rescue the UK from their own mistake of turning their back on their gas resources. The Indian government the other day declared and decreed that all coal-fired power stations must use 10 per cent of imported coal now so they can ease the coal shortage in their country. Even the US, who are apparently lecturing us about climate commitments, cannot get their climate legislation through their congress, even though it is Democrat controlled right now. The world know that they need to keep the lights on for their people. We don't want to push power prices up. That's why we should say no to net zero.
Nobel Peace Prize
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:42): [by video link] We often talk about the importance of public interest journalism in Australia. But we must remember that such work is even more necessary and even more dangerous elsewhere. I was delighted to see this vital work recognised with the recent Nobel Peace Prize announcement. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to two journalists who have pursued the truth very much at great personal cost: Dmitry Muratov, who co-founded Russia's Novaya Gazeta, and Maria Ressa, who co-founded Rappler in the Philippines.
Under President Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines has taken a dark turn, with creeping authoritarianism, increasing public corruption and a war on drugs that has legitimised thousands of killings. Ressa and her team at Rappler have fearlessly led the effort to expose the truth about what is happening in the Philippines. They have both paid a significant price for it. The government has repeatedly targeted Ressa with trumped-up criminal charges. Last year she was found guilty of cyberlibel for exposing the corruption of the chief justice of the Philippines supreme court. She could serve six years in prison and faces other spurious charge that could leave her imprisoned for decades to come. Ressa has also faced years of violent threats, including threats to rape and kill her.
How many of us would have the same courage and determination as Ms Ressa and the courage to do the right thing, even at extreme personal cost? I admire her immensely, just as I admire every journalist who fights to expose corruption, misconduct and wrongdoing, despite the great dangers they face. I commend the Nobel committee for its decision.
Climate Change
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (13:44): Question time is almost upon us, and I have a question for the other side: what on earth is going on? Last week the Prime Minister outsourced decision making on climate and energy policy to the National Party, but yesterday he told the Liberal party room that it was a cabinet decision. These jokers in the National Party are parading around the parliament, talking into telephones. Nobody's there. They are having meetings in a room with themselves. They're not relevant to the debate on climate and energy anymore. What on earth is going on? This means the Prime Minister has abrogated his responsibility entirely. There are no party room decisions. There is no capacity to deliver it through the parliament. The Prime Minister's decision on net zero is just an announcement with no follow-through. It'll be treated with utter contempt by the international community and by Australian voters.
One of these jokers was on the television the other day saying, 'We've only had four hours to consider it.' Well, you've had 71,125 hours to work your way through this not-very-complicated problem. Maybe, thank heavens, the National Party is not in charge and is irrelevant to this. Their proposal the week before last was a $250 billion loan facility that the mining industry doesn't want—$10,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Senator Canavan says it would put up interest rates, mortgage rates and the cost of borrowing for Australian businesses. Well, he'd know. He's an economist of sorts. This is an absolute tragedy: the decline of the National Party into the hopeless, irrelevant rump that they have always been heading towards.
Youth Voice in Parliament Week
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (13:46): This afternoon I would like to use my time to speak in the Youth Voice in Parliament Week, and I will be reading the following words written by Jai Briggs-Ford, who is a young man living in Raymond Terrace but who grew up in Moree. He's in year 12 and wants to be a doctor. His words are: 'My name is Jai Briggs-Ford. I am a proud young Aboriginal man from Moree, located in the Gamilaroi nation. I am currently studying at the Hunter River High School, where I work hard to achieve the high marks in order to accomplish my career aspiration of becoming a doctor. Recently, I was appointed school captain, which was a great honour. I am also President of the Aboriginal Education Consultative Group and an NRL youth advocate. So what is my vision for Australia in 20 years? I would love to see Australia and the government really push to have one of the best education systems in the world. This benefits not only the rich upper-class society but also the socioeconomically disadvantaged, which includes a large proportion of Aboriginal people. As a proud Aboriginal man, it truly pains me to see such a large majority of Aboriginal people living in poverty, barely surviving from one day to the next. Malcolm X once said, "Education is the passport for the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepared for it today." The Australian government needs to prepare our young Aboriginal people of today with an affordable, culturally appropriate, world-class education system to build knowledge, as knowledge is power. Taking steps now to provide Aboriginal people with an education passport can break the cycles of poverty. In my vision of Australia in 20 years, the education passport will provide more Aboriginal doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, firemen, politicians and so on.' Thank you.
Youth Voice in Parliament Week
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:48): Today I'll be delivering a speech on behalf of Maddy Nyp, as part of the Youth Voice in Parliament Week:
My electorate is Mayo.
We live in the era of change. Personally, I am facing one of the biggest changes in my life right now; leaving school.
The future I pitch for myself is bright—finally being able to focus on what I love, on having the freedoms of the adult world.
But, there is also fear—fear of the unknown, of change.
One thinks of the threats our country faces, of the fear tainting our future.
The biggest that comes to mind is climate change—especially in the months leading up to UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change].
The rules for the future are being set, and change is beginning.
In twenty years, I would pray that my family's property remains green.
That those who live on the coast do not lose their homes.
That disease, much like what we face now, remains absent.
I have been privileged to be raised alongside nature. I'd pray that the generations to come are as lucky.
History is a cruel mirror. We cannot choose how we are reflected by it.
But if we have any hope of our generations looking back at us favourably, we need to act.
We need to listen to the voices of youth. We need decisive and swift actions. Members of parliament, the time for change is now.
Good on you, Maddy. Thank you for this message to your parliament. Senators, we should be listening.
Youth Voice in Parliament Week
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (13:50): [by video link] I am honoured to deliver a contribution to the Youth Voice in Parliament Week from Broome Senior High School students. They have written their vision as follows:
We are a group of 13 and 14 year-olds from many and diverse backgrounds.
Firstly, we believe that if Australia is welcoming to everyone then we can all live peacefully.
We want Australia to be a place of equality, no matter what race, gender, sexuality, religion or jobs.
We want different languages to be kept alive, and we support the goal of our Yawuru people for Broome to be a bilingual town.
Secondly, we are concerned about the environment.
As people of the Kimberley, our vision is for a cleaner and greener environment.
We want to see the land cared for in the way that Traditional owners have been doing for centuries.
Thirdly we want an Australia where there are plenty of economic opportunities, no matter where you live.
So that youth can have more career opportunities, we would like to see more money going into public schools like ours.
And we want affordable houses for everyone.
Fourthly, we see the impact that crime has on communities every day.
We want young people to have access to supports so they don't feel like they have no choice but to commit crimes.
Fifthly, we are the Academic Extension Program class and are passionate about action against climate change.
We have studied the impact humans have had on our world and we've thought about how this damage can be reversed.
In Broome we consider ourselves lucky to have largely untouched environments around us, but we cannot just stand and watch as the planet deteriorates.
Lastly, in Broome we have been pretty safe—
(Time expired)
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (13:52): Today I am delighted to be participating in the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, which asked Australians aged 21 or under to write a vision statement for Australia for members of parliament to read. I am honoured to share 18-year-old Chloe Cornford's vision for Australia:
Australia is said to be the land of the free. Filled with wonderful natural sites, beautiful native species and home to a diverse community of Australians, but we still struggle to better this country. We still must fight for equality in our own land. We still have to fight to protect Mother Earth. In 20 years I want Australia to feel free. For all people to feel grateful for their life here.
How do we achieve this? when women are treated so abhorrently, even in parliament? When our coral reefs are dying so someone can make more money? When people are still degraded for the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation or their financial status? there is still so much inequality today.
In twenty years I hope we gain more acceptance, I hope that we look after our lands. I hope we learn to listen to our Indigenous peoples. I hope women are treated with more respect, especially in parliament and that we truly reach some sense of equality. But above all in twenty years I hope Australia is filled with love. That we can teach future generations to love this country, these lands and its people, in the hope that we thrive as a nation. It is you here in parliament who must lead the way. You are the governing body over this land and people, so it is up to you to start respecting them, respecting us, and show this country some love. Stop trying to be a politician for personal gain, or for the benefit of the few. Take a look at Australia today and start taking action for a better Australia tomorrow, to create the best version of Australia, for the land, animals and people that call this country home.
Thank you, Chloe. It's been a privilege to share such heartfelt and wise words with the Senate
Western Australia: Order of Australia
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (13:55): I was delighted to host an event welcoming all new Western Australian recipients of Order of Australia honours at the Bull Creek RAAFA Club on 17 August. Travel restrictions meant I remained in Canberra and was not able to attend in person, but my WA colleague the Hon. Steve Irons MP was kind enough to represent me and read a message on my behalf. I reminded those present that when it was founded by the Queen in 1975 the Order of Australia was described as 'an Australian society of honour for according recognition to Australian citizens and other persons for achievement or meritorious service'. I explained that the mere conferral of an award rarely captures the full story and that each new member had not only achieved something remarkable but inspired many people around them. In my message to the gathering I said, 'Your family, your community, your colleagues have nominated you for an Australian honour in recognition of your hard work, service and efforts, and those efforts have been judged by your Australian peers to have exceeded the highest possible standards.' There are fewer than 3,000 Western Australians who have received Order of Australia honours, including one knight, one dame, 31 companions, 190 officers, 899 members of the order and 1,814 Order of Australia Medal recipients. Western Australians are a strong and resilient people, and possibly due to our geographic isolation and inherent self-sufficiency, we have a reputation for making the impossible possible and achieving great things. In some way, each of you have contributed to this, and I commend all of you for the dedication, hard work and service you have provided to advance our great nation.
I would like to recognise a number of people who I know well: Mr Kevin Beeck, for his service to local government and the community of Albany in WA's South West; Dr Betsy Buchanan, for her service to social welfare organisations; Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Chamarette; Mrs Jan Cooper; and Misty Farquhar. I again congratulate our new WA members for their valuable contributions and look forward to hosting next year's event in person.
Youth Voice In Parliament Week
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:57): Like others, I am speaking today on behalf of a young Australian—a young South Australian—as part of Youth Voice in Parliament Week. Ms Winter Birkett is 17 years old, and she lives in my duty electorate of Boothby. These are her words:
As of August, Australia ranks 50th globally for the representation of women in national parliaments.
It is 2021—this statistic is not good enough.
It is not just that we can do better in terms of addressing the representation of women in Australian politics - we must do better.
As such, in 20 years, I want to live in an Australia where young girls, of diverse backgrounds and from all around the country, aspire to one day become politicians.
I want to live in an Australia where instead of girls like me being actively discouraged from pursuing politics because it is something for men and a "dirty game," girls are uplifted and empowered to do so.
I hope that in 20 years, Australia will come to place significant value on young girls and women being politically ambitious.
However, to achieve this, the status quo must change.
Currently, Australia's political culture sends a clear message to politically interested girls, that politics is not for us.
This message permeates through all levels of society, stemming from parliament itself.
This narrative must be challenged now so that in 20 years things change, because if not, Australia risks never achieving anything close to gender equality.
Ms Birkett is right. We must do better. The majority of senators are now women, and that's because Labor now has more women than men in the Senate, and that is because of our affirmative action targets. So I once again call on all Australia's political parties to mandate targets for equal women's representation.
Climate Change
Morrison Government
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (13:59): Here we are, a day closer to COP26, and there is more disarray from the government. We still don't have a policy. If Mr Morrison thinks it's okay for him to get a policy by the end of this week and front up in Glasgow the following week with a policy where the ink is barely dry and that is believable by all the other countries who've had solid policy for years, he is kidding himself. We are now an embarrassment across the world. We've got cabinet ministers—Senator McKenzie in here and Mr Keith Pitt—denying and not agreeing to the policy that apparently they looked at on Sunday and are continuing to look at.
It is not good enough. Yesterday, in question time, the Nationals senators tried to distance themselves from the Morrison government. You're all the government, and you're an embarrassment now to Australia and the rest of the world.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Party of Australia
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:00): Congratulations on your appointment, Mr President. My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes said yesterday:
The Liberal party represents 24 rural and regional seats in the house of representatives which makes it the largest party representing rural and regional Australians.
How can the minister claim, as she did yesterday, that the National Party is the only one standing up for the regions?
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) (14:00): I thank the senator for her question and her casual interest in regional Australia. She pops in and pops out. President, in your former role as chair of the Murray-Darling Basin select committee, you did see Senator O'Neill pop into basin communities, make some swift promises and scatter some caring words to—
Senator Davey: Give false hope.
Senator McKENZIE: give false hope—thank you, Senator Davey—whilst out of town, without actually telling those irrigators that the Labor Party—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator O'Neill, on a point of order?
Senator O'Neill: I know the Senator McKenzie has difficulty in hearing you—
The PRESIDENT: No, Senator O'Neill, a point of order.
Senator O'Neill: The point of order is relevance. This is a question of significant import to the people of Australia, who deserve an answer to the question that was asked, not a rant from Senator McKenzie.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, there is no point of order.
Senator McKENZIE: I look forward to spending this question time talking about the needs and interests of rural and regional Australia as many times as the Labor Party chooses to ask us a question on that. It's actually nice to have the Labor Party asking the government questions about rural and regional Australia.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a point of order?
Senator Gallagher: My point of order is on direct relevance to the question. Question time shouldn't be an opportunity for a minister to just rant about the opposition; they should be directly relevant to the question they've been asked, which is about the regions and Liberal representation of those regions, not the Labor Party.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, you have had a chance to bring the minister's attention back to the question. I accept that it's a general question in nature, in that it involves regional Australia. However, Minister, I will ask you to direct your attention to the question.
Senator McKENZIE: The National Party, like the Country Party before it, has one goal and one constituency. Other political parties in this House represent a raft of constituencies, but I can tell this chamber very, very proudly, we don't seek to represent the needs and interests of Woolloomooloo. It's great that my Senate colleague Hollie Hughes from Sydney is very, very keen to talk about the needs and interests of—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, can you please resume your seat. Those on my left, interjections are always disorderly. I cannot hear the minister.
Senator McKENZIE: We only have one mandate. It is to stand up tor the needs of rural and regional Australia. We've been doing it for a century. We're very proud to do that, because it allows us not to be distracted by other interests, by other constituencies. The big parties, fairly, have a range of constituencies that they have to manage. The Labor Party does. Unfortunately, not enough of the Labor Party MPs and senators give a damn about regional Australia. You see it in your policies, you see it in your public— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, resume your seat, please. This is generally considered a time for the opposition. I would prefer not to waste that time. Senator O'Neill, you have the call.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:04): Senator Hughes also said:
It is a misnomer to assume it's only the National Party … that represents the voice of rural and regional Australians.
Is Senator Hughes wrong?
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) (14:05): I'll reiterate, Senator O'Neill. The Labor Party has members from rural and regional Australia. The Liberal Party has great members that represent rural and regional Australia. Several of them made comments this week, and I refer to public commentary of Tony Pasin, Rick Wilson and Rowan Ramsey, as well as that of Melissa Price from Durack in WA. They are really strong representatives from rural and regional Australia. But you asked what my job is, as the leader of the National Party in this place, and what every single National Party senator cares about. We have only one focus. We have only one constituency. We're not distracted by anything else, other than the needs and interests of rural and regional Australia, and we're very, very comfortable to fulfil that role.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary?
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:06): Has the minister told her 24 regional and rural Liberal colleagues what she really thinks of them?
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): Love to all the regional and rural MPs in the coalition. In Senator Wong's earlier contribution to the Senate, she spoke about targets and quotas. I've been on the public record as wanting to see a cabinet and a parliament full of as many regional and rural MPs and senators as possible, because rural and regional people—the most marginalised in this country, the poorest in this country—need strong representation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: Mr President, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. I hardly think it can possibly be directly relevant to refer to a two-minute statement I gave about women in the context of a question in question time about regional representation.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Canavan?
Senator Canavan: Mr President, with all respect, that is not a point of order at all. That is absolutely a debating point that the minister has every right to raise in this place in the context of the answer she is giving.
The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister was discussing regional and rural representation in the parliament and her answer was directly relevant. Minister McKenzie, did you have anything further to add?
Senator McKENZIE: I have 30 seconds more to extol the benefits of being a rural and regional MP in a very successful and strong coalition that has delivered for rural and regional Australia for a decade. I mentioned some of my Liberal colleagues, who are very proud, strong advocates for the regions, who joined with the National Party when this place was discussing climate change policy at another time. They actually stood up against the Labor Party— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (14:08): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister update the Senate on how Australia's COVID-19 vaccination rollout is supporting our national plan to safely reopen the country and, further, how Australia's vaccination rates compare with those of other countries around the world?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:08): I thank Senator Small for his question. As a very proud Western Australian, I can understand him being very interested in vaccination rates. By the end of today we will have administered over 33 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine to Australians. Australia's COVID-19 vaccination program has continued to accelerate, as we said it would. In the last month, over 7.8 million doses of vaccine have gone into the arms of Australians around the country, and we thank each and every Australian for rolling up their sleeves to get the jab.
I am delighted to report that 85.1 per cent of the population aged over 16 are now protected against COVID-19 with at least one dose and 69.2 per cent of the population over the age of—
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: We've, in fact, passed them, Senator, if you'd been taking notice. We've actually even passed Israel, which you tried to quote in the chamber. As these numbers show, Australians recognise that vaccination is the best way to protect themselves, their loved ones and their country.
In the context of cases this year versus last year and the impacts that we've seen, last year there were 28,424 cases of the virus in Australia, 2,051 of those in aged care. This year there have been 118,851 cases, 681 of those in aged care. The difference between this year and last year is vaccination. The message is very clear: the vaccines work. The message to Australians is to get vaccinated.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Small, a supplementary question?
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (14:10): Can the minister outline what this Liberal-National government is doing to protect younger members of the Australian community?
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:11): Very proudly, Senator Watt. I'm very happy to report that the vaccination rollout continues strongly for 12- to 15-year-olds. In just over a month, 59.6 per cent of 12- to 15-year-olds have been vaccinated with a first dose and 23.7 per cent have been fully vaccinated with their second dose—fully vaccinated. That is an extraordinary effort, and I thank all of them and their families for, again, jumping on board and rolling up their sleeves to protect themselves and their communities in this pandemic.
As for the five- to 11-year-old age group, Australia's medical regulator the Therapeutic Goods Administration has provided a provisional determination which allows Pfizer to submit its application for five- to 11-year-olds. As soon as that data is received, it will be assessed.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Small, a second supplementary question?
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (14:12): Minister, what other measures, including new treatments, is this government considering in order to treat presentations of COVID-19?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:12): The government continues to work to support Australians in the fight against COVID-19, including with additional treatments. In recent times, we've secured access to two additional treatments. Under a new agreement with Roche Products Australia, we'll be supplied with 15,000 doses of the COVID-19 antibody based therapy Ronapreve. Ronapreve is expected to be targeted for use in unvaccinated people who are at risk of developing severe disease.
In addition, the Australian government has secured access to 500,000 treatment courses of Pfizer's COVID-19 oral antiviral drug. This treatment is still undergoing clinical trials. It is expected to help reduce the severity or onset of illness. It's expected to be available next year.
Australia has also secured an advance purchase agreement for 300,000 courses of the promising oral COVID-19 treatment for— (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (14:13): My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Mr Morrison said yesterday in House question time:
The government's decision on the government's commitments for Australia in relation to COP26 will be made by the government in cabinet.
When was the Deputy Prime Minister first told by Mr Morrison that he intends to move ahead with net zero by 2050 with or without the support of the Nationals party room?
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 your question. As has been made very clear by the Deputy Prime Minister and by National Party MPs and senators, we are going through our own internal processes to assess any commitment by the government towards net-zero 2050, and, in a respectful, calm manner, we shall make those views known to the Prime Minister. Barnaby Joyce is in those discussions as we speak. I think for anyone to cause us to rush that decision, to actually force our hand, when the momentous nature of this decision and the far-reaching impacts of this decision on the people we were sent here to represent haven't properly been assessed is us not doing our job.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: Well, it's not just us. I will take that interjection from Senator O'Neill. It's not just us. I have some quotes here. There are a couple of Labor MPs who are from the regions. Joel Fitzgibbon, a fantastic member for Hunter, who has been on the record for—
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKENZIE: Aww!
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Watt, on a point of order?
Senator Watt: I would have been on my feet a lot more quickly if it wasn't for that cord!
The PRESIDENT: Don't get tangled up, Senator Watt!
Senator Watt: On relevance: it's not about the process the government's going through—a very specific question as to when the Deputy Prime Minister was first told by Mr Morrison that he intends to move ahead with or without the support of the Nationals party room. That's the question, not anything else. We ask that we get a relevant answer.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, please allow me to rule. Senator McKenzie has been directly relevant to the question. However, I detect you may be straying from that, Senator McKenzie. However, the bulk of her answer up until now has clearly been directly relevant, so I will remind Senator McKenzie of the question and ask her not to stray from it. But you have the call, Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKENZIE: Don't stray! As I said, the National Party has been very clear what we're doing this week. We're making sure that rural and regional jobs will be protected, that we can ensure that any move towards net zero 2050 will ensure that the impacts won't be borne by the people that have sent us to parliament.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! On my left!
Senator McKENZIE: It's actually the very essence of democracy—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt!
The PRESIDENT: and, if those opposite actually remembered who they supposedly represent—
Senator Watt interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt!
Senator McKENZIE: the blue singlet workers in this country, the foresters, the manufacturers, the miners—I tell you what, there are only two people in your political party who are actually sticking up for those workers, and it's Joel Fitzgibbon and Meryl Swanson. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Walsh, a supplementary question?
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (14:17): Mr Joyce has said:
It is correct that a decision of Cabinet is not a decision that comes to a vote or has anybody crossing the floor.
Has the Deputy Prime Minister informed his party room that the Morrison-Joyce government's position of net zero emissions by 2050 will be determined regardless of their 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) (14:17): For 75 years, two political parties have come together to form a very, very strong coalition which has delivered stable, successful government more often than not—
Senator McAllister interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: Well, you know what? You say that, but it's a long time since you've been here. It's a long time since you've been here, and it's because the Liberal Party focuses on what they do best and the National Party focuses on what we do best, which is standing up for rural and regional Australia. And that is actually what we're doing here today. Because of that 75 years, and indeed nearly the last decade, we've seen record growth in our mineral exports, we've seen record growth in our agricultural exports, job booms in both these industries and we've seen a 20 per cent decrease in our emissions. Without your ETS, without your carbon tax, we've been driving down emissions and growing jobs. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Walsh, a second supplementary question?
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (14:18): Senator Canavan has said: 'Perhaps a decision has already been made by reports in the media. It seems like the Prime Minister is gaslighting the joint party room.' Does the Deputy Prime Minister thinks Senator Canavan is right when he says Mr Morrison is 'gaslighting'?
Senator Canavan 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) (14:19): Okay, Matt. You've had your chance. I'm answering on your behalf! Look, I think obviously every successful partnership in life has to be a respectful one, and I think we know in the coalition that it's been a strong relationship. We need to be unified. We're best when we're unified, but we don't always agree. And this is one of those points where we have to assess the information in front of us and come to a considered position. People shouldn't be surprised about this. It is not about Albo waltzing into the Labor Party caucus and saying, 'Okay. I've done the deal. The Left says this, the New South Wales Right says that, the Victorian Left says this, Kim Carr says something else and this is going to be our position on this particular policy decision.' No. There are two independent parties here, and it may be uncomfortable— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: I remind all senators that we should refer to those from the other place by their correct titles.
Climate Change
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:20): Congratulations on your appointment, Mr President. My question is to Senator Birmingham, representing the Prime Minister. The EU ambassador has warned that Australia may face carbon tariffs if Mr Morrison doesn't stump up to Glasgow with strong 2030 targets—the target that actually matters. What guarantees can you provide that the Prime Minister won't walk into Glasgow with empty hands on the crucial 2030 target and, therefore, come home carrying in his luggage carbon tariffs from our major trading partners?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:21): I thank Senator Hanson-Young for the question. I'm very happy to provide guarantees that the Prime Minister, as he's indicated, will travel to Glasgow. He will outline the extent to which Australia made commitments in the past, and met and exceeded our commitments in the past, across the Kyoto protocol's first and second commitment periods. He will outline how, in relation to the Paris Agreement, Australia is meeting, and is on track to beat, 2030 targets, demonstrating that, once again, as a country, we don't just talk about these things; when we make a commitment we deliver on it, and in ways that actually exceed those expectations. Our commitments that we have made to date have seen our emissions fall faster than those of Canada, Japan, New Zealand or the United States. We can demonstrate very clearly that we have made commitments, that our commitments are delivering, and that our commitments and our delivery are exceeding many of those around the rest of the world.
Importantly, the Prime Minister won't be going to Glasgow just to talk about our commitments for the future. He'll also be going to talk about our plans for how we deliver those commitments in terms of continuing to reduce those emissions in ways that have led and exceeded those of much of the rest of the world to date, as well as our plans for how we will protect the jobs in Australian communities on that journey. That is something that is all too often overlooked by those in the Greens and those opposite, who want to make the commitment first and worry about the job impacts afterwards. On this side, the Liberal Party and the National Party, working together, are seeking to address all of these issues concurrently, ensuring that we are best placed to keep reducing emissions while continuing to grow our economy and protect and support jobs in regional communities around Australia. That's what we've done through the last few years, and that's what we will continue to do successfully. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:23): While the minister was answering the question, we had the Leader of the National Party yell out 'Who cares?' in relation to what the EU is saying and doing. Could the minister please explain whether the Prime Minister cares what the EU is saying and what the rest of the world requires and expects when he goes to Glasgow.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:23): There are many things that the Prime Minister cares about. He cares first and foremost about Australians—their safety, their security, their jobs and their economic prosperity. That's why the work we're doing as a government is putting all of those interests first. We're putting those interests of Australians first by ensuring that we follow through on our emissions reductions commitments as part of our global engagement on climate change. We're putting those interests of Australians first by ensuring that we do that in ways that back technological change and the development of things that will drive emissions down while protecting the jobs of Australians. We're putting the interests of Australians first by ensuring that we have a strong story to tell the rest of the world in terms of our emissions reductions—but also of the investment opportunities in Australia, in terms of continuing to achieve those changes, be they in areas of hydrogen or other areas of technological change that will enable us to beat that into the future. We look forward to our European friends and other global friends being partners, as they are, in that journey— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a second supplementary question?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:24): If you don't have a plan to get out of coal and gas, you don't have a plan to reduce pollution and stop climate change. Last month, the environment minister approved four new coalmines. There are 72 new coalmines on the government's books, and 44 new gas projects. How will the Prime Minister explain this when he gets to Glasgow?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:25): Australia's domestic energy market has undergone an amazing transformation, and that transformation of Australia's domestic energy market sees us having the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world and having huge investment in those renewable sectors, underpinned, indeed, by our investment in Snowy 2.0 and the Battery of the Nation project. The types of projects that Senator Hanson-Young is asking about largely fuel the energy demands of other countries, of other nations. Now, as those nations make the transition, which many of them are committing to do, we will see a transition in terms of the demand for energy. That's why we are seeking to invest and to make sure we can attract those international partners—like the agreements we've signed with Japan, Korea, Germany or Singapore in relation to cooperation on new energy opportunities for the future. That's about backing those partners who may, as part of their transition, continue to draw on some of those resources projects from Australia. We want to make sure that, if they transition, when they transition, we have the alternatives in place to work with them as well. (Time expired)
E-Cigarettes
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:26): [by video link] My question is to Senator Colbeck, representing the minister for health, and it relates to tobacco control and non-nicotine vaping products. Minister, non-nicotine e-cigarettes are not therapeutic goods and, as such, do not come under the purview of the TGA; they are classed as consumer goods. New Australian research, from Curtin University, shows that flavourings and other additives in so-called nicotine-free e-cigarettes are harmful and include cancer-causing substances, pesticides, heavy metals and even the addition of nicotine in many instances. Does the government hold concern that these easily available consumer products are toxic and potentially carcinogenic, particularly given the take-up of these products by teenagers?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:27): I thank Senator Griff for the question. The government remains vigilant to the development of and the emerging non-tobacco devices that have the potential to normalise smoking behaviours amongst children and young adults, where the risk of harm of such products is not yet fully understood or known. These non-nicotine products, as you have indicated, are not regulated through the health system but regulated by the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, AICIS, or what used to be known as NICNAS. It categorises their introduction into one of five categories, and I can refer you to the AICIS website for the information on non-nicotine liquids for vaping devices.
The regulation of the domestic sale and supply of non-nicotine vaping products and devices is in fact done by states and territories under their respective tobacco laws and regulations. In Western Australia, for example, products that resemble tobacco products, including e-cigarette devices, whether or not they contain nicotine, cannot be sold by tobacco or general retailers.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a supplementary question?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:28): [by video link] Minister, vaping in school-age teens is a well-recognised problem, and the research has shown that both nicotine and non-nicotine vapes can act as a gateway to tobacco use. What assistance is the federal government offering the states, or are you aware of any plans to offer the states assistance to actually tackle this?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:29): The Commonwealth government continues to work with the states with respect to tobacco and non-tobacco control measures. Obviously, the Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme is a combination of what were formerly state and territory regulatory frameworks into a national one, and so, in that context, we continue to work with the states. We acknowledge the research that's recently been done by Lung Foundation Australia, and Minderoo, which tested the ingredients and toxicity of 52 e-liquids for sale over the counter in Australia in both their origin and vaped form. It found that 100 per cent of e-liquids have between one and 18 chemicals that have unknown effects on respiratory health. We continue to work closely with the states and territories in the regulation of this matter.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a second supplementary question?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:30): [by video link] Thank you, Minister, but I can gather, from your answer, that the Commonwealth isn't working with the states in relation to the issue with school-aged teens, but perhaps we'll discuss that separately. Does the government consider it is time to reinvigorate its antitobacco campaigns which, historically, have helped Australians drive down smoking rates to some of the best in the world?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:30): I acknowledge that campaigns that have been run over many years have in fact achieved the results that Senator Griff has indicated. A strong and continued message, one that is appropriately targeted—particularly towards young Australians and those communities where we still see unacceptably high rates of smoking, but also use of some of these new technologies—is something that we, at a Commonwealth level, need to continue to work on with the states and territories to ensure that people understand the harms. I mentioned the research that has recently been published by the Lung Foundation, which provides some level of alertness to that. Communicating that information and continuing the program to encourage people to give up smoking and these other technologies is one we need to continue to work on.
National Party of Australia
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education, Senator McKenzie. The Cabinet Handbook requires members of cabinet to observe cabinet solidarity. Does cabinet solidarity extend to this minister and Nationals members of cabinet publicly campaigning against Mr Morrison's stated intention to adopt net zero by 2050?
Senator McKENZI E (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) (14:32): I thank Senator Keneally for the question. As the Prime Minister has made clear, this is a decision for cabinet and no decision has been made. That is as it stands. Every cabinet minister in the Senate is aware of the processes of cabinet, and of the Cabinet Handbook and of our responsibilities as cabinet ministers in this government. It has been an incredibly collegiate cabinet that has been able to deliver for rural and regional Australia.
My question though is, I guess—having dealt with that question, I am very, very happy to go to the fact that the Labor Party's question belies your strategy—that you're all politics and no—
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Keneally on a point of order?
Senator Keneally: My point of order is on direct relevance. The minister, in her own answer, is admitting that she is straying into areas that are not relevant to this rather tightly worded question.
Senator Birmingham: Senator Keneally was asking quite a politicised question. That was the way in which she presented it. Senator McKenzie has directly addressed the substance of the question in relation to knowledge of the cabinet rules and processes. Senator McKenzie, having directly addressed the question, is fully entitled to add context to the answer she has given.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, I believe you were being directly relevant to the question; however, your choice of phrase in broadening your answer was probably not indicating that you were staying directly relevant to the question. So I will bring your attention back to the question. You have the call.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you very much, Mr President. And, having answered Senator Keneally's question, I want to go to other aspects of her question—that is, the decision on the issue that we're discussing today coming before cabinet. The Labor Party choose to politicise their questions to me—all day yesterday; all day today. It's a quote-a-thon. I'm sure we'll have George Christensen quoted at some point today, others tomorrow.
The fact is that you are playing politics with this question because you actually have no plan. You actually have no plan yourselves to take forward. You have had eight different positions on this question—eight! Whether it's Chris Bowen, whether it's Mark Butler, whether it's the fantastic member for Hunter, who sadly won't be running at the next election, which provides an opportunity for this side of the chamber, quite frankly, or whether it's Meryl Swanston and the like, you are much more divided on this question going forward than we ever have been. The National Party is focused on its— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:35): The Prime Minister has made clear that net zero emissions by 2050 will be a decision of cabinet. Given the cabinet handbook requires that, 'Members of cabinet must publicly support all government decisions made in cabinet, even if they do not agree with them,' does this minister commit to supporting the Liberal plan for net zero emissions by 2050 once it is adopted by cabinet?
Senator McKENZ IE (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) (14:35): I completely reject the many assumptions and presumptions that exist in Senator Keneally's question. As I've just said, the cabinet has not made a decision. The Prime Minister has been clear about that, as has the Deputy Prime Minister. They are making sure that the National Party have the chance, as an independent sovereign party, to make their own decision. We will go through the process that we have outlined.
As I've stated, though, this tacky, tawdry political game that you're choosing to play is because you don't have a plan. You're not standing up and saying what you think should be taken to Glasgow and what you think the 2030 targets should be, which is why the Greens chose to try and wedge you this morning. I just want to read from Paul Kelly's Triumph and Demise: the broken promise of a Labor generation. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, I don't think in question time you can have the length of answer required to read quotes from a book. Senator Keneally, do you have a second supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:37): The cabinet handbook also states that, 'Cabinet ministers cannot disassociate themselves from or repudiate the decisions of their cabinet colleagues unless they resign from cabinet.' Given this minister's stated opposition to the Liberals' plan for net zero emissions by 2050, will this minister resign from cabinet once it is adopted by cabinet?
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): That is absolutely a hypothetical question, Senator Keneally. I have been very clear on what process has been outlined by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. I will return to what former Nationals leader Warren Truss had to say when the Rudd Labor government put forward the ETS, your climate policy. He said—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt on a point of order?
Senator Watt: It's on relevance. How is quoting from a book about the Rudd government possibly relevant to a question about the cabinet handbook? I would submit that ministers are flagrantly abusing the privileges of senators in here and are testing your limits, as the new President. I would ask you to make sure that their answers are relevant.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, I have heard your point of order. I have another submission. I assume it's on point of order, Senator Birmingham?
Senat or Birmingham: On the point of order, the question went to matters of cabinet convention and processes, which are, of course, very longstanding customs and practices. I am not aware of the contents of the quote that Senator McKenzie is going to use and, unless Senator Watt has powers that I've not yet seen, nor is he. So it's entirely possible that the quote is indeed relevant to matters of cabinet process and cabinet consideration, which would make it directly relevant to the question that was asked.
Th e PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, I believe that Senator Watt may have a point of order, but, as Senator Birmingham has pointed out, we don't know the content of your quote. But I would caution you against reading something that is not relevant.
Senator Mc KENZIE: I was asked this in my capacity as a cabinet minister, and so I am quoting a former National Party cabinet minister and Deputy Prime Minister who, when considering this exact issue under the Rudd Labor government, in the shadow cabinet, said that the Labor Party's climate policy was a 'job-destroying rabid dog that should be put down'.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, unless you want to return to the question, I'm going to ask you to stop reading from the book.
Senator McKENZIE: I'll agree to your ruling, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT: You have 19 seconds remaining if you wish to take it.
Senator McKENZIE: I'm very proud to be leader of a Senate team that doesn't shy away from having the tough conversations. Too many people in this place don't stand up for the people that sent them here. Ask the foresters, ask the CFMMEU and ask Michael O'Connor who actually stands up for their jobs, and it's not you. (Time expired)
National Security
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:41): Congratulations, Mr President. My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Cash. Can the Attorney-General update the Senate on how the Liberal and Nationals government is equipping our law enforcement and security agencies with the resources they need to keep Australians safe from violent extremism?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:41): Mr President, I also offer you my congratulations on your election to your new role. I also acknowledge Senator Paterson's role as the head of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In answering this question, I also acknowledge the recent death of the UK Conservative MP Sir David Amess in a terrorist attack.
Without a doubt, a fundamental responsibility of the coalition government is to keep Australia and Australians safe, to protect our way of life, our freedoms and our values. Our government will continue to combat and keep Australians safe from terrorism and from violent extremism, regardless of the ideology behind it. We may be in the middle, as we know, of a global pandemic, but the threat of terrorism remains in Australia, as it does around the world. Since the national terrorism threat was raised to 'probable' in September 2014, there have been nine attacks and 21 major disruption operations in response to imminent attacks that were being planned on Australians. There have been 143 people now charged as a result of 70 counterterrorism operations since 2014, and there are currently 29 people before the courts for terrorism related offences.
To respond to these threats, the government has now passed 25 tranches of national security legislation. As I said, a fundamental responsibility of the coalition government is to keep Australia and Australians safe. The legislation that we have passed is helping provide security agencies with the tools and the legal framework that is necessary to protect Australia but also to combat new attempts and methods of violent extremism.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a supplementary question?
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:43): How is the increased investment from the government in our law enforcement and security agencies helping to keep Australia and Australians safe from emerging threats?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:43): In terms of emerging threats, the digital world is now the new frontier that organised crime, terrorists and state-sponsored actors are using to threaten Australia and to threaten our way of life. The government is investing almost $1.7 billion, through our Cyber Security Strategy, to position Australia to meet these evolving threats and to improve capabilities to identify and disrupt cybersecurity threats. In April this year, the foreign minister released the International Cyber and Critical Technology Engagement Strategy, to ensure we can develop global cyber-resilience and tackle issues of cross-border cyberthreats that are growing in intensity and in frequency. As the foreign minister knows, by working with our national partners and investing in our own capabilities, we can work to both minimise and disrupt cybersecurity threats by these organisations.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a second supplementary question?
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:44): How will the AUKUS trilateral agreement help our law enforcement and security agencies deepen cooperation with our security partners to protect Australians and our way of life?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:44): The AUKUS partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the USA builds on our nation's close ties but it will also enable us to deepen cooperation on a range of emerging security matters. AUKUS will build on Australia's already significant network of international partnerships, including with ASEAN, our Pacific family, the Five Eyes, the Quad and other like-minded partners within our region. This in turn will help our security and law enforcement agencies to develop and enhance our capabilities—initially in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. By partnering with our allies we can continue to protect Australians and our way of life through continuing prosperity and security in our region, and by ensuring our agencies are at the forefront of new technology. Again, our fundamental priority is keeping Australia and Australians safe.
Climate Change
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:47): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, Senator Birmingham. How much will taxpayers have to pay for Mr Morrison's deal to get the National Party to agree to net zero by 2050?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:47): This question is almost identical to the question Senator Gallagher asked me yesterday. Indeed, I will happily refer to the answer I gave yesterday. What this government will do is make sure that we invest, as we have done successfully since our election in 2013, to reduce emissions for the nation. Our emissions have been reducing at rates far in excess of many other nations around the world. They have reduced since 2005, as I said before, in excess of countries like Canada or Germany or United States or New Zealand. We will also do so through investments in a way that supports a transition in regional communities. In particular, confronting, as we do, the changed global environment in terms of changes in our commodities markets and changes in investment markets as other parts of the world make their decisions in relation to net zero, we see an even heightened importance in relation to backing and supporting Australian communities who will be impacted by those changed decisions happening overseas but who also face, in some cases, opportunities created by those changing environments overseas.
We'll be investing to back those communities—make no bones about it—as we have all along. Indeed, our investments all along have achieved the outcome of reducing emissions without the types of costs that those opposite, in the alternative policy regime, sought to place on those communities. Our approach of backing technology and incentives to drive investment towards emissions reduction is achieving outcomes—without the higher taxes on electricity costs, without the higher costs that hurt jobs and growth across the Australian economy. That was the formula of the Labor Party and those opposite. We have taken a different approach. And despite the fact that we were told time and time again by those opposite that our approach wouldn't see emissions go down, emissions have gone down, so have electricity prices. They've gone down, and jobs have gone up! That's the trifecta that we intend to continue to invest in and support. (Time expired)
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong! I did miss the clock because there was so much interjecting happening from my left. Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:50): Is the minister aware of any upper limit on the amount of taxpayer dollars Mr Morrison is willing to spend to secure an agreement with the National Party on net zero emissions by 2050? Is there an upper limit?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:50): The first thing I'd observe is there was no limit on how much those opposite were happy to tax. There was no limit in terms of their willingness. What we will do, as we have demonstrated on our track record, is target investment to drive emissions down and protect jobs. We'll target investment to drive emissions down and keep electricity prices lower. We'll target investment to make sure that we drive emissions down and create new investment opportunities.
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: On direct relevance, Mr President. The question was very tightly worded. It asks whether the finance minister can advise of any upper limit on how much the government will pay in taxpayers dollars to get a deal with the Nationals. It's not about emissions policy. It's not about the history of the Labor Party. It is about how much this finance minister is willing to spend of taxpayers' money on getting this deal.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, you have brought the minister's attention back to the question. Minister, you have the call.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: In relation to how much we invest, let me make this bold prediction. When we outline plans to invest in regional communities across Australia, I bet those opposite will support every dollar of that investment. I bet they won't be game to go to the next election saying they're withdrawing any of that investment.
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: Again, on direct relevance. I think Senator Ryan said that, if there's a glancing blow, or something like that, about other parties' policies, we accept that. He's been asked whether there's any limit—is there an upper limit on how much he will spend? And he's talking about us. It cannot possibly be directly relevant, with respect.
The PRESIDENT: The minister was addressing the substance of the question. I will bring the minister back to the question again. Minister, you have 11 seconds.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: As always, we will do what is necessary to protect the jobs, the security, the prosperity of Australians. We will make sure we invest where necessary for the benefit of Australians for their future. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a second supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:53): Perhaps the finance minister can assist us with this. Is there any provision in the budget for this deal?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:53): There are, indeed, many billions of dollars in the budget that we are investing already in emissions reduction activities, that we're investing already in supporting regional growth activities. I need only point you to the investments in our agriculture 2030 agenda; to the investments in our modern manufacturing agenda; to the investments into other aspects of our regional growth agenda; to the investments we're making in terms of meeting the stretched goals and targets in relation to emissions reductions; to the investments in terms of hydrogen hubs—seven of them—that we are committed to establishing right across the country; to the investments that we are making in terms of driving new carbon storage opportunities; to the investments that we're making in terms of Snowy 2.0, which, if I look just down the road, happens to be in a regional part of Australia. Regional investment delivering a lower emissions environment that will support lower electricity prices in the future. That is, indeed, what we will continue to invest in and pursue: lower emissions, more jobs, lower electricity prices. (Time expired)
Tasmania: COVID-19
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:54): [by video link] Thank you for the call, Mr President, and congratulations once again. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. When the Prime Minister shut down the country in March 2020 he promised Australians that we would use the time wisely and get ourselves ready before we had an outbreak. He told us he would make sure our hospital systems could cope with COVID before it got out into the community. It's been 18 months, and Premier Gutwein says Tasmania's hospitals still aren't ready. Since COVID arrived in Australia [inaudible] Tasmanian hospitals to make sure that they are safe [inaudible] so that we can reopen?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, your question broke up slightly, but I believe the minister probably got the majority of it. Minister, are you happy to proceed?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:55): I thank Senator Lambie for the question. I did miss a piece, which was a quote from the Premier, Mr Gutwein. I would like to assure all Australians that the work that we've been doing since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic has been to support Australians and to protect Australians as we work our way through the impacts of the pandemic. That includes for the health system, and one of the first things that we put in place was the private hospitals agreement, which allowed us to have access to the private hospital system should we need it to support the public health system to cope with the pandemic. In the period of the pandemic so far, the Australian government has provided over $6.6 billion in funding for the direct costs of the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 and the broader public health costs for contact tracing, outbreak management and vaccination. We continue to support Australians with respect to the management of COVID and also to the maintaining of their health. The National Partnership on COVID-19 Response is in place until 30 June 2022. It was agreed by all jurisdictions, and the Commonwealth is covering 50 per cent of the additional costs incurred by state and territory public health and hospital systems in responding to COVID-19 outbreaks. This funding is demand driven, and there is no cap on funding.
In the context of reopening, all states have indicated that they have adequate capacity to meet demand based on the Doherty modelling and supplemented by their own modelling, so when we get through the 70 and 80 per cent fully vaccinated rates as the basis for reopening, based on the Doherty modelling. Those are the discussions that we are having with the states and the territories.
The PRESIDENT: Just before we go back to Senator Lambie, I would remind all senators that interjections are always disorderly, but particularly when we have remote questions. It is courteous to the asker of the question that they be able to hear the answer. Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:57): [by video link] Minister, could you please explain to other Australians why Tasmania won't open until it hits 90 per cent? Can you clarify that it's because your government has not put a cent into Tasmanian hospitals like it promised when COVID hit?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:58): It's good of Senator Lambie to ask me the question and then answer it for me, but I disagree with her question and I disagree with her answer. The reason that Tasmania is not going to open until it reaches 90 per cent vaccination rate is a matter for the Tasmanian government. It's purely a matter for the Tasmanian government. It is their decision. I would hope that the Tasmanian government does what is happening in a number of other jurisdictions and follows the national plan supported by the Doherty modelling in support of Australians being able to move freely around the country and get back to contact with their families. That's what national cabinet agreed. That was the process, and that was the rationale behind getting the Doherty modelling done in the first place—at what point in time could we safely reopen and at what level of vaccination rate could we start to safely reopen the Australian community?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a second supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:59): [by video link] Minister, has Tasmania received extra money for our public health system in the last 18 months because of COVID? It's as simple as that—yes or no?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:59): As I said in response to Senator Lambie's first question, through the National Partnership on COVID Response, which is in place until 30 June 2022 and which was agreed by all jurisdictions, the Commonwealth is covering 50 per cent of any additional costs incurred by any state or territory public health and hospital system in responding to COVID-19 outbreaks. The funding is demand driven, and there is no cap on it. Through the partnership, the Australian government has provided over $6.6 billion to any state or territory where there have been additional costs for the direct costs of diagnosing and treating COVID-19 and for the broader public health costs of contact tracing, outbreak management and vaccination.
Senator Birmingham: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
National Party of Australia
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:01): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience (Senator McKenzie) to a question without notice asked by Senator O’Neill today relating to rural and regional Australia.
I quote:
We should reject Net Zero because it's bad for Australia, bad for our national interest, and it's going to do nothing to help the environment.
In addition:
Net zero emissions would just make us weaker.
Those are the words from Senator Matt Canavan, a member of this Morrison-Joyce government who, along with an alarming number of allies, has come to Canberra this week with the sole intention of scuttling the coalition's long-overdue backflip on climate policy. This has become an insurmountable political problem for Mr Morrison, himself no stranger to climate denialism antics, and it's a problem that encapsulates the inherent backwardness of this tired eight-year-long Liberal-National government. This Prime Minister won't hold a hose, mate, but he'll hold up a piece of coal in the House of Representatives as a cheap stunt. His sudden U-turn on climate change is what this country has come to expect from a Prime Minister whose ambition for this country goes no further than his own job title. There is none so pious as the new convert, and I'm sure we will soon see many of these agitators over there in the Nationals toeing the party line once they secure whatever off-budget pork-barrelling grant they have their eyes on.
But what is particularly galling to hear from those opposite is their breathless claim that they and only they are the true defenders of rural and regional Australia. This might come as a shock, but the views of the Nationals are not reflected in their communities. Rural and regional Australians, alongside the business sector and faith communities, are, in fact, leading the charge on climate action, and they do this because they accept the overwhelming scientific evidence and acknowledge the immense social and economic benefits of reform. The Courier-Mail today contains articles about the work of businesses, schools and community groups from regional Queensland, particularly Biloela and Wide Bay, who are using renewable energy and recycling to go green. In particular, I note the work of the Catholic Diocese of Rockhampton, which has installed solar panels and batteries on a number of its schools, including Shalom College in Bundaberg. These schools are reportedly some of the first in Australia to have achieved 100 per cent renewable energy, and their actions show not only a commitment to reducing climate emissions but a devotion to the teachings of their Catholic faith.
In his 2015 encyclical Laudato Si': On Care of Our Common Home,Pope Francis said:
Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.
The Pope goes on to call on followers:
… to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development.
The Pope questioned:
… how anyone can claim to be building a better future without thinking of the environmental crisis …
It's perplexing that the Catholic churches and the schools in Senator Canavan's own diocese are increasingly powered by renewable energy, an act that is at once aligned with the church's teachings and yet somehow diametrically opposed to the senator's views. I am immensely proud, as an Australian and as a Catholic, that my church has led on the front of this issue, and I, like many Australians, am deeply disappointed by the sideshow occurring in Canberra this week as the Nationals and the Liberals, the warring wings in the Morrison-Joyce government, focus on themselves rather than on the issues impacting ordinary Australians.
Net zero by 2050 is not a craze, it is not a fad, nor is it some vast conspiracy theory. It is the upside to proper action on climate change. It is indisputable, and it is a position that is broadly accepted by large swathes of the communities, including faith communities, the business sector and rural and regional Australians. We've heard senators opposite posture and argue about who represents rural and regional Australians while they argue against the very same policies that those communities are crying out for. (Time expired)
Senator VAN (Victoria) (15:06): As a Catholic and a member of this government, I'm immensely proud of what this government is doing to lower emissions. Those opposite don't seem to pay any attention to the real facts of what's going on here, so I think it's time to tell them a little bit of what we've been doing. Australia's emissions are at their lowest levels since records began. Emissions in 2020 were more than 20 per cent lower than the 2005 baseline being used for the Paris Agreement. Australia has reduced its emissions faster than have Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Senator Keneally's previous home, the USA. Australia is on track to beat our 2030 Paris target, and we will meet and beat that target. Let me repeat that: we will meet and beat that target. On a per person basis, that's a reduction of nearly 49 per cent per capita. This is more than France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand or Japan is expected to achieve.
Those opposite haven't even set a 2030 target that they will share with anyone, so God knows what they're carrying on about. Our approach to reducing emissions is not going to be theirs, which we know is going to be taxes. As we know, the world is changing, and we're going to need different mixes of energy. Our customers from all around the world, including Japan and Korea, are telling us that, so we're developing the technology to meet those challenges.
Australia is truly the envy of the world on this. We have strong targets. We are beating our targets. We're spending $1.2 billion on hydrogen development. We will get hydrogen well below the $2 per kilo mark, which is as expected, and that is for both blue and green hydrogen. But these things take time. These things aren't going to happen overnight. Like carbon capture and storage, these are technologies that need to be developed. We know that those opposite won't take any time to develop a tax on this. They'll apply it the second they ever get back into government. It's just a shame that they won't ever learn their lessons. Hopefully, they learned their lessons from the last election.
Australia is building wind and solar three times faster on a per capita basis than is Europe or the US. We have the world's highest take-up with rooftop solar, with one in four homes now having rooftop panels. Last year seven gigawatts of solar power were installed in Australia. It took 30 years to come up with the first gigawatt of renewable power. Now we're doing seven gigawatts a year. Globally, I believe the number is 700 gigawatts, so we're doing our fair share, and we're committed to reducing emissions through technology not taxes. Our Technology Investment Roadmap will support investments in hydrogen, long-duration energy storage, pumped hydro, low-emissions steel, low-emissions aluminium, carbon capture and storage, and healthy soils. Our commitments and investments in this will guide and be enhanced by $80 billion of private investment going along with ours by 2030. That will support 160,000 jobs. So Australia has achieved its emissions reduction, and, when you look at it on a per capita basis, we're doing far more than those opposite would ever have achieved.
Senator Keneally says we're an eight-year-old, tired government. Let me just remind you of a few things we've done in the last six weeks, since we were last sitting in this place. Five million Australians have received their first dose of a COVID vaccine, while 6.5 million have received their second dose. The first million doses of Moderna have arrived and have been put in the arms of those aged 12 or more. We've secured access to 300,000 doses of molnupiravir, if I'm pronouncing that correctly. We've created—and this might have been missed by those opposite—an enhanced security partnership, AUKUS, with the US and the UK. There was the historic first meeting of the Quad. The final budget outcome for 2021 showed a net improvement of $80 billion in the nation's finances. These are hardly the hallmarks of a tired government. I could keep going, if you would give me leave to continue my remarks.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:11): Again today we saw the rabble that is this coalition government on full display in question time. Over the last 24 hours, we've seen an increase in backgrounding from Liberals on Nationals, from Nationals on Liberals, from Nationals on Nationals and from Liberals on Liberals. Around and around it goes, just as it has for the last eight long years. Most recently—only yesterday in question time—we had Senator McKenzie saying that the National Party is the only party standing up for the regions. Then we had Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes pointing out that the Liberal Party represents more seats in rural and regional areas than the National Party.
Is it any wonder that this government, after eight long years, has been unable to come up with a policy on one of the biggest challenges facing our country and the world, one that will determine whether we get jobs and opportunities in regional areas of this country or whether they'll be sent overseas? The reason they can't come to a conclusion about this and make sure that they are putting regions, jobs and the environment first is that they are so hopelessly divided and want to spend their entire time chucking bombs at each other rather than working together in the interests of the country. Day after day we see this ongoing infighting which is holding back our regions and the country.
What we also learned in question time today is that this whole farce of the National Party pretending to fight for the regions is just that. It is a pantomime, and Senator Davey knows it. She's sitting there, and she knows in her heart that she is playing a role in a pantomime—as are Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, and Senator McKenzie—because they all know that, for whatever they might be saying, for whatever crocodile tears they might be crying, for whatever protests they might be putting up and for whatever claims they're making about the regions, this has all been decided by a Liberal prime minister from Sydney: Scott Morrison.
Scott Morrison has basically said that, whatever the Nationals party room might think or do or call for, it's completely, utterly irrelevant, just like everything the National Party does in this chamber—full of posturing, full of bluster and full of infighting but never actually delivering for the regions. What the Prime Minister has said is that it will be a decision of the cabinet as to whether this country commits to net zero emissions in 2050. It's not a matter for the Nationals party room. Whatever bleating they might carry on with and whatever false protestations they might put up about caring for the regions, this Prime Minister from Sydney does not give a toss. He is going to push on with net zero emissions, because he knows the Liberals are backing him on it and he knows it's what the country wants.
This is just a big, long saga. What we are watching unfold in this parliament is longer than a Shakespearean tragedy. We all know where it's going to end up: the Prime Minister gets a deal for 2050, and the Nationals pretend to acclaim themselves as heroes. What we can be 100 per cent sure of is that whatever plan this Prime Minister comes up will be exactly what he is: a big fake. We have a fake for a prime minister. We have a marketing man who completely lacks substance, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the plan that the Prime Minister is going to take to Glasgow is also going to be a big fake plan. It's not going to be legislated. He's already said that whatever target he sets is not going to be set by legislation, so there will be no penalty for breaching it. There will be no way of enforcing it. It is going to be full of outs and exits and turnarounds and roundabouts and caveats to keep Barnaby Joyce happy. If Barnaby Joyce is involved in setting a deal on climate change, you can bet that it is not worth a cent. It is not worth the paper it's written on. This is going to be a fake plan from a fake Prime Minister leading a fake government that has done nothing about this and many other issues for eight years.
If you don't believe me that this is going to be a fake plan full of buzzwords, full of nonsense and full of meaningless statements that won't actually do anything, listen to what Senator Canavan is reported to have said after he came out after the coalition party room today. How many times from the focus groups delivered by the Prime Minister have we heard the latest catch phrase 'technology not taxes'? Every senator from the Liberal Party has rabbited on about 'technology not taxes'. Well, Senator Canavan has called them out. He said that that is just a slogan. It's too good to be true. It is like 'rainbows and puppies'. It is nonsense. It means nothing, just like their fake plan.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Watt. I remind you to refer to those in that other place by their correct titles.
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (15:16): It is always a pleasure to rise in this place and talk about who in this chamber best represents the interests and best delivers for regional Australia. It is the government members on this side of the chamber that are delivering for regional Australia and, in particular, for regional Tasmania. One of my greatest joys as a senator for Tasmania is representing our great regions. As the duty senator for the seat of Lyons, I have a wonderful opportunity to get out and see the best of our state and see how our government is investing in regional Tasmania to ensure that our communities remain strong.
Just last week, I was up at Corumbene Care in the beautiful Derwent Valley. They have received $3.7 million under the Building Better Regions Fund to deliver a community and wellbeing hub, repurposing existing buildings at Willow Court. This is much needed infrastructure in the local community to support the health and wellbeing of all of those in the Derwent Valley and beyond, and I'm very glad that our government is delivering on this important project.
Our government has also committed $100 million for irrigation projects, which are so needed across regional Tasmania, so that our agriculture industry can continue to thrive and prosper. Growing up in Tasmania and spending so much time driving along the Midland Highway up from the south to the north of the state, you can see the transformative effect that our irrigation schemes have had in regional Tasmania in ensuring that our farms are green and are growing food to supply the nation. We've provided millions in financial relief to tourism businesses that have been impacted.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Chandler, I remind you that we are taking note of answers given by Senator McKenzie to questions asked by Senator O'Neill. I have listened carefully, and you've strayed way beyond the question.
Senator C HANDLER: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I will turn my remarks now beyond just our government's broader investment in regional Tasmania to look at how we are working within the regions to ensure that Tasmania plays its part to reduce emissions, and that we are good custodians of the environment. The government is progressing the Battery of the Nation plans with the Tasmanian government, to increase the interconnection between Tasmania's energy market—which will be underpinned by an abundance of clean, reliable hydropower supported by newer wind developments—and the rest of the National Energy Market. I hear time and time again just how necessary this investment is in the regions and in hydroelectricity in Tasmania to ensure that we have jobs for the future, and also to ensure that we do our part in reducing emissions.
It often surprises me how pessimistic people can be about the world's capability to achieve the goal, which is some years away. When you look at the rate of advances in science and technology over the last century, it seems to me that we should be very optimistic about what we can achieve by 2050. As I've said, as a government we are investing to support that innovation here in Australia and particularly in regional Tasmania.
Earlier this month, I was fortunate to be able to visit an incredible Tasmanian business which was the recipient of a grant from the coalition government's Accelerating Commercialisation fund. This fund supports projects within the government's six national manufacturing priority areas, including food and beverage, recycling, and clean energy. It supports businesses which have ideas to undertake commercialisation activities in R&D, invest in technologies that will assist them to upscale their operations and secure further investment to expand both nationally and internationally.
Sea Forest, based at Triabunna in the south-east of Tasmania, is one of those businesses. They are doing world-leading work, cultivating a particular species of seaweed which, when added in small quantities to livestock feed, greatly reduces the amount of methane which is produced by those animals. This has huge potential for the livestock industry in Australia and around the world, because not only does growing the seaweed help to absorb carbon in and of itself, the end product reduces the amount of methane going into the atmosphere from one of our key industries in Australia. It was incredibly exciting to see the work that the team at Sea Forest are doing and how, with the support of this government—this government that invests in the regions, that has a plan—they are working to take that idea as a commercial product to the industry. If and when they take the next step, they'll be able to add significantly to their 40-strong workforce in a regional town which really needs jobs and career opportunities. That is just one example of the thousands of businesses around Australia, in the regions, who are innovating here and now in 2021 to create jobs and reduce our emissions.
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:21): Senator Hughes said yesterday: 'It's a misnomer to assume it is only the National Party that represents the voice of rural and regional Australians.' Senator McKenzie called her the member for Woolloomooloo during the course of this afternoon's proceedings, so that's going well! The truth is Senator Hughes is right.
Mr Joyce who, heaven help us, is the Deputy Prime Minister, said, 'The National Party represents the poorest electorates in the country.' The claim checks out. ABC Fact Check has checked it twice. It's absolutely correct. There is a relationship between National Party representation and poverty. The relationship is not a casual relationship; it's a causal relationship. A hundred years of National Party representation of some of these seats has delivered a century of impoverishment. If you vote Nationals, it's a very predictable result. If you vote Nationals, manufacturing jobs go offshore. If you vote Nationals, public services get privatised. If you vote Nationals, your health services get cut if you are in a country town. If you vote Nationals, your TAFE gets closed down and 150,000 apprentices disappear. If you vote Nationals, the dairy industry disappears. Indeed, if you vote Nationals in New South Wales, your Murray-Darling Basin water disappears to spivs and speculators. The National Party's representatives deliver social misery, unemployment and impoverishment.
It turns out today the Auditor-General said that half of the regional grants—do you know where half the regional grants money got spent? In the big cities. The Prime Minister, for all the positioning, all the pantomime, the look-behind-you action that's going on, all the briefing, all the carry on, has got this figured out. The Nationals are irrelevant. It's going to be a cabinet decision.
Senator McKenzie said today, 'We're going through our own internal processes.' Well, that's what they do best: go through their own internal processes, endlessly self-absorbed. Mr Littleproud said, 'We've only had four hours to consider this.' They've had more than 70,000 hours. It took less time to put a man on the moon than it's taken the National Party to figure out what they're doing about industrial development and clean technology in the regions. For all of the action in here, for all of Senator McKenzie's pantomime and carry-on: Don't worry about it, Senator McKenzie. The Prime Minister's got it figured out.
If the National Party really stood up for regional Australia, there'd be two things that would happen. First of all, they would have spent eight years figuring out a policy framework that delivers jobs, lowers emissions and drives down electricity prices. That's what they would have done. The Prime Minister said, 'If you have a go, you'll get a go.' Well, what happens if you have 21 goes? That's how many goes this Prime Minister's had, and the National Party's had no impact on this area of policy.
I tell you the second thing you'd do if you were the National Party and you were really going to stand up for the regions. You'd grow a backbone. You'd get serious. You'd really mobilise. When former Prime Minister Hawke and former Treasurer Keating decided that Australia shouldn't own a national airline anymore—a significant, momentous decision in the history of public ownership in Australia—do you know what they did? They had a national conference of the Labor Party. They took the debate on, they provided leadership and the wings of the Labor movement came together and thrashed it out and got a result. What do you see from this lot? Backgrounding, whinging, whimpering, crying, moaning about each other. There's no courage. There's no fight. There's no struggle. There's no spine. There's no backdown. There is no capacity for this quisling political party to represent regional Australians, if there ever was. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:27): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice she asked today relating to the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow.
This government is spending hours and hours, days and days this week pretending that they care two hoots about cutting pollution in this country. While we've got the Prime Minister begging the National Party to allow him and his government to agree to net zero by 2050 on one hand, on the other hand he's standing out in question time today over in the other place boasting about the fact that his government is overseeing the biggest expansion of gas that this country has ever seen. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and it's clear for everybody to see. The EU and the rest of the world are watching on in horror as we have the Prime Minister parading around, pretending that net zero by 2050 is some big goal. Meanwhile the rest of the world is trying to work out how we cut pollution in the next decade, because that's what the science requires.
This Prime Minister is gloating about the fact that he is opening up new coalmines and new gas fields at the same time as he is trying to pretend that he cares about cutting pollution. Well, the International Energy Agency has made it very, very clear. We will not reach net zero if one single new coal, gas or oil project is developed. They are the facts. That's the expertise. That's the advice. And yet we have a Prime Minister who is whimpering in the wings and trying to pretend that everything is A-OK. What a spiv. What a fraud. What a pretence of a leader we have in Mr Morrison when it comes to climate action and cutting pollution.
We know of course that here in parliament this week we have the right-wing rump of this government holding up any action. So the Prime Minister is ready to hand out big amounts of cash to the National Party—it's not a slush fund those on that side can ever turn down—rort after rort after rort, while continuing to allow coal and gas let rip in this country. What an embarrassment of a plan to take to the international community and the international stage at the Glasgow conference in two weeks time.
The Prime Minister's net zero promise is a fraud with his expansion of new coal and gas. It's a spiv of a plan and it's going to fry the planet. I know that Senator Nick McKim would like to contribute on the topic of what a fraud this Prime Minister is.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:30): We are facing ecological collapse, and the climate is literally breaking down around us, yet in one of the greatest shakedowns in Australian political history, the National Party are using this existential crisis to stick out their collective hands for billions of dollars of public money in order to support a shift in rhetoric around a 2050 target. This is not only grifting of the highest order, it completely misses the point, because the science is abundantly clear. We need to act now. We need targets for 2030, not 2050, and most importantly, we need to ensure that no more new coal is extracted, exported and burnt. We need to make sure there are no new gas projects to extract, export and burn gas, which is just as damaging in climate terms as coal is. We also need to make sure that we stop strip-mining our native forests in this country, emitting vast amounts of carbon and destroying precious habitats for our threatened species. Those are the things that we should be focused on, not on meaningless distracting debate around a 2050 target. We need the Labor Party to focus on 2030, we need the government to focus on 2030 and we need the media to focus on 2030 because this is the critical decade.(Time expired)
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator F IERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:32): Pursuant to notice given yesterday on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of 25 legislative instruments as listed at item 9 on today's order of business.
BUSINESS
Leave Of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:33): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Polley for 18 to 21 October 2021, for personal reasons
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:33): On behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 1244 for today.
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged as follows:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Rice for today, proposing the disallowance of the Fuel Security (Fuel Security Services Payment) Rule 2021, postponed to the next day of sitting.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young for today, proposing the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021, postponed till 24 November 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 to the next day of sitting.
General business notice of motion No. 1249 standing in the name of Senator Pratt for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, postponed to 21 October.
The PRESIDENT (15:34): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
MOTIONS
Members of Parliament: Staff
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:34): I move:
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 WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:34): Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator WATERS: The Greens would like to thank Ms Stephanie Foster for the work that has led to this motion, but we owe progress on harassment and bullying in parliamentary workplaces to the bravery and commitment of women like Brittany Higgins, Dhanya Mani, Chelsey Potter, Rachelle Miller and others who have made their traumatic experiences public. It shouldn't have taken that level of disclosure to force change, but countless staff and senators in this place can thank those brave women for change being on the way. Staff said loud and clear that the lack of an independent complaints mechanism or any real consequences where abusers were MPs stopped them from reporting. That is one of the reasons why a toxic culture in this place has festered for so long. This new workplace support service, and the disciplinary process set out in this motion, goes some way to addressing that, but there is still more to do. An enforceable code of conduct for all MPs is needed to lift standards, and we look forward to Commissioner Jenkins' review recommendations coming later in the year.
Question agreed to.
REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Fuel Security (Fuel Security Services Payment) Rule 2021
Disallowance
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:36): I move:
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.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:36): I move:
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.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee
Reporting Date
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:37): At the request of the deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, Senator Hanson, I move:
That—
(a) the time for the presentation of the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System be extended to 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.
Question agreed to.
Privileges Committee
Reference
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:38): I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:
Having regard to the matters raised by Senator Patrick in correspondence tabled by the President on 1 September 2021:
(a) whether the Commissioner of Taxation has, without reasonable excuse:
(i) disobeyed a lawful order of the Senate,
(ii) failed to produce documents in accordance with an order of the Senate, or
(iii) improperly interfered with the power of the Senate to obtain information necessary to support its accountability functions; and
(b) if so, whether any contempt was committed in that regard.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:38): I seek leave to make a short statement about Labor's voting position.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GALLAGHER: We will be supporting Senator Patrick's motion today. We supported JobKeeper in the parliament and we acknowledge the important role that the policy played in maintaining connections between employers and employees during the pandemic; but, since then, a number of issues have come to light in relation to the implementation, and particularly the transparency, of the program. This includes the $19.7 billion that was paid despite businesses turnovers increasing compared to the previous year. Other countries have transparency registers and public registers, and we believe that the ATO should publish the names of larger firms that received JobKeeper.
We're not arguing for the ATO to publish the names of small business or individuals who received JobKeeper, or indeed any other of their tax information or their personal details, but we do believe there is a responsible way forward, and that is to be transparent and shine a bit of light on who received JobKeeper. That's why we are supporting this referral to the Privileges Committee.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:39): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McKIM: I indicate the Greens' support for Senator Patrick's motion. I want to place very clearly on the record here that JobKeeper has turned into the biggest corporate rort in Australia's history. We saw multiple billions of dollars go to companies that just simply didn't need it. The government knew about this very early in the day in the history of JobKeeper and did nothing whatsoever to stop this massive flow of public money into the hands of big corporations. We support this for a number of reasons but, in particular, what JobKeeper needs is the disinfectant of sunlight shone upon it. It needs more transparency so that more companies are shamed into paying the money back.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: One Nation will support this motion. There are two primary issues here. The first is that we do not support the indiscriminate sharing of information that is private and should be confidential. We do, though, support the need for accountability and holding this government accountable. We understand that the tax commissioner has some issues and that the referral to the Privileges Committee is in the ideal position to resolve those issues. We need resolution in two forms. First of all, we want the Privileges Committee to hopefully consider what the taxation commissioner wants to do to protect the privacy of people so that their information is not released willy-nilly without context. Secondly, we want to make sure that the information is disclosed preferably in camera so that we can have full accountability on the government's JobKeeper scheme.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion from Senator Patrick be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:45]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
Job Security
Reporting Date
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (15:47): Mr President, I congratulate you on your election to the position of President. I move:
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 ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:48): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: We support Senator Sheldon's motion. Firstly, we do so because Labor has ignored the casuals and their plight in this country. It tried to suppress me in speaking about this and raising these issues. We prevailed and we're still working on those issues. Secondly, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens all support 2050 net zero. Maybe the Nationals are wavering at last and coming to their senses, but the Greens, as I've said many times, have not provided the empirical scientific evidence needed to justify this, yet they still want to go ahead with this job killer.
We appeal to Senator Sheldon to include consideration about these disastrous climate policies in this job security assessment inquiry. We also raise the fact that the IPA has signalled a massive job loss. More than 50 per cent of the job losses will come from the agricultural sector and will hit regional Australia. This is urgently needed. We commend Senator Sheldon.
The PRESIDENT (15:54): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: That concludes formal business, unless I’ve missed something, which I don’t think I have.
The Senate divided. [15:54]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
COVID-19: Morrison Government
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ) (15:56): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 18 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 Ayres, proposing a matter of public importance, was chosen—namely:
The refusal of the Morrison-Joyce Government to publicly release the Doherty Modelling, as Australians become increasingly concerned that the previous modelling based on a small COVID outbreak does not adequately deal with how many hospitalisations, deaths, cases are now expected with revised modelling.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The ACTING DE PUTY 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 clocks accordingly.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:56): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this MPI today, for there isn't a more important issue at the moment that affects all of Australia than opening up safely from the COVID-19 lockdowns that have plagued, in particular, the south-eastern parts of Australia since June and July this year.
Senator Ayres has raised this matter of public importance because we are worried that, as the opening-up is happening, the government are being less than transparent with the information they have available to them about what will happen as part of the opening-up. How many cases of COVID-19 will occur in the community, how many of those will be serious, how many of those will end up in hospital and, indeed, what is the capacity or the preparedness of the hospital system to deal with those cases?
I've been following this pretty closely for a number of reasons; one of them is as the chair of the Select Committee on COVID-19. We have been following the reluctance of the Morrison government to make information available as early as possible to keep Australians' trust and to thank them for the sacrifices they've made over the last 20 months. We've all stayed home, we haven't seen family, we haven't gone to social occasions, we haven't celebrated birthdays, we've been apart from our loved ones when they've passed away and we haven't been able to attend funerals, and we haven't been able to travel. All of those things don't sound like much, but they have taken their toll on everybody.
Part of the trust engagement between a government and its citizens, particularly in times like these, when we are subjecting ourselves voluntarily to some really harsh restrictions on the way that we would normally live our lives, is that that trust is repaid by the provision of information about why we're doing it and what happens when those restrictions change. The Australian community have played their part in this bargain. We have done what was asked of us and we are happy for the opening-up to happen and we want it to happen safely. But the other side of the deal is that we should be advised what that means. We have stayed home to make sure our hospital system was there to care for people—not just people with COVID, but people with other conditions who required hospital resources. We have done it willingly and for the greater good. That's been a really tremendous sign that we're all in this together.
The reason we had the lockdown was to make sure those resources were available to care for those who needed it. That is still the same as we open up. As we open up and get more cases and the virus gets transmitted, what is the preparedness of the healthcare system to deal with that? We know that the government has that information. The Department of Health was commissioned in August—pretty late in the piece, if you ask me—to go around and have a look at how the hospitals were preparing for the opening up as part of the national plan. I was surprised it was that late. I read about it in the paper. I heard the health minister say that this work had been commissioned and the Commonwealth was engaging with the states and territories about what that would look like. We know they have had that document; we know that Professor Brendan Murphy has briefed national cabinet on it. We know that they know exactly what the healthcare system will look like under the various scenarios. But do we know? No. Because that information has not been shared. There may be a reason for this. But I'm suspicious because when we have sought other information we've been told it's cabinet in confidence and we can't have it.
Surely on a matter like this, where we have made so many sacrifices, we should be given the information about what our hospital system looks like now and what it will look like as we come out of the lockdown—and that means in Sydney and Melbourne, in Perth and Queensland, in regional and rural hospitals, in remote locations. We heard at the Senate committee last week that there are some places in Australia where vaccination rates remain extremely low. It is anywhere between 25 and 30 per cent below the national average in some communities—in particular, First Nations communities. And we don't have any idea what the allocation of resources is going to be in those communities or in hospitals. We know that the AMA is worried. They have released a report. They are really concerned. They have appeared before the committee really concerned about what this means. It is their members who work in the hospitals. They are seeing firsthand what is happening in hospitals. And we know right now that, even in the non-COVID states, the hospitals are pushed to their limits. We know that, in the COVID states and territories, the hospitals are operating at their limits. This is a busy time of year for any hospital, in any year, let alone when you are managing a global pandemic as well. We know that the states and territories are worried. They have tried to engage the Commonwealth on this: 'How are we going to meet this demand?'
We know that the AMA is calling for extra help in the community. I mean, most people with COVID are going to be looked after at home. I've just been through that; I know what it means. It's hard work; people are sick. Don't trivialise the virus; don't say it's nothing; don't say it's a little virus and most people get mild symptoms. People are running mini-hospitals in their homes, often with very little support. I've just been there; I've done it; it's hard. Unless you can engage your GP and have a GP come—unless you have a fabulous GP like mine, who actually helped me twice a day, every day, for 14 days as I got my family members through the worst of that virus—you are largely on your own.
So what is happening in the community? What is going to happen for primary healthcare? The Commonwealth is responsible for it. Are they doing anything? Are they supporting GPs? We heard the AMA, in evidence before my committee, say, 'They haven't spoken to us about it, and we would like them to.' That was only a month ago. We are 20 months into the pandemic and we don't have a plan for primary healthcare provision around COVID-19. Yet the Prime Minister tells us it's all fine to open up. Well, if it's all fine to open up, tell us what it's going to look like. How many people are going to be operating mini home hospitals, isolated and looking after sick people on their own? It is not normal for young, otherwise healthy people to die in their homes. That has been happening in New South Wales. I'm not trying to scaremonger here: I am just saying what is happening. We do not live in a country where we can have 30 to 40 people, otherwise healthy, die at home. We have had 500 Australians die in this third wave of the outbreak. People might try to write that off and say, 'Well, it's good; look overseas,' but that's irrelevant. Look at our experience and look at what it means as we open up. Everyone tells us there will be more cases. It will rip through the schools and the places where we have large gatherings.
It's great that we are vaccinated to the levels we are. It's absolutely fantastic. It will provide protection. But our hospitals are under enormous pressure. Why is it that we are not being told what that means? We in this country are not used to having health care rationed or not having health care available if we need it. I hope the Commonwealth has a plan to make sure that doesn't happen, but I'm not given the confidence that I need, with the knowledge that I have and the experience that I've just come through, when the Commonwealth hides this information. They will not tell us what the hospitals will look like. They will not tell us what they are doing and will do to keep people safe. They're not telling us how they're going to keep health services going.
We know people are not accessing health services as they normally would. We know cancer diagnoses are down. Screening programs are down. This is all explainable in a global pandemic sense, but what is going to happen? What is the national plan on this, and why is the Prime Minister hiding this information? It does make one believe that the only reason he's hiding this information and not providing it is that he doesn't want people to know, and that's an even more serious abrogation of responsibility. We're used to that, in a sense, but, honestly, it's the least this Prime Minister can do to pay back the work that we have all done.
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (16:07): I have to admit that I found the MPI in its written form somewhat confusing, and Senator Gallagher has now clarified it a little bit. I thought that it had something to do with the Doherty modelling. The Doherty modelling lies at the centre of everything that we're doing, but I think I may have missed any reference that she may have made to that. We are in a process of opening up safely, and I don't accept that we are less than transparent in what we're doing. We've all made sacrifices. It has taken a personal toll on Senator Gallagher, and we're aware of that, and I'm very sensitive to that.
I have been a user of those same hospitals that Senator Gallagher was talking about, for uses other than COVID. In March of this year, when I started using them, I sent thanks both to Senator Gallagher—who was responsible, in her previous iteration, for the extraordinary cancer set-up that we have in the ACT—and to Senator Seselja, as someone who has worked in the ACT. So the hospitals are in use by others, and there will be a call on them.
There is lots of information being shared. I don't want to trivialise the virus in any way, shape or form. I would be terrified as a parent if I had to nurse any of my children through this period of time. Senator Gallagher counsels us to be careful not to scaremonger, and that's very, very important. That's why accurate information is so important. Let's get the facts and the plans right. Let's not be paranoid about this. Let's not push it too hard. Let's get it right before we release the facts.
We are in a process of suppressing the virus and delivering the vaccine. If there were something fundamentally wrong with what we're doing, we wouldn't see the results that we are seeing at the moment, which are quite extraordinary. Senator Gallagher mentioned the fact that we are vaccinating people at a quite phenomenal rate. Australia's first-dose vaccination rate is now higher than the rate in the US; it's higher than the rate in Germany; it's higher than the rate in Israel, which we all held up as being the paragon of COVID management; and it's higher than the OECD average In relation to the written MPI, about people being concerned that there may be a problem with the Doherty modelling, this must indicate that somewhere the modelling must have got it relatively right. More than 95 per cent of over 70s are protected with a first dose, and more than 85 per cent have received a second dose. Sixty-five per cent plus of the eligible population aged 16 and over are fully vaccinated—I think it's well into 68 per cent at the moment.
There is a plan, and that plan is very important and it's being run. Basic to that plan is the modelling. The modelling must be good. It's certainly better than a lot of the alarmist climate change modelling, which has failed in the recent past. On both the health and economic fronts, Australia has fared better than most countries in dealing with COVID-19. For example, over 12 per cent of people in the USA, and 11 per cent of people in the UK, have had COVID. By contrast, 0.4 per cent of Australians have had COVID. That's not to trivialise it. It is to acknowledge that someone, somewhere, must be doing something right. Of the 38 developed OECD countries, Australia has had the second-lowest number of COVID-19 cases per capita. On a per capita basis, the UK and the USA have had over 40 times the number of COVID deaths.
We say, with validity, that, if Australia had had the death rates of OECD countries, we would have had something in the order of 30,000 deaths. How can you criticise the modelling which lies at the centre of the plan if in fact we are achieving such success? While Australia has been doing it tough, and we know we've been doing it tough—we are all making sacrifices, and I acknowledge that Senator Gallagher has made a particular sacrifice, through her family—Australia's economy and its GDP have recovered to be larger than prior to the pandemic. That's extraordinary, ahead of any advanced major economy in the world. Australia was also the first advanced economy to have more people in work than prior to COVID. Nearly 900,000 jobs have been created since May last year, and our credit rating agencies and the IMF have acknowledged this very important fact, because the sacrifices that we are all making are reflected to an incredible degree in the economy of the nation.
Turning to the written form of the matter of public importance, I need to talk a little bit about the Doherty modelling. In July 2021 the Prime Minister announced an agreement to formulate a four-step national plan to transition Australia's national COVID response. Senator Gallagher asked if there was a plan. There is a plan, and we are seeing that plan on a daily basis. To support the plan—because facts are important—the Doherty institute was commissioned to undertake modelling of COVID-19 infections and vaccinations to define target levels for transition to phase B and phase C of the four-step plan. Based on the results of the modelling and the recommendations of the COVID-19 Risk Analysis and Response Taskforce, in July 2021 national cabinet agreed to transition to phases B and C when 70 per cent and 80 per cent respectively of people aged 16 and older are vaccinated. Because jurisdictions are likely to have different case counts, different numbers of COVID, a sensitivity analysis was conducted for when vaccination thresholds are met—and this is part of the modelling process that was mentioned in the written version of the matter of public importance. This assessed the initial modelling results for low, medium and high numbers of infections at different coverage thresholds with either optimal or partial test, trace, isolate, quarantine—TTIQ, as they say in the profession—and combinations of public health and social measures, or PHSM, God help us all!
This is what the MPI refers to, I think, when it refers to a 'small COVID outbreak'. That has been the sensitivity towards various levels of outbreak, and the sensitivity analysis was conduced.
The overall conclusions of the initial modelling were found to remain valid even with a higher number of infections. This is very, very relevant to the MPI. They were valid, even with a high number of infections, at the time of transition. However, at 70 per cent coverage, with medium or high seeding, and partial TTIQ, the epidemic curve shifts to the left and the peak of daily new infections is considerably higher. We know that. As optimal TTIQ—test, trace, isolate and quarantine—cannot be sustained at higher caseloads, public health and social measures are required in those situations. So, by knowing the facts, by doing the modelling and by looking at the sensitivity for various scenarios, we can vary the TTIQ and the PHSM. The sensitivity analysis, of course, has been published on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website and the Doherty Institute site. This has cost us roughly $1½ million, as at December 2021, and an additional contract is currently being finalised for additional work for the national cabinet.
So we do have a plan and that plan is in play, is being used and is successful. Certainly, aspects of modelling have been released, particularly the sensitivity aspects of the modelling. Further modelling is anticipated to consider the public health response, including different methodologies and key indicators for the TTIQ. The impact of vaccinations and responses in key populations—including Indigenous communities, culturally and linguistically diverse populations and schools—and border measures and quarantine, and how varying these may affect the risk of importation, are being considered in great detail. I think that answers the ideas that lie in the written version of the matter of public importance.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:17): [by video link] You know what? I've got to pause at the beginning of this contribution to thank my fabulous new team member, Joana Partyka, for putting together some notes for me to contribute to this MPI debate this afternoon. Because, to be honest with you, if I'm left to my own devices with this particular topic I'm rendered almost mute by the deep frustration and anger that wells up inside me. Whenever we talk about what has happened in this country since the coming of the pandemic and the role of this government in mismanaging it, it is almost beyond words. Our community is so frustrated by the endless marketing spin that spews from the mouths of these ministers every time we talk about this topic. The reality of COVID-19 and the Morrison government's management of the pandemic is a reality of failure and double standards. It would be bad enough if disabled people had been left out of the pandemic plan and been actively deprioritised. It would be bad enough had the health minister failed to order the vaccine when he could have and should have. It would have been bad enough if the national cabinet had not been allowed to devolve into a squabbling rabble of politicians all trying to balance their public duties with the demands of their donors, who want to get back to business as usual because it is how they make money. It would have been bad enough had millions of dollars—tens of millions of dollars—been funnelled out of the public door into the pocket of people like Gerry Harvey through the JobKeeper scheme. Those things alone would have been enough to condemn this government in history as the woeful manager of this great crisis that it is. But they have not stopped there. They've added to this mountain of failure by failing our kids and leaving them exposed, right at the moment when we are changing the way that we manage COVID-19 in the two biggest states. The expert health panel OzSAGE has been calling on the government for weeks to fit air filtration and air monitoring systems in public schools, schools across the country, just like the filters that they have recently fitted in the New South Wales parliament. And yet the response of the state government and the response of federal government is to say no. It's yet another failure, putting Australians at risk.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:20): [by video link] I've just travelled over 3,000 kilometres across the Northern Territory, talking to families, listening to their concerns and talking to clinicians in many of our remote clinics. I want to be able to share with the Senate what has happened and what has occurred on those travels.
But, firstly, after listening to Senator Gallagher speak this afternoon and knowing personally the impact that COVID has had on her family, it is of utmost urgency that this Senate recognises this call for the MPI in terms of the Dougherty modelling around hospitals and their capability to cope with the days, weeks and months ahead. I'm certainly very concerned in terms of the people of the Northern Territory, in particular our First Nations people.
The Morrison-Joyce government is not being transparent with Australians about how the nation's hospital systems will cope with COVID-19 cases when Australia opens up. We know that the Doherty modelling was released outlining how Australia would respond to small COVID outbreaks, but this previous modelling does not adequately deal with how many hospitalisations, deaths and cases now expected. We know that revised modelling was provided to national cabinet last month, dealing with the preparedness of the hospital system to cope with an influx of COVID-19 hospitalisations when the nation reopens.
Senator Gallagher asked for this information to be released in her capacity as chair of the COVID-19 select committee, and it was refused. The broader Australian community, and particularly our hardworking doctors and nurses who will be on the front line continuously of this additional pressure, deserve to know what they need to prepare for, because many states and territories fear their hospital systems will not cope. I'm sure I do not need to remind the Senate of the vulnerability, in particular here in the Northern Territory, when the delta strain reaches us. It is a matter of 'when', not 'if' the delta strain will arrive here. The Northern Territory government, the Aboriginal community controlled health sector, land councils, frontline workers and others have done a terrific job keeping Territorians safe during this pandemic so far, and we have seen incredibly strong leadership. We also know Australia is opening up and we can't keep delta at bay forever.
As I said, I spent the last few weeks travelling across the Northern Territory—over 3,000 kilometres down the Western Desert, the Tanami region, through places like Kalkarindji, Lajamanu and Yuelamu, through Alice Springs, over the other side on the east to Santa Teresa and back again to Hermannsburg, and then up the track to Ali Curung, to Tennant Creek, to Elliott and to Katherine. It was so important to be able to see firsthand how prepared we are here in the Northern Territory. In each place I've been talking and listening to constituents and organisations about COVID-19 and the need to vaccinate against it. That message is going around loud and clear, but we are having issues.
Every clinic I dropped into is doing their best to get the message out and vaccinate. Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation in Tennant Creek, run by general manager Barb Shaw, is doing a terrific job through public health campaigning, but they're facing incredible challenges. Anyinginyi is the Aboriginal healthcare provider for Tennant Creek as well as neighbouring town camps and nearby communities. They've been setting up pop-up clinics in town, running massive public health campaigns, doorknocking everywhere they can and heading out to surrounding communities to provide public health messaging and then returning a week later with a vaccination team. That's the preparatory work that they're trying to do—in languages that the people of that region can understand, because English is not always their first language. This is all ramping up now as they blitz the Barkly region.
With Tennant Creek being located on the Stuart Highway, there's no way they'll be able to shut down that area when delta comes. It is on a major highway and it services surrounding communities. They do have a hospital, but, like so many, they are worried about the capacity of the Tennant Creek Hospital if an outbreak occurs, and what that would mean for their population and the surrounding communities.
Tennant Creek has a population which is majority First Nations people. That means they were supposed to be vaccinated in the Morrison government's phase 1b; they are a priority group that should have been vaccinated by now. Here we are in October 2021. Remember how, in December last year, Scott Morrison stood up and assured the nation that vulnerable Australians, like those with disabilities, older Australians and Indigenous Australians, would be top priorities for the vaccine? Well, hello, empty rhetoric! Let me tell you, phase 1b is still not done despite the hard work of our Aboriginal community controlled health sector, and vaccination rates in the Barkly remain low.
Instead, changing advice around AstraZeneca, the lack of Pfizer supply recommended for the NT's younger population and a failed communication strategy have ensured the Morrison-Joyce government has failed to reach Territorians.
It was only last month that Minister Ken Wyatt finally succumbed to pressure from Labor and announced $250,000 in funding for First Nations Media Australia to produce and distribute culturally appropriate messaging on the vaccine rollout. That was in September. We had talked about it in February this year. I put questions to the federal Department of Health about what language or languages they were going to use—we have over 100 Aboriginal languages here—and what funding they were going to provide so these communities were prepared. That has now come in September; I asked about it back in February.
Health workers are on the back foot in trying to ensure accurate and factual messages reach their patients around the vaccine. It's all left a vacuum for negative messaging to take deep hold in the minds of many. What was equally disturbing was the answer to a question I put to most clinicians and the communities visited: in a worst-case scenario, how prepared is this community to cope with a COVID outbreak? The overwhelmed and exhausted faces said it all.
So I ask the Morrison government to think of those overwhelmed and exhausted faces, listen to Senator Gallagher and Labor and listen to the Australian Medical Association, and release this modelling. Even Department of Health Secretary Brendan Murphy, who has been working with Deputy Chief Medical Officer Sonya Bennett on the modelling, supports making the figures about hospital capacity public. He said: 'I would favour a transparent approach, but national cabinet will make that decision.'
Ask any doctor or nurse; we know that pressure on our hospitals is going to increase over the coming weeks and months. But Scott Morrison won't reveal the modelling that he commissioned about what pressure on our hospital system would actually really look like. He is keeping the modelling that he commissioned with taxpayer dollars secret from the Australian community and, importantly, from Australia's hardworking doctors, nurses and all those on the front line. We all deserve to know now what that pressure will look like so we can prepare.
We deserve a prime minister who will sit down and maturely discuss this with the state and territory governments, rather than just picking political fights with them, to make sure there's a plan to make hospitals safe and strong. That means all hospitals in regional and remote Australia, and, let me tell you, it means our hospitals here in the Northern Territory: our Alice Springs Hospital, Tennant Creek Hospital, Nhulunbuy hospital, Katherine Hospital and our city hospitals in Darwin and Palmerston. We do not have time to waste. We must be prepared, and that is what leadership is.
Instead, we have a Prime Minister who refuses to take responsibility. For Scott Morrison, every problem is someone else's fault; every crisis is someone else's responsibility. When he's called out on his failures, Scott Morrison's response is always the same: it's not my job; it's a matter for the states; I don't hold a hose. Whether it's COVID, bushfires, robodebt, aged care, car park rorts or climate change, he never shows leadership, just more spin. But Australians deserve so much more than this, and the people of the Northern Territory deserve so much more than this. Our health workers deserve much more than this. They are exhausted and they are anxious. Come on, Prime Minister. Give us the modelling. Let us prepare to fight this.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order, Senator McCarthy! Senator Bragg.
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (16:30): It's a pleasure to be able to rise and make some comments about this particular matter of public importance. Without questioning the sincerity of any of the prior contributors, I will try to make this statement free of any political talking points, because I think people are over the bickering. I think people are over politicians whingeing about other politicians. When they look at this period in a few years—maybe even in a few months—I think people will look at the comparative data and they will say, 'Well, Australia went into the pandemic and came out with a pretty low death rate and a pretty low infection rate compared to other jurisdictions, and the economic disruption was minimised through a huge stimulus program and, because of that huge fiscal stimulus program, there wasn't enormous, sustained loss of employment.' On those key metrics, I think people will say that Australia tracked fairly well through the pandemic.
I think they'll say that the innovation of the national cabinet was largely a success, because it enabled there to be discussion and coordination across the Australian governments. I think people have learned the hard way—if they didn't already know it—that Australia's Constitution does disperse power quite significantly. Sometimes that works; at other times it doesn't. I think people will be rightly frustrated with the restriction on movement, and state premiers and leaders of the states will be accountable to the public that elected them for their decisions. I don't seek to run a commentary on any of the states; I think there has been enough of that. There have been different approaches used.
In terms of my own state, which I represent, I think Sydney had some unique characteristics going into the pandemic. As Australia's global city and as the city that carried 85 or 90 per cent of the quarantine, it was always likely to have the sort of exposure that we saw when the delta variant slipped into Sydney. That then subsequently spread around parts of the eastern states. The first point to make is that, comparatively, I think you'd have to say that our institutions held up pretty well when you look at the key metrics. In relation to the modelling and the national plan, there is a sensitivity analysis available on the website and there are the key assumptions. That plan, you'd have to say, is working. Consistent with the broad outline of the plan, New South Wales has hit 70 per cent and 80 per cent, and it is now reopening. In fact, without wanting to date this contribution too significantly, you'd have to say that, with the case numbers coming down, it has been a pretty good example of what you would have hoped could be achieved.
People will rightly look at the major health initiatives—how the health policies were managed and deployed. When the books are written, people will look at hotel quarantine and they'll look at the vaccination rollout. Then people will look at the border policies and the like, and they will be free to make their assessments. I'm more interested in the economic policy because I think that is where, frankly, there have been some very unusual steps taken—steps that I would support. But I would say that the amount of debt that has been accrued has been justified in the sense that, if that debt hadn't been accrued, I'm not sure there would have been the sort of bounce-back that we would expect. And, following the early-1990s recession, the Treasury advice has generally been that you do need to spend a lot of money to avoid a lasting recession. And we didn't want to see, as a consequence of this huge economic shock, a generation of people unable to work again. I think that is what JobKeeper has been able to do as a wage subsidy program.
I will make a political statement here. The Labor Party attacks JobKeeper, but JobKeeper was ultimately the lifeline that kept small businesses intact. It was the program that most Australians would say got them through the pandemic. There's no question that, in many cases, people who work for the public sector or in big business have had quite a good pandemic. If you can walk into your kitchen and stick your laptop on the bench, you've probably had a pretty good pandemic compared to people in personal care sectors—beauticians, barbers or travel agents. These are the businesses that really rely on this kind of support. So, when the Labor Party attacks JobKeeper, the people who most heavily relied upon that scheme will think, 'Hang on. That scheme actually saved my business. It saved my livelihood. It was hugely successfully.'
Ninety nine per cent of the businesses which achieved the eligibility threshold for JobKeeper were small businesses. That is a fact. So, when the opposition parties talk about wanting to have some sort of a clawback mechanism for JobKeeper, what they're saying is—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator BRAGG: It has been flagged by various members of the opposition that there would be a clawback—including Ms King and Ms Kearney. The Treasury never recommended a clawback. With a clawback today, 99 per cent of the businesses that would be hit would be small businesses. In my state, these are the same businesses that have been smashed by lockdowns. They have just come out of three months of lockdowns—and the opposition parties want to hit them with a clawback, a retrospective tax. They were all eligible. So when you measure JobKeeper in terms of the quantum and type of businesses that were eligible, and what they received in terms of dollars, more than 90 per cent were small businesses. So, when you talk about clawback, you are talking about small businesses. Isn't it amazing: you want to have a debate about the economic policies that got the country through the pandemic and, at the end of it, you want to claw back from small businesses. I think it's bizarre.
The other scheme that was also very successful—which I know annoys the Labor Party no end—was the early release of super. It was very, very successful. It was about allowing Australians to have access to their own money at a time of huge economic shock. Interestingly, at the time, the only people who were against giving Australians access to their own money were of course the super funds, which Labor went along with. We had the greatest economic shock in 100 years and we were opening the Treasury and almost maxing out the nation's credit card. But the Labor Party says, 'We're not going to touch the super funds'—even though they've got $3 trillion in a government pension scheme. I think that was a successful policy. I personally would like to see some sort of permanent scheme put in place so people could access their own money, because I tell you what: I think that homeownership's pretty important to a lot of people, and low-income people, in particular, can't get a first home because they have to funnel 10 per cent into the super funds, which, of course, pay huge donations to the unions, which in turn fund the Labor Party.
So I'm sick of coming into this place and hearing all these allegations about corruption and donations. The biggest political donors in the country are the unions and the super funds. They funnel tens of millions of dollars each year into the political coffers of those opposite. It's shameful, and I really suggest that you think carefully about your long-term policy agenda, because it's not really in the interests of workers to have their money sent off to these funds, which charge high fees and basically spend all their money on political advertisements with Mr Combet's face on them and on running dodgy outfits.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:40): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, and I will take an approach slightly different to that of others. I just want to go to the letter to Senator Gallagher from Dr Brendan Murphy. In refusing to provide information to the Senate in relation to this, he writes:
The Australian government maintains the view that deliberations of National Cabinet should remain confidential. This includes information received by the National Cabinet. This is consistent with longstanding practice on Cabinet confidentiality.
That is an offensive comment provided to the Senate by Dr Brendan Murphy, who is trimming his political sails, because we know that this matter has been to the AAT and before Justice White. We know that national cabinet is, in fact, not a committee of the federal cabinet. Why is the executive government now taking the position that, even though a judicial officer, a justice of the Federal Court, has made a determination about the statutory meaning of the cabinet, somehow the Prime Minister can simply ignore that? Somehow the Prime Minister arrogantly pursues his quest for secrecy, and he ropes in Dr Brendan Murphy. I say to Dr Murphy, if he is listening, that that is a disgraceful position to take in terms of understanding the way our Constitution works, the way the separation of powers works and the way the roles of each of the different elements of our government—the executive, the parliament and the judiciary—work.
There's been a judicial determination as to what is a committee of the cabinet, and it is not the national cabinet, which doesn't have the necessary characteristics. Firstly, it is not a committee of the federal cabinet because it was established by COAG, not the federal cabinet. Secondly, its membership is not made up of members of the federal cabinet. Its members are actually the Prime Minister and the first ministers of each of the jurisdictions. It doesn't have collective responsibility or cabinet solidarity, because it can't, because the premiers and chief ministers of each of the different states and territories have a legal obligation to have allegiance only to their state or territory, and that was found by Justice White. A key principle of the cabinet is that, in a responsible system of government, the cabinet is responsible to a single parliament, not to nine parliaments, as is the case with the national cabinet.
The national cabinet is an intergovernmental committee. That's all it is, and it is disgraceful that the government is still adopting this principle that it is somehow something else. They've introduced a bill to try to overturn the judgement, and they can't get the numbers, even amongst their own ranks. The Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, who is sitting listening to this debate, ought to be standing up for Justice White and the ruling that he made. It was very clear. You've got government members basically saying, 'We ignore what Justice White has said.' As the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, you ought to be standing up for our judicial officers and making sure that everyone understands the role that each of the different parts of our government plays. It's a disgrace that this information has not been made public on the basis that it's cabinet-in-confidence, because it's not.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:44): In Tasmania, the state that I represent, the government commissioned its own modelling on the impact of COVID-19 once the state opens up. As a result of that, the government—and I might add that it's a Liberal government—has made the decision not to fully open up the state until 90 per cent of the eligible population has been vaccinated. It's quite a different plan from the rest of the country and quite a divergence from the national plan. This Tasmania-specific modelling is due to be finalised this week. That really makes me wonder what more the Tasmania Premier learnt at national cabinet that made him make this decision. He did reveal the Doherty modelling figures on likely coronavirus deaths if our island reopened at an 80 per cent vaccination rate. Over the first six months, it would result in 14,900 cases, up to 590 hospital admissions, 97 intensive care admissions and almost 100 deaths. He also made it clear that it was not an acceptable risk to take.
Our doctors, nurses and paramedics are telling us loud and clear that moving to the next stage of the national cabinet plan will put huge pressure on hospitals around the country as lockdowns are lifted in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT and borders are opened in COVID-free states like Tasmania. There is revised modelling on the capacity of health systems and hospitals to cope with an influx of COVID-19 hospitalisations as Australia reopens. It models how many cases, hospitalisations and deaths can be expected, and the Morrison government is refusing to release it publicly. Modelling for the whole country that outlines the impacts on our hospitals exists. We paid for it. Our taxes paid for it. But the Prime Minister is keeping those details secret. We have a right to know. Our hardworking healthcare workers have a right to know. Our paramedics and nurses, those working shift after shift and seemingly endless hours of overtime, have a right to know. The Australian people have a right to know.
In the last few months we've seen our hospitals, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, at breaking point. In Tasmania, even without COVID-19, our hospitals are at breaking point almost every single day. That's right. That's when the state is COVID free. We are starting to see the lag from the last 18 months because people weren't seeking treatment when they should have and, as COVID does come into Tasmania, that pressure on our health system will increase.
It is not acceptable for Mr Morrison to keep this modelling a secret and it is not acceptable for Mr Morrison simply to pretend that this is all the states' responsibility. He's done that far too often throughout this pandemic—with the vaccine rollout and with quarantine, and we could go beyond that with everything else. The culture of avoidance and secrecy that this Liberal government has cultivated has reached extraordinary heights, to the point where we're here today demanding on behalf of the people that we represent to be allowed to see the revised modelling we have paid for that tells us how or if our hospitals will cope.
I have absolute faith in the dedicated health professionals in Tasmania. Daily, they pull out all the stops. They work double shifts and more, tending to Tasmanians with their care and expertise. But, even on a good day, our hospital system is crying out for more staff and more resources. We've seen a 30 per cent increase in patients on the elective surgery waiting list and ambulance ramping at unprecedented levels. Years of underfunding in bed blocks has seen it lurch from crisis to crisis. That has left us in a position where the Premier is not prepared to commit to easing border restrictions until we are 90 per cent vaccinated. That's how worried he is about the pressure that will be brought to bear on our health system.
We all deserve to know what that pressure will look like. Then we deserve a Prime Minister who will sit down and maturely and constructively work with the state and territory governments to make sure there's a plan to keep our hospitals safe and strong. What a real leader, a real Prime Minister who understands his role, would do is constructively talk to the states and territories about what they need to cope, not play spiteful politics and play favourites. What a real leader would do is take some responsibility. What a real leader would do is not run and hide. That is what this Prime Minister is doing: running and hiding from crisis to crisis.
Senator VAN (Victoria) (16:49): I love MPIs, especially the ones we get from Labor. They make me laugh; they really do. It's like being given a dorothy dixer—although, with Senator Ayres's one today, the English, if you could call it that, took a bit of deciphering before I could understand it. But thank you, Senator Ayres, for a chance to talk on this.
Just so everyone's aware, including Senator Ayres and Senator Urquhart, the Doherty modelling has been released. I have it here and will table it, if you like. It's available on the Doherty institute's website. It's available on the government website. The one I have was revised on 10 August. I'm not sure if there's been another one since then, but 10 August seems pretty up to date. And it does talk about the effects on the health system. It talks about when we can open up safely. And, as we've seen in New South Wales and as we will see, finally, on Thursday in Victoria, vaccines are bringing down cases and are working. The national plan that was brought about on the back of the Doherty modelling is working, and we're seeing that in Victoria and New South Wales. In New South Wales, there were only 273 new cases today. In Victoria, my home state, fingers crossed it is working and it's coming down, with 1,749 cases today.
What we have seen is lockdowns in Victoria, the jurisdiction that's been locked down the longest in the whole world. The lockdowns don't work. Vaccines do. And vaccines are being rolled out. To give the Prime Minister his credit—I have his media release here from 21 February 2021, in which he said, 'The Australian government has a comprehensive plan to offer COVID-19 vaccines to all Australians by the end of October 2021'—it looks very much as though we're going to hit that date.
Those opposite should be congratulating us, but they're having a whinge about something that already exists and that they don't know anything about. Their states aren't fixing their hospital systems. The Victorian government produced its own modelling, from the Burnet Institute, which says that the significant easing of restrictions at 80 per cent will lead to 63 per cent of simulations exceeding 2,500 hospital beds. Premier Andrews last year promised us 4,000 beds. Even on the back of his own modelling, he has failed to deliver those beds. So, if any hospital system is at risk, it's the Victorian one, by the Premier's own modelling, that's damned by this.
It also says, 'High rates of symptomatic testing among people who are vaccinated could reduce the impact on the health system.' I found this incredibly interesting, because, day after day, for the whole 18 months, the Victorian testing system has lagged behind those of other states. Even just today in New South Wales, to pull out one—and we know that the testing rates in New South Wales have dropped because there are so few cases—there were over 90,000 tests in the last 24 hours. There were only 68,000 in Victoria, yet we've got more than five times the number of cases.
Those opposite should stop crying out and saying, 'We need more.' The states need to be doing more—because guess what? The Commonwealth government has already gone to them and said, 'We will invest $131.4 billion in demand driven public hospital funding to improve health outcomes for all Australians.' This is in addition to over $8 billion of health investment by the Commonwealth during the COVID-19 response. This government is doing everything it needs to do, and Australians can see that. Australians see every day how well we're responding to this pandemic. We have some of the lowest numbers of deaths in the world and we're heading towards some of the highest vaccination rates in the world, yet those opposite want to pick at little things and raise badly worded MPIs that just waste the Senate's time. Come on, guys. Get with Team Australia—that's what you're here for. We're nearly there. Roll up your sleeves.
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (16:54): I rise to contribute to this matter of true public urgency. Our people are no strangers to infectious diseases to which we have no immunity. And some of the government senators speaking to this motion do have some nerve. Just yesterday, leaked secret government documents showed that our people are being infected with COVID at rates up to three times higher—Aboriginal people in this country are being infected at rates three times higher—than the rest of the population. Is that continuing the genocide that the colonial project had intentions to do 240 years ago? Is this the sophistication of genocide today or what? The government provided this data to the advisory group on COVID-19, marked as 'confidential, not to be further distributed'. This is data on black lives in this country that the government are being secretive about. If you're doing such a good job, then why don't you want people, our people in particular, to know that you're making us sicker? You're killing us, still.
Fifty years ago, when government health services were failing us badly—as usual—we took the driver's seat and set up Aboriginal health services right across this country. That was 50 years ago. We did that based on self-determination and free, prior and informed consent and holistic health. Today our services are the best in the country, and government models your services on ours, particularly health, legal aid and child care. But our services don't get the funding, do they? We're just left at the bottom of the heap, to scrape up the scraps as per usual. So, again, government is failing us, and Morrison is trying to hide the fact that his failures are putting our people at risk. In public, this government talks big on closing the gap; but, in private, they know that they are making us sicker. And, let's be honest, you don't care. We're on the bottom rung. But love a good dot paintin', don't youse!
Our people are strong and resilient, and, when we are free to choose our own path, this whole country benefits. Everyone deserves to be treated with equal respect and dignity, and Morrison ignores so many calls from our people. You have to stop the genocide in this country against the First People.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I would remind you to address people from the other place by their correct titles. The discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded.
FIRST SPEECH
Cox, Senator Dorinda
The PRESIDENT (17:00): Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Cox to make her first speech. I ask honourable senators that the usual courtesies be extended to her.
Senator COX (Western Australia) (17:00): Woola, Mr President. Ngany kwel Dorinda Cox, ngany moorditj Noongar Bibbulmen Yamatji yorga wer ngany koora boodiya yorga moort yey nitja yaak.
Ngany moort Kaneyang, Yued, Amangu wer Wajarri—South West wer Midwest Gascoyne, Western Australia boodja, ngany maya-maya Whadjuk boodja, Boorloo.
Ngany kaaditj nitja boodja, nyitiyung barang. Ni, ngany karnarn, kalyakoorl Ngunnawal wer Nambrey boodja wer ngany waangk—kaya ngany moort, koora boodiya moort, yey boodiya moort wer yirra koorliny boodiya moort. Benang, boorda boodiya moort ngalak kalyakoorl doyntj-doyntj yaak.
Nitja boodja, ngany moorn moort boodja, kedalak, yey yoowart bibool nyitiyung wer ngany moort.
I thank you, Mr President. My name is Dorinda Cox and I am a strong Noongar Bibbulmen Yamatji woman and I come from a long line of powerful matriarchs. I belong to the clans of the Kaneyang, Yued, Amangu and Wajarri peoples of the South West and Mid West regions of Western Australia. I acknowledge and pay my respects to the stolen lands we meet on today, which belong to the Ngunnawal and Nambrey people of this area. I pay my respects to their elders past and present and their emerging leaders, who we nurture, love and support for the future generations who will continue our legacies. Sovereignty of this country remains, as there are no treaties with the First Peoples of this country.
I started this speech today in the Noongar language, the ancient mother tongue of my Noongar Bibbulmen people, where I live, work and raise my children. I call Boorloo—Perth—my home. The two dingo dreaming tracks are where I grew up as a child, in Walyalup, which is also known as Fremantle. I want to acknowledge my mother, Margaret; my brother, Michael; my daughters, Ailish and Ciara; and the rest of my family and friends who are not joining us here in the chamber today due to the COVID restrictions of quarantine but are instead watching us online. Firstly, it's not the same, providing this important and momentous speech without having you all here with me, but I can feel the love, support and energy that you are sending from afar today, and I'm comforted knowing that you are here with me in spirit. I'm well aware that the sacrifices I will be making, starting today and in the future, serving as a senator for WA, will and do matter to you personally and that, through my work, we will be able to see the impact on the lives of so many. Thank you for generously allowing me to do this with your blessing, and, more than ever, I want you to know that this is possible because of you and this is your legacy too.
I've travelled from my home state, the fifth strong Greens woman from the West, and I thank those who welcomed me to this country today: Billie, Leah, Paul, Tjanara and Jason at the Tent Embassy this morning. I also extend that to all of those here in this place. I would like to acknowledge my First Nations colleagues in this chamber and in the House: my sister and Greens colleague Lidia Thorpe, Senators McCarthy, Dodson and Lambie and MPs Ken Wyatt and Linda Burney. It's a humbling privilege to join an esteemed group of First Nations political leaders past and present who have paved the way for us to represent First Peoples of this country and their issues in these political forums.
It was the year 1994 that I first travelled here to Canberra as a 17-year-old fresh-faced young girl just out of school visiting my mum, who was working for the Commonwealth at the time. Whilst visiting the public gallery here, I read the Redfern speech of former Prime Minister Paul Keating. It was at that moment that I felt he understood the impact of my and my family's story—one which, shared across many families and communities, is etched in our past but also in our present. In particular, when he said, 'We took the children and we smashed the traditional way of life,' this, as I reflected recently, was a significant moment that sparked my interest in politics. But as I sat in the chair outside posing for a photo, I knew that there had been no black politicians here in this parliament since Neville Bonner, a Queensland senator, in 1983, and it would be another five years till Aden Ridgeway, in 1999, came here as a New South Wales senator.
It is my dream to re-create this moment and others like it for so many other First Nations and Australian boys and girls, to spark their interest in participation in our political systems, rather than the sorrow and discontent I hear in their voices when they talk about our current systems and representation. One that I constantly hear is that it doesn't represent them or their future, particularly on climate action. I want every young person in this country to believe that, regardless of your background, one day you could be standing here providing your first speech too, and that you have the right to belong in this system that should represent you and your issues.
I pay my heartfelt gratitude to my party, the WA Greens, who took the step of making me the first First Nations woman from WA to sit in the Senate. I thank the members for your confidence in me and your investment in our grassroots movement. Together, our vision is to continue this work of fighting for a future that prioritises our people and our planet. I join the Senate to follow the important and unforgettable legacy of my predecessor, Rachel Siewert. Rachel's work, which many of you know and have commented on recently—over 16 years her amazing drive, tenacity and leadership, working across all sides of this place—is what we commit ourselves to do as part of our responsibilities. It's not my intention to replace her here in this place but to continue with her same admirable dedication, passion and commitment in our work for the Australian people, and I sincerely thank you, Rachel.
My message to people in my wonderful home state of WA is that it's my honour to be your senator and to represent the voices and issues of our diverse people, places and circumstances, which are our footprint. This is sometimes forgotten here in the federal parliament. When I think about the sheer geographical size of our state, it's easy to see why we are one of the most isolated places in the world. When you travel the breadth of the state, which I have done in my lifetime, from Miruwoong country near Kununurra to Wangkatha country in the Goldfields, across to Malgana country of Shark Bay and to Mirnang country near Albany, and everything in between, we share some amazing and spectacular places. My job will be to fight for our interests and to have our issues heard and considered, and to make sure our diverseness and uniqueness are recognised and respected for their valuable contribution to our nation's political, cultural, economic and social priorities.
Coupled with my vast experience, I come to this place through a journey shaped by opportunities, hard work and challenges. I come to this place not as a career politician but as a First Nations woman who worked in the area of social policy for two decades at the federal and state government levels of this country. I've worked on the international stage as a delegate on behalf of this government and successive governments. I bring those learnings to this place, coupled with my knowledge of my people, my country and our history, to make a difference in all of our lives.
As a recognised leader in the international community, Australia has been heavily criticised for its treatment of Indigenous peoples, and domestically we see the ever-increasing erosion of Indigenous rights, including the rights to country and culture, which impact on our daily lives. Under the cloak of economic and social development, we make laws and enact decisions in this country that destroy the fabric of social and cultural rights of our First Peoples while, at the same time, asking them to extend a hand to reconcile a past—one that we are unable to escape in modern-day Australia. This degree of marginalisation continues to perpetuate despair and hopelessness. This is not a new thing. In fact, my Noongar grandparents had to apply for citizenship in this country, not because they weren't from here, but because they needed to access rations to feed their children in the 1950s—all because this was government policy and they were classified and treated differently because of their race.
A serious lack of political will by our successive governments to prioritise the implementation of its obligations as a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must change. We need action to go further than a debate or a conversation in this place. Remodelling and reshaping this important process to create models of governance must include the voices of First Nations people from our recognised political and cultural leaders to our grassroots people.
The time to do this is now and requires nothing more than courage and leadership from all of us—bipartisanship to ensure the next generation is able to participate and enjoy the shared future that recognises, respects and elevates the sovereignty of our First Peoples of Australia.
The only way I see to do this is to join other Commonwealth countries in creating our own national treaty. We need truth-telling processes that pick up where the apology left off and bring together our sovereign nations, complementing and enhancing state based processes that enable us to drive localised change and to hear the important stories that clearly articulate the experiences of the First People in the conversation.
Co-producing a national framework on our national treaty to speak directly to the parliament—understanding two-way law and cultural practices that decolonise a system to truly benefit the people. A true national identity shaped and celebrated by every single Australia—one that we can all be truly proud of.
It's time for us in this place to create a shared vision, one that's grounded in humility and justice for our future generations and ratified through the internationally recognised treaty processes set by the global community. This work can and will bring reparative and restorative processes to our collective shared history and provide peace, healing and hope for our future Australian generations.
My experience and knowledge have shaped my approach and pivots on the way I see and participate in the community. I have lived and worked in regional WA and I can personally relate to the challenges we need to meet for our families and our communities that have different geographical and accessibility challenges.
My hometown is Kojonup, in the Great Southern of Western Australia. My family have worked as shearers and farmhands over many generations. My yearn to be back on country includes reconnecting across those relationships and friendships that were forged by my ancestors when pastoral living shaped our economic survival and, for many, still does.
My great-grandfather was an Irish cattle station owner at Dalgety Downs in the Gascoyne region—this is my Yamatji connection—before my grandfather was removed and taken to the New Norcia mission in Yued country. My family has survived five generations of the stolen generation regime in this country. I come from the first generation of children to be raised by their parents, and I am one of the lucky ones.
On a recent regional trip to Yinggarda country in Carnarvon, I visited the statue of the Lock Hospital at the Three Mile Jetty. This story, like so many others of intergenerational trauma, still reverberates across our communities and our families who have been affected by these policies.
WA is the leading state—and not for good reason—for the highest rate of child removal in this country. It is the reason I came to be interested and heavily invested in the legislation that governed my people's lives, as these are the things we can change and need better tailored cultural and community led responses. These new approaches should not continue to perpetuate institutionalised approaches. This is the collective blood memory of our convict-built nation, where some of our biggest investments in this country are still in police and prisons.
Like many others, I continue through my resilience and resistance to a system which fails to see the intersectional issues needed for me not just to survive but to thrive. One by one, I have overcome them. But for some of my fellow Australians, this is not the case, as evidenced through the unacceptable deaths across the justice system that sees First Nations people, particularly women, dying in preventable circumstances. There should be a full coronial inquest into these deaths, and I know multiple families who have called those inquests.
As a former police officer, my approach is couched as a reformist. Following the implementation of the royal commission on deaths in custody, I know that the script has been written but the performance has stopped. These recommendations were framed and written for ATSIC as the self-determining framework—one that should have enabled a cohesive blueprint to self-manage and evaluate the outcomes of an effective national implementation. But this is not the reality. Now it's just a watered-down version of these national and state based commitments to improve the social determinants of health and wellbeing.
Under the guise of Closing the Gap, we are prevented from dismantling the discourse that is the school-to-prison pipeline. Governments continue business as usual until there's a front-page news story of a death in police custody. This should raise an eyebrow, but these days I'm not even sure if it makes a mention in the media summary to the relevant minister. But in First Nations communities across this country it's a constant triggering and a cold reminder that there is no political will, at all levels and on all sides of this political divide, to stop those preventable deaths. In my home city, Boorloo/Perth, 56 homeless people died in 2020 and 44 in the period to August this year, and one-third of those are First Nations people. In this place, we know better and therefore we should do better to interrogate and improve these systems now.
As a staunch blak feminist, a single mother of two daughters and someone who has experienced poverty, I've lived in social housing during my lifetime. I'm a business owner who was disproportionately affected, particularly over the course of this global pandemic. I am a survivor of and a campaigner on family violence and discrimination. From my two decades of work as an activist, a consultant to successive governments and an advocate working in the gender equality space, I know we have to stop thinking of this as a women's-only issue; it is a societal issue that disproportionately affects women and children.
We have been tackling this issue all wrong and in a vacuum, constantly expecting women to be fixing this issue. Most of all, we have not made it safe for women to call out harassment and violence. In this place, it is our job to provide that safety as the first part of that solution, identifying strategies and committing funding to address the drivers of violence to prevent this from happening to our children and our grandchildren. What we know is that social disadvantage increases the prevalence of violence against women, including state sanctioned violence, which disproportionately affects First Nations women and girls. We are 35 times as likely to experience violence and 10 times as likely to experience death because of family violence.
This is why I will campaign for a national inquiry into the missing and murdered First Nations Australian women, similar to the one for our First Nations Canadian brothers and sisters from across the Pacific, and into our unacceptable rates of death of women. The red handprint symbol on the mask that I wore into the chamber yesterday and that I hold up today is a symbol of the bloodied hand silencing the voices of those stories. This work must be a priority to inform the already committed separate national plan on violence against First Nations women. We must prioritise and expedite a range of responses that can transform societal and cultural norms that are at the heart of the primary prevention work. A larger investment is required in primary prevention. Having trauma-led, on-country programs diverting away from the justice system will enable healing and recovery to occur. This is the foundation for change.
My work in the United Nations and APEC forums has centred on removing barriers for women to participate in decision-making and solutions. In many nations across the world, men are not absent from supporting and elevating women's voices and Indigenous communities. This is important and effective. Decolonising platforms from policy development, advocacy work and alliance-building relationships, particularly internationally, have been instrumental in building my understanding and in my work alongside my colleagues for the sharing of blak women's voices to be heard at decision-making tables.
Social and climate justice are intrinsically linked issues. They define and maintain the social fabric of our societies, and this has been the by-product of the colonial processes in this nation. As we move closer to the point of no return on climate, we need urgent action and leadership from all Australian governments and all sides of politics. The impacts and biodiversity loss are two of the most important challenges and risks for human societies. Here in this place, we have the opportunity to consider those cost-cutting issues, intersectoral policies and regulatory frameworks that have strong synergies to contribute to the transformative societal change that is needed to achieve ambitious goals for biodiversity, climate mitigation and a good quality of life.
As a First Nations woman, through my birthright, I was given the responsibility to protect and care for country. This is my Mother Earth. The political circumstance I was born into has been passed to me from my ancestors, who have been doing this for generations. Australian Indigenous knowledges are the ancient stories etched on rock art in caves, the songlines we use to navigate and travel across our trade routes of this land while singing in language to vibrate the ancestral connections of people and place, linking us to the past, present and future. Indigenous knowledge and connection to country is linked to identity, and is part of our ancestral ways of knowing and being.
The protection of cultural heritage both tangible and intangible are fundamental parts of the human and cultural rights of First Nations people, and our live example of this is the Juukan caves destruction. First Nations people, as the sovereign people, are the only ones who can tell us why, what, when and where this cultural connection and our sacred sites are. The cultural protocols of First Nations communities are built on reciprocity, and that means it's time for corporate Australia to step up and show public support for the self-determination, the leadership and the inherent rights of First Nations people. I am asking industry partners to publicly reject the current legislative framework that does not afford human rights of First Nations people. Work in true partnership with First Peoples to build good practice that ensures seamless and mutually beneficial outcomes, one that confirms, respects and honours the goodwill statements that came from the corporate sector post-Juukan. As the Australian Greens portfolio holder of mining resources, trade, science, research and innovation, I am well positioned to take those conversations across regional Australia, the business sector and communities, for us to reimagine a future that will accelerate our collective actions.
I'm no stranger to the work of politics, from my work in international fora to advising and lobbying governments. In lots of instances, I was the lone First Nations voice in some of those delegations and, in some instances, the first Indigenous woman to break new ground, as I am today. If anyone is under the impression that I was there as a token, this was quickly changed as I always challenged myself to actively participant in the processes that informed and shaped my world view differences, and shared solutions grounded in my experiences. Breaking glass ceilings is only the first step, and a challenge of going where others have not gone before. It is a great opportunity to learn and share your knowledge with others that are not operating in your circles.
My passion for breaking new ground across the stereotypical understanding and norms signal that I might be the first, but I'm definitely not the last. My footprint in this place, cast in history-making actions, should provide motivation and hopefully restore some hope and inspiration for many as we work to fight for our future together. In paving the way, I hope the concept of 'if you build it, they will come' enables us to see ourselves here in this place, and that, in future generations, we see the parliaments of Australia transformed to truly represent our communities. Incorporating diversity that reflects and emulates our communities' intersectional lived experiences are also as important as the Dynamic Red here—to follow a visible script created by some hard markers in our fundamental business to help us check our own privilege; reminding us that, with gratitude, we undertake this work with consistent checking, reflection, inquiry and, most of all, deep listening to our constituents and the broader Australian public.
My pledge is to assure the people of Australia that my values are anchored in the betterment of our communities' quality of life, and for further generations of our children to have a healthy and thriving planet to live on. Fighting for that future belongs to all of us—one that benefits many, not just a few. If you feel unheard and unseen then, in my time working here, I want to work to make sure that we change and transform this place so that we can be better allies for you. Climate and social justice is the unfinished business that we must prioritise as elected leaders of this nation, which is here, in the place of the people—the Senate.
I wish to finish in my great-grandmother's Wajarri Badimaya language. Nganhu garrimanah malga brily marlbayiminah. Together, we stand strong and we rise up. Thank you.
COMMITTEES
Job Security
Report
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (17:28): I present the second interim report of the Senate Select Committee on Job Security, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I'd like to thank the committee members, Senators Walsh, Faruqi, Canavan and Small, for their involvement and the committee secretariat for their tireless efforts. This is the second interim report of the Senate Select Committee on Job Security. The first interim report focused on the gig economy. It revealed that companies like Uber, Deliveroo and Amazon are having a corrosive impact on the standards and conditions of work in Australia. But the findings of the second interim report are more concerning still, because what it reveals is that it isn't just Uber and Amazon driving insecure work in Australia. In fact, no employer in Australia is doing more to drive insecure work than the federal government. The federal government engages hundreds of thousands of workers in the Australian Public Service and is the economic employer of millions of workers around Australia in jobs that it funds—jobs in sectors like aged care, higher education, the NDIS and the NBN.
It is deeply troubling that insecure work has become the norm in these sectors. If publicly funded jobs aren't safe from the pandemic of insecure work, then what job is safe? In aged care, we have received deeply unsettling evidence about the conditions of the workforce. The government's 2020 Aged Care Workforce Census revealed 94 per cent of aged-care workers are engaged as casuals, subcontractors, labour hire or part-time. For those lucky enough to be engaged as part-time, the norm in the industry is for contracts with low minimum hours or even zero minimum hours, which widely fluctuate from one week to the next. Aged-care workers have told us firsthand how these contracts are weaponised to create a permanent state of uncertainty and fear. One care worker, and a Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union member, Sherree Clarke, said: 'You can't plan anything because you don't know what your roster is going to be from one fortnight to the next. When my mother went through cancer, I couldn't tell her that I would support her for her cancer appointments, because if you're not available to pick up a shift, they don't offer you that shift the next time'.
We already know, thanks to the royal commission, that our aged-care workforce is understaffed and underpaid, and this is the principal cause of substandard care. Unfortunately, the situation is only getting worse. While the government ignores key recommendations from the royal commission, the committee also heard that gig platforms like Mable are creeping into the sector. As the Health Services Union's Lauren Hutchins said, 'Platforms like Mable are a combination of Tinder and Uber, where you swipe left or right on a worker who is being engaged by Mable as a contractor to avoid paying the minimum wage, avoid paying superannuation and avoid paying workers' compensation.'
Unfortunately, these platforms have already swarmed into another publicly funded sector, the NDIS. It is a national disgrace that an opportunity like the NDIS, where the government could have created hundreds of thousands of secure jobs with a living wage, is instead home to worker exploitation. Both workers and participants are suffering as a result.
It is the same story in higher education, as NTEU national president, Dr Alison Barnes, said: 'Only one in three jobs in our universities is permanent or ongoing. That means that the vast majority of our teaching research and professional support services are undertaken by workers who are not permanently employed.' Paul Morris, a casual academic and NTEU member, told us about the impact that repeated short-term contracts have on his life: 'It creates anxiety which persists as a matter of course in my everyday life and intensifies each Christmas when I again become unemployed, leaving me wondering whether I will pick up again in another three months.' If the perpetual insecurity wasn't enough, academics are paid inadequate piece rates which leave them with pay well below the award. Our universities are built on insecure work and wage theft, two issues which so often go hand in hand. This is an unacceptable way to treat the people who are driving innovation and research in Australia and who we entrust with educating our next generation.
The story is the same at the National Broadband Network, where one government agency, Nbn Co, has exclusive power over everyone working within their supply chain. Like the NDIS, the NBN was a massive Labor achievement that was intended to create hundreds of thousands of secure and well-paid jobs, but this government has turned it into a hive of insecurity and exploitation. There is not a single NBN Co employee installing or maintaining NBN infrastructure. There's not even a single NBN Co subcontractor installing or maintaining NBN infrastructure. Instead, NBN Co has outsourced the entire project to a small number of contracting companies. Many are in turn subcontracting the work down the pyramid. At the very bottom of the Ponzi scheme, you have NBN technicians who some days cannot even earn enough to cover their costs. As the CEPU's Shane Murphy told us:
A project that was to be a source of pride has developed the highly sinister underbelly of mistreatment and malfeasance that should be a source [of] shame.
The federal government has the power to say, 'No, any job we pay for must be a secure job.' But all the evidence provided to this committee shows that this government, over eight years, has opted for an insecure, unpaid workforce which often falls victim to wage theft. If you ask neglected aged-care residents or university students or NBN customers, I think you'll find they aren't too thrilled either.
Even the Australian Public Service, once the standard-bearer of good, secure jobs, isn't safe from attacks on workers' rights. The proportion of casuals in the APS is at a record high. Expenditure on outsourcing APS jobs is at a record high. Expenditure on labour hire in the APS is at a record high. Nick Thackray, a CPSU delegate and long-time labour hire worker at the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, told us:
… there's the difference in pay, but then we don't get sick leave, … we don't get carers leave and we don't get things like domestic violence leave. Or if somebody close to you dies, there's no leave like that. So … every day, depending on what's happening in your life, you make the choice, 'Am I going to get paid today?'
I'm very happy to say that, shortly after appearing at our hearing, Nick was offered direct employment at AMSA. It's a great outcome for Nick, but it's also a great outcome for AMSA, who told us it costs them 23 per cent more to hire someone through labour hire, although the workers are getting paid less.
Unfortunately, we can't invite every labour hire worker in the APS to our hearings to help them obtain direct APS jobs; that responsibility does lie with the government. The government could give all these long-term labour hire workers a direct APS job today, just as the government could provide security to every worker in aged care, the NDIS, higher education and the NBN—today. Insecure work in these industries is a choice by the Morrison government. The eight years of rising job insecurity and record-low wage growth is a choice by the Morrison government. Minister Cormann himself said in 2019 that it's a 'deliberate' policy of this government, and there's no escaping the truth, that the Australian middle class no longer has the secure jobs and living wage that once defined it.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:38): I rise to speak on the Select Committee on Job Security's second interim report, on insecurity in publicly funded jobs. The Greens welcome the tabling of this interim report, and generally we concur with the recommendations as well. During this inquiry, we have engaged with witnesses from a huge range of industries, organisations and parts of our community. I too thank the members of the committee, but especially the committee secretariat, without whose excellent work we would never be able to produce such insightful reports.
I want to take the opportunity this evening, though, to focus on higher education and reflect a little more on what this report has revealed about the insecure work crisis in our universities. The report provides a very damning summation and analysis of this crisis. It doesn't mince words. But I also want to reflect a little bit on the depth and seriousness of the situation.
A couple of weeks ago, the Commonwealth Fair Work Ombudsman had some very strong words for Australia's universities, pointing to instances of large-scale systemic underpayment of employee wages, particularly the wages of casual academics and professional staff. Ombudsman Sandra Parker pointed particularly to piece-rate-style performance benchmarks that may well be in breach of enterprise agreements. The Fair Work Ombudsman is now investigating 14 universities over potential underpayment and wage theft matters. This has expanded significantly over the past year or so. I began referring universities to the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into underpayments around the middle of last year. At this time last year only five universities were being or had been investigated by the ombudsman. That list had expanded to 8 by April of this year. Now there are 14. This list tells us that this situation is out of control. What's worse is that most universities are continuing to wipe their hands of it and to dismiss the systemic and serious nature of the underpayments.
Casual workers, and particularly women, who are overrepresented as casuals, are bearing the brunt of this wage theft. That has been allowed to flourish almost completely unchecked until now. Casualisation and wage theft are inextricably linked. The impacts of casual, insecure work are devastating. In evidence given to the committee, the University of Sydney Casuals Network provided testimony from casual academics on sector job prospects after the pandemic is over. One said, 'I'm thinking more and more that academia won't be a viable career option.' Another said, 'There is incredible uncertainty about my future employment, which leaves me worried and not particularly productive.' Another points to how this state of affairs will contribute to the loss of a generation of early career researchers and PhD students who have worked tirelessly for institutions that have failed to recognise their contribution. Workers can't plan their futures. They are questioning why they bother. They are in many ways completely lost. How can this go on in one of the wealthiest countries in the world? It was the committee's view in this report, which I wholeheartedly echo, that an increase in casualisation in our universities over the last few decades is not a result of the seasonal nature of university semesters. It is a feature of cost-cutting and the corporatisation of the sector. Insecure workers are cheaper and easier to get rid of, and over time, exploitative work force practices such as piece rates have become the contractual norm.
So what can be done? To begin with, our universities are in desperate need of a massive investment of public funding. There has been funding cut after funding cut over decades by successive governments. The Liberals job-ready graduates reforms, combined with the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, have led to utter crisis and even more devastation. A recent Centre for Future Work report, which identified as many as 40,000 jobs lost over 12 months, was about the grimmest reading you could imagine on the state of affairs for the future of higher education in this country. We need a serious injection of new money directly into teaching, learning and research. Linked to this, though not within the remit of this report, is an overhaul of university governance. The corporate university has, and it pains me to say this, been built by neoliberal corporate university management. Only by radically shaking up who runs our universities will we be able to structurally shift the balance of power away from the managerial class back to staff and students over the long term. This is a big task for university communities, but one that is absolutely essential.
This report also contains some other useful recommendations. There should be much clearer reporting requirements with respect to employment statistics and headcounts of permanent, fixed term and casual staff. It recommends that the government require universities to set publicly available targets for increasing permanent employment and link this to funding. It recommends improved rights of entry for trade unions. All of these are very useful initiatives and some the Greens have proposed strengthening in our additional comments.
I want to reflect very briefly on the public sector component of this report as well. This report does paint an alarming picture of ongoing casualisation and outsourcing within the Australian Public Service. It identifies that evidence provided to the committee indicated that the number of non-ongoing employers is currently the highest it has been over the last two decades and that consultants and contractors are receiving more and more Public Service work. Let's be clear: this is not a problem confined to the federal Public Service. It is a disease purposefully spread by modern neoliberal government. It impacts practically all Australian jurisdictions. In my state of New South Wales, the past 10 years of the state coalition government has seen an enormous increase in outsourcing of consultant work. The consequences of this, again, are terrible. There is the clear and obvious consequence of the workers whose once secure public sector jobs are now being slowly but surely replaced by casual and non-ongoing staff and external contractors, but there are systemic problems for the public service more generally. The quality of work diminishes as institutional knowledge and expertise evaporates and the government can no longer stand on its own two feet.
The report makes some useful and commendable recommendations aimed at addressing the state of affairs. I'm looking forward to future hearings of this inquiry. It has been a pretty long inquiry, with dozens and dozens of witnesses, but we need that to address this massive issue of increasing insecure work. I hope that a final report can make recommendations that make sure that insecure work becomes part of history, as workers in all sectors are paid fairly and treated fairly. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (17:46): I rise to speak on the Senate Select Committee on Job Security's second interim report also. Firstly, I would like to thank the committee chair, Senator Tony Sheldon, and my fellow committee members for the incredible work that everyone is doing on this committee. I would also like to acknowledge the witnesses that have contributed evidence from their own lives, evidence that has been absolutely crucial to the writing of this interim report—in particular, the United Workers Union, the Australian nursing and midwifery union, the Australian Health Services Union, the Health Workers Union and all of the dedicated workers who've shared their stories with us.
The crisis of insecure work is right at the heart of the ongoing crisis in our aged-care system. Australians know the value of our essential aged-care sector and they know the value of the thousands of aged-care workers, nurses, personal care workers, cleaners and catering workers who keep our aged-care system running. The millions of Australians who depend on the care sector know firsthand the importance of these frontline professionals, but the aged-care sector is in crisis—a crisis exposed by the royal commission, a crisis exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, a crisis that has us facing a workforce shortage of over 100,000 workers over the next 10 years and a crisis that has been ignored for eight years by this Liberal-National government.
The crisis in aged care is fundamentally a crisis of insecure work. On this committee, we have heard damning evidence of the prevalence and impact of insecurity in the aged-care sector. We heard that overreliance on insecure work practices is basically a business model in aged care. It's a business model which means workers are left desperate, with little choice but to accept work across multiple employers to make ends meet. It's a business model which impacts on the quality of care for vulnerable people in the aged-care sector. Ray Collins from the Health Workers Union told the committee:
… it suits the business model to keep me as a worker lean and mean. You give me the minimal hours you can give me. You manipulate the hours and the workers to suit your dollar needs, not your care needs.
Insecure work in the aged-care sector takes the form of low pay and low-hour part-time contracts. It's a system that provides flexibility for employers at the expense of employees. We found aged-care workers are hired on part-time contracts with guaranteed hours as low as just several hours per week, and any hours over that are not guaranteed and any extra hours they are given don't attract overtime or penalty rates. While the majority work above their minimum hours, they can't count on those hours. They can't count on them to put food on the table. They can't count on them to prove their hours to get a rental agreement or a mortgage.
And then there is the chronic low pay on top of the short hours worked, which we heard is a result of systematic undervaluation of care work as 'unskilled women's work'. Professor Sarah Charlesworth, from RMIT, explained how gender discrimination has led to undervaluation and work insecurity. She said:
This gendered nature of job insecurity is underpinned by a lack of value accorded to the work and the workers who perform it, which draws on a view of aged care as something women do for free and are therefore unskilled and is therefore not quite work.
This system of chronic low pay and low-hour contracts leaves these essential workers desperate, in a constant limbo, not knowing how many hours they will work each week, not knowing how they will be able to afford to pay their bills, and unable to properly plan their lives. We heard from workers across the sector about the impacts of insecure work on their health and on their families. Anu Singh, an aged-care worker, told the committee:
'Apprehension', 'self-doubt', 'stress',' unscheduled', 'instability'—for me these words define the job insecurity that we actually go through all the time.
Paul Bott told the committee:
I'm renting with my wife and three kids. Trying to live on two shifts a week just doesn't quite cut it.
Taking jobs with low wages and a lack of stable hours is not a choice that workers are freely making, because it isn't a choice. Insecure jobs are all that is on offer for these workers in this sector. It is built in, and baked in, to our aged-care system in Australia today. These essential workers deserve so much more.
The committee heard that it's not just workers who are impacted by this insecurity, but also the millions of Australians who depend on the care sector. No-one can deny the tragic consequences of insecure work in the aged-care system throughout the pandemic. There have been over 700 confirmed COVID-related deaths in Australian government subsidised aged-care facilities. The committee heard that, during this time, large numbers of aged-care workers were working across multiple sites to make ends meet, and this avoidable situation was found to significantly contribute to the spread of COVID.
And, outside of the pandemic, the committee heard that insecurity and casualisation of the care-sector workforce consistently leads to a reduction in the quality of care. Lloyd Williams, national secretary of the Health Services Union, outlined the problem for residents. He said:
It creates a lack of continuity of care. Can you imagine what it would be like to have a different person coming into your home and showering you every day?
Melinda Vaz, an aged-care worker, described the impact of inconsistent staff on residents suffering from dementia. She said:
On every shift, I never know who is going to turn up, how many staff are going to turn up and the experience they will have. I work in a dementia wing, and it's extremely important to have familiar staff because they know the people and they know the care needs of each person.
We cannot deliver the high level of quality care that Australians deserve without fixing the crisis of insecure work in aged care. That crisis is present across the broader care sector, including disability care as well. The committee found that workers in the care sector face unique challenges in addressing these issues in their workplaces. Care-sector workers can't simply sit down and win secure jobs, facility by facility, one by one. There are thousands of aged-care providers—some big, but most small. There are thousands of disability providers, and it is just an impossible task. If these workers, these essential dedicated workers, make it to some form of bargaining table to sit down with their employers, the response is that there's no money for better pay and more secure jobs because the funding just isn't there. That's because the people who set the funding, the federal government, are not required to be in those conversations listening to workers. Carolyn Smith, of the United Workers Union, said:
We're not talking to the people who hold the purse strings. What happens, and we've seen this over the last five years with freezes to the funding model, is providers will say to us, 'We want to do this but we just don't have the money.'
So workers are locked out of fighting for secure jobs and better wages across the aged-care sector. The system is just broken for them, and it's leaving them in these low-paid and insecure jobs. The committee found that we can't fix insecure work in the care sector without a system where care workers, their employers and the government can come together and decide on solutions. Employers, peak bodies and unions all agreed that meaningful solutions can only be delivered if everyone is in the room and if everyone is at the table where workers' voices are heard and where quality care is prioritised over profit—real solutions that will ensure these essential workers are paid what they deserve and have the good, secure jobs they need to support themselves and their families, because this isn't work that they just do for the love of it; this is highly skilled and critical work that our country is increasingly relying on. Our dedicated care workers deserve to be respected, they deserve to be valued and they deserve to be heard, and, throughout this committee, their voices were heard loud and clear by the senators participating. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:55): I rise to contribute some remarks in relation to the Select Committee on Job Security's second interim report and to build on the comments made by my colleague Senator Faruqi about the impacts on the Public Service. I too would like to commend the work of the committee and the excellent report that they've tabled that we're speaking to now.
It's no surprise that successive governments have privatised our public institutions and have outsourced our essential public services over decades. The APS commission data shows a significant growth in non-ongoing contracts for employees under the Public Service Act of 1999 over the past decade. Evidence to this inquiry has laid bare that outsourcing and contract work has resulted in more expensive, lower quality and less transparent service delivery, which has resulted in a gutting of the capabilities within the public sector, and employees being paid less and having less job security and less job satisfaction. Efficiency dividends have actually reduced efficiency, and in-house capabilities have also been reduced by increasing reliance on ad hoc external recruitment. Staffing caps have not reduced overall staffing expenses, but they have eroded staff security and retention. The 2021-22 budget allocation to increase staffing levels was very welcome, albeit very late, and it was a recognition that years of cuts, privatisation and dodgy outsourcing deals have not worked. But the announced increases are not enough to undo the decade of ideologically driven cuts and outsourcing. Rebuilding staffing levels and strengthening job security within the Public Service is what we need to ensure that Australia has high-quality services at a lower cost to the public and a better deal for workers. We strongly support the recommendations in the interim report directed at achieving that outcome.
In relation to the loss of skills and capacity, the CPSU told the inquiry that labour hire and consultants regularly undertake work that should be core public service business, and, as outlined in the report, they believe that this has eroded the skills base within the Public Service, it's compromised service delivery, it's undermined job security and it has effectively 'abandonment of its role as the custodian of a career public service and the institutions and norms which Australian democracy relies upon'. The final report of the independent review of the Australian Public Service, I might point out, made similar observations.
The Australia Institute report Talk isn't cheapest estimates that the $1.1 billion spent by the Australian government last year on consultancies could have provided secure employment for more than 12,000 public servants and built the ongoing capacity of the public service to meet future challenges. Yet the government has continued to rely on labour hire and to outsource key advice roles to private consultants who do nothing for internal capacity building. Private consultants are often selected on the basis that they'll align with government objectives, they'll tell ministers what they want to hear or they will avoid rubbishing government policy for fear of missing out on future lucrative government contracts.
It's no coincidence that the consultancy firms that are making millions from government contracts are also significant political donors. EY, Deloitte, PWC and KPMG have donated $4.7 million in the last decade. An analysis by the Saturday Paper of contracts published on AusTender between 21 January and 21 October—just nine months—revealed that Deloitte raked in $212.3 million in contracts, EY took $190.7 million and KPMG nabbed $170.6 million. Further, both the terms of consultancy contracts and the advice provided to the government under those contracts are exempt from disclosure under freedom of information laws. This puts a range of significant policy advice out of sight of the public, and that's a trend that's likely to worsen with the government's unjustifiable extension of cabinet exemptions to any advice provided to any committee of national cabinet.
It's clear that the hollowing out of Public Service capability creates a vicious circle that facilitates an ongoing reliance on outsourced policy advice, less accountability and an inherent increased risk of corruption. It has to stop. Australia deserves a strong, independent Public Service that's capable of meeting the education, housing, health, social security, environmental protection and infrastructure needs of our nation. The Greens support the recommendations in this report that call for insourcing of core work and limiting the use of contractors and consultants. We will continue to call for greater transparency of work that's undertaken by consultants to improve public oversight of the calibre, the objectivity and the value for money that's provided by outsourced advice.
In relation to employee conditions, job security is a key factor in employee satisfaction and retention. The inquiry heard very disturbing evidence of public servants working back-to-back contracts but unable to get finance to buy a house on the basis that their role was considered insecure. This is not a situation that dedicated public servants should find themselves in. The CPSU noted the debilitating impact of the ASL policy:
It's not a limit on how much work is done, or how much money is spent, or even how many people can do work on behalf of the government—it's only a limit on secure employment.
The Greens support the recommendation to prioritise ongoing positions over repeat short-term contracts to give employees the confidence and the financial security to plan for the future.
We also note that job insecurity compounds the existing constraints on public servants' freedom to express political views in their private capacity for fear that that will reduce the prospect of their contract renewal. Public servants need to be clear and confident that they can participate in public debate without it impinging on their jobs. In balance of power in the next parliament, the Greens will move to legislate to protect the right of public servants, in their private capacity, to engage in political advocacy, attend rallies, run for public office, participate in their union and represent or be elected to external organisations.
I have a last comment on gender. Given the significant investment of public resources in government contracts, procurement and supply chain policies actually provide great leverage to drive positive social outcomes, including encouraging diversity and closing the gender pay gap. For example, if the government was to set procurement targets for women-led and gender-equal businesses it could help those businesses to grow and could incentivise gender-equal employment practices. So we support recommendations 32 to 34 of the interim report in that regard. We further recommend that any supplier code of conduct sets expectations about gender equality and closing the gender pay gap, and that businesses that are tendering for government services must be able to demonstrate that they have complied with all Workplace Gender Equality Act reporting obligations.
We know this government are addicted to privatisation. We know they love sacking public servants and outsourcing the provision of what used to be publicly owned assets and services, but this report has shown it's not good value for money and it's ripping off both the public servants and the Australian community. It's time to end this obsession with privatisation and sacking workers and start investing in a strong, resilient and frank and fearless Public Service. The Greens continue to be dedicated to that outcome and we commend this report to the chamber.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I believe that a number of senators have asked that they may continue their remarks. Is leave granted?
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Public Works Joint Committee
Report
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:04): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's eighth report of 2021.
Northern Australia Joint Committee
Trade and Investment Growth Joint Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (18:05): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:05): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Northern Australia — Joint Standing Committee —
Discharged—Senator Thorpe
Appointed—Senator Cox
Trade and Investment Growth — Joint Standing Committee —
Discharged—Senator Steele-John
Appointed—Senator Cox
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 7) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:06): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:06): 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—
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2021 MEASURES NO. 7) BILL 2021
SECOND READING SPEECH
This Bill implements a number of streamlining and integrity measures.
Schedule 1 to the Bill extends existing third-party reporting requirements to operators of electronic platforms. Platform operators will be required to report to the ATO information regarding certain transactions that occur on their platforms, such as seller identification and payment details. This information will assist the ATO in its administration of the tax system and ensure sellers on these platforms are meeting their tax obligations.
These platforms are commonly used in what is known as the sharing or gig economy and provide a range of innovative opportunities for earning an income. As Australia's sharing economy continues to grow, a transparency gap has emerged as existing tax reporting requirements do not adequately capture information about transactions in this part of the economy.
Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Act to facilitate the closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and any transitional arrangements associated with AFCA replacing the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT).
The AFCA Act will be amended to allow for the transfer of SCT records and documents to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for ongoing records management, and will also allow the Federal Court to remit appealed cases back to AFCA, where previously these had been remitted to the SCT.
Schedule 2 also introduces a rule-making power to the AFCA Act, to allow the Minister to prescribe matters of a transitional nature that may be required to facilitate the closure of the SCT.
Schedule 3 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and makes consequential amendments to the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986, to remove the exclusion of the first $250 of deductions for prescribed courses of education.
These amendments will reduce compliance costs for individuals claiming self-education expense deductions.
The changes will apply to assessments for the 2022-23 income year and later income years, following Royal Assent.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Migration Amendment (Merits Review) Regulations 2021
Disallowance
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (18:07): I, and also on behalf of Senator Griff, move:
That the Migration Amendment (Merits Review) Regulations 2021, made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2021L00845].
I do so with disappointment and sadness because we shouldn't have to be debating a motion like this in the Senate. We really shouldn't have to be dealing with matters that are contained in the Migration Amendment (Merits Review) Regulations 2021. Under this amendment, put forward by the government, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal fees for migration reviews will increase from $1,826 to $3,000. That's nearly a doubling of fees. The government explains this by saying that the increase to the fee is part of a funding package for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Circuit Court announced in the 2021-22 federal budget. I say to the government very clearly that if you want to increase funding to the AAT and the Federal Circuit Court—and you should want to increase funding to those organisations—simply fund it in the budget. But you haven't chosen to fund the entirety of the funding package straight out of the budget. You've decided to engage, quite unsurprisingly, in a neoliberal approach: a user-pays increase of nearly 100 per cent.
Is that being rolled out to all applicants to the AAT? No, it's not. This massive fee increase will be borne by migrants to Australia, many of whom are already facing significant financial hardship and many of whom are already struggling to access the justice that they so richly deserve. This is, plain and simple, a policy to prevent migrants accessing a fair hearing of their cases.
This instrument increases fees for applications to the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This division reviews decisions about protection visas—that is, cases that involve refugees and people who seek asylum in Australia. It reviews decisions relating to character. So this instrument quite clearly seeks to deny justice to people who came to this country and asked this country and this government for asylum, for protection and for help as they fled persecution in different parts of the world. These are people who are trying to access justice to prevent the government from turning them away and returning them to danger and persecution. When these people have the absolute temerity, the cheek, to challenge the government's refusal to provide them with protection, and when they turn to the AAT to appeal a decision that the government has made to deny them protection and to deny them asylum, when they take one of the last shots of justice in this country, they're being priced out of it by the government.
In its explanatory statement, the government argues that the Federal Circuit Court retains a significant backlog of approximately 14,000 matters on hand as at 30 April 2021 in its migration case load, while the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT has approximately 58,000 active applications. Those numbers are accurate. Those numbers constitute a cry for help, because justice delayed is justice denied. But the answer to the challenges posed by those numbers is not to increase the fees. The answer is to properly fund the AAT and the Federal Circuit Court out of the government's budget. Let's not forget this year's budget contains over $50 billion—50 billion with a 'B' dollars—in direct subsidies for burning fossil fuel while our climate is breaking down around us. That is $50 billion of taxpayer funds going into the pockets of people who dig up and transport and burn fossil fuels in the middle of a climate crisis. Yet somehow the government can't afford to find the money to adequately fund the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Circuit Court. Give us a break! Of course you could find the money if you wanted to. You don't have to price people out of accessing justice in order to run a coherent AAT and Federal Circuit Court. You simply don't.
It's worth noting that the AAT finds in favour of significant numbers of appellants. That is, it overturns government decisions regularly, and I do mean regularly. This of course is embarrassing to the Department of Home Affairs, which makes many of these decisions, and of course it's embarrassing to the government. So now the government is trying to price people out of the AAT by nearly doubling its fees for people who are appealing migration matters.
It's worth pointing out that the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT also reviews matters relating to the cancellation of visas, to sponsors, to employer nominations and to the points system set out in the Migration Act and associated regulations. As such—and this is a critical point—this fee increase is likely to prevent many vulnerable people—and they are overwhelmingly women and children who are fleeing family violence—from accessing a fair hearing of their case. They will be denied access to statutory rights of review, and this will result in survivors of family violence, and in some cases Australian citizen children, being expelled from Australia. That is one of the potential consequences of what we are debating here today, because applicants for partner visas are eligible, in some circumstances, for permanent residence if they are victims of family violence perpetrated by an Australian citizen or permanent resident who is the sponsor of their visas. In those circumstances, it is quite common for women and children who flee such violence not to receive important letters from the department because, for example, they've moved into emergency accommodation and the person at their original address fails to forward the mail to them. This failure to receive, and subsequent incapacity to respond to, written correspondence from the department can lead to their visa applications being refused by the government. In such circumstances, the only avenue for them to remain in Australia is to apply to the AAT for a merits review.
Importantly, unless the applicant can pay the AAT fee within the prescribed period, which in normal circumstances ranges between seven and 21 days, their AAT application will be invalid. Yes, the AAT does have the discretion to halve the application fee if satisfied that the payment of the full fee is likely to cause severe financial hardship. However, with the new fees—which, remember, have nearly doubled the original level of fees—that discounted fee would still be $1,500, and the AAT has no discretion to extend the period to pay that fee.
This is from a government whose Prime Minister claims to be the prime minister for women. This is a disgraceful effort by the government. It is a punitive move, and it's typical of the disdain that this government has for migrants, for refugees and for people seeking asylum. They have yet again failed to offer adequate support for survivors of domestic and family violence. They are trying to claw back money from the people who can afford it the least while shelling out billions of dollars for the diggers-up, burners and transporters of fossil fuel and for the richest in our society through their massive tax cuts for the most wealthy high-income earners in Australia and through JobKeeper payments that went to some of the world's richest people, who run companies in this country which increased their profits during the pandemic.
So it's pretty clear, colleagues. If you are one of this society's most wealthy—if you are one of the billionaires or one of the big corporations—you're going to make out like a bandit under this government, and you'll invest your donations in the Liberal Party, and your return on investment will be through the roof. But if you're a migrant to Australia who gets the dodgy, rough end of a decision from Home Affairs—and there are many, many of those decisions made—and you want access to justice, take a hike, because this government is going to try and price you out of the justice system. That's what we are seeking to disallow today. What the government is trying to do with this regulation is absolutely unconscionable. I commend the disallowance to the chamber, and I thank Senator Griff for allowing me to co-sponsor this disallowance with him.
Senator C OLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (18:20): The regulations increase and index the filing fees for certain migration matters in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The increase does not apply to applications concerning protection visas. The fees have barely increased since 1999, and the additional revenue will fund extra resources at the AAT and the Federal Circuit Court. If paying a fee would cause severe financial hardship to an applicant, the AAT has the capacity to reduce it by 50 per cent.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (18:21): [by video link] The Migration Amendment (Merits Review) Regulations which Senator McKim and I are moving to disallow will increase the AAT migration review application fee, as Senator McKim also mentioned, from $1,826 to $3,000. This is not the incremental double-digit fee increase that we would normally expect to see. The AAT's previously gazetted fee rise for 2021 was an increase of just $20, which was in keeping with the small increases of previous years. So this instrument demonstrates the government's ongoing targeting of migrants or, should I say, shakedown of migrants, because that's very much what it is.
We can see this in another piece of legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Waiting Periods for New Migrants) Bill. It is evident that this government sees migrants as little more than cash cows and an annoyance that must be squashed the minute they try to assert their rights. Even with the 50 per cent discount for those in severe financial hardship, or a 50 per cent refund for successful reviews, a review application will cost migrant applicants a minimum of $1,500.
This AAT disallowance follows a similar disallowance I put forward late last year to reverse the increase to the Federal Circuit Court application fee for migration litigants. That instrument increased the application fee from $690 to a massive $3,330. The government at the time justified the 400 per cent fee hike on migration litigants only as necessary to help pay for court resources. In the same vein, the government says this increase is to fund extra resourcing for the AAT to reduce the migration related backlogs. It is not the job of litigants to resource the courts; it's the job of government to do this.
As I stated last time and will say again now, access to justice cannot be on a user-pays basis. I knew then that letting the FCC instrument slide would be a slippery slope and, here today, we have proof. The government has been emboldened to try the same trick again, this time with the AAT merits review for migration litigants for decisions relating to visas, sponsorships and nominations. These massive fee hikes are not just about cashing in; they are also about embedding disincentives to discourage migrants from pursuing their cases. We should all be very clear about that. We should also note that no external consultation was undertaken whatsoever.
As I have said previously, justice should be accessible for all. Justice should not be based on a user-pays system. Justice should treat all litigants fairly and equally. This AAT regulation does not do that in any shape or form, and it deserves to be thrown out.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (18:25): I rise briefly to state that Labor will support this disallowance motion. These regulations increase the Administrative Appeals Tribunal application fee for review of decisions relating to visas other than protection visas from $1,826 to $3,000 from 26 June 2021. Exorbitant application fees like those set out in these regulations discourage and, in some cases, completely prevent, individuals from accessing justice. As such Labor will support disallowance of these regulations.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion from Senator Griff, moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:30]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
COMMITTEES
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Report
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:32): On behalf of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Senator Chandler, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, together with accompanying documents.
BILLS
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (18:33): I spoke earlier today on the humanitarian aspects of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for at Risk Participants) Bill 2021 and the protection of participants from the kinds of disastrous and sickening deaths that we saw in the case of Ms Smith. I would like to continue now on one of the most important aspects of what we've been talking about today. We have been talking about participant experience of the NDIS, affordability and fairness. I'd like to speak for the remainder of my time on affordability and sustainability of the NDIS.
As you know, the NDIS was established on a multipartisan basis, and all governments continue to share a firm commitment to achieving positive outcomes for all people with disability. We cannot ignore the fact that there are serious sustainability pressures facing the NDIS. The NDIS is funded by all states and territories and the Commonwealth, and that's an important point. Disability ministers commissioned work in August 2021, at the disability reform ministers' meeting, to develop an NDIS sustainability work plan to address sustainability pressures.
The NDIS does need reform, but this can be done only by working together as a federation. We recognise that the scheme needs to continue to improve so that it can be fairer and more consistent for the future. The cost of the NDIS continues to increase at a much higher rate than was ever expected, which means that it's now facing sustainability challenges. All governments have made a commitment to tackling these issues, while ensuring that every eligible Australian who relies upon the NDIS continues to receive the support they need. This is about continuing NDIS growth but doing so sustainably. Both the number of participants and the scheme's overall budget will continue to grow, and NDIS participants with significant and permanent disability will continue to receive the reasonable and necessary support that they need.
I would remind the opposition of their calls to implement these recommendations. Now that opportunity is before them, and now they can support this bill. I suggest they do just that. This bill should be about participants and not about politics. We seek multipartisan support in enabling these key changes to be implemented as soon as possible, to better protect participants from the risk of abuse and neglect. The bill is most important. It's about implementing key recommendations from an independent inquiry into the tragic death of NDIS participant Ms Smith so as to better protect NDIS participants who are at risk of harm, and we now call for the bill to be implemented.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (18:37): If there's one sector you'd think would require a dedicated, caring workforce, it would be disability support services. People living with disability, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our community, deserve the very best of care. That's why we agreed, as a nation, to establish the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The NDIS started with great promise in 2013. It was going to answer a pressing need. Its game-changing promise was that it would give consumers living with a disability the funds to enable them to buy the services that worked best for them. The decisions were to be in the hands of people with disability first, and those of their loved ones.
The NDIS, as originally conceived, was to be the world's best practice, a generational shift in how disability care is managed. When fully rolled out, it was expected to support 530,000 Australians living with disability, through individualised funding packages. That's a wonderful thing. But the complex requirements in the disability sector surely require equally sophisticated solutions—not just gig-economy-style delivery, as though providing disability care is little different from having a couple of pizzas delivered to your front door on a Friday night after a few beers. Yet that's what's happening. The gig economy, like a virus constantly seeking out new hosts everywhere, has now latched itself well and truly onto disability services, and the government is allowing this digital Work Choices to spread unchecked. It's the introduction of AWAs, but this time via an app.
There's nothing wrong with improving the delivery of services wherever there's a demand for them. That's pretty basic stuff. But the gig platforms are more often than not the material of nightmares, both for recipients and for the people who try to make a living out of them. The Senate Job Security Committee inquiry even heard that it's unclear whether individual disability care recipients are personally responsible for the health and safety of gig workers engaged through online platforms. The inquiry has recommended that this be clarified in law. In disability care, there was always likely to be a problem of this sort. Since the NDIS has given people with a disability the funding and the ability to choose where their support comes from, that also means that there has been a rapid rise in online platforms in the sector. Supply follows demand like night follows day, or like dodgy operators selling unwinnable lottery tickets pursue the weak and desperate.
There are many thousands of support workers operating through these gig platforms. And guess what? The overwhelming number of them are engaged as independent contractors with almost none of the rights and entitlements of people who are employed as support workers by legitimate companies—no superannuation, no penalty rates, no sick leave, no long service leave, no compassionate leave, no domestic violence leave and, of course, no workers compensation. They are entitled to none of these things even though these contractors without worker entitlements perform the same roles under very similar conditions to other regular employees.
Boosters of the situation say it's a good thing that technology allows flexibility. They say it is flexibility for consumers to choose exactly what care they need, and flexibility for workers to choose how and when and where they provide care. But it is not reasonable that technology makes certain work easier to arrange, that the workers who perform it should lose their workplace rights and conditions.
The caring sectors overwhelmingly include work that was once universally regarded as middle class. Increasingly, we have suffered the holing out of the middle-class pay and conditions that defined it. Time and time again, at the job security inquiry, we've heard this story about workers simply being unable to sustain a living wage without being led along like ants by the gig platforms offering them crumbs, working two, three or more jobs just to make ends meet, often on low-hour or zero-hour contracts—a trick that labour hire companies use to brutally regulate the workforce. If you want to complain about your situation, it's fewer hours for you.
Catherine Dryden, a community care worker and a United Workers Union member, told the story of how exploitation occurs on the labour hire side of the care sector. She said: 'As a casual, I never knew if I had work or not. I worked for an agency in North Sydney. I would receive a phone call to work that day. I would have to drop everything and race up to Bankstown and cover a shift. I would do an active shift from four o'clock in the afternoon to eight o'clock in the morning with high-needs clients and then drive to Primbee and take a deaf client shopping at 10 o'clock for three hours. Sometimes I didn't work, because there was no work. A lot of people need a second job to survive. Our rosters are changing daily, even by the hour on some days. Workers are put on and taken off. We can't do overtime. It's frowned upon if it happens. Some care workers are doing six to seven hours a day domestic work. We can do a shower, for example, from seven to eight in the morning and then wait in our car for an hour, unpaid. It's classified as a meal break waiting for the next job at nine o'clock in the morning. We're having multiple meal breaks, unpaid, and working five hours on an average day over a 16-hour period.' That's a disgraceful situation. With the gig economy factored into the equation, the deal is even worse.
Mabel, a company that provides disability services, received $5 million last year in government assistance to help it provide COVID-19 surge capacity in the aged-care homes. That's the same Mabel that was criticised at the aged-care royal commission for not knowing how to use personal protective equipment as it provided that same surge capacity. That's the same Mabel that does not take responsibility for its individual workers. That's the same Mabel that claimed at the job security inquiry that it doesn't even set rates, that it relies—and I quote—'upon each and every service provider to individually assess the amount and/or hourly rate or fixed price that they need to charge customers or clients.' What tosh.
We know that these workers are at the mercy of the gig platforms. There is simply no accountability or transparency on how Mable and many similar firms conduct their business. They are just skimming off the top of the labour market. Just like gig economy juggernauts in other sectors—such as Uber, Deliveroo and Amazon Flex—these multinational industry predators do not even regard their disability-care workers as employees. But it's not like these workers are running their own lawn-mowing franchise or putting an ad for their services on Gumtree; this is not work where you just show up, get a pay packet in the hand, go home and put your feet up in front of the tellie. This is critical disability care. We're talking about it because it is so critical. It requires real and ongoing engagement from its workers.
And it's not as though it can't be done with a real and credible employment approach. The Senate job security inquiry has heard from some providers who directly employ workers, pay superannuation, pay tax, pay insurance and other entitlements, and cover them with workers compensation. Hireup told the Senate job security inquiry that 'people will say that it's too hard to create a platform that engages workers as employees'. I would say that we need to try harder so it can be done. If you want even more evidence, Hireup this week won a good design award for its employment model. The award recognised Hireup's redesign of its employment model, with eligible support workers having the option to be employed on a permanent basis while having choice and control in when they work and who they do work for.
But, even if we put to one side the pressure the system puts on workers, why should people receiving much-needed care under this new, evolving and impersonalised NDIS arrangement be subject to the whims of corporate cowboy app operators and the algorithms they worship? It is absolutely not reasonable that a person living with a disability receives care under the NDIS that is anything other than fulfilling, supportive and based on ongoing relationships with the caregiver, not a casual drop-in model where there could be a different person providing the care each time it's delivered—and this is what's happening right now across parts of the disability-care sector. Both workers and clients deserve respect.
Jordan O'Reilly, from Hireup, told the inquiry that the typical relationship through his firm was for nine months or longer and that a person is commonly engaging multiple times a week for many months at a time. But Hireup is the exception, not the rule. The Senate job security inquiry has clearly heard that the impact of gig work is different depending on whether transactional or more personal services are being delivered. It heard that the delivery of personal services is much more complex than a simple transactional approach that generally involves trust and a relationship between worker and client. But because the platforms-based provider model has flourished in the disability sector it has brought with it the greater likelihood of transactional, rather than personal, service delivery. It's easy to understand why this has happened. Platforms-based providers promoting a gig approach to disability care are rife, and the system encourages it. Here's what Lauren Hutchins, from the Health Services Union, said to the jobs security inquiry about it:
If you look at some of these platforms, they are a combination of Tinder and Uber. You put your profile out there and people with disabilities or their carers then make a decision based on the information that is provided. What you don't see is that these workers themselves often don't have access to workers compensation. They certainly don't have access to any form of leave and the arrangements in terms of their pay are often dodgy.
The Recruiting Consulting Staffing Association told the inquiry:
We're also somewhat concerned about the prevalence of these models in the health sector and especially in the disability care sector. We're very concerned that vulnerable clients, or representatives of disabled elderly clients, will not have the time to properly analyse or indeed understand that, when you source an individual through platforms as an independent contractor, you're not engaging somebody, even on a labour hire basis; you're simply being matched, introduced to them. We think that presents a large number of problems.
So there you go: even the employer organisation agrees that there's a huge red flag. People working in this sector want to give their all to the job. They do not deserve to be stymied by rip-off merchants. Natalie Lang from the Australian Services Union told the job security inquiry that the primary reason that workers come into the NDIS is because they believe in making a difference in the lives of people with disability. That's a good thing, but goodwill and commitment to people is not an excuse for exploitation, especially when you're talking about a $22 billion government funded scheme.
It's up to us to ensure that exploitation does not occur. The amendments in this bill are positive and the inquiry that prompted them was much needed. Tragic deaths like that of Adelaide woman Ann-Marie Smith must be avoided at all costs. The inquiry by former judge Alan Robertson found:
For each vulnerable NDIS participant, there should be a specific person with overall responsibility for that participant's safety and wellbeing …
That's what Mable doesn't provide. We don't yet have any guarantee about the change. The government's lack of consultation concerns me greatly. There wasn't even a formal response from the government to the Robertson review, which was triggered by Ann-Marie Smith's death. The Morrison government has failed to consult with people with disability on changes which directly impact their lives, and this bill is just the latest example. That's leaving aside the predatory effect of gig platform operators which are crowding out the space. In the process, they are creating the conditions for disaster for both NDIS workers and, just as importantly, the participants in the scheme. Those are the Australians to whom we owe the highest duty of care. It is our responsibility in this Senate to make sure that care is given by enacting legislation. It is also quite clear, if we want to make sure that we have a viable and ongoing system, that there need to be appropriate career paths, which Mable doesn't give but employee models do. Thank you.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (18:52): Let's be under no illusions why we are debating this legislation. It is a sad indictment on us all that we are usually only moved to strong action to improve care for vulnerable Australians when appalling cases of neglect or abuse are brought to light. Australia was shocked by the story of Ann-Marie Smith when it broke in April last year. She is one of about 34,000 Australians living with cerebral palsy, a permanent, lifelong physical disability caused by brain injury for which there is no known cure. Living with cerebral palsy is not easy. One in two people with the condition suffer chronic pain, one in two is intellectually impaired, one in three cannot walk, one in four cannot talk, one in five is tube fed, one in 10 has severe vision impairment and one in 25 has severe hearing impairment. Many people living with cerebral palsy need full-time care. As an NDIS patient, Ann-Marie Smith received funding for six hours a day of care. She was not in financial difficulty, like many other participants. She had a nice home in Adelaide's affluent eastern suburbs. Her neighbours saw little of her but noted her carer's vehicle always parked outside the home promptly at 9 am. They, understandably, assumed this vulnerable woman in their community was being cared for properly. The truth was horrifying. Ann-Marie Smith died in hospital from septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores and malnourishment. Police called it disgusting. It appeared Ann-Marie Smith had been confined to a cane chair for the last year of her life, living in squalor. Her carer has since been convicted of manslaughter.
Will any Australian, especially those with family members receiving NDIS support, ever be able to assume with confidence that vulnerable people needing care and support are actually getting it? I certainly won't be. Twenty years on from the kerosene bath scandal, it appears we have learnt very little about caring for vulnerable Australians. Ann-Marie Smith was failed by her carer, but, more importantly, she was failed by a system which did not independently verify she was receiving the care she needed. We must do all we can to prevent this from ever happening again.
This legislation is a step in the right direction and has One Nation's support. The bill aims to strengthen support and protections for people living with a disability. It seeks to achieve this by providing a clear legislative framework for powers exercised by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission in relation to at-risk participants in the scheme. The legislation also seeks improve outreach by the National Disability Insurance Agency and the commission to participants. It will cast a wider net to capture more reportable incidents. It seeks to ensure that the commission and the NDIA have clear authority to share protected information so as to better carry out their core functions. It will remove qualifiers like 'serious' and 'necessary' to ensure that any threat to the life, health or safety of a participant is sufficient grounds for recording, using or disclosing protected NDIA or commission information. It will clarify provisions for disclosing protected information, including making it clear that information published on the provider register is not protected and for purposes like screening workers or publishing historical compliance and enforcement action.
An important aim of the legislation, which has my full support, is the clarification and extension of the powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. It will empower the commissioner to place conditions on the approval of quality auditors and make it absolutely clear that the commissioner has the power to vary or revoke the approval of auditors. It will enable the commissioner's decision in this area to be reviewed. The legislation clarifies the commissioner's power to obtain information from other persons to ensure the integrity of the NDIS, specifically with respect to the present and past conduct of service providers and workers. It also clarifies that the commissioner can ban a person from providing NDIS services and support if they are not considered suitable. This is a critical part of the bill, which also includes a clear pathway for the review of decisions to ban a person, issue a compliance notice or revoke a provider's registration. It comes to late for Ann-Marie Smith, but I'm hopeful these strengthened powers will enable the commission to make sure that participants are being looked after properly and safely. I hope they will enable the commissioner to quickly detect when things are not right and to act swiftly and effectively to protect vulnerable Australians living with a disability. These safeguards must be robust. They must be an effective deterrent so as to ensure every single person providing support and services to disabled Australians under the NDIS is fully suitable and in strict compliance. Australians expect nothing less, and Australians living with a disability deserve nothing less.
One Nation will not be supporting amendments proposed by the Greens. We don't consider that there is a need to legislate a review of the framework, as this work is already being done and funds have already been allocated for it. We don't believe a sunset clause is appropriate, because it may risk these additional protections being dismantled. We don't support the playing around with the definitions of 'current', 'past' and 'future' threats to participants' safety. These amendments fail to meet the recommendations of the Robertson review. People who witness or become aware of noncompliance need to be confident they can make a prompt disclosure that will be investigated quickly or gather information that will help a participant avoid future threats to their safety. One Nation does not support the Greens' erroneous record-keeping requirements for people disclosing information. This would be a waste of resources and would leave the commission with limited time to carry out its important function of safeguarding NDIS participants. The proposal that disclosers must notify the person to whom the information relates creates the very real risk that critical information could be destroyed or hidden. There is no need for the Greens to put their personal stamp on this legislation. They should just let it through.
I remind senators that the NDIS was a necessary response to a situation where many disabled Australians were falling through the cracks. Operating properly, the NDIS should be able to look after the needs of generations of Australians. We need to ensure the NDIS is sustainable in the long term, but recent figures show that the costs of providing support and services to more than 466,000 participants are climbing fast. Total participation costs in the quarter to June this year were 33 per cent higher than for the same period last year. The projected total cost of the scheme is expected to rise from the current $25 billion per year to $40 billion in 2025, which is only four years away. And I must say that, in the next couple of years, the 466,000 participants in the NDIS will actually cost more than Medicare for the whole of Australia. We don't want participants receiving anything less than the care, support and services they need. However, One Nation is putting the government on notice—to address the rising costs of the NDIS, to ensure its sustainability.
Let me explain where some of the funding has gone, and you will be shocked and disgusted. There is no means test applied to receive NDIS funding, unlike every other taxpayer service, so a multimillionaire can receive NDIS. Of the 466,000 NDIS recipients, there are 450 people receiving $1 million each per annum, and 5,100 participants receiving over $500,000 per annum and less than $1 million per annum.
A barrister who lost his eyesight put in a claim to have his back deck extended to the river and a fence erected around his swimming pool. Thankfully, this has now been investigated. People buying homes that don't suit their needs apply for NDIS funding to add a room, an internal staircase or other improvements to their property, at the taxpayer's cost. A gentleman who made poor health choices lost his leg below the knee and now receives $190,000 a year. An obese woman with lipoedema received $653,000 for a six-month period. Some of these funds went towards a corporate box at the AFL grand final, $12,000 went on a week's holiday at a six-star penthouse on the Gold Coast, and she sent her sister $20,000 so she could return to Australia last year. In addition, her family were showered with expensive gifts, including a $300-plus bottle of whisky. In short, her funding only lasted three months before she applied for a review for more. Speech therapy for an adult with a mild speech impediment was funded at $40,000 a year. NDIS participants are also entitled to access the services of prostitutes, again paid for by the taxpayer. And that helping hand? It is costing millions. Oh, and there's more—but I think you have a good idea why I am furious.
I have been writing to the current and former ministers to rein in the blatant overfunding and poor policy attributed to Julia Gillard's Labor Party and supported by the states, who are somewhat reluctant to work with the ministers to rein in this spending. On the other hand, I am disgusted with the minister and the government for not backing my second reading motion, which states:
", and in view of the projected cost of the scheme, the Senate calls on the Government to do more to rein in costs so that the scheme is sustainable for those Australians who rely on its support to lead a reasonable quality of life"—
reasonable.
Also of concern are the wages paid to aged-care workers and nurses. A carer under the NDIS can be paid $90 to $100 an hour on a Sunday. Also, under the NDIS nationally, registered nurses can be paid more than $100 an hour on a weekday, which doubles if they're in a regional area and more if they're remote. Most nurses working in the public or private sector earn around $45 an hour on a weekday. These extraordinarily high wages lead to staff and skills shortages in the private and public sectors, taking away much-needed services from others not on NDIS. The wages, services and costings are excessive and unsustainable in the long term. It has become a milking cow for too many. The NDIS is top heavy, costing over $2 billion a year—and growing. That is just the administrative cost.
I am aware the minister's hands are tied by the states, so I am calling on Australians to register your concern and disgust. The NDIS will do no-one any good if it doesn't have a sustainable funding model and doesn't do what it can to rein in costs without compromising support and services. This must be a priority for the review work currently underway. The review must ensure the NDIS is meeting its original intention of helping people with a disability and helping only those who need it. One of the markers of an enlightened and compassionate society is how we treat the most vulnerable among us. Let's make sure the NDIS can deliver. As advised by a minister, if nothing changes in NDIS policy by the 2030s, it could cost $130 billion a year. I warn Australians: the NDIS in its present form has the capability of bankrupting our nation.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (19:04): I rise today to make some commentary, in addition to that from those senators who have preceded me, on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. I will just reflect on Senator Hanson's comments—I'm not sure if she's still listening in—about the need for an individual story to enliven our imagination about what the NDIS is and isn't delivering. The constant struggle for a party of government—such as the Labor Party and those in government currently, the Liberal-National Party coalition—is to make the system actually meet the reality of human beings. The power of story in enlivening the imagination of the nation is something that we really need to be mindful of, because systems should serve people, not force people to comply with them.
This particular bill is aimed at addressing several of the recommendations of the very important Robertson review into the heartbreaking death of Ann-Marie Smith, an Adelaide women. I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of my colleague from the great state of South Australia—not as great as New South Wales, of course—Senator Farrell. I'm sure that he is very much apprised of the kind of life that Ann-Marie Smith would have been living as an Adelaide woman who sadly, as all of Australia now knows, died a horrific death after being left in a cane chair for a whole year. She died in a state of complete and abject neglect. I really want to acknowledge the dedication of my colleague in the other place the Hon. Bill Shorten, former leader of the Labor Party, to unearthing this story and making sure it came to public attention in his active support for the NDIS, which accords so strongly with the Labor values of never leaving one of our fellow Australians behind and of lifting everybody up. That is where the heart of this piece of legislation comes from—the acknowledgement of that individual's sad passing and her demise at the hands of a system in Australia that should have enabled her to live a better life but ultimately took her life. Let me be clear: no-one should ever perish as Ann Marie Smith did. No-one should slip through the cracks of society like that and die alone in pain and squalor.
This bill before us attempts to rectify some of those issues, but, as many of my colleagues have already indicated, we believe this bill should go much further than it does in the protection of at-risk NDIS participants. As we have seen with this government, there'll be an announcement about support for reports, and then you have to look at the fine detail of what is really going on. This is yet another example of the song and dance from the Liberal-National Party government, who have now had three iterations over eight years. In 2013, they stood up and said, 'We support the NDIS,' but over the period of their government they have failed to enable proper governance of this important part of Australian society.
This bill, in response to the Robertson review, implements only recommendations 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the review. It's good that that is happening, but there are a few numbers missing in between. The recommendations that are being addressed in this bill are about ensuring that no-one ever suffers what Ann-Marie suffered and that all Australians, no matter how God created them, are able to live lives of dignity and safety, with the safety net that the NDIS is determined to provide.
The NDIS, I am proud to say, is one of Labor's greatest achievements, the crowning glory of the Gillard government. I recall, from my time as the member for Robertson in the other place, the celebration about what this potentially could deliver for people with a disability, who had for too long been sidelined and whose needs were ignored in this incredibly wealthy country that we call home.
The NDIS was slow to roll out but now services nearly 300,000 Australians. It helps them to live lives of fulfillment and dignity. But it needs reform. The sad reality is that the NDIS has been neglected and attacked by this Liberal-National government. They have inexplicably capped staff at the NDIA at 3,000 people. They also tried to cut $2 billion from the budget in 2016. Most recently they tried to ram through a process called 'independent assessments', which sounds innocuous enough when you look at it from a system point of view, but it was explicitly designed to cut costs via the method of cutting services to NDIS participants. Instead of establishing what the needs of an individual person are, which is at the heart of the NDIS, this was about saying, 'Give them all the same package and then just add a bit here and take it a bit there.' That is fundamentally flawed. People with disability are as unique and individual and have as varied needs as every person without a disability. There's no formula that you can ethically apply to the uniqueness of an individual person, and that is the genius of what's at the heart of the NDIS.
What the government were trying to do in that most recent attack was prop up the budget to help themselves get some sort of slogan for an election to keep themselves elected. But they were doing it by robodebting Australians who have a disability. It says everything about what's wrong with this government and its priorities and the people who they deem worthy of service and those who they deem should just take their turn and get what they're given graciously, even if that's way below what they need to survive.
I say to those listening to this debate this evening that the NDIS is not, and should not be, a political football. It can't be conceived of as a bank of savings that you make cuts to. This is about people, often with a degree of advocacy that might be contained because of their particular disabilities. The services of the NDIS are vital to the lifestyles and the dignity of all of its participants. We don't need, as in the words of the current minister, to get rid of natural empathy in the system. Minister Reynolds actually said that—'We need to get rid of natural empathy'—as if to care for a fellow human being is a flaw. Are we so incapable of designing a system that enables the proper care of people with disability that we've got to get rid of our empathy? That is absolutely, profoundly misguided. We need more empathy for one another. We certainly should expect more empathy from this government, more support and more services delivered efficiently, effectively, justly and with kindness to the people of Australia.
The bill addresses several of the recommendations of the Robertson review. It legislates a better exchange of information between the National Disability Insurance Agency and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, covering recommendations 1, 5, 7 and 9, as well as the disclosure of information to relevant state and territory bodies, which is recommendation 8. However, I do note that it was drafted without sufficient consultation with the sector or persons with disabilities. I mean, what would they know about what they need! A person with a disability surely is an expert in their own experience? Yet this government saw fit to proceed without proper consultation.
Let's be clear about what the NDIS was conceived as and against which standard it must always be considered: it's person centric in its approach, not system centric. I urge the government to conduct a more fulsome consultation on all future legislation in this space. This continuous failure to consult people with disability is glaring. I urge the government to engage with the sector and advocates in an empowering way to hear the voices of their knowledge, insight and wisdom rather than in a paternalistic way that serves the system over the people it's meant to serve. More specifically, the bill also clarifies the scope of reportable incidents and strengthens banning orders to ensure that those who have shown themselves unfit for the care of NDIS participants can never work in the sector again, and that means proper investment in record keeping and seamless coordination across the federation.
What this bill doesn't address is recommendation 2, and that's that vulnerable NDIS participants should have multiple carers so that the lives of these at-risk Australians are not held in one person's hand. That is not to indicate that there should be so many carers that no-one takes responsibility, which is sadly what can happen when you have a race to the bottom and you are just providing people with insecure work and they just shift around from place to place as the cheapest provider gets the job. We cannot descend into that, but there must be sufficient scrutiny provided by a range of carers to ensure people's health and wellbeing is at the core of anything that goes on and that they are properly cared for.
This bill also doesn't address Robertson's recommendation 3, and that was that vulnerable NDIS participants should have a specific person with overall responsibility for that participant's safety and wellbeing. Well, that's just commonsense. We all have somebody that we sign up as the person to be contacted if we are ever in an incident—the alarm on your phone, the indication that this is the person you should talk to: 'If there's anything wrong with me, you should check with this person.' It's just standard operating business for us. It should be happening for people with disabilities, but this government couldn't even be bothered to put that in the legislation. It's clear to me that an individual should be clearly identified by name and ideally introduced in person to the vulnerable NDIS participant and provide them with the care that they need. But, for whatever reason this government, which has so failed participants in our society who need the support of the NDIS, has deemed this important recommendation not worthy of their action.
Other recommendations that are ignored include recommendation 4, which suggests that a national commission creates an equivalent to state and territory based community visitor schemes to provide an individual face-to-face contact with vulnerable NDIS participants. And, aside from protecting the participants, this will give them regular socialisation and friendly faces. I'm sure it will do wonders for the participants' mental health, whether they're the receivers or the givers. In the end, what happens in relationships is we forget who is receiving and who is giving. That is really acknowledging the genuine equality of every human person and that disability is just another form of difference that we seek to embrace rather than position as something that sits outside our society, that's a burden rather than a natural part of the diversity of life that comes into being here on this great planet that we live on.
Recommendation 5 also urges the commission to conduct random check-ins and face-to-face assessments of vulnerable participants. That's just commonsense, but not to this government that chose to ignore it.
In light of sector criticism regarding the privacy provisions of the bill, Labor will move amendments to legislate a requirement for the commission to establish a process for the disclosure of information, as outlined by AFDO, and a sunset clause that treats the bill as an emergency measure by providing that amendments cease to take effect unless the government actually reports back to parliament after the conclusion of the safeguarding review in order to have the amendments re-approved by the parliament. This is like a brake and a check on a government.
If the government is really serious about protecting the lives and privacy rights of NDIS participants, then I urge them to support the amendments. Labor understands the genuine concerns of the sector and that their sensible recommendations should not go unheard. Labor is standing for this sector and for people ignored by this government.
In closing, I just want to acknowledge the amazing work of Save Our Sons, who are powerful advocates for young boys, in particular, who suffer the Duchenne muscular dystrophy disorder. I want to acknowledge the leadership in New South Wales of Graeme Kelly OAM, the president of the USU, who has adopted Save Our Sons as the charity that the union supports. I met young mums who had three little boys under the age of five, the first diagnosed at the age of five and the following two siblings also diagnosed with Duchenne. These are the families who need an NDIS to support them, and they deserve better than this bill.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Walsh): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Returned and Services League of Australia
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (19:20): I rise to draw attention to the great work of the Returned and Services League of Australia, the RSL, and in particular to recognise the sub-branches spread across my home state of Western Australia. The RSL was founded by returned soldiers in 1916 to address the lack of organised repatriation facilities and medical services available to those returning from the Great War.
World War I was badly felt in my home state of Western Australia. Thirty-two thousand men were sent into battle, approximately 33 per cent of WA's male population aged between 18 and 41. Seven thousand of them did not return. The impact of these losses on the state's small population at the time was absolutely devastating. But the suffering didn't end there, with those who survived often receiving poor treatment upon return to Australia. Of course, we know the history well. The RSL stepped up where governments and others had failed our returned servicemen. They helped provide care to those carrying the physical and mental scars of war. RSLs also provided much needed assistance to affected families. Their clubs served as a place of remembrance and support, and they continue to look after veterans and their families to this very day.
One very active sub-branch in my home state of Western Australia is no exception to this proud heritage. The Highgate RSL branch is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. While officially founded in 1947, I understand Highgate RSL has direct descendants all the way back to July 1921. In fact, the West Perth sub-branch, which later amalgamated with Highgate, was responsible for maintaining the first 404 memorial plaques dedicated to fallen soldiers in Kings Park in 1919. A remarkable 19 Highgate sub-branch members have been wardens of our state memorial at Kings Park and many others have served on the RSL WA state executive. It's an impressive legacy for members to reflect on during this year's centenary celebrations. I rise this evening to sincerely thank them and the families that support them for extending to our community such tremendous care, gratitude and concern.
I was delighted to accept an invitation to participant at a very significant event on 10 September. Unfortunately, home quarantine arrangements following my return from parliament in Canberra have made this impossible. Although I had been optimistic about attending their upcoming Remembrance Day event, home quarantine requirements again following this current setting will mean that this is highly unlikely. That is why I am glad to at least be able to make these brief acknowledgements here tonight in the Senate chamber and to say that I hope I will be with them in person before too long. To the RSL Highgate and its many members past, present and future and all RSL sub-branches throughout Western Australia I extend my gratitude. I say thank you for all you do and for the service you provide to the community in Western Australia.
McCulloch, Ms Deborah
Coutts, Professor Reginald
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (19:23): Sadly, I rise tonight to speak following the passing of two eminent South Australians: Deborah McCulloch and Reg Coutts. I will speak about each of these remarkable individuals in turn, but at the outset I extend my condolences to both of their families and friends.
It was with a heavy heart that I received the news from Jozefa Sobski, the national convenor of the Women's Electoral Lobby, that Deborah McCulloch passed away a few days ago. Jozefa wrote that Deborah was part of the first meeting of WEL in my home state of South Australia in July 1972. Deborah was a feminist and a leader in the women's liberation movement. She wanted to do something useful instead of 'going around defining the problem yet again'. She knew that creating influence was at the heart of making change, and, while she went on to hold positions of authority in South Australia, she really made a lasting impression in all that she did. Deborah began her working life as an English teacher before becoming a lecturer at the then Salisbury College of Advanced Education, now part of the University of South Australia. As an English teacher, she had a profound impact on many young South Australians. My dear friend Steph Key, who came to work with Deborah—and, indeed, represented Deborah as her state MP—tells me she has met literally hundreds of women who volunteered to her that Deborah was a major influence in their lives.
As a teacher 60-odd years ago, Deborah put lessons of literature into social context, inspiring her students to care about politics and the world; and she kept track of their progress as they made their way in the world. And her students were delighted by her. From the rebellious black stockings she wore at a time when beige was the only accepted covering, to the thoroughly marked essays replete with thoughtful feedback and splattered with red wine, it wasn't just that she was bold, which she was, she also took an interest in her students. She encouraged young people to find their talents and figure out how to use them to realise their passions.
Deborah's career took a dramatic turn when she was appointed women's adviser to the Premier of South Australia, Don Dunstan, in May 1976. Given a brief to eliminate sexism in the South Australian Public Service—hardly a small task—she quickly realised this would require a major structural, cultural and systemic revolution and was, therefore, unlikely to happen quickly. She focused on establishing what she called 'alternative services run by women for women'—and they were innovations at the time. And during her period as women's adviser, from 1976 to 1979, the women's information service was established, followed by the working women's centre and the rape crisis centre—and these services led to others, like women's health centres. She helped establish the women's shelter movement in South Australia. She was always a collectivist and always shared the credit among her fellow activists—mostly women but, as she said, also some good men.
At the time she was helping build this infrastructure in the community, Premier Dunstan was introducing the first antidiscrimination legislation in Australia, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and Deborah was appointed to the sex discrimination tribunal, a post she held until 1982. She left the Public Service to become—in what Jozefa assures me are Deborah's words—'a lesbian hippie'. But this didn't mean she ended her contribution. Rather, she took on numerous roles—in violence intervention, in women's health and in disability information and resources. She was active on the executive of the Women's Electoral Lobby South Australia from 1992 to 1999. She also served as a member of the Australian Native Title and Reconciliation Committee from 1991 to 1999 and as a member of Reconciliation South Australia from 1998 to 2004. She was also a client representative of the South Australian Legal Services Commission from 1993 to 2006.
Feminism was Deborah's most significant influence. However, she recognised the breadth of commitment to change that equality demands, working in her later life with Indigenous women and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. She was awarded an honorary doctorate by Flinders University in 1994, and in June 2005 became a Member of the Order of Australia for services to the community as a proponent of equal opportunities for women, Indigenous Australians and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds—well deserved. I join with the Women's Electoral Lobby and with women across South Australia to pay tribute to Deborah McCulloch's contribution to our community and to feminism. I extend my condolences to her son, David, her daughter, Ella, and all of her close friends.
It was with great sadness that I contributed a message at the memorial service of Professor Reg Coutts last month. Reg was a Labor man—a true believer who dedicated much of his life to the Labor cause. He worked tirelessly for a fairer and more caring society. He believed that, if you want change, you have to stand up and fight, and he did just that when he took up the challenge of representing Labor in the 2018 Mayo by-election. It's not an easy electorate to cover—especially in the short time available in a by-election—stretching from the edge of the Barossa Valley, across the Mount Lofty Ranges, to the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. That Reg took on this ambitious challenge when his party called is a demonstration of his commitment to the Labor project.
It was through this work as a candidate that I came to know him personally and to understand the depth of his dedication to the Labor values of fairness and care for others as well as to nation-building and good public policy. Within the Mayo FEC, and the Heysen and Kavel sub-branches in the Adelaide Hills, in particular, Reg was regarded as an intellectual leader. As one member reflected, 'Reg had a big brain and a big heart.' He helped with galvanising a small group of members who felt their local party meetings needed more energy and leadership, and the consequence is that Labor membership in this area is thriving, with a dedicated group of true believers eager to come together and share the Labor message in their local communities. They will continue to carry the torch that Reg helped to light with his policy and political capacity.
Before relocating to South Australia with his family in 1993 to take up a professorship at the University of Adelaide, Reg and his wife, Pam, were active Labor members in the Victorian branch. Through the 1980s and 1990s they came to know such luminaries as Robert Ray, Race Mathews, Joan Child and Simon Crean. Reg was also a Labor councillor for Oakleigh, in the City of Monash local government area.
In his professional life, Reg was an expert in the fields of commercial radio technologies and telecommunications. He was involved in helping envisage the original National Broadband Network, the NBN, and in 2007 the then communications minister, Stephen Conroy, appointed Reg to the Rudd Labor government six-member expert NBN panel. That appointment was for professional reasons; nevertheless, Reg enjoyed his engagement with Minister Conroy. However, following the election of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government in 2013, he noted, along with many of his fellow Australians, 'It's with a sad heart that I've watched this dream turn to disappointment through the implementation of a revised, second-rate system.' Those opposite have much to answer for in their squandering of this significant opportunity for lasting national infrastructure investment. Reg Coutts was also a member of the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
Reg was a truly remarkable person. He cared deeply about his family, his community and his fellow Australians. He lived his life pursuing the great Australian and Labor vision of a fair go for all. Reg Coutts will be greatly missed by the Labor family and all those who loved him and admired him. I again offer my sincere condolences to Pam, Louise and all of their family for the loss of Reg. I thank the Senate.
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (19:33): It's true: a day can be a long time in politics. Friday 1 October was a long day for the then Premier Gladys Berejiklian, who resigned from her position as the first woman ever elected Premier of New South Wales when it was revealed that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption would investigate her. We've had similar days before in New South Wales politics. Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell resigned a day after giving evidence to ICAC in April 2014 about that bottle of Grange. Almost 30 years ago, ICAC's concerns over the then Liberal Premier Nick Greiner's appointment of a former education minister to a new public service post led to his resignation.
The Labor Party doesn't have clean hands, either. Disgraced former ministers Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald were recently found guilty of corruption over the allocation of coal licences. Previously, New South Wales Labor ministers Tony Kelly, Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid had engaged in serious corrupt conduct and were found by the ICAC to have misused their positions as MPs.
Politicians come and go, yet this disgraceful, corrupt behaviour goes on right under our noses In my first year in the New South Wales parliament a staggering 10 state Liberal MPs resigned from the party or from their positions under the shadow of corruption. I was pretty shattered by these revelations, especially since one of the reasons I had left Pakistan was the political corruption that had set in over there. I was hoping for things to be different in Australia. Now I know that power corrupts no matter where you are.
New South Wales politics is notoriously well known for its fair share of corruption scandals and dirty deals. It seems the culture of corruption is embedded within the politics of my state, but corruption is not confined within the borders of New South Wales. The longer I spend in politics, the more I see the omnipresence of corruption. Even worse, it is denied, covered up and even defended. Some of the outright corruption is largely legal. The very concept of political donations is about buying influence, which ultimately results in the abuse of taxpayer money. Donations to the Liberals, Nationals and Labor from the horse-betting companies allowed the cruelty of horseracing to continue in COVID-19, even when everything else was locked down. Donations from the fossil fuel lobby to the major parties have made them so beholden to the lobby that, embarrassingly, now Australia has been ranked dead last out of 193 companies for lack of action on climate. Then there is the major parties' use of public money to shore up their chances of winning elections. We are all familiar with the sports rorts, the car park rorts and the regional grants rorts. Immoral and corrupt pork-barrelling goes on with little recrimination for governments. Even under intense public pressure, Prime Minister Morrison is not willing to set up a proper federal ICAC. When ministers leave parliament they often swing straight into lucrative positions in companies they once regulated, or they swing right back into politics as lobbyists and are paid obscene amounts of money by corporations to influence decisions using their well-established political networks. I remain astounded by the depth and breadth of this corruption. It is so normalised that it goes on right under our noses. If it ever gets brought to light then there have been occasional repercussions—resignations and even jail for some—but so much of it is sanctioned by our lax laws and the well-established web of privileged connections that no-one is held accountable.
It's no wonder that public trust in politics and politicians is so low. It's our job to re-establish that trust. An independent corruption watchdog with teeth at the federal level, like the one in New South Wales, will be a big step towards this, but there is much more to do. Let's ban dirty donations from industries like gambling, fossil fuels, alcohol and tobacco. Let's stop the revolving door between politics and industry lobbyists. To rebuild trust we need to overhaul the corrupt political system, but we also need to change the faces within the system so it actually reflects the lived experiences and the diversity of the Australia that lives and breathes in our streets and suburbs, not a whitewashed version of it.
Energy
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:38): If you want net zero emissions by 2050, build the Tully-Millstream hydro-electric scheme and build it now. Today, I am joining Counsellor Andrew Cripps and my colleague Senator Canavan and, I presume, Senator McDonald and anyone else in Queensland, especially those who understand regional Queensland has long wanted action on the Tully-Millstream hydro-electric scheme.
Despite technical studies and consideration in the 1980s, it is now time for the Liberal-National government to re-evaluate the project in light of changing demand in our national energy, water and economic security. If we are to adopt net zero emissions by 2050, than the Tully-Millstream hydro-electric scheme must be part of the Prime Minister's plan. To many North Queenslanders the project stacks up. The original proposal involved the construction of two weirs, two dams, and a pumping station. It was originally estimated to have a maximum capacity of 600 megawatts. However, in light of this government's Snowy Hydro scheme, there is much more to be explored in enhancing its generation capacity. So Tully-Millstream must be built as part of the plan towards 2050.
The Tully-Millstream hydroelectric scheme, as previously proposed, included creek diversions from the Tully and Herbert River basins into dams. The proposal utilises underground tunnels devised to minimise environmental and agricultural disruption and to transfer the water to the eastern side of the range, where the electricity generation will occur. The 600-megawatt station has been proposed to be constructed underground between the Koombooloomba Dam and the Tully River. The proposed station would provide significant benefits to the local region.
So I am renewing this call on behalf of many Far North Queenslanders and other Queenslanders who have strongly campaigned for this project for decades. I really want to call out Councillor Andrew Cripps, Tully born and bred, who was campaigning for the Tully-Millstream hydroelectric scheme long before anyone thought about zero emissions. As our economy continues to recover from COVID, it is time for us to have a serious look at the feasibility of nation-building projects like the Tully-Millstream hydroelectric scheme.
As it stands, there are clear reasons why the project stacks up. The reliability of rainfall in the Tully region and the elevation of the proposed site combine to provide a sound technical proposition for a hydroelectricity project. In a changing energy market, as our nation moves towards 2050 through technology, not taxes, it is crucial that we focus on adding greater diversity and reliable baseload options into the energy grid. The Tully-Millstream hydroelectric scheme provides viable renewable energy solutions to Far North Queensland that will reassure the supply into the national energy grid.
Finally, this is one of the many nation-building projects that we need to invest in to kickstart our economic recovery and ensure water and energy security. Not only will the construction of the project create jobs in northern Australia, but the operation of a hydropower station will create permanent local jobs, opportunities and investment in the region and across Queensland. If anything, while there is strong justification for another feasibility study, it's time to get building. If you want net zero emissions by 2050, build the Tully-Millstream hydroelectric scheme and build it now.
South Australia: Water
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (19:42): I rise tonight to speak on an issue of significant importance to the people and industries of the Lower Eyre Peninsula, particularly a number of businesses around Boston and Proper Bay in Port Lincoln. I was there last week. I was taken out to Proper Bay to have a look at a site that was being considered for the installation of a desal plant to provide water to the Lower Eyre Peninsula.
Back in 2008, a draft plan looking at the Eyre Peninsula's water problems was released by the then state Minister for Water Security, Karlene Maywald, and it was foreshadowed that a desal plant was to become part of the solution. To be clear, that was almost a decade and a half ago, and little has happened since that time. A couple of years ago, state government approval was given to spend about $100 million to move ahead with the desal plant, and I'll come back to that.
I recently made an FOI request for a report that was prepared, looking at the need for reductions in groundwater pumping in the Uley South Basin, which has been the predominant water source for Port Lincoln. The problem is that there has been too much extraction of the water. Somewhere between 3,000 and 6,000 million litres per annum has been extracted, rising up to 7,000 million litres per annum in the early 2000s, and it turns out it's just not sustainable. Groundwater levels have declined, and the report makes it clear that we need to get a solution sometime in the next three years. We need to build a desal plant.
This year, in April, SA Water started consultation in respect of some options. They had several sites that were being assessed, and some science commenced. But, funnily enough, after last week's examination, supported by a number of businesses—a number of boat operators, tourism operators, the mussel industry, the kingfish industry, the tuna industry—SA Water quickly announced they are moving to Proper Bay as the site. In the face of mounting public pressure and significant resistance, instead of continuing with their consultation, they've simply announced that is the site.
I also have an FOI in place—I am still awaiting the return of it—to have a look at a multicriteria analysis to see and to put face up on the table all the other possible sites. It's unforgiveable that we see the government, in the face of some resistance, racing off down a particular path—noting the trail of incompetence that got us to the point where, since 2008, nothing has really been done and now there is an urgency about finding a solution. I don't know whether the CEO of SA Water, David Ryan, is out on his own here and needs to be reined in by the Premier, but you simply can't do this. When I get the multicriteria analysis, we'll be able to see what the other options are and continue the debate, because it's not over. Premier Marshall needs to rein in what is going on there.
I go back to Thomas Playford and what he did for South Australia. In the last two years, Marshall has been given credit for his management of COVID in South Australia. In actual fact, the management has been good, but there is a difference between 'management' and 'leadership'. Premier Marshall needs to start standing up for people in South Australia and dealing with infrastructure issues and making the necessary commitment. To the incoming candidate for Flinders, Sam Telfer: you need to start standing up for the people of Port Lincoln or you will not be in the South Australian parliament after the election.
Beef Industry
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (19:47): I rise tonight to pay tribute to two Australian pioneers in Blair and Josie Angus. Blair and Josie Angus are graziers who run a family business in North Queensland. They graze right across North Queensland and sell to 14 different countries with their Signature Beef brand. I was fortunate enough to visit one of their properties a few weeks ago, Sondella station, where they are building the first meatworks to be built in Queensland for 20 years. It was an extremely exciting day to join 50 or so other proud North Queenslanders, many of them graziers themselves, to inspect the new meatworks at this once-in-a-generation opening. The meatworks looked fantastic—they always do when there are no cattle in them. It's a few weeks away from being opened, but it is going to be a world-class facility.
Blair and Josie Angus were already leaders in the beef industry. Blair Angus had headed up Beef Australia, which runs the world's best Beef Week expo in Rockhampton. He did that for two terms. He and his wife, Josie, have been innovative in the beef sector and developing new products under their own brand, Signature Beef. Blair and Josie Angus will now go down in history as heroes of the Australian grazing industry, alongside those storied names of John Macarthur, Sidney Kidman and dare I say the Brockman family over there in the west, Mr President—congratulations on your elevation too! And now there are Blair and Josie Angus from North Queensland.
This facility is a once-in-a-generation investment. It is a $37 million project, and I am proud to have played a small role, as part of this Liberal-National government that has prioritised the development of our nation. This government established the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which is there to help bring on new investments, especially in northern Australia, as this project is. A few years ago, Blair and Josie Angus approached the NAIF and approached me, as the then responsible minister, with this idea, this project. It did take a few years. There were a few hiccups and hurdles along the way, a bit of pushing and prodding, I recognise, but I do recognise the hard work of the men and women of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to help bring this online with a $24 million loan. As Blair and Josie said the other week, this couldn't have happened without the NAIF. Blair and Josie Angus have been supported by another Australian bank, which I appreciate as well, but the NAIF did provide this cornerstone investment to help bring it on.
There have been 200 jobs created in construction. As I said, the facility is almost complete. Once it's operational, 70 to 80 people will have jobs in this facility just north of Moranbah in North Queensland. It's fantastic news for our region. The jobs are welcome. The extra economic activity beyond just agriculture and mining is especially welcome. This is a manufacturing facility, bringing a value-added industry to the region. Most importantly of all, the opportunities that this facility will provide for graziers, for family farmers, right across North Queensland are really welcome.
We are blessed in North Queensland to have a number of meatworks. I say this without any disrespect to the large multinational companies that run those networks—they play a role in our market; they offer a good opportunity for many graziers—but it is important, I think, that there is an opportunity for those graziers that want to market their own products and have a supply chain solution from farm to plate to have that opportunity to run their own business and stand behind their own product. They don't get that opportunity through the large multinational owned meatworks. If they send a beast to those meatworks, what comes out the other end is not a product that they own, not a product that they can sell. It goes off, of course, to JBS or Teys as their product.
Blair and Josie Angus have been doing this themselves, but they've had to send their cattle all the way from North Queensland to Casino to make these so-called service kills.
Senator Davey interjecting—
Senator CANAVAN: There's nothing wrong with Casino, Senator Davey, but it is a long way from North Queensland, and that's a fair cost for anybody wanting to do that. Now there will be a facility here in North Queensland that will offer processing not just for the Angus family but for other families across North Queensland to develop their own brands and sell the great Australian beef we enjoy right around the world. This is a pioneering project that will open up North Queensland. I pay tribute to the Angus family and everyone else involved in bringing on this wonderful project for North Queensland.
Retail Workers
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:52): Mr President, I also place on the record my congratulations to you. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made abundantly clear, there are some workers in this country whose contribution to our communities is such that they deserve particular recognition. But one category of worker whose value to our community the pandemic has highlighted so well is that of shop assistants—the retail workers who, at great risk to their own personal health, have stacked the shelves and stood at the checkouts, diligently ensuring Australians have access to the food and other necessities of daily life their families require. Yet, despite the important role these workers have played, they continue to remain structurally undervalued in our economy. They continue to remain among the lowest paid, besieged, with increasingly insecure work. Putting aside the impact this has on the workers themselves, it also has a profound effect on those in their lives in need of care.
Last week the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association launched a report entitled Who cares? A fair share of work and care: challenges of work, family and care for Australia's retail, online retail, warehousing and fast food workers. The SDA, in partnership with the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, commissioned a first-ever study into the challenges workers in retail face. It paints a dire picture of daily life for the country's largest private sector employer. The study demonstrates the overwhelming emotional and financial stress that these workers face as they struggle with precarious hours, being unable to find suitable child care and dealing with retribution for simply asking for shifts that fit in with their responsibilities. Almost 6½ thousand workers responded to the survey, with the results exposing the immense pressure of grappling with irregular work and concern their hours are negatively affecting their children's lives. It found that compared to the general population these workers are more than twice as likely to be caring for an older person or a person with a disability, to be the parent of a child with a disability and almost three times as likely to be a young carer. A quarter of them are sole parents. For workers like these, being able to rely on consistent well-paid work makes all the difference in getting the balance right in their families. Yet 60 per cent reported that they don't work the same shifts each week, illustrating the practical impact this has. One respondent, a woman who cares for her elderly mother and works permanently part-time, said: 'If my hours were consistent, I could plan doctors' appointments for my mother. As they change so often, it's very hard to plan for outside your work life.'
For parents, their ability to rely on child care to support their work is minimal, with most avoiding formal paid child care owing to the high cost and lack of access for those working nonstandard hours. One was quoted as saying, 'Child care caters for the parents working nine to five, not the single parent that works in retail until 10 pm.' Another said: 'Is this the way that we want to be able to treat those who have supported us so diligently throughout this pandemic? Is this any way to treat any worker in our economy at all?'
What the study clearly shows is that our country and our industrial relation systems in this country are failing these workers. The structural elements of our economy and insecure working arrangements are preventing workers from providing the care and support that the children in their lives, the elderly and the disabled should receive. It's not good enough, and it shouldn't be accepted. I commend the SDA for bringing these conditions to light and implore us all in this place to take up this task and right this wrong.
Corporate Governance
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (19:56): This is yet another speech I need to make on franchising. I speak on an abuse of corporate power by an overseas car manufacturer Mercedes Benz to squeeze their Australian Mercedes Benz car dealer network dry. This attack on Australian businesses and the workers in Mercedes Benz dealerships, and the apprentices and trainees who work there, cannot go unaddressed. The government says it supports business. Well, now is the time to act to protect Australians from attack by a big overseas corporate.
Mercedes Benz has forced its dealers under protest to sign up to a new agency model without adequate consultation. Almost every dealer sent a letter to Mercedes Benz, following that moment of signing, outlining their strong concerns with the proposed model and recording that they were signing under duress. There's no talk from Mercedes Benz of compensation for lost revenue under the new structure and no contrition for the strong-arming of decent Australian businesses. What we're seeing is just another example of a powerful corporation forcing its will and its lust for profits over jobs on its own franchisees.
Mercedes Benz has not provided any written indication they will continue agreements with any of their dealers beyond a four-year contract, leaving dealers on tenterhooks for who knows how long. Mercedes Benz have completely ignored the spirit of the Senate inquiry into the relationship between car manufacturers and car dealers in Australia. Rather than take heed of the report that spoke to the constant abuse of the trust and the power that OEMs have, Mercedes Benz have instead tried to usher in a new era of exploitative practice, thumbing their nose at the government and our Australian law.
The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, which is the voice of Mercedes Benz OEM in Australia and other big overseas car manufacturers, claim that basic regulation of the industry would come at a cost to the consumers, but that simply isn't true. In fact, the lack of adequate regulation has been revealed by Honda's experience in Australia in the last year. Like Mercedes Benz, Honda forced its dealers into an agency model, and sales have dived as the Honda OEM cut out available models, points of access to service have decreased and, instead of diving, prices have actually increased.
Let's be clear about who's in this high-stakes game. The FCAI is just supporting more offshore profits, fewer jobs and less apprenticeship opportunities for Australia. Mercedes Benz is not acting in good faith as a good corporate citizen; it's piggybacking on the goodwill and the hard work of these car dealers, who have invested significant capital, energy and time into building their customer bases and relationships. They're really seeking to steal that data for their own profit.
It's no wonder that the dealer networks are now forming a legal action against Mercedes Benz. Eighty per cent of the Mercedes Benz dealers have filed a $650 million lawsuit to seek justice from Mercedes. This is a seminal moment in the history of franchising in the country. It's a battle to decide if a foreign OEM will force a model on the franchisees that will see Australians pay more for cars, have less competition and remove the ability to shop around. I urge Mercedes Benz to return to the negotiating table in good faith and consult with its franchisees and do a decent deal.
Senate adjourned at 20:00