The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Membership
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:01): A point of order on item No. 4, President. I want to seek your advice and some clarity on advice around when we might expect advice from the opposition in terms of their committee membership. I make this point simply because committees are not able to meet or elect chairs or deputy chairs until we've received the committee membership from those opposite.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ciccone, that isn't a point of order. I'm in the hands of the chamber as to when those committees are finalised.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Victoria
The PRESIDENT (10:02): As Senator Thorpe was absent from the Senate on 26 July 2022, I will now administer the affirmation of allegiance, as required by section 42 of the Constitution. Senator Thorpe, please come to the table to make and subscribe the affirmation of allegiance.
Senators Sworn
The Clerk: Senator Thorpe, please recite the affirmation on the card handed to you.
Senator THORPE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:03): I, Lidia Thorpe, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and I bear true allegiance to the colonising Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESID ENT: I'm going to wait for quiet. Senator Thorpe, you are required to recite the oath as printed on the card. Please recite the oath.
Senator Lidia Thorpe made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (10:05): This is a very important debate. I'm sure many in the chamber would agree that, at a time like this, in the context that we are facing—as part of a global economy and as a nation that's struggling with a number of economic issues, amongst others—it's important that we provide certainty to all parts of our community and all parts of our economy. And we need to make sure that those that generate economic activity—the small and medium businesses out there and the hundreds of thousands of people that work in those businesses—have that certainty as well.
Looking at the uncertainty we face at the moment, it is important to take stock of the context in which this private senator's bill is being debated. Just in doing that, I want to pay tribute to Senator Bridget McKenzie, who introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill in the last parliament—at a time when things were slightly different, though not incredibly different—and to the work that she's put in to drafting this bill and bringing it forward, again, in the 47th Parliament.
Here, in Australia, we're facing a great many domestic economic pressures—matters for which there is no handbook to just pull off the shelf and provide a response for government in dealing with these issues—but there is one tried and true thing that a government can adopt, and that is the matter of certainty. Look at inflation, where that's predicted to go and the impact that that's going to have on the cost of living and on all other segments of the economy; power prices, even in my home state of Tasmania, where they're going up by 12 per cent, something that is going to hit small businesses and households alike; the cost of food and of fuel; and, of course, mortgage interest rates, going in the direction that they are. All of these things are generating incredibly uncertain times, and it's something for which that we, as legislators, need to look at every tool we possibly can. The government needs to look at every tool it has at its disposal as a Commonwealth government, along with the state and territory governments, to provide certainty as one measure in responding to these times of uncertainty.
As we emerge, and continue to emerge, from COVID, where the world was an unpredictable place, we have seen an incredible pattern of behaviours and an incredible pattern of different economic indicators. Who could have predicted, through COVID, that we would have seen the growth in the housing and construction sector that we did for that time, thanks to stimulating measures on the part of many state and territory governments and, indeed, the last federal government, with its HomeBuilder program? But there is one thing that Australian businesses and households are looking for, and that is, of course, certainty. That's the one thing they're asking for—it's the one they're calling for—and this bill provides a pathway for one such example.
I think we can all acknowledge that forestry is an industry that, for time immemorial, has been kicked about by emotive arguments and often ones that lack scientific basis. That has resulted in a downscaling of the industry, in job losses and in a reduction of economic activity, particularly in regional communities. It also, of course, means that there's less of the resource available to our country—and I've already touched on the increased demand for the resource—particularly at a time when we need it. I might also point out that the resource, given the way we do forestry in this country, is a renewable resource. On top of that, given, by and large, the good track record that the forestry industry has—of course, with exception, and I think we all need to acknowledge that—and its good conservation outcomes, it's something we need to pay tribute to. This industry relies on the environment it operates in to continue to operate. They are good custodians of the forests and the land on which they work. They do it based on science. They do it based on world's best practice.
On that claim, I also make another claim: we do it better than anywhere else in the world. I'm yet to hear examples of another jurisdiction that does forestry, both native and plantation, to the same standard that we do here in Australia. Be it the regulation that is imposed on this industry at a state or territory level or, indeed, the RFAs, they do lead to positive outcomes that are of benefit to our nation and the people who live and work here. There are economic benefits, which I've already talked about, and I think they're pretty obvious for anyone who's listening. Of course, there are the environmental benefits that I talked about before. There is reforestation, which is part of our forestry management regime. We don't just go out, clear-fell and leave the land denuded; we actually seek to reforest so that we have continuing and sustained availability of resource.
Investments in innovation are central to ensuring that we have a strong and vibrant forestry future. Getting more products out of less resource is critically important to having less waste at the end of the production cycle. Of course, the science that goes into that innovation is centrally important. At the last election, both major parties committed over $100 million to science, innovation and research through the NIFPI, as it's called, and that will feed further into better outcomes. Of course, the forestry industry plays a huge part in the carbon outcome of this country, the capacity for our productive forests to sequester carbon and do a great deal of heavy lifting when it comes to our carbon abatement, the job that we have as a nation to fulfil our responsibilities. Indeed, the proud, hardworking men and women who work in this sector as well, who get besmirched every other day of the week by those who just seek to take this industry down—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator DUNIAM: It might be a good opportunity for my colleagues down the end there to not rile me up, and I'll keep it pretty tame too.
Given all of this, it does beg the questions: why wouldn't we back the industry? Of course, if you don't, where do you get the resource from? Those are two pretty central questions around this bill, and, indeed, what happens in a world where this bill does not take effect? Conservative estimates that we've repeated ad nauseam in this place—and of course in the other place and out in the public domain as well—are that demand for timber products is going to increase fourfold by the year 2050. There are myriad reasons that feed into that, mainly in the housing and construction sector: timber framing, staircases, window frames, flooring, furniture and decorative applications, amongst others. The demand is heading in that direction. Of course, native timber, from the forests that we're contemplating here in the debating of this bill, are central to the provision of the resource that is required to fulfil that demand. There are some stats out there now that 30 percent of any home built these days is hardwood, and therefore coming from native forests.
Bearing in mind the world-leading status of our forestry industry and those who work in it, you've got to wonder why we wouldn't back it. Of course, that goes to the second question I asked before: where does the resource come from if we aren't taking it from well managed, world-leading, science based Australian forests? We often get it from overseas. This is the thing. If we're not producing it here, we're taking it from overseas nations, where we don't have the same assurances. We don't have the same guarantees around the resource and the sustainability of the management models they have in place in those nations. We don't know what environmental outcomes there are. We don't know what conditions exist for workers in those forests and those mills. Without strong regimes in those corresponding nations around traceability and labelling, it is very difficult for us to know with any confidence. It's very difficult for us as a country that does value environmental management and the value conditions for employees in these often dangerous environments to know whether the timber we are buying and importing will in any way be the standard we require of ourselves and expect as consumers of this resource. I'll come to some facts in a moment around other nations and their track records.
In the last term of parliament, I was pleased to see a DNA-testing program in many of our timber retail outlets. The scary thing was—and I'm pleased that we were able to reveal this—that, while many of our very high-profile retailers were marketing and selling product that was claimed to be a particular species of timber sourced from a sustainable forest overseas, the DNA testing revealed that, in fact, it wasn't that timber and, indeed, it didn't come from a sustainable source. I implore the Albanese government to consider continuing this program, because I think it is important. If we're going to impose high standards on our timber industry, and rightly so—it's a set of impositions that the industry would welcome and that would, of course, help them with their brand—we should continue to do that for overseas sources and those who import from them.
To that point, we are bringing our timber in from overseas, and one such point of origin is the nation of Brazil. A lot of timber comes in, and we've got a void here that we are seeking to fill. As I said before, with demand quadrupling by the year 2050, where are we getting this timber from? It's not coming out of thin air and it's certainly not coming out of Australian forests; it's coming from overseas. I did a bit of research earlier on and I came across a number of facts that worried me quite significantly We still want to buy the products, but we are finding it less and less possible to do so here in Australia, using Australian timber, sustainably managed, sustainably sourced and done to the world's best standard. We still want to buy the product, but we are forcing ourselves to buy it from overseas.
If you look at Brazil, for the first six months of this year, 2022, the Amazon rainforest reached a record high in terms of deforestation. Government data showed that an area five times the size of New York City was destroyed. From January to June this year, 3,988 square kilometres was cleared. Of course, you can't just say, 'Oh, well, that's a matter for them,' because I think turning your back on the rest of the world, when we are good global citizens, is an important thing for us not to do. We set an example and we expect others to follow. This very same report talks about how in this clearing regime—not done in accordance with any science and not done to the world's best standard as it is here in Australia—after loggers extract valuable wood, ranchers and land grabbers set fire to what's left to clear the land for agriculture. So here they are, indeed, contributing not only to deforestation but to carbon emissions, which is something I would have thought many in this place would be opposed to supporting. This is what happens when we strangle our industry here by not providing certainty: we force demand offshore. We are sourcing timber from unsustainable forests offshore and, of course, sending the jobs to them.
I could go on about Brazil at length, but let's turn to the continent of Africa and the deforestation in the Congo Basin, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We're seeing, if you're looking at the measurement of the amount of timber being ripped out of the Congo Basin, that wood removal, which is measured in cubic metres, is continuing to increase annually. Industrialised roundwood, which is used for the purposes I've been talking about, increased from 3.05 million cubic metres in 1990 to 4.45 million cubic metres in 2010. So, if we think that these forests are being managed well and in accordance with world's best practice, you only have to consider claims like 'Congo Basin rainforest may be gone by 2100, study finds', and the facts I have already put on record.
We do forestry well here, and that was the point behind Senator McKenzie's private senator's bill—the bill we're debating today. Of course, there have been events that have happened in the Federal Court of Australia since the bill was first introduced, and that's great. But we are in the business of providing certainty. We are in the business of providing certainty for this industry, which is world-leading and does not have headlines like the ones I've just read out or academic studies pointing to terrible outcomes like the ones I've just referred to. Our industry is one that is sustainable, one that we should be proud of, one that supports tens of thousands of jobs in regional communities and billions of dollars of economic productivity and revenue for Australian households and businesses, all the while providing good environmental outcomes.
So this is why it is important for us to remove all doubt. It's great that the Federal Court reached the conclusion that they did, but let's not leave people in doubt. Let's show the government's intent for this particular industry, amongst other great primary industries, and make sure it has the support it needs. That certainty I mentioned earlier on is the one thing businesses and households are looking for anywhere they can get it—certainty from government through its policy, its regulation and its legislation. We know, of course, that, at a time in the future, the new government will present to this parliament its response to the Samuel review—a review which, I might add, has been out and in the public domain for some time. But that will also make a change to what we're debating here. So let's put a marker in the ground, let's support this industry and let's support this bill.
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:20): It's good to start this parliamentary week on such an important topic: our forestry and ensuring that we not only conserve our forests for future generations but also support a very important industry that employs thousands of people right around this country, particularly in my home state of Victoria. I note the comments by Senator Duniam as a former minister in this portfolio. It is a very important industry in his home state of Tasmania.
However, I want to just also make the point that the last election demonstrates, sadly, how irrelevant those opposite have become. The decision to bring forward this private senator's bill in the first period of private senators' business in this 47th Parliament says a lot and is just another example of how the opposition are scrambling to find any form of relevance right now. For a whole decade, there had been an absence of policy agenda, particularly when it came to forestry. Faced with the very first opportunity to put forward in the Senate a bill that will deliver jobs and actually strengthen the industry, the opposition bring forward a bill that is effectively out of date. It's superseded by events of last year. It really is concerning to see that, at the first opportunity, the shadow minister for forestry brings to this chamber a bill that no longer has any practical meaning or practical effect. I know it's not his bill, and I should note that for the record. It is a bill that was put forward by Senator McKenzie in the previous parliament. But this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020, is not really a serious legislative venture. Indeed, it has never been.
The bill was originally conceived by the former minister, Senator McKenzie. She effectively used this bill to wedge the previous administration during her time out of the ministry. This bill is nothing more than a stunt. It is nothing more than an attempt by the National Party to embarrass their Liberal colleagues.
Senator Scarr interjecting—
Senator CICCONE: Senator Scarr, I'm doing you and your colleagues a favour. It started as nothing more than the Nationals trying to do wedge politics against the Liberal Party when they were last in government.
The matter to which this bill pertains—that of the May 2020 decision of the Federal Court—has, just like those opposite, long since lost relevance. For those who are unfamiliar with this and are listening in to the chamber today, the decision by the Federal Court came as a judgement in the matter of Friends of Leadbeater's Possum v VicForests. That decision's impact upon the forestry industry was devastating, in my opinion. I note that there'll be others who will have very different views. Just to be clear on that particular decision, in her interpretation of section 38(1) of the EPBC Act, Her Honour found that, in breaching the Victorian Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014, VicForests was no longer operating in accordance with a regional forestry agreement and thereby lost the so-called exemption from part 3 of the EPBC Act. I know that the intricacies of such legislation and regulation, particularly when it comes to the environment and the forestry industry, can be lost on a lot of people. However, I appreciate that it's complex, but it's a policy area that is so important for thousands of people who rely on a very strong industry, an industry that does employ people in our regions. As I said, it is a particular area of interest here in the Senate. I can assure you that, for me, and for thousands of workers in my state who rely on this industry to make ends meet, these interests are hardly niche; they are of vital importance. The implications of the Federal Court decision were very significant for the forestry industry in this country. They threw in doubt the legal framework within which forestry activity operates.
Regional forestry agreements are essential legal instruments for the Australian forestry industry and are each tailored to a specific geographical area. These agreements provide forestry operators with the certainty they need to carry out their very important work. Recognising the significant environmental approval processes proposed forestry activity must complete before proceeding at a state level, regional forestry agreements allow these processes to stand as those that apply to the forested area, rather than those of the EPBC Act. Indeed, it was never the intention of the EPBC Act to provide the legal framework for forestry operations. This is why regional forestry agreements exist.
With great relief to me and many others, in May 2021, the full bench of the Federal Court handed down a unanimous decision which upheld VicForests' appeal against the previous Federal Court decision, reinstating the longstanding status quo regarding how regional forestry agreements interact with the EPBC Act. This was a big win, a major win, I might say, for the industry and for the thousands of workers that rely on its continued existence for their own economic security. The later decision by the High Court of Australia to deny leave to appeal this second decision was just as much of a relief. It provided industry with the certainty it needed, certainty that was lost in the first Federal Court decision.
Unfortunately, those opposite appear not to be aware of these essential and very important facts. This should hardly be a surprise. After all, those opposite aren't really interested in delivering for very key industries in my home state like forestry, and it really is disappointing to see them rehashing old bills from the previous parliament. But there is something that is more disappointing, and it was probably not even acknowledged in the contribution by the good senator Senator Duniam, someone who I've worked very closely with on a number of issues in this place. One of the recommendations that came out of the Senate inquiry into this bill—and I'll read it out for the benefit of new senators—is:
Recommendation 3
2.71 In the event that the Federal Court decision of 10 May 2021—in relation to VicForests' appeal to the decision in Friends of Leadbeater's Possum Inc v VicForests (No. 4) [2020] FCA 704—is appealed and at that time the Australian Government has not legislated the outcome required by Recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.
The only thing about that recommendation is that the appeal was actually denied. Therefore, if you take the Liberal Party's recommendation from the previous inquiry, we really should not even be here today debating this bill. The recommendation was that we should proceed only if the appeal was successful, but it wasn't. So, quite frankly, this is redundant. I'm surprised we're even wasting the Senate's time this morning debating such a bill. But, as I said earlier in my contribution, it is no surprise, given those opposite are scrambling to find bills to even debate in this place.
Senator Scarr: So negative!
Senator CICCONE: Well, Senator Scarr, to take your interjection, I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to be negative; I'm just being truthful, just putting the facts on the table. Quite frankly, it is disappointing. I was trying to make the point earlier this morning—again, not to be negative, Senator Scarr—that it is also disappointing that the opposition have not provided names for committee memberships in this place, because quite frankly I'd like to get stuck into business as much as you would. I know the Nationals were very keen to get an into inquiry into biosecurity, which I'm very keen for. I'm very happy that this Senate supported my motion, but we don't have a Chair. Why don't we have a Chair? Because the National Party and the Liberal Party haven't provided the Senate an opportunity with names for committee membership—
Senator Scarr: Point of order on relevance: whilst I understand Senator Ciccone is concerned about the issue of committee memberships, and raised it earlier in the proceedings today, it can hardly be in any way relevant to the bill under consideration.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McLachlan ): I draw you back to the bill at hand.
Senator CICCONE: I know it's a sensitive issue, but I thank you very much for your ruling there, Acting Deputy President McLachlan. As I was saying in my speech earlier today, it is disappointing to see the opposition again not bring forward a bill that the Senate can deal with today that actually deals with real issues that matter to working people. It is disappointing that we are here, on the first day of the second sitting week, having to deal with a bill that is, quite frankly, redundant and will not have any practical effect on working people, even by their own recommendation. Recommendation No. 3 makes it very clear that, in the event the appeal was denied by the High Court, we should not even proceed with this bill. Yet we're here dealing with a bill that shouldn't even be spoken about today, because it has no practical impact. But what else are we going to talk about today, other than old legislation the opposition are bringing forward from the 46th Parliament?
As we stated the first time this bill came to the Senate—when the opposition's now environment spokesperson and the former assistant minister for forestry vehemently opposed it—we do not support piecemeal amendments to the EPBC Act. That's very important. We don't. It's important that we do these in a much more coordinated, collaborative fashion, rather than this piecemeal approach that we saw in the previous parliament, which I really hope we don't see in this new parliament going forward. Our approach—
Senator Scarr: Could you end your speech on a positive note!
Senator CICCONE: Senator Scarr, you like to interject, but I will say it's not being negative; it's just being truthful with the Australian people. We are being quite frank and putting all the facts on the table. Senator Green and others in this place have seen the negativity of the previous government in the last three years. What we want to see is outcomes: outcomes that matter to working people; outcomes that will change their lives; and outcomes that support vital industries, like forestry, right around this country. Where are those one billion trees that the former coalition government promised? Not one tree was planted.
Senator McDonald: They're growing.
Senator CICCONE: Not one tree was planted, Senator McDonald. I don't think they're growing, sadly. I don't think they're growing, because not one was actually put in the ground. I've got a shovel ready to go. We should start planting those trees. Come on, let's do it. We know that the previous government promised one billion trees and then at the last election said, 'Actually, we're now only going to promise a couple of hundred million,' instead of the one billion that they'd promised. Again, we see the opposition, who are constantly backflipping all the time, promise one thing to the Australian people and then after the election go back on their word. That was the rhetoric and the narrative of the previous Morrison government. The previous Morrison government was all spin and no substance.
Senator Scarr: How are wages?
Senator CICCONE: Wages—just to take the interjections across the aisle—actually are going up. One thing we did—the first thing we did, in fact—when we came into government was to put a submission, signed by the Prime Minister, to the Fair Work Commission to support Australian workers. When it comes to Australian workers, we know who's on their side. It's unfortunately not senators opposite of the government.
Sena tor McDonald: That's such rubbish!
Senator CICCONE: Sorry, Senator McDonald, but you know that is the case. Why did your Prime Minister sign off on a submission to the Fair Work Commission? Why?
I will go back to the point that we are discussing today, which is forestry. It's an area of policy that is very close to my heart. Senator Green knows I've spoken about forestry many times, and Senator Rice also knows that it's an area we have spoken about many times in this place. We might have slightly different views, but we do have a view that we need to protect the environment and also protect the sustainability of the industries going forward so we can enjoy both worlds. I think it's very important that we actually do work together on these very sensitive but important areas of policy.
But, Acting Deputy President Sterle—good to see you, Acting Deputy President, and congratulations on your swearing in early last week—I also just want to make this point before I finish off my contributions: those opposite, in considering how to use their senators' precious time in this place, in the future ought to perhaps focus on bringing forth bills that actually have importance to the problems that we are all seeking to solve. After 9½ years of inaction, let's try and work together. Let's try and work together rather than have this nonsense that we keep seeing from those opposite. I really do hope that we don't start off on a bad foot here, with the opposition bringing forward bills in private senators' time that don't have any practical impact on the lives of working people. That is something that I really do implore of those opposite, and I really do ask them: if they are very serious about changing the lives of working people, maybe they can start by bringing forward a list of senators who can actually participate in our committee system, because I think it's very important that we start doing the important work that this Senate is meant to do, which is to scrutinise legislation and deliver for working people.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:35): This bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020, is shameless. It is an unbridled, completely huge onslaught on our precious native forests. Not only is it shameless; sadly, as Senator Ciccone has just told us in his contribution, it is irrelevant. Sadly, the court cases that have been completed over the last couple of years have shown that our native forest logging laws—the regional forest agreements—are totally broken. They do not protect wildlife. We have species going to the brink. We have Leadbeater's possums, now critically endangered. We have greater gliders, which have just in the last few months been declared endangered because of the impact of native forest logging. Yet our logging laws are not protecting them.
This bill came about because of the number of legal cases being brought by the community, by scientists and wildlife ecologists, people concerned about our native forests and about illegal logging—logging of threatened species—that was occurring in Victoria. The initial findings in the Supreme Court were that, yes, this logging was threatening precious native wildlife. It was threatening species that are listed under our federal environment laws as matters of national significance. The original judgement found that logging in the 66 areas subject to the case was in breach of Victorian environment laws and that, in 17 of the areas investigated, up to 600 greater gliders may have been impacted and killed by the state's logging appeals. However, what we found in the appeal was that the finding that said our logging laws had been broken was dismissed, but not because the environmental impact was dismissed. No, in the appeal, all of the grounds of the initial finding—that the logging that was occurring was illegal—were upheld. Yes, the logging that was occurring was having a massive impact on our native forests and our wildlife. The reason why the appeal was upheld was that it basically said that our regional forest agreements allowed this to occur. They are broken, totally broken, and our forests are suffering.
Now we have legislation that seeks to consolidate this and seeks to say, 'That's exactly how we want it; we want ongoing native forest logging that's going to continue to destroy our wildlife and continue to send our forest-dependent wildlife to the brink of extinction.' Rather than acknowledging we've got a problem here and, if we're concerned about our native forest wildlife, we maybe need to actually protect them, the former government—the Liberal and National parties—are now debating legislation and continuing to debate legislation that actually says: 'We support this status quo. We want this industry to continue to decimate our native forest wildlife.' It is absolutely shameless.
I want to talk us through what the state of play actually currently is, because if you listened to Senator Duniam and you listened to Senator Ciccone just now, they would have had you believe that everything is fine, that we've got best-practice logging activities and that we don't need to worry one jot. However, anyone that knows anything about what's going on in our forests—anybody who sees what's going on in our forests—realises it is totally unacceptable. Every wildlife ecologist who is working in the area of forest ecology says that what is currently happening is totally unacceptable. And of course it's not just wildlife that native forest logging is impacting. It is water. It is carbon. It is our forests as places of beauty and inspiration. And it is our forests as sovereign lands of our First Nations peoples—sovereign lands that contain totem species of our First Nations peoples. All of this is under attack by native forest logging.
Let's just start with water. In Melbourne we are lucky to have some of the highest-quality drinking water in the world, and a key reason for that is our forests. It's through the trees, the roots, the branches, the soil, the surrounding of our mountain ash and forest ecosystems that Melbourne's largest water supply catchment filters water naturally. Any disturbance to these forests, any logging of these forests, has detrimental impacts on the quality and the quantity of our water supply. Without this forest, our water would require intensive man-made filtering, and it just would not be as good quality water.
When it comes to carbon, we know that the ability of our forests to be soaking up carbon, to be storing carbon, is absolutely unmatched anywhere in the world. The forests of Australia contain some of the most carbon-dense ecosystems in the world. Yet logging them is massively impacting on them. There was a recent report on Tasmania's forest carbon showing that the native forest logging industry was in fact the highest-emitting industry in Tasmania, with 4.65 million tonnes of carbon being emitted each year because of logging activities. The contrast is what would occur if we allowed those forests to just keep growing old and to be protected rather than being logged. That report found that 75 million tonnes of carbon would be absorbed by these forests—these so-called production forests—by 2050 if they were protected rather than logged, and it would allow $2.6 billion in benefit in climate mitigation.
And then let's talk about the value of our forests for our wildlife. We've got case after case where the impact of logging on our wildlife has been exposed in court and where the logging that's occurring is illegal. There was a report by the ABC last December that exposed the widespread illegal logging of hundreds of hectares of mountain ash forest by the Victorian government's own logging agency, VicForests. Documents that showed that the Office of the Conservation Regulator, which is the body tasked with enforcing our state logging laws and monitoring VicForests, was alerted to the agency's illegal activity, but it failed to properly investigate. Even after admission by VicForests in 2019 that they were illegally logging protected areas, the regulator found that allegations of widespread illegal logging could not be substantiated.
So much for Senator Duniam's case that we have the best-regulated forest logging regime in the world. We have widespread illegal logging going on in our forests that is being permitted by our state logging agencies. The case I was just talking about, of VicForests and its lawless logging of our mountain ash forests—which was shown to be impacting on threatened species: the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum—goes on unregulated by our federal agencies, and in doing so is endangering our water supply, endangering the habitat of countless other species and destroying the country of First Nations peoples.
After the case, the appeal was dismissed in the Federal Court last year. There was an article by an ecologist and professor of conservation biology, Brendan Wintle, which explains why we are debating this outrageous bill today. He said:
Australia's forest-dwelling wildlife is in greater peril after last week's court ruling that logging—even if it breaches state requirements—is exempt from the federal law that protects threatened species.
The Federal Court upheld an appeal by VicForests, Victoria's state timber corporation, after a previous ruling in May 2020 found it razed critical habitat without taking the precautionary measures required by law.
The ruling means logging is set to resume, despite the threats it poses to wildlife. At particular risk are the Leadbeater's possum and greater glider—mammals highly vulnerable to extinction that call the forests home.
So there are catastrophic consequences. Since the commencement of the regional forest agreements over 20 years ago, we have seen more than a quarter of the federally listed forest-dependent species move closer to extinction. In these decades we have seen 15 forest vertebrate species listed as threatened for the first time. This is the impact that native forest logging is having on our wildlife. Our laws are broken. Our environment laws are broken. We are in an environmental crisis. We cannot afford to push more species closer to extinction. Our laws need to be strengthened urgently, not weakened, which is what this bill would seek to do.
If this bill were passed, it would basically consolidate the position that would make forestry activities within regional forest agreements totally exempt from any scrutiny under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, regardless of whether they are being undertaken in compliance with the regulations that are set out in the regional forest agreement. It's apparent if you look at the history—if you look at the devastation that native forest logging has caused to Australia's forests over the decades and particularly during the last 20 years under the regional forest agreements—that VicForests and other logging agencies don't need any more exemptions. They are already able to recklessly destroy forests critical to the survival of wildlife, to water and to carbon.
Going to some of the other illegal logging activities that our state logging agencies are not managing is the whole claim that the industry like to make that, for every tree that they log, more regrow. You might recall the revelations that were covered by the ABC last year, showing that VicForests actually fails to regenerate sections of harvested forest, despite those claims. The Victorian government claim that, 85 to 95 per cent of the time, logged areas were successfully regenerated within three years, yet documents obtained under freedom of information reveal that at least 30 per cent of harvested areas weren't regenerated in this time frame, which means, with regard to this claim that we are regenerating our forests after logging—you cannot regenerate a 100-year-old forest anyway, since you cannot regenerate the habitat for those critical species, but even with regard to the claim that we regrow the trees that are logged—that 30 per cent of those logging operations failed to regenerate.
So we have got to a situation where we need to change. We need to strengthen our environment laws. We need to protect our forests. We need to get logging out of our native forests. We need to protect them for their water, their wildlife, their carbon and their places of beauty and inspiration. Yet what are we doing? We still have bills like this being proposed; we still have Senator Ciccone, a member of the new government, saying that he is absolutely in favour of ongoing native forest logging; and we have state legislation that is not only continuing not to protect our forests but, in fact, persecuting people who are trying to protect them.
The Victorian government is attempting to pass draft legislation that would mean people defending Victoria's forests could be imprisoned for up to a year or receive up to $21,000 in fines, for trying to protect our precious forests. This draft legislation would also introduce powers to search vehicles, to confiscate personal belongings and to ban people from being in public forests based on suspicion of an offence. This is where we're at. The majority of the Australian population want to protect our wildlife. They know that it's important. They know that it's critical to who we are as a people that our wildlife be protected. Yet people who are trying to protect our wildlife are now being threatened with up to a year in jail or $21,000 in fines, totally unnecessary and disproportionate provisions for non-violent protesters who want to protect forests. Similar antiprotest laws have been introduced in the Tasmanian and New South Wales parliaments.
The freedom to protest is absolutely fundamental to a functioning democracy. It allows people to voice their disquiet and bring change into effect. These laws would prevent and penalise legitimate protests by community groups and forest defenders who are seeking to hold these logging companies, like VicForests, accountable for potentially illegal activities. These antiprotest laws would also prevent traditional owners from protecting country and their totems, which rely on the forest to survive. Additionally, with these draconian measures they will restrict the work of wildlife carers and citizen scientists who are absolutely critical to understanding and caring for our native flora and fauna.
We need to be protected in the freedom to protest, and to allow that we need to make sure those draconian antiprotest laws are stopped. We urgently need stronger laws to be protecting our magnificent forests. We need to be strengthening our environment laws. We need to be getting rid of the regional forest agreements. We need to be getting native forest logging out of our forests, and yet here we have a private senator's bill which basically represents a final attempt by the native forest logging industry to lobby for additional exemptions from basic environmental protections. Enough is enough. Right now we are facing a climate crisis and we are facing an environment crisis. We have to protect our forests, and we need to act now to do that.
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (10:50): I also rise to speak to this private senator's bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020. I always think it's fascinating to spend some time in the chamber listening to the contributions of various senators who all represent different parts of the country and I always listen closely to Senator Rice because she is always incredibly sincere and passionate in her defence of her region and the environment. I come from the other end of the country, in Queensland, where we have had a proud history of incredibly considered timber cutting.
Whilst Senator Ciccone made some representations on representing workers, I would suggest that what has long been the role of the National Party is to ensure that primary industries—and I include timber cutting as one—are represented. There's also the certainty that's required for those people who are still operating in the Maryborough region, those people who are operating in the cape, being native title holders and Indigenous people of the north who are now accessing their own hardwood timbers, and they need be given the rights and opportunities to develop their industries in an appropriate, sensitive and well-regulated environment. Something that I believe is in the best interests of our communities, of our people, of course, is to be able to utilise the most renewable and sustainable resource there is—probably other than sugarcane—and that is timber. So I rise to support this legislation in its attempt to provide certainty, in its attempt to allow the men and women who are employed in the timber industry, particularly under the RFAs, to have a sense that they will not be held up or have the industry which they are so passionate about and work so hard in be in any way curtailed.
The EPBC Act is one that, as we all know, is incredibly difficult to deal with. In Queensland, particularly in the far north of the state, it is not uncommon for projects to get to seven or eight years of spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultants' fees before they just withdraw and walk away from an investment in our part of the state. Now, I think that's an incredible tragedy, because we are crying out for jobs for those communities. As Senator McCarthy said in the chamber the other day, purposeful, meaningful work only happens when we approve projects and allow for investment to go forward. And certainty is a very important part of that. Again, in Queensland we had a timber industry that was so successful, so environmentally light in its touch, that the region was nominated for World Heritage listing because it was so pristine after 100 years of logging. I speak to some of those people, particularly men, who came out as immigrants from different parts of the world to go into timber cutting. They understand and they know that country as well as anyone. They talk about which tree to take and from which direction.
During the school holidays, I took my son and we drove up the Kirrama Range Road to the Blencoe Falls. That was the old timber cutting track to allow the timber to come more directly down to the coast and to the mills, rather than work their way round the Kuranda range on other roads that are further away. It is beautiful, and it is impossible to see where those timber activities used to be because they have now completely regrown. Some of the timber cutters tell me that, if they went back a month after they had cut, it was difficult to see where they had cut trees from. Certainly, six months or a year later, all traces of their activities were gone, such was the sensitive touch that they had in that part of the country. So, while some of Senator Rice's comments were, I'm sure, well made, they are really better directed at the Victorian state government, which is failing to carry out the work that it is required to do under its regulations.
In Queensland we have a fully sustainable hardwood industry. It is highly regulated, and something that we should be incredibly proud of is the expertise and knowledge of our timber workers and timber industry. But what they require is certainty to know that they will still be able to operate in the months and years ahead and that they will be able to bring their children into that industry and pass on that deep knowledge and understanding of the forests and the timbers they take and how that continues to make it healthy. Previously, we used to have more fires and more events that would have managed forests and rangelands in a different way. As humans, we now try and stop that from happening. We fear fire. Of course, the result has been that we've got growth in different places that was being managed by timber cutters and by the forestry industry, and we are now leaving parts of the country completely exposed to the hot fires that we've had more recently. So I support this private senator's bill. I commend it to you because I do believe it provides a sense of certainty in relation to the RFAs and for the people who work under them—the people who have deep expertise and sensitivity for the place they work in and the communities they live in.
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (10:57): I'm very pleased to be speaking on this private senator's bill this morning. It's clear that every speaker who comes to the chamber today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 is choosing to highlight different areas that this bill touches on, such as different parts of the industry or our environment. I would like to take this opportunity to really reflect on the context of the work to reform the EPBC Act and what this bill does in highlighting the failures of the previous government to do that.
The bill itself, being brought here today by the opposition after 10 years in government, really highlights that they failed to reform the EPBC Act and protect our environment when they had the chance to do that. They had a decade to deliver certainty to industries and to build a framework to protect our environment. Instead, the Liberal-National Party defunded the environment department, hid crucial reports and presided over a decline in the state of the environment. For too long, they used the environment and climate change as opportunities to wedge the Labor Party and create political division. Our Labor government will reform the EPBC Act. We will respond to the Samuel review and we will establish an environmental protection agency. The Albanese government is focused on tackling spiralling costs of living that are making life tough for too many Australians, and, while we get on with the job of delivering for Australian people during these difficult economic times, the Liberal-National Party is focused on these types of bills—redundant, cheap political stunts still aimed at wedge politics.
The EPBC Act is the Commonwealth's central piece of environment legislation, and it provides a national legal framework for environmental and heritage protection and the conservation of biodiversity. This bill would amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Regional Forest Agreements Act so that all forestry operations covered by the RFAs will be exempt from part 3 of the EPBC Act. The private senator's bill before the chamber today was brought about after a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court in Friends of Leadbeater's Possum v VicForests, in which the court found that whilst operations in accordance with the RFAs are exempt from provisions in the EPBC Act forestry operations were not considered. This decision, as has been explained by my colleagues this morning, was appealed by VicForests, and the full court of the Federal Court upheld that appeal on 10 May. Further to that, the High Court has denied leave to appeal that decision. That means that this bill in itself, in its current form, is redundant. The relationship between the bill and the court decision is important in terms of context for this bill today.
But it's the further context that needs to be considered, about how this bill came to be introduced in the previous government and where we were in terms of legislative reform of the EPBC Act at the time this bill was introduced. The bill was introduced to the Senate under the previous government and a Senate inquiry was held, and lots of evidence was taken, but the bill itself was a sign of disunity and dysfunction from the previous government. It was introduced by a Morrison government senator but it did not reflect the Morrison government policy at the time. The theatrics from the government benches epitomised the former government—a government focused on dividing Australians instead of delivering for them.
The act itself requires an independent review of the operation of the act to the extent to which the objects of the act have been achieved—so every 10 years someone is required to review the act. That happened; the Samuel review commenced on 29 October 2019. It was led by Professor Graeme Samuel, and an interim report of the review was presented to the previous government in June 2020. The final report of the Samuel review was presented to the government in October 2020. I raise this because it's incredibly important to understand that, in relation to the final report, Professor Samuel asserts that the act itself is outdated and presents a barrier to holistic environmental management. To address these deficiencies, the final report called for extensive reform of the EPBC Act and a fundamental shift in Australia's environmental management from a transaction based approach focused on individual projects to one centred on effective and adaptive planning. This report was delivered at the same time this bill was introduced into the Senate, and the previous government were yet to provide a formal response to the independent statutory review. They never responded to the report. They never amended the legislation. They failed at every step to do what was required of them to reform the act and to deliver protection for our environmental systems.
Proponents of this bill believe the measures are necessary to ensure operational certainty for industry and for clarifying how the provisions work. But we know, as we've said, since the High Court denied leave, that that is not required now. But what is required, and what has always been required, to balance protecting our environment and providing certainty to proponents and to industries, and what should have been done already by the previous government, is a response to the Samuel review and a reforming of the entire EPBC Act. That is the work that should have been done by the previous government. So to be here now and to be looking at a piece of legislation that seeks to amend a small part of this act points to the failure of the previous government to address entire reform when it comes to the way our environment is regulated, the way it is protected and the way that industries work with the environment.
When the bill was previously considered, Labor senators held the view that EPBC reform should proceed not in an ad hoc, unconsidered, piecemeal manner but by way of a private senator's bill, given the significance of the nation's environmental laws and the importance of getting those reforms right. The fact of the matter is that those opposite had a decade to reform the act and they failed to do so. Even the former government's Liberal controlled Senate committee at the time refused to support this bill. They couldn't deliver reforms. They could never do the hard work to bring Australians together. They were solely focused on political pointscoring. Nothing much has changed in opposition. This bill brings that into focus. And can we really take seriously anything that those opposite say about the environment?
The independent Samuel review concluded that our environmental laws needed reform. At every opportunity that the previous government had to genuinely reform Australia's laws, they failed to do so. They are the same people who buried the State of the environment report. The previous minister, who is now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, received it before Christmas but decided to keep it locked away before the federal election. Now that the report has been delivered, we understand why. The State of the environment report, when it was finally revealed to the Australian people, showed that we've lost more mammal species to extinction than has any other continent; that threatened communities have grown by 20 per cent in the past five years, with places literally burnt into endangerment by catastrophic fires; that the Murray-Darling fell to its lowest water level on record in 2019; and that for the first time Australia now has more foreign plant species than it has native ones. I can see why they kept this report secret, because it shows just how damaging the wasted decade of environmental neglect was to this country. The former government cut funding to the environment department; repealed climate legislation; failed to deliver for the Murray-Darling Basin; and ignored the Samuel report, which said that our laws were broken. That's why they hid the report and it's why they never stepped in to reform the EPBC Act as a whole.
Last week, the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, mapped out our government's approach to reform of this important law. The government will formally respond to the Samuel review this year. We will then develop new environmental legislation for 2023 and create a new Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the law properly. While the government consults on this generational reform, we will not be accepting any stunts from those opposite when it comes to the environment and the EPBC Act. As our first acts in the new parliament we are legislating more ambitious emissions reduction targets, setting a goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030, and reforming our environmental laws to finally build trust, integrity and efficiency into the system. After nine years of wasted time, nine years of going backwards on the environment, Labor is finally taking a step forward.
This private senator's bill today demonstrates again the lack of urgency, the lack of priority and the lack of care, when it comes to our environment, from those opposite. All they do care about is coming in here and playing wedge politics with our environment, with industries that rely on the environment and with our forestry workers. They're not here to deliver the reform that our country requires; they're here to play politics and to make sure that nobody ever takes a step forward in the things that need to be done. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Debate interrupted.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022
Second Reading
Senator THORPE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:08): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In March I introduced this bill, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022, to the 46th Parliament, and it is my pleasure to speak to it today. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, is an opportunity for the new Labor government to prove that they are committed to action, not symbolism, for First Nations people. Passing this bill would make honouring, respecting and protecting First Nations people's rights one of your first acts in government. This could be a historical moment. People in this building cannot claim to be serious about First Nations justice and hang up their dot paintings and call for black lives to matter if they vote against this bill. First Nations rights are human rights. If we want to make this country a better place we need to start taking human rights seriously.
This bill doesn't spell out exactly how the government needs to enact the UNDRIP. The bill instead requires the government to prepare an implementation plan to achieve the objectives of the UNDRIP, and to work towards ensuring that our current and future laws respect First Nations rights. Passing this bill means putting First People in the driver's seat when it comes to making decisions about our communities, our culture and our country.
The UNDRIP is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of indigenous people around the world and not just of First Nations people of this continent we now call Australia. The UNDRIP establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and wellbeing of first nations peoples. It also expands on existing human rights and freedoms as they apply to indigenous peoples worldwide and to First Nations people of this continent. The UNDRIP is particularly significant because First Nations people of this country—our elders, academics and activists—were involved in its drafting.
The UNDRIP covers human rights relating to first nations peoples, including self-determination, participation in decision-making, respect and protection for culture, and equality and non-discrimination. These are all essential demands my people have been fighting for ever since the colonisation of this country. We don't have to wait until next year, or for a referendum, to start protecting and promoting First Nations rights. The declaration was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007. This country was one of just four countries to vote against it at the time.
While the Australian government finally endorsed the UNDRIP in 2009 and committed at international forums to take actions to implement it, we have seen nothing—no meaningful action. The Australian government identified that Closing the Gap was a strategy to key policy reform and that it would give effect to the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. However, most of the measures under the strategy are woefully lacking in ambition and, despite this, most are not on track to be met at all. Closing the Gap is a farce.
Our people have waited long enough. All we have received are broken promises, lip-service and straight-up lies. We are not willing to wait anymore. We are dying at the hands of a racist system. Our children and land were stolen, and are still being stolen today; our country, culture and languages destroyed—even today. But we are strong and we are capable, despite this racist system trying to destroy us. We have fought and we'll continue to fight until we finally have some justice. The time to act is now.
One of the key aspects of the UNDRIP is free, prior and informed consent. 'Free' means that we're able to make our own choices, without coercion. 'Prior' means that we have adequate time to make those decisions. 'Informed' means that we have all of the relevant information before making our decision. Now, I don't think that's too much to ask. It enables us to protect country and sacred sites. Free, prior and informed consent would have saved the Juukan Gorge. It would have saved and stopped fracking at the Beetaloo, and it would save the Djab Wurrung trees on my country. It would mean that First Nations people are in charge of the policies that affect us, and would enable us to say no. These policies would, therefore, be much more effective at closing the gap.
By enacting UNDRIP, we will finally have to look properly at our decision-making processes and have different levels of government work with First Nations communities around the country to ensure that they are being genuinely consulted and that their opinions are genuinely and respectfully heard. For some of you, auditing our laws, policies and practices as to whether they comply with the UNDRIP, and then developing an action on actually how to change them, as this bill would require, might seem daunting or even threatening. It is going to take time and it will not be easy. Sometimes it will be painful—for many, I'm sure. But to me it does not seem daunting. To me it seems, among many other things, that there will be fewer First Nations communities seeking my help because their country or their sacred sites are being threatened with destruction by mining companies. To me, the thought that this country could be so courageous as to look at its past and present and learn from it, and to improve what we are doing, fills me with hope. It fills me with hope that there could be a brighter future ahead—not just for First Nations people but for everyone in this country. We are building a more just and equal society that respects human dignity and human rights.
Canada has already passed its United Nations Declaration on the Rights for Indigenous Peoples, and New Zealand has established a working group whose report outlines a political aspiration to meet compliance with the UNDRIP. This is our moment to lead the way in this country for First Nations justice internationally. This is the moment. We have a so-called progressive Labor government who want a voice to parliament, who want to talk truth and who want to talk treaty, so this is the moment. We have the power to do this now. We don't have to worry about the opposition, who want to bring this down and who see it as a threat. It's not going to take people's homes. It is no threat. It is to empower the oldest continuing living culture on this earth.
Today, I urge all my colleagues in this place to put your actions into words. Put your Black Lives Matter posters into words. Put your dot paintings, and your support of hanging those in your offices, into words. We can, together, improve the lives of First Nations people in this country. I look forward to working with you all and getting on with business. I hope that we don't hear too much racism in this place as we progress First Nations rights and justice. And I remind you all again—living on stolen land means you have a responsibility, and this is your responsibility today. Uphold the rights of Indigenous people in this country and show leadership, once and for all, that we are—or that we are on the path to be—a united nation.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (11:19): I rise to speak on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill. I listened very closely to my colleague over there, Senator Thorpe, and the passion behind it. In earlier years, I went to Geneva to help work on this declaration under the great leadership of Madam Diaz on a subcommittee of the human rights commission. So my association with this bill goes back a long way, as do these sentiments and this declaration. I move:
At the end of the motion, add "and:
(a) the bill be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for inquiry and report;
(b) in conducting the inquiry, the committee may consider the relevant evidence and records of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee relating to its inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia in the 46th Parliament; and
(c) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first day of sitting after the committee presents its report".
My amendment would refer the bill to the newly constituted Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.
The adoption of the declaration by the United Nations General Assembly in 2017 was an historic moment for First Nations peoples around the world. It was the culmination of more than 20 years of negotiations, which included notable First Nations leaders from this country. It stands as the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Eighteen countries around the world apply human rights standards to First Nations peoples. It is a source of shame that Australia under the Howard government was one of only four nations to vote against the 2007 resolution in the General Assembly. It is a source of pride to those of us on this side of the chamber that in the Rudd Labor government reversed this position and formally expressed Australia's support for the declaration.
While non-binding, the declaration carries significant moral force. The government supports the aspirational principles underlying the declaration, and we agree with the intent of this bill, that we should align our actions to these principles. This bill is closely modelled on legislation that was first passed in Canada last year. That legislation provides a useful model and starting point for our country as it moves towards a greater implementation of the important principles of this declaration. But it is important to make sure that a meaningful consultation with First Nations peoples on this bill and the best methods of implementing the UNDRIP takes place in our country.
Earlier this year the Senate referred an inquiry into the application in Australia of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee References Committee. This inquiry lapsed after the last parliament but not before 992 people and organisations had made submissions, many of which supported the need for better implementation of the declaration. Those who made submissions include the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Law Council and multiple First Nations individuals and organisations. The work that has gone into these submissions deserves our attention as we consider and take the next steps towards implementing the declaration. That is why the second reading amendment I have moved this morning will ensure that a new inquiry will be established with references to these submissions and work that was done in the last parliament. An inquiry in this committee will have the ability to hear from the First Nations and other Australians directly on how they want the declaration to be implemented. Importantly, it will also be able to hear expert evidence about how the Canadian law is working in practice.
It's worth acknowledging that the Canadian act has not been without criticism from First Nations Canadians. This include the criticism that it was passed without sufficient community engagement. At the time that it was passed, Canadian academics Ken Coates and Heather Exner-Perot wrote in the Vancouver Sun:
Properly done, the legislation could be a unifying and transformative act … Instead, this legislation was introduced in December in the midst of the pandemic, rushed through a truncated House of Commons agenda under closure, and is being pushed along with minimal public engagement or interest.
We can and should take time to ensure meaningful consultation on this bill. Indeed, this is at the heart of the declaration itself. Article 19 of the declaration states:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
This article is one of the most important parts of the declaration, and we should honour it in the way we consider the implementation of the declaration itself in Australian law and policy. This does not mean we have to, and we won't, wait to move forward on the changes that are consistent with the declaration and which improve the lives of First Nations peoples. This government has an historically ambitious First Nations agenda, and we look forward to working closely with Senator Thorpe and the Greens on that.
We have committed to policies that are intended to improve people's lives in real ways, particularly in remote and regional Australia. This includes replacing the punitive Community Development Program with real jobs and real wages in remote communities; addressing incarceration and deaths in custody through landmark justice reinvestment funding; investing in housing in remote communities, including funding for homelands to support people to have better quality of life and greater connection with culture; addressing getting more First Nations health workers and more community workers to assist women and children experiencing family violence in remote communities; and doubling funding for Indigenous ranger programs.
Labor established the first Closing the Gap framework in 2008, and we will work with the Coalition of Peaks and all levels of government to raise the ambition of the current targets. And, of course, we have committed to full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, with a great speech by our Prime Minister at Garma just on the last weekend. This weekend, I was proud to stand alongside the Prime Minister as he took the next steps towards a referendum on a voice to the parliament. He told the participants at the Garma Festival on Yolngu land:
Australia does not have to choose between improving peoples' lives and amending the Constitution.
We can do both—and we have to.
Because 121 years of Commonwealth governments arrogantly believing they know enough to impose their own solutions on Aboriginal people have brought us to this point.
This torment of powerlessness.
Implementing the Uluru statement in full will be a significant step forward in the protection and upholding of the rights of First Nations people. The words the Prime Minister has proposed for the Constitution are derived from the work done by many committed Australians: First Nations and non-Indigenous people. This includes some of the same leaders who represented Australia in the international negotiations that resulted in this declaration.
The proposed words for the Constitution are simple and straightforward, and I take the opportunity to repeat them in the Senate chamber today:
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
These provisions would be accompanied by a simple question:
Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?
As elected representatives, we have a chance to bring our communities together in this historic moment to answer that question with a resounding yes. I urge everyone in this chamber to come with us on this journey. I urge you to accept the hand of the First Nations peoples as generously as they extended it in our direction. I urge you to walk with us in unity to a better and more reconciled future, to realise the hopes and aspirations that Senator Thorpe and others have spoken about.
We are in a very exciting time. We have got many challenges, but we have got serious reforms to make. I look forward to working with all of you in this chamber on both goals: getting a successful referendum to establish a voice in our Constitution and working to make sure that, through the committee's work, the principles of the declaration will deliver the positives that we all hope for.
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (11:30): I rise to speak on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022 presented to the chamber by Senator Thorpe. I was reflecting on this bill over the weekend, as I spent my time listening to Territorians speak of the challenges experienced living in two worlds, and how we require honest and practical approaches to thrive living in a modern world with an ancient culture.
This bill is not a practical approach; it is a declaration. It is not a treaty. It is not binding under international law. Therefore, Australia is not required to enact the declaration in Australian law. We are one nation with one law and many belief systems of faith that personally guide us on ways of living.
There are dangers of recognising customary law under the United Nations declaration. The voices of the women and children that are subject to brutal sexual violence and misappropriated payback do not serve any human right. We must stop this divisive virtue signalling. This bill is an unnecessary distraction from the important work that needs to be done—that we, as a coalition, have heavily invested in. We call on the Albanese government to continue to advance the practical measures to support our most vulnerable.
We, the coalition, will always be focused on practical outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This Labor-Greens government should be focused on holding the state and territory governments and the Aboriginal organisations to account for the billions of dollars being poured in to alleviate disadvantage for the most marginalised Australians. They are not meeting their funding agreements.
One of the most basic human rights is to feel safe and to have access to safe housing. In the Northern Territory, the Labor minister for housing fought against these basic human rights by countersuing an Aboriginal organisation. The minister for housing at the time, Chansey Paech, did not want to acknowledge the human rights of Aboriginal residents and humane conditions in their rental homes. He was prepared to have his department stand up in court and argue that position. Get housing delivery right first, I say—a practical, basic human right. Significant practical work was done under the coalition government to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. This practical work reflects the aims of the declaration.
In government, the coalition invested in the human rights of Indigenous Australians. In government, the coalition appointed June Oscar AO as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. The commissioner works as part of the Australian Human Rights Commission on anti-discrimination and human rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. This weekend I was listening to the important work that she has been doing, and I look forward to meeting her in the not-so-distant future.
The coalition government addressed this basic practical human right by investing in housing. Under the National Partnership for Remote Housing in the Northern Territory, the coalition government contributed $550 million, matched by the Northern Territory to equal $1.1 billion over five years, to deliver 1,950 new bedrooms in remote communities through a combination of new houses and extensions to existing housing. The former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, called out the minister for housing, citing he was alarmingly concerned that the Northern Territory Labor government was not delivering the houses that it was funded to deliver.
In regard to the human rights of children and child protection, on 10 December 2021 the coalition government delivered Safe and supported: the national framework for protecting Australia’s children 2021-2031, the successor plan to the National framework for protecting Australia’s children 2009-2020. Safe and supported was developed in partnership with all states and territories and an Indigenous leadership group with a focus on improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. On 27 October the Australian government launched Australia's first National strategy to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse 2021-30, the national strategy. It includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a priority group.
Under the coalition, the Department of Social Services commenced delivery of a package of four new measures, under the Closing the Gap implementation plan, to deliver on target 12: $49 million over five years to improve multidisciplinary responses to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families with multiple and complex needs; $7.7 million over three years to develop the cultural competency and trauma responsiveness of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous child and family sector workforce; $3.2 million over two years to assess the needs of, increase the involvement of and strengthen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled organisations in the child and family sector; and $38.6 million over three years for an outcomes and evidence fund to support the commissioning and implementation of outcome based funding.
In the coalition's last budget we also undertook to make significant investment to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: $1.1 billion for a range of measures to support the new agreement on closing the gap, and this included $254.4 million to improve existing or build new health infrastructure to deliver services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; $81.8 million to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to be safe, healthy and ready to thrive in school, by the age of five, by expanding the Connected Beginnings program by an additional 27 sites; $74.9 million to build three additional studio schools in remote areas and refurbish another school into the studio schools format, to provide education on country and build relationships with culture and local community; $66 million to expand existing alcohol and drug services, to be funded through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy; and $45 million to continue to work to improve the birth weight of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and improve health outcomes. The coalition extended the National Partnership on Northern Territory Remote Aboriginal Investment by $173.2 million, which takes the total investment to over $1 billion since 2015-16.
We have to continue to focus on practical outcomes in this house and to not be consuming our time on unnecessary debate that will take away time from discussing legislative debate that will bring practical improvements for all Australians.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:37): What an honour to follow Senator Price, a woman, a person, an Australian of integrity; a deeply caring and informed person; a practical person.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I wish to indicate some concerns I have about this bill, which is both divisive and, mostly, unnecessary. Our country is Australia. Our country consists of people from many nations, cultures and religions and from many racial groups providing a rich tapestry of positive contributions to our Australian nation. What we do not want or need is legislation that picks out a particular cultural group and makes laws aimed at that particular cultural group, driving a potentially divisive wedge between Aboriginal Australians and other Australians. It does not matter where a person comes from or what that person's cultural or racial background is. 'I am, you are, we are Australian' are the words of a well-known theme song. And it's true. We know that, and we do not need legislation that is geared to a 'them and us' mentality that leads to a 'them versus us' mentality.
This bill is intended to affirm into Australian domestic law the contents and intention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a requirement necessary before the UN declaration provisions become enforceable in Australian law. Aboriginal Australians, as Australians, already have the same rights as any other Australian right now. If there are gaps in services available to Aboriginal Australians, these gaps are due to poverty and remoteness, issues that affect many isolated people across our country. It's the failings of successive governments to adequately address health, housing, education and infrastructure that have led to many people, Aboriginal and otherwise, to fall into the poverty gap. I call on the Australian government to address these issues with priority before considering this bill, which is unnecessary and does nothing more than acknowledge what is already in place for all Australians.
This bill perpetuates the victimhood of Aboriginal people. It places blame on the past cultural divide for the current plight of some Aboriginal minorities. There are many Aboriginal people in Australia who have access to free education, have worked hard and have prospered as Australians in the broader community. I followed one in this speaking roster. They do not need this bill. There are many Aboriginal Australians who would be offended by the content of this bill, which virtually enshrines a them-and-us mentality.
The most divisive clause in this bill is clause 7, which throws blame on colonisation for all the ills that prevent their right to develop in accord with their own needs and interests. All of this is in the face of facts, including that determined native title claims now cover approximately half of the Australian land mass, Aboriginal Australians represent approximately 3½ per cent of Australia's population and all Aboriginal children are entitled to scholarships to continue education through high school and beyond. Assistance to Aboriginal families has now become an enviable yet divisive issue within small remote communities where other minorities in similar living conditions are not able to access assistance at the same level. This is where the true problem lies. Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist, scientifically false, legally questionable, morally condemnable and socially unjust. It is simply wrong.
I want to draw the chamber's attention to three words: care, core and cure. That is what we must do if we really care for people. We care enough to get the facts, to understand the core issue. Then, and only then, do we have any right to impose a cure or to propose a cure. Greens and Labor do the reverse—cure first and ignore the core. That shows they do not care. To truly care for any group of people, we need to care enough to understand their issues, and that means listening and having the courage to really listen, and then we must have the courage and the integrity to address those issues. Virtue signalling is hollow, dishonest and uncaring. Following the UN is hollow, dishonest, uncaring, and it means selling out Australians, all Australians. I do not support this bill.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health) (11:42): Look, I think it's important—and it's been good—to hear previous speakers on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022, and I do think that some clarity around a bit of the history is important, certainly for me, as I also reflect on the importance of this bill before the Senate. Every senator has that right. It's why we're chosen and elected as senators to this place.
We certainly support the principles of the declaration. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. If we reflect on that year, 2007—and if I think about my time in parliament, both here and in the Northern Territory—that was also the year when the John Howard prime ministership and the government intervened into the Northern Territory. I think these are critical moments in history, whichever way people choose to look at them. That intervention in the Northern Territory continued until only last month.
When I reflect on that intervention, for those of us who were in the Northern Territory parliament, it was perhaps one of the most significant moments of disempowerment as an elected member of parliament in the Northern Territory at that particular time, because we didn't know what was going on. I certainly didn't know. I was not in the cabinet at the time; I'm sure they would have a different response to that. But, for an elected member for north-east Arnhem Land, representing thousands of Territorians, not being able to have an opportunity to understand, defend, debate or discuss what was going on was in the minds of the then government, so it comes as no surprise that, in the year of the declaration at the United Nations, the Australian government of the day did not sign the declaration to have the same concerns for First Nations people in unity with First Nations countries around the world. Obviously, we were one of the four that did not sign it at the time.
It wasn't until the Rudd Labor government came in late in 2007. In 2009 they then did sign this declaration otherwise known as UNDRIP. Australia then joined the international community and expressed its support for the declaration. The first thing that Prime Minister Rudd knew that he had to do was also to show that this was an Australia that did have compassion, that did listen to First Nations people, that did agree with the world stage in terms of the declaration for the rights of Indigenous people around the world.
The declaration sets out non-binding principles regarding the fundamental human rights of Indigenous peoples for nations to work towards. The Australian government supports the aspirational principles underlying this declaration. We're clearly still seeing some of the fallout from the intervention in terms of not having an exit strategy. I think for anyone or any government to make such a massive decision—irrespective of political persuasion, when you intervene so dramatically in the lives of a population, there must always be a significant step out from that intervention, and that exit strategy was not clear.
That exit strategy is something that we now have had to pick up. We have to try to work with the people of the Northern Territory on how we step out from that. It is unfortunate on one level, because we know that this was not urgent in terms of the time lapse of the stronger futures legislation. The fact that there was no urgency in the time lapse showed that there could have been much better planning to step out of something where a group of people had been intervened on so dramatically and then were left to deal with that fallout because of stepping out of it with an appropriate exit strategy. In fact, I do recall that even the former coalition foreign minister, Alexander Downer, in 2007 suggested what the intervention could have meant for political gain for the coalition. He said:
… when we intervened in the Northern Territory in the Indigenous communities there again, the actual initiative was very popular with the public but it didn't shift the opinion polls.
The reason I share this and remind the Senate is that we need to reflect on why it was that the Australian parliament did not sign up to this declaration in 2007.
This bill should be referred to a committee to finish the inquiry of the last parliament. I know my colleague Senator Dodson has made references to it as well. On 29 March 2022, the Senate referred the application in Australia of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry. Now, that committee was to report to this Senate by 15 September, but clearly that inquiry lapsed. We went to an election and we're back here. So we certainly encourage that inquiry to pick up, because 92 people and organisations made submissions, which are listed on the inquiry's webpage. This includes submissions from First Nations land councils, legal services and peak bodies. We want to hear from them, and I would urge the Senate to support this inquiry and enable all those submitters and more to have their opportunity to speak to this bill through the inquiry.
Since being appointed Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health, I've met with a range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and national leadership bodies, including the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation and the National Health Leadership Forum, and I had the honour of meeting with organisations that are part of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council on family, domestic and sexual violence. The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan highlights that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a right to culturally safe and responsive health care free of racism and inequity. I note the valuable submissions from organisations such as the Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory and the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. I also note the very strong desire of many organisations to see a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution.
We want to make sure there is meaningful consultation with First Nations people on this bill, and we should not ignore those submissions that have been received already. Article 19 of the UN declaration states:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
We should align our actions to the principles and intent of the declaration. We know that similar legislation was put in place in Canada last year and we're aware that some First Nations peoples in Canada raised concerns about its implementation—and we recognise that it is early days. So we want to ensure that there is meaningful consultation with Australia's First Nations peoples on this bill. We propose that the application of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be referred to this committee to complete the inquiry.
On this side of the house, we have a plan to deliver a better future for Indigenous people in Australia, and I'd like to talk about some of the areas that I have responsibility for, which I'm incredibly proud to be able to work towards over this term, knowing, though, of course, how challenging it will be. We certainly took to the election the importance of replacing the Community Development Program with real jobs and real wages. Now, that will be a significant challenge, but one that we are up to. We have made reference, especially here in the Senate—and I know I've spoken about it over the last few years—to the previous program, the Community Development Employment Program. There are around 40,000 Australians on the current CDP, and it is not working, and that's a clear fact.
With the jobs summit that we will have in September, I'm pushing, along with Senator Dodson and, obviously, Linda Burney as the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, to ensure that we do have those representatives from the sector. For example, the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation, ALPA, does an extraordinarily excellent job in employing First Nations people throughout its stores, not only in the Top End but also in Far North Queensland—the work that they do, especially in places like Milingimbi, where they not only run the store but have a wonderful furniture factory. It's awesome; it really is. They are working locally to design some of the most beautiful pieces of furniture, which are now in boardrooms across Australia and overseas. That furniture comes from this very small island which is part of the Crocodile Islands. They make incredible furniture and they are so proud of that. I think if we can have input from organisations like ALPA and from Manapan, who runs the furniture industry, at the jobs summit in September then we can start to really engage again as to how we work with the over 40,000 Australians on this current CDP program, which we know is failing, and how we move that to the areas where we want it in terms of better conditions, better jobs, obviously superannuation and all the kinds of leave entitlements that we would like to see as part of that. It will be a challenge, and I do look forward to trying to address that.
As part of my role in health I'm quite excited about this initiative, and it is about training 500 new First Nations health workers to increase access to lifesaving dialysis treatment for those living with chronic kidney disease and expand efforts to eradicate rheumatic heart disease in remote communities. One of the places that comes to mind with rheumatic heart disease is the work that's being done in particular in places like Manigrida.
Labor will invest in First Nations conservation of our land and waters by doubling the Indigenous rangers program. Can I take this moment to congratulate all those rangers out there across Australia because Sunday was World Ranger Day, so a huge congratulations to all of those rangers right across the country who do what you can to look after country and to look after our waterways. I know many of you thoroughly enjoy what you do. But we certainly want to keep supporting those First Nations ranger programs and the conservation in those areas.
We're also boosting funding for Indigenous protected areas by $10 million a year and delivering the promised cultural water in the Murray-Darling Basin. As I said, we want to strengthen economic and job opportunities for First Nations people and communities through a new public sector employment target and public reporting by Australia's 200 largest companies. I do look forward to bringing that back as something that I will be monitoring to see what those companies are doing to assist. We're certainly going to renew Australia's commitment to reconciliation and work in genuine partnership with First Nations people for better practical outcomes. And there is no doubt, after the weekend in Garma on Yolngu country, that I'm incredibly proud to represent the people of the Northern Territory and continue the passion and the fire that burns to see our country go to a referendum to see First Nations people with a voice to parliament enshrined in the Australian Constitution. I encourage all Australians to have open and respectful debate, irrespective of whether we agree or disagree. But let's keep it respectful.
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:58): I absolutely agree with Senator McCarthy that it's absolutely crucially important that we have respectful, open, courteous debate in relation to this matter. I have been listening, during the course of this debate, to all the contributions made by all senators in relation to this matter very, very closely. I'd like to make a few preliminary comments, if I could, and at the outset let me say that I think there's considerable merit in Senator Dodson's proposed amendment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022 that the matter be referred to the relevant joint standing committee. I was serving on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, which simply ran out of time in terms of conducting its inquiry in relation to these matters. As Senator Dodson has rightly observed, there were hundreds of submissions made to that committee and those submissions need to be carefully considered by, I believe, the relevant joint standing committee for this matter to be properly progressed. I think that is important.
I was reading the debate last night in the Canadian parliament in relation to the bill in Canada that has been referred to in the context of this debate. It was clear to me that there were objections coming from all sides in relation to the rush that bill had in terms of progressing through the Canadian parliament. That was a source of friction between various sides in the Canadian parliament, and I think it would be a great shame if this bill were not given the consideration, which it certainly does deserve, through our committee processes. I think we should all aim to avoid the situation that occurred in Canada, where the debate became quite fractious. I think that was a factor of the time; there just wasn't enough time for all the views to be considered in the context of the bill. In particular, I bring to the attention of the Senate that one of the issues that was raised in the debate was the concept of free, prior and informed consent, and how that would work in practice in the Canadian context. I'll speak further about that matter shortly.
The second preliminary point I'd like to make is in relation to the reasons why the Australian government in 2007 did not endorse the UN declaration, and that has been referred to. I think it is important to place on the record the concerns in good faith that the 2007 Australian government had with respect to the declaration. I'd like to place on the record a quote from my good friend the former senator George Brandis, who served as Attorney-General of this country under the previous government, or previous governments. This is a quote which was attributed to him in a Sydney Morning Herald article on 26 March 2009, written by Mr Julian Drape: 'Of most concern is that the declaration seeks to establish special sectorial exemptions for one section of the community to the exclusion of others. There is no room in Australia for different rights attaching to different citizens, differentiated only by race.' So that was the concern as expressed by my good friend, then senator, George Brandis in relation to the context of this debate, and there is a legitimate point of inquiry in relation to the references made in the UN declaration to customary law, traditional law, in the context of the Australian legal system. I think that should be recognised as quite a legitimate point that needs to be considered in the context of this debate. I think it's important that that articulation of the previous government's reasons for not endorsing the declaration should be placed on the record.
I'd like to reflect on a comment which Senator Thorpe made in introducing the bill. Senator Thorpe, quite rightly, made the comment that the bill does not set out how to enact the declaration in relation to specific laws. Basically, it sets a framework for the declaration to be advanced in the context of Australian laws. It is very similar, in that respect, to the Canadian bill which I referred to earlier. The point which causes me some concern, and which should be a matter of inquiry by the joint standing committee, is whether or not that is the best approach, or whether or not the best approach is actually to look at a particular area of law—for example, safeguarding cultural heritage—and then seek to progress proposed amendments to that law. Some might say this would better reflect the intention and objectives of the UN declaration as opposed to starting with the process of introducing, holus-bolus, the declaration, giving it force of law and then seeking to apply it to individual situations. I think there's a lot of merit in that, and I think it would actually help to bring people together if the detail of how the declaration would apply in a particular context were considered.
I believe that a good place to start would be in relation to cultural heritage. In particular, I say that mindful of the disgraceful occurrence which occurred recently in relation to the Juukan Gorge. I note that considerable work was done in relation to proposed amendments relating to cultural heritage in that context, and the committee drew very heavily in terms of the references to the UN declaration in that regard and did an analysis as to whether or not the existing laws at both the national and state levels adequately reflected the intent and objectives of the UN declaration. So, from my perspective, I would like to see how the declaration would impact in practice upon some of the most important areas of law with respect to Indigenous rights in this country. Maybe cultural heritage laws would be a good place to start in working on the foundation established by the committee which produced the report into the Juukan Gorge disaster—there's no other word for it. As someone who worked in the mining industry for many, many years, what occurred in that case is an absolute blight, a shameful blight, on the mining industry.
I'd also like to make some comments in terms of the concept of free, prior and informed consent; Senator Thorpe rightly referred to this concept as one of the cornerstones of the UN declaration. In doing so I bring to this place perhaps a different perspective. As someone who worked in the mining industry for a company that adhered to the highest standards of environmental and social licence, I had occasion, in different jurisdictions around the world, to consider this concept of free, prior and informed consent—in particular in the wonderful country of Papua New Guinea—in relation to projects. I think it is important that everyone understand what that concept means. Free, as Senator Thorpe says—no coercion, intimidation or manipulation. And that means coercion from any side. Certainly in other jurisdictions overseas I've seen instances where people were bussed into meetings in order to intimidate, to coerce and to frustrate the exercise of free consent. So the consent must be free. Secondly: prior. It needs to be prior. It needs to be in sufficient advance of whatever is proposed so there can be truly meaningful discussion at a local Indigenous level in relation to whatever is proposed. And that prior consent must be informed by all the relevant information that the people on the ground, the Indigenous landholders and rights holders, need to have to make fully-informed consent. And that needs to be in the context where things can change on the ground; what was originally proposed may well change.
During my time in Papua New Guinea I had quite considerable interaction with a project in PNG called the Ok Tedi project. In the Ok Tedi project originally it was proposed that the mining waste, the tailings, would be deposited into a tailings dam. At the end of the day—it was a factor of geology as much as anything, unstable geology—the tailings dam failed and, therefore, it was decided that the tailings would be deposited into the Ok Tedi, in the Ok Tedi flows into the Fly River. But that was something in relation to which there was no free, prior and informed consent of the local people. The project fundamentally changed. And years later there was a consultation process in relation to 'what should happen now?', after the project had fundamentally changed and after it was absolutely impossible to reverse the damage that had been done in relation to the Fly River in particular. So that information is absolutely crucial in relation to the concept of free, prior and informed consent.
And it has to be consent. What does that mean? What does that mean in different contexts? Senator Thorpe referred to the Beetaloo basin. Not wanting to go into the dynamics or the intricacies of what happened in that case, suffice to say there are no doubt different views as to whether or not consent was given in relation to the Beetaloo basin. So what constitutes consent in this context? I think that is a matter which properly should be considered in depth by the joint standing committee. An example in terms of processes in my experience in Papua New Guinea was that on occasions project promoters needed to actively ensure that women were involved in terms of the consultation process—that they actually attended the meetings that occurred in relation to potential projects. The issue of obtaining consent from men and women in relation to these projects is absolutely important. So: free, prior and informed consent. Of course, in order to give that consent, the relevant parties need to have access to appropriate expertise and resources, to make sure that they are represented by people with expertise in relation to these matters and are receiving all of the relevant information.
In summary, I think there is great merit in referring this matter to a joint standing committee. I think we should also reflect very carefully on the contributions made in this place, both last week and in this debate, by Senator Nampijinpa Price as she was talking about the practical issues on the ground in some of our Indigenous communities.
I was looking at the declaration, and there are a number of articles which I circled, which, we should always remember, are also part of this declaration. Article 7 says:
Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.
That's absolutely fundamental, and we should make sure everyone, in every community across Australia, has that right. Article 11, subarticle 2 says:
States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent …
Article 22 says:
Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.
Article 24 says: 'Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices,' and subarticle 2 says:
Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.
I think there are many in the 46 articles of the declaration which we should all reflect upon in terms of considering whether or not we're meeting the relevant standard. The declaration does have moral force, as Senator Dodson referred to. It should be a cause for deep reflection, and, in my view, this is a matter which, given its serious nature, should be considered in depth by the relevant joint standing committee.
Senator COX (Western Australia) (12:12): I rise to make a contribution on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022. It is, in fact, the first time in this country's history that the federal government has moved closer towards enshrining our rights as First Nations people into our domestic law. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—or UNDRIP, as it's commonly known—was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 September 2007. In my opinion, it is the best mechanism by which we can enact our sovereign rights as First Peoples of this country, which, in fact, have been denied since 1788.
In 2007, as Senator Dodson also remarked, 144 countries voted in favour of UNDRIP. If you want to know what shame looks like, it looks like Australia being one of those four countries that voted against the UNDRIP.
The Rudd government finally endorsed the UNDRIP in 2009. But that announcement was, in fact, quite meaningless. It was meaningless because it has not actually translated into the implementation of the UNDRIP into our laws, until now. During the final sitting week of the 46th Parliament, it was in fact the Australian Greens who established an inquiry into the application of the UNDRIP in this country, and, through a motion co-signed by Senator Thorpe and me, we also introduced Senator Thorpe's private senator's bill to compel this government—the new government; the one we knew we were going to get—to implement the UNDRIP. And I acknowledge the work that Senator Dodson has done on UNDRIP in his previous life.
There are two wings that are the first steps to implementing UNDRIP into our laws, into our policies and—this is what the opposition and coalition talk about—in our practice. It includes a full audit of our existing laws, our policies and our practises to ensure that we are, in fact, compliant with UNDRIP. This is a foundational piece of future work. The UNDRIP provides a road map for the future—a future that is built on the international principles that were designed by sovereign people and sovereign nations for First Peoples globally—not by governments. I reiterate: not by governments. It upholds First Nations peoples' right to care for country and for community, which encompasses language, kinship and all of those things that are important as part of culture, and which benefit everyone in this country, especially in the context of a climate crisis, which is what we're in.
We all know that the climate crisis will disproportionately impact First Peoples of this country, and it is time for us to act. First Peoples have 60,000-plus years of knowledge that have helped preserve the environment in this country and globally, particularly with biodiversity. It is up to us. We all have a responsibility, which Senator Thorpe articulated already, and we rely on our lands, our waters and our skies, to survive. Likewise, our lands, our waters and our skies rely on us to survive.
UNDRIP is about First Nations people having the final say on First Nations affairs. The Albanese Labor government agree wholeheartedly that our cultural heritage laws are too weak, and they want to work with First Nations people. They bandy around the word 'co-design', so let's get to the crux of that. What does that actually mean? It's about our free, prior and informed consent, one of the critical elements of UNDRIP. That, in fact, is what Senator Scarr was referring to when he talked about Juukan. It is protecting our country, our cultural heritage and our people, and it is referenced in article 2 of UNDRIP, which says:
Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination—
Fortunately, that doesn't happen in this place!
in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.
The UNDRIP is about bringing people together to build communities that are free from discrimination. As my colleague Senator Thorpe also noted earlier, UNDRIP will enshrine that key principle of free, prior and informed consent, also known as FPIC, and put it at the heart of decision-making. It emphasises that First Nations people have the right to full and effective participation at any and every stage of action that affects or indirectly affects our lives. The requirement to seek genuine free, prior and informed consent will completely change the way governments and proponents seek approval for projects that affect our land, our skies and our waters, and will put an end to the coercion and manipulation that we currently see, time and time again, across all levels of government and across all levels of industry.
When it comes to development proposals on our land, we will put an end to the half-baked consultation that is approving the destruction of our cultural heritage. Unfortunately, they give that promise of jobs. What jobs? Those jobs are still unfulfilled promises, particularly on my country. We've seen it at Juukan, and right now we're seeing it in real-time with the Perdaman urea fertiliser plant up in Karratha.
I'd like to take some time to share some of the views made in submission to the inquiry on this bill by the Australian Greens First Nations Network which outlines the potential impacts that UNDRIP could have:
The Australian Greens major policy for First Nations peoples has as its foundation the UN DRIP … We believe that enacting the DRIP into domestic legislation will protect the human, civil and social, political, and economic, cultural rights of First Nations peoples in Australia and is urgently needed given the oppressive policies of generations of governments since 1788 which has not recognised our sovereign rights, nor treated us equally under Australian Law since then.
It is now time. It is time for governments to step up in this place and to take the next steps to implement UNDRIP. This is in fact a very powerful tool. It will fight for the rights of Indigenous people. It will make sure that they are enshrined in domestic law across all of those elements which are important in the human rights framework. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this place.
Debate interrupted.
Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government has disrespected older Australians, their families and aged care providers due to their political restriction of the passage of similar legislation in the last Parliament when they were in Opposition".
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:20): Today I rise to speak about the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. Firstly, I would like to set the scene for senators. In January 2020, our lives changed. Australians were about to face the first global pandemic in a century. Just as our country had endured the worst bushfires since Black Saturday, uncertainty swept the nation. It will be no surprise to Australians that the then-prime minister was nowhere to be seen, because, when Australians needed him most, he buried his head in the sand. By the time COVID reached Australian shores, cities and states around the country were facing the prospect of long, hard and lonely lockdowns. States and territories closed their borders. Many families began what would be years of separation. Australians were dying, aged-care homes were facing outbreak after outbreak and residents were left at risk, with families preparing for the worst.
It wasn't until February of 2021 that Australians began being vaccinated for COVID, months after vaccines had started to go into the arms of people in other developed nations. And then, to no surprise to any Australian, the government did not order enough vaccines. When vaccines did finally arrive, our most vulnerable were forgotten. Getting vaccines into arms was what was the former government called the key priority of 2021, and they failed early.
Two months on from when doses finally started going into the arms of aged-care residents and workers, only 10 per cent of the private aged-care workforce had received a vaccine. Aged-care residents were isolated for longer, workers left with the fear of accidentally introducing the virus into facilities and families left separated from their loved ones for much longer than necessary.
It breaks my heart to hear the number of lives lost to the virus in aged-care homes. Well over 3,000 families have lost members, and the former government simply treated them as statistics. The former government neglected aged-care residents, workers and our entire community for the best part of a decade while they were in government, leading to the royal commission into aged care. Older Australians worked hard all whole lives, contributing to our communities and our nation. All Australians deserve dignity in their frailer years.
That is why I rise today to commend the aged-care bill before us. A Labor government has done exactly what we said we would do. This bill implements many of our government's urgent election commitments that put security, dignity and humanity back into aged care through urgent funding and safety reforms. Aged-care workers are dedicated, caring individuals working in challenging environments across the country. Aged-care workers could take home a larger pay cheque by stacking shelves at Woolies than they currently get for caring for vulnerable Australians. This government is a government that will advocate for all workers to be valued and for their pay to reflect just that. That is why this government acted swiftly to write to the Fair Work Commission for permission to lodge a submission to support a pay rise for aged-care workers. This submission is well underway and we will be delivered to the Fair Work Commission by 8 August.
It will shock Australians to know that 24 per cent of aged-care facilities do not have a nurse on site for 24 hours a day, leaving some of our community's most vulnerable without the care many residents, families and the community expect them to receive. The bills introduced to parliament will legislate that providers of residential care of specified kinds of flexible care must have a registered nurse on site and on duty at each facility for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In doing so, older Australians will have access to the care they need when they need it. This will save thousands of unnecessary trips to hospital emergency departments and ensure that older Australians living in residential aged care have access to the nursing care they deserve.
Finally, is putting a dedicated facility based registered nurse in the room—not over the phone or with the responsibility of looking after three or four facilities. Through extending the availability of registered nurses in aged-care facilities, the government is committed to ensuring quality care. This bill would legislate a new code of conduct for the aged-care workforce that will set high standards of behaviour to ensure that care is delivered in a safe, competent and respectful way. The bill legislates for the creation of a comprehensive worker registration scheme; in the meantime, criminal history checks will remain for workers entering the aged-care sector.
This bill replaces the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument with a new model for calculating aged-care subsidies. The new body will be titled the Australian National Aged Care Classification care funding model, which has been developed in consultation with the aged-care sector and consumer groups. Funding under the new Australian National Aged Care Classification model will commence on 1 October 2022.
The bill makes a series of much-needed structural changes that will improve the health, wellbeing and safety of older Australians. The bill will also assist older Australians and their families to have a better understanding of care requirements, and the operation of the providers. On top of this, the Albanese government is taking swift action to enhance the protection of older Australians living in aged care. The government's aged-care response is working to enhance the safety of workers and visitors in homes, and introducing infection control training.
The government is committed to integrity and transparency in the aged-care sector, introducing measures to hold providers to account about what they are spending money on and other information about provider operations. Through this bill, a star-rating system will be published on all residential aged-care services by the end of 2022. Publicly available information ensures families and future residents are able to make informed decisions about the facility they are moving into. The information will provide an honest contrast to the flashy fliers and advertisements. Further, the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority will be renamed to reflect a change of scope to include provisions of advice on health care, aged care, pricing and costing. These important measures respond to public concerns—concerns that embody the sentiment of residents and workers in aged care.
This government is set to deliver 17 recommendations from the royal commission through the first two pieces of aged-care legislation. The former government could only manage nine. This government has acted swiftly and will legislate real changes that will improve the lives of residents in aged care and the incredibly important and dedicated people who work with them. Unlike the former government, Labor is getting on with the job. This bill brings back care into the heart of aged care, and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator GROGAN (South Australia) (12:29): You'd be hard-pressed to find a single Australian who doesn't have a loved one in aged care, approaching aged care or in some form of at-home support care. The broad range of services for older Australians is necessary and vital in a compassionate society. Unfortunately, the message that we've heard on this side of the chamber and the message the royal commission heard is that you'd be hard-pressed to find a single Australian who thinks that our aged-care system is working. It just isn't, and the stories that we hear over and over again throughout our communities reinforce that.
In 2013, when the coalition came to government, they unpicked a wide range of reforms that had been put in place by the previous Labor government. They'd been legislated, they'd been planned, they'd been consulted, and those reforms would have gone a long way to ensuring that we did not find ourselves in the situation that we do find ourselves in today. It is a system that has been on the precipice of disaster for the last decade, a system that was ignored by the previous government, underfunded and allowed to languish. When you allow the aged-care system to languish, you allow Australians to languish. People who've worked their whole lives to support this country are being left abandoned and are not being cared for in the manner that they deserve.
In the last nine years, we've seen 23 reports from inquiries and studies all the way to the royal commission. That's 23 reports. Each and every one of them was completely and utterly ignored. I don't need to explain to you all how shocking the findings of these reports are because many of you have read them. Far too many Australians, as they've read them, have felt sick to their stomach at the situation that we are placing our older Australians in.
Last week, I spoke to this chamber of how Australian communities, industry and workers are sick and tired of the uncertainty and the divisive politics that have surrounded climate change in this country for over a decade. I spoke of how workers and industry and communities are needing certainty, are needing to understand what that plan going forward is, are needing to understand the issues that we face and how we intend to address them. We need a plan that is backed up by consultation, by input from industry and from communities. Best practice policy is what we should be aiming for. Last week when I spoke about climate change, I may well have been speaking about aged care. We have exactly the same circumstance. It's an issue that has been long neglected and ignored, and just as the Australian people sent a clear message to us on the need for climate action, they have sent that same message of need for strong action on aged care now. We need an aged-care system that cares, we need a system that we can have confidence in and we need a system that will deliver the support our loved ones need.
Prior to the election, I had the opportunity to travel around regional South Australia, talking to workers, talking to aged-care providers and talking to families. The stories were consistent and they were alarming. No-one felt that they had their loved one in a situation that was all that it should be. Some were in better situations than others, but in the main people were really upset, really concerned and felt very powerless in that circumstance. I spoke to families who had loved ones who needed help eating food, for whatever reason. They needed to be coaxed; they needed to be supported through every meal, and the hours in those aged-care facilities were insufficient for staff to undertake that work, yet the families were not given permission to be there at every meal. For many of them it's then a decision about whether they maintain their own employment circumstances and how they share around that workload. All the while, those frail, older people are in a care facility where, without one-on-one support, they are not getting sufficient nutrition. So I can tell you, whether it's in Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie or Mount Gambier, or anywhere else in regional South Australia—or in the rest of the country, for that matter—the message is exactly the same. The litany of issues, from food and personal care to the amount of time that anyone could spend engaging in a meaningful way with their loved one, was just the same. Everyone had the same stories. This is a huge and unconscionable systemic failure.
People are worried that, when they need aged care, they'll have to move away from the communities they have lived in their whole lives. We've seen the closure of facilities in many places, which has affected the ability of families to visit with their loved one and the ability of those families to afford the petrol to get to the aged-care facility. It's different in the regional areas. It's not the same as in the city. It's not just an extra 10 minutes. It's not just an extra couple of kilometres. We're talking about people having to travel hundreds of kilometres to see their loved ones, while also maintaining their own jobs, bringing up their own families and still trying to maintain that strong bond with their loved ones.
The other critical issue here is that of workers. I spoke to many, many workers who feel exactly the same way as the families of those older people in residential aged care. They care so much and they try so hard to undertake their jobs, yet they do not have the time. The staffing is insufficient. The structures are inefficient. The way things pan out on a daily basis is that they are left running from one resident to the next, often with many, many bells lit up on their panel—knowing they have to go and see someone because they need assistance but just not having the ability to get there, given the enormous number of people who are requiring support. They're exhausted. They simply can't go on. I heard story after story from aged-care workers saying that, if they went and worked in a retail environment or in a cafe environment, they would earn more money and they would be less stressed. The additional shifts they're being asked to do, the hours that they're undertaking and the level of stress that they're having to deal with are causing what can only be described as a mental health crisis across our aged-care workforce.
The industry are worried that they won't be able to sustain the care they want to provide, having been stuck in a nine-year revolving door of inquiry and report and inquiry and report and no action. Earlier this year, the ABC reported that a resident in an aged-care facility in Port Augusta had developed very bad bedsores, and the sore on his back became so bad that you could actually see his spine. That's the kind of situation that we are seeing in some of our aged-care facilities, and it's one that we should all be ashamed of.
I heard stories of workers spread so thinly that they would find co-workers in tears and they would find co-workers trembling with anxiety about not being able to care for the people that they genuinely want to work with and genuinely want to support.
This kind of anguish for the families and for the workers cannot go on. The neglect must end—and the Albanese Labor government intends to do just that. We are not waiting. The bills that have been provided are going to take those first steps, and there's more to come.
Key to today's legislation is the principle of transparency. Part of the message I heard consistently was that people didn't understand how the aged-care system was being funded and what the aged-care providers were spending on food and on care—and various other aspects, be it administration, profits or the like. They did not know what those taxpayer funded subsidies were actually going towards; they did not know how the subsidies were calculated. And they did not know how to pursue their concerns. This bill begins to address some of those very specific concerns—namely, it establishes the Australian National Aged Care Classification model, which will be the structure for calculating the aged-care subsidy. This was endorsed by the royal commission and will ensure transparency and clarity about what subsidies are provided and what they are spent on.
The bill facilitates the publication of star ratings, so the community can start to understand exactly how those facilities are operating. It introduces a code of conduct for the aged-care sector—again, transparently sending the message to the community about what they can expect and what they can deserve from our aged-care sector. The provisions in the bill facilitate increased information sharing and oversight of refundable deposits and bonds and strengthen the governance of approved providers.
Crucially, this bill extends a serious incident response scheme to home care and flexible care, whereas it previously only operated in residential. That will move the sector to start covering off on all the in-home care that is provided, and that serious incident response scheme will help address issues as they are coming to light and to get onto it immediately, to make changes and address those situations.
We know that aged care needs to be tailored to people's specific needs and we know that that's a challenging situation. We know that the more independence that people have in aged care the better they fare, and the better the quality of life that they enjoy. Still being able to make the decisions that you can, even though you are unable to make other decisions or you are unable to continue with certain aspects of your life, to retain that control, is desperately important for the wellbeing of our older Australians. But the flexibility isn't a barrier to accountability. Those two things have to go hand in hand. Approximately one in 20 older Australians will experience some form of abuse or neglect but it's only one in six cases, it's estimated, that are reported. So there is a huge disparity there between what is happening and what is being talked about and what is being reported up the line.
At the end of last year, just over 16,000 South Australians were receiving home-care packages. Unfortunately, at the moment, the structures and mechanism for reporting abuse and neglect in those in-home facilities is vastly lacking and does not give the opportunity to improve those circumstances, improve those services and make a difference to those older people. So the bill introducing that legislation is necessary to extend that report and to ensure that we fill that gap.
The fundamental issue we face here is how we treat our older people and how we provide their families with the confidence, the knowledge and the understanding to be able to work with the system, to be able to look at where those issues are and pursue some solution, some resolution, to the problems they're facing. It's about the transparency that we choose to bring in here and the additional information for people, to understand how the aged care they're selecting for their loved one is performing, how they are matching up to the standards that we set as a country for the care of our older people and, then, having that detail about the percentage of the money they receive—the government money they receive, public funding—what that is being spent on.
Is there an overspend in the administration, noting that there does need to be administration but it needs to be balanced? How much of that money is going into profits for our profit based providers, and is that appropriate? How much money is being spent on the food that is being provided? How much money is being spent on the care, the time that individual care workers have to spend with residents, to see how their day's going, to make sure they have the care they need, that they're not lying waiting to go to the bathroom, that they're not having accidents because they need the support and assistance. These kinds of things are critical to how we run our aged-care system.
I commend these bills, particularly the accountability that we wish to bring into this system, the accountability and transparency.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (12:44): I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. It is an extremely important piece of legislation, as we've heard so many times today and last week. It is absolutely necessary, following the damning report of the royal commission into aged care. The title of the interim report summed up the experience of many in the aged-care sector, whether they be the staff who provide the care that is so important to our elderly Australians and their families or the residents and patients themselves.
Let's think about neglect. In fact, the opening title of the first paragraph reads, 'A shocking tale of neglect.' One of the opening paragraphs reads:
Australia prides itself on being a clever, innovative and caring country. Why, then, has the Royal Commission found these qualities so signally lacking in our aged care system? We have uncovered an aged care system that is characterised by an absence of innovation and by rigid conformity. The system lacks transparency in communication, reporting and accountability. It is not built around the people it is supposed to help and support, but around funding mechanisms, processes and procedures. This, too, must change.
It goes on to read:
Our public hearings, roundtable discussions with experts, and community forums have revealed behaviour by aged care service providers that, when brought to public attention, has attracted criticism and, in some cases, condemnation. Many of the cases of deficiencies or outright failings in aged care were known to both the providers concerned and the regulators before coming to public attention. Why has so little been done to address these deficiencies? We are left to conclude that a sector-wide focus on the need to increase funding, a culture of apathy about care essentials, and a lack of curiosity about the potential of aged care to provide restorative and loving care—all of which is underpinned by an ageist mindset—has enabled the aged care system to hide from the spotlight. This must also change.
It also reads:
Left isolated and powerless in this hidden-from-view system are older people and their families. 'This is not a life.' 'This is not my home.' 'Don't let this happen to anyone else.' 'Left in her own faeces, and still no one came.' 'Mum doesn't feel safe.'
This cruel and harmful system must be changed. We owe it to our parents, our grandparents, our partners, our friends. We owe it to strangers. We owe it to future generations. Older people deserve so much more.
We have found that the aged care system fails to meet the needs of our older, often very vulnerable, citizens. It does not deliver uniformly safe and quality care for older people. It is unkind and uncaring towards them. In too many instances, it simply neglects them.
Quite frankly, it is a national disgrace that the system has just carried on under these conditions. What makes it worse is that those who had the power to do something about it did nothing. I'm happy to say that the Albanese government is not going to cop that. The evidence taken and recommendations made by the royal commission are far too important to ignore. We owe it to older Australians to put it into practice by introducing this bill so that they have the assurance that they will get the very best care when they go into aged care and that that assurance also extends to their families.
This bill makes a series of important changes that will improve the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians. It will also assist older Australians and their families in understanding the quality of care and operations of providers. This bill contains nine measures to implement urgent reforms to the aged-care system and responds to 17 recommendations of the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was established on 8 October 2018 by the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. Experts saw it as a crucial opportunity to address a failing system. The royal commission made no fewer than 148 recommendations to address structural issues in funding and governance, formulated after evidence from 641 experts, residents and families, over almost 100 hearing days since the former Prime Minister ordered the inquiry in October 2018. Those are just a few facts about the royal commission. For someone who's spent a fair bit of time in Senate inquiries, this is mind blowing. There have been 10,574 submissions received to date, and 6,800 telephone calls were made to the information line. Like many Australians, I was horrified to hear stories and cases about the conditions aged-care residents were being forced to live in on a daily basis across our country.
As part of their lobbying for change, I did meet last year with a delegation of aged-care workers and United Workers Union members who came to parliament to appeal to the former government to act and make change. These are good, decent, hardworking people who actually love their jobs and the care they provide to older Australians. It was terribly sad to see how heartbroken they were because of the conditions they were being forced to endure at work and the conditions their residents were also experiencing as a result.
The UWU submission to the royal commission included some direct experiences of aged-care staff, which I want to put on the record:
I get disheartened and frustrated— there's not enough staff or money for what we do. Management do not listen to us, notice what we do, or take notice of our complaints. This has to change.
Another quote:
In the last three years my income has reduced each year and I expect this year to make four. I have no guarantee at all regarding how many hours I work. I cannot get out of this job soon enough and when I do would never consider working in this field again and would never recommend for anyone else to do so. It's a complete dead end.
How sad is that? Here's another quote:
I do the job because of how much I care not for the money because it's terrible pay for the amount of physical, mental and emotional strain on us…I'm sure more people would do it if the pay was better …
And another:
Paper work, documentation are necessary but our residents come first, carers are working back in their own time to finish workload …
Another one:
I work extra hours in my own time …
And another one again:
People should not be allowed to do a 6 month course and then be qualified to work in aged care. They have no idea what they are doing and it's not fair on the elderly that end up getting these care staff.
Another quote:
It took me 9 months to get qualified through TAFE. Stop doing six week courses to qualify to be a carer.
Poor quality of food, abuse, neglect, lack of quality care, poor standards and conditions for staff and residents, understaffing, lack of training, low levels of pay—the list goes on and on and on. You've got to ask yourself: how did it get to this? Conditions in the aged-care sector had gotten so bad that earlier this year aged-care peak bodies and unions made a request to the former government for the Australian Defence Force to be brought in to assist in residential aged-care facilities to alleviate stress on the embattled aged-care workforce. As we learnt, COVID-19 hit the aged-care workforce hard, with some facilities losing anywhere between five and 50 per cent of their staff due to COVID-19 results or staff needing to quarantine as close contacts of a case. On top of this, peak bodies stated that staff burnout among the workforce was resulting in widespread resignations.
Industry bodies—including the Australian Aged Care Collaboration, consisting of six aged-care peak bodies; the United Workers Union; and the Health Services Union—joined together to call for extra assistance from the former government. Those same organisations pleaded with the former government to fix unresolved systematic funding and workforce issues, which were outlined in the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. And what did they get? Nothing. So, on top of the complete neglect that the former government was guilty of, there was a complete disrespect for the peak bodies who represent the aged-care sector, which is in so much need of attention. And despite the former Prime Minister himself conceding that the aged-care sector was indeed in crisis—not my words but his—his government refused to act on aged-care reform.
Prior to the election Prime Minister Albanese told Australia that fixing aged care was a Labor priority, and the introduction of these reforms demonstrates this government's commitment to reform. The royal commission response bill provides the legislative framework for the new AN-ACC funding model for residential aged-care homes, which will replace the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument in October 2022. This framework will offer more equitable funding, better matched to provider costs in delivering the care residents need. It also extends the functions of the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority, which will lead to better price setting for aged-care homes.
Other measures enshrine transparency and accountability of approved providers, and improved quality of care and safety for older Australians receiving aged-care services. This includes the star-rating system, which will see the Department of Health and Aged Care publish a comparison rating for all residential aged-care services by the end of this year; an extension of the Serious Incident Response Scheme to all in-home providers from 1 December 2022; many increased protections from preventable incidences, abuse and neglect of older Australians; and a new code of conduct for approved providers, their workforce and governing persons—and what a good thing that is. There will be better accountability, improved quality of care and a code of conduct for providers and their workforces, which will go a long way to address the experiences of aged-care staff that I did mention earlier.
I wish there had been a system of transparency and accountability in place when we were looking to settle finally on a place for my mother-in-law, Ilma—we do miss you, Ilma. She would have turned 90 last week. But I know the effort that my wife and her sisters put in to find a suitable home for Ilma. A lot of research was done and much consideration, I have to say. The family made the decision to settle Ilma at the Aegis residential care facility in Melville, not far from our home in WA. When the family looked at the room and checked out the facility the management told us that Ilma would have her own bathroom, no problem. I know that when the girls moved her in there they were packing her stuff into the bathroom and saw another door. They opened the door and it was the door to another room; it was a shared bathroom.
Now, that's fine. But the thing is that on the Aegis website, which was checked out again on Friday and had been updated on 6 July, these lying so-and-so's are still saying that you get your own bathroom. You do not: the age-care residents do not. They even lie about it, and to this day they're still getting away with it. I would encourage any Western Australian—I'm happy to meet with the board of Aegis and I'm happy to meet with whoever from Aegis; I wouldn't put a cat or a dog into an Aegis home while they lie like that. The sad part is the staff at Aegis too: really decent people, all agency people. They didn't know where they were going to work this week or where they would work next week. They were just shuffled and shunted around. Aegis: do you think that's a good model for old people, when older people desperately need recognition and desperately need some form of stability? They have to have that; it makes them feel more comfortable too. Not only that, it's the poor staff. The poor staff are being shunted around. They didn't know the intricacies of their residents; they didn't know that some people may be a little bit harder to do something for here or there. They didn't know because they weren't around long enough, and Aegis had great pride in taking people's money for that.
But, I'm happy to say, that Ilma ended up at RAAFA, in the Royal Australian Air Force aged-care facility in Perth. What a magnificent facility! It was chalk and cheese: everything about the place I would thoroughly recommend. The food that was served to the residents was the same food that was provided in the canteen for the workers, which was the same food provided at the little lunch bar when family came in to visit them. What a magnificent bunch of people. When Ilma did pass away, it was lovely to see that half a dozen of the staff came to her funeral. They treated her like family, as they treated all the residents at RAAFA as family—not like Aegis, one of the worst of the worst. I would thoroughly—thoroughly—enjoy a conversation with Aegis, but I know they wouldn't dare pick up the phone because I would even start using my truckie language when we got into it, seriously!
In saying that, I want to commend these bills to the Senate and I thank the Senate for its time.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (12:59): I will start my contribution today on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 by pointing out this is the first bill Labor has introduced into the Senate. It really underlines the seriousness with which we take this issue that we would choose to open our entire legislative program for the 47th Parliament with this bill. Of course, it's hugely important. This bill goes to the heart of how Australia treats some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
Aged-care recipients are people who have lived long lives, worked, volunteered, raised families and paid their taxes. They are our aunts, uncles, parents and grandparents. They've spent many years contributing to our country and community, and now, when they lack the ability to live independently and care for themselves, they justifiably expect to be cared for by society with dignity and with compassion. It's a simple and reasonable request. But, sadly, we as a nation have been failing our older Australians for a considerable time.
The aged-care sector is in crisis because of nine long years of failure and neglect by the previous government. Fixing the crisis is not just about looking after the millions of Australians relying on the aged-care system now; it's for all our sakes. Let's face it: most of us will grow old—hopefully!—and will rely on the aged-care system in some way. When we do, we would like the assurance that we are going to get better treatment than the suffering being experienced by many older Australians now.
The aged-care royal commission shone a light on this suffering, and many, many Australians were absolutely shocked by what it revealed. Among the worst findings of the aged-care royal commission were the following. In 2018-19 the number of alleged assaults in aged care was estimated to be between 32,000 and 44,000. In the same period there were estimated to be 2,520 alleged incidents of unlawful sexual contact—almost 50 a week. Studies revealed that as many as 68 per cent of people in residential aged care were either malnourished or at risk of malnutrition, and there was a clear overuse of physical restraints and dangerous and unnecessary chemical restraints in residential aged care. The royal commission concluded that at least one in three people accessing residential aged-care and home-care services experienced substandard care. They also found that many of the people in institutions in the aged-care sector want to deliver the best possible care to older people but are overwhelmed, underfunded or out of their depth.
I know those opposite hate being reminded of this fact but the royal commission's interim report was given a one-word title: Neglect. That one word sums up perfectly the shameful treatment of older Australians over the time those opposite were in government. The previous government failed to address the crisis because, like so many issues, they treated it as a political issue—not a human catastrophe but a public relations problem to be media managed. And the worst culprit in this respect was the former Prime Minister, Mr Morrison. We all know Mr Morrison earned himself the nickname 'Scotty from Marketing' because of his propensity to try and spin his way out of problems rather than show any real leadership.
A case in point is the release of the aged-care royal commission's final report on 1 March 2021. Mr Morrison held a press conference outside Kirribilli House to announce the release. What should have been an opportunity for a dialogue about the contents of the report, its damning findings and what the government was going to do to address it turned into a PR stunt. I'm sure Mr Morrison was hoping the media would simply go along with it, but kudos to the ABC's Anne Connolly for calling it out for what it was. Here's what Ms Connolly said when she confronted the then Prime Minister about his stunt: 'You've had this report since Friday. You've given us half an hour's notice to attend a press conference. You tabled the report while we were here. How can we ask questions that are relevant to the report without knowing what's in it?' I guess the follow-up implicit in Ms Connolly's line of questioning was, 'What's the point of the press conference?' It was clear that the point of the press conference was to deliver the type of spin that Mr Morrison constantly engaged in. He released the report at the beginning of the press conference because he wanted journalists to hear his interpretation of the report, without asking any uncomfortable questions about its damning findings. To Mr Morrison, the ongoing crisis in aged care—like the so-called barnacles of the Howard era—were just a political problem that he wished would go away.
Let's not forget that the aged care royal commission was called about six months before the 2019 federal election. Although it was an important exercise in shining a light on some of the most egregious failings in aged care, I think the timing was pretty cynical. It seemed that Mr Morrison, shortly after coming to the leadership, wanted to kick the can down the road to get through to the next election, rather than take any real action to address the aged-care crisis. Even with the royal commission in full swing, there was a need for urgent action and there were plenty of previous reports to outline what action was needed, as the royal commission itself noted in this stinging criticism:
Had the Australian Government acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people could have been avoided.
This is a sector that has never truly been valued by those opposite—an attitude that was typified by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull when he suggested that an aged-care worker in Burnie in Tasmania was 'entitled to aspire to a better job'. On that side, we've had a procession of aged-care ministers who have allowed report after report after report into the sector to accumulate. Altogether, 23 reports have been gathering dust on the desk of one aged-care minister after another without any meaningful action from the previous government to address the crisis in aged care. The latest and, arguably, least efficient or effective minister—although he had strong competition for that title, I think—was Senator Colbeck. As minister, Senator Colbeck oversaw the disastrous handling of the government's response to COVID outbreaks in aged care in the early days of the pandemic. In the midst of this crisis, he chose to accept VIP hospitality at a cricket match in Hobart instead of turning up to answer questions at a public hearing of the Senate's COVID inquiry. I remember speaking to Senator Gallagher about this and being told that he had been offered dates and that the inquiry was happy to arrange dates that suited Senator Colbeck, but he still didn't want to turn up. When, after being embarrassed into it, he did finally front the inquiry, he could not answer a basic but important question: 'How many Australians have died of COVID in residential aged care?'
I won't pretend that the election of a Labor government means the crisis in aged care is magically over. Australians can, at least, be assured that they now have a government that is serious about tackling the crisis. Before the Senate today is a bill that helps restore quality, dignity and humanity to Australia's aged-care system. Extensive consultations have been held with unions as well as aged-care workers, providers and residents to ensure that their views and experiences are considered, and I would like to congratulate the minister for aged care for hitting the ground running and meeting with so many stakeholders in such a short period of time.
Several of the measures in this bill were recommended by the royal commission. Some measures in this bill were included in the former government's Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021, which lapsed when the election was called. Instead of schedule 2 of the lapsed bill, a new comprehensive worker registration scheme will be developed, with criminal history checks continuing to apply in the meantime. In regard to this measure, I appreciate that working in aged care is a difficult and demanding job. In fact, when I was a student nurse, I was doing my studies at an aged-care facility. It was actually a hospital for aged-care people, and 98 per cent of people in that hospital were in aged care. I was a childcare worker for 12 years and I've got to say that aged care was even harder than that, and it was a pretty damn hard job being an early childhood educator. So, having worked in aged care, I absolutely get what these workers are going through. I remember being spoken to once because I wanted to spend time talking to the patients, and there just wasn't time. You just got on and did what you had to do. There was no time for that. That was really sad, and it was one of the reasons I left.
There are occasions, however, where someone demonstrates that they are not a fit and proper person to be working in aged care, and we don't want them simply going and getting a job with another provider. If you look at some other professions with registration schemes—for example, doctoring, nursing and teaching—the same principle applies, because they have vulnerable people in their care.
The bill also includes several measures that will provide additional protections for older Australians. These include the expansion of the Serious Incident Response Scheme, to establish obligations on approved providers of home care and flexible care in a community setting to report and respond to incidents and to take action to prevent incidents from recurring. A new code of conduct will set higher standards of behaviour for aged-care workers, approved providers and governing persons of approved providers, to ensure they are delivering aged care in a way that is safe, competent and respectful. Improved information-sharing between care and support sector regulators will enable proactive monitoring of cross-sector risks and better protection of consumers and participants from harm. An interim solution for the provision of consent to the use of restrictive practices is to be established while state and territory consent arrangements are reconsidered.
The bill also includes a series of measures that provide greater transparency and accountability for providers. Star ratings will be published for all residential aged-care services on My Aged Care by the end of 2022. These ratings will enable older Australians, their families and carers to make informed decisions when seeking quality aged care.
From 1 December 2022, approved providers and their governing bodies will be required to meet new responsibilities that will improve governance. Approved providers will be required to notify the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission of changes to key personnel, and the current disqualified-individual arrangements will be replaced with a broader suitability test. Amendments will also be made to increase financial and prudential oversight in respect of refundable accommodation deposits and bonds. The functions of a renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority will be expanded to include the provision of advice on health-care and aged-care pricing and costing.
This bill is just the beginning of the work of the Albanese Labor government. It's just the beginning of the work that we will be doing to restore decency and humanity to the aged-care sector and to ensure that older Australians are treated with respect, dignity and compassion. I'd love to be able to say that we can end the crisis now—that we can snap our fingers and fix the mess caused by nine years of neglect—but this is a large and complex multibillion-dollar sector, and you can't fix nine years of neglect in nine or 10 weeks. Having said that, we are dedicated to the task—which is more than I could say for our predecessors.
This bill addresses some of the most urgent reforms for the sector, but we have some big plans for aged care that we committed to in the lead-up to the recent federal election. The Albanese Labor government will ensure that every residential aged-care facility will have at least one qualified registered nurse, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We will raise the standard of aged care across the board and mandate that every resident receives at least 215 minutes of care per day. We will back a real pay rise for aged-care workers, and, if the Fair Work Commission delivers it, we will fund it. If we want higher standards of care then we need higher wages for our carers. And we will ensure better food for aged-care residents by mandating nutrition standards for aged-care homes. The contrast between our commitment to drastically improve standards in aged care and the neglect of the previous government could not be more stark. But we are determined to fix this mess and to ensure that older Australians receive the quality care they need and deserve.
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (13:14): I am very pleased to be speaking on this legislation today and very pleased to be following my colleague from Tasmania, who has been an incredible advocate for aged-care workers and for the aged-care sector in her time representing the people from Tasmania. I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill. But there's one word that rings in people's minds across the country when we think about our aged-care system, and that is 'neglect'. That is the hallmark of the former government's record on aged care—woeful neglect at the hands of a government that either did not care or was too incompetent to act. There have been 23 reports into aged care over the last decade. Let that sink in—23 reports that went ignored by the former government. Let us never forget that it was in this place that the former Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians turned his back on aged-care residents, dedicated carers and their families.
Today, a decade of inaction is finally about to end, as our government introduces this bill and starts to piece back together a broken system. The Albanese Labor government has fast-tracked this legislation because the time to act is long overdue. These 23 reports, all gathering dust under the watch of the former government, painted a horrifying picture. For over a decade, the sector has been crying out for support from the federal government—advocates, workers and residents have all been banging the drum for reform, with no response and no reprieve. The onset of the global pandemic forced an ambivalent government to confront their own legacy on caring for older Australians. The former government failed older Australians and the workers that care for them. They failed to secure enough vaccines and PPE to protect residents and staff from COVID. They refused to act on the recommendations of the royal commission that they were forced to call. Their minister was asleep at the wheel while the sector was in crisis, and nobody stepped in.
Not enough resources, not enough action, not enough accountability—the stories that came out of the royal commission were horrifying. Residents and their families told us people were locked in their rooms without food or water. Aged-care workers told us they were overworked, underpaid and put at risk. They literally cried tears of exhaustion and for being ignored. And how was this received by the previous government? They consistently denied that there was a problem, voting consistently in this place against motions to acknowledge an aged-care crisis, making media appearances arguing that the lived experience of aged-care residents and staff were overblown, repeating their talking points through the shortage of PPE, vaccines and RAT tests. Time and time again, they refused to acknowledge that the problem was in front of them. Even when they were forced to initiate a royal commission, the former government's implementation of its recommendations were worse than half-hearted. In the 17 months since the final report was handed down, the former government addressed only six per cent of those recommendations. Six per cent—what a slap in the face for those workers and residents.
For over a year, not even one-tenth of the recommendations have been addressed. With all the resources of a parliament and a government and a bureaucracy at their disposal, the former government only tinkered around the edges of a broken system. To top all this off, the Morrison Government tried to buy the votes of the aged-care workforce with a one-off payment just before the election. Instead of using their time in government to fix the real structural issues in the sector that they had been told about for years, they tried to paper over it with a quick sugar hit for front-line workers. Well, we know how that turned out for them. At the last election, aged-care workers, residents and our community sent the former government a clear message that meagre adjustments around the edges would not cut it. The Anthony Albanese Labor government was given a clear mandate at the election. It is time to fix up aged care and build a sector that respects older Australians and those that care for them.
Labor's Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill amends Australia's aged-care legislation to deliver a suite of long-overdue funding, quality and safety measures. These reforms are borne out of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which was called after countless disgraceful reports on the treatment of older Australians made it impossible not to act. The royal commission was intended to be a line in the sand, one that said aged-care residents and aged-care staff deserve to live and work in a sector that is centred around care and not around profit. Labor's bill sets the foundation for a better aged-care sector in Australia. These urgent measures respond to a range of recommendations from the final report of the royal commission. These are structural reforms and lay the foundation for a more compassionate and sustainable sector.
So, what will the bill do? It will deliver a more equitable funding model. It will protect residents through a code of conduct for staff and providers. It will recognise the skill of aged-care workers through a national registration scheme, and it will improve transparency through a provider star rating system and stronger governance. It will extend protections to older Australians receiving care in their homes. This is a vital first step towards getting the settings right to put the pieces back together of a broken system.
But Labor's work to fix this broken system doesn't stop here. Further reform to aged care is currently before the House. The Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill will deliver three important reforms. Under Labor's plan, every residential care provider will have a residential nurse on staff 24/7. We are putting the nurses back into the nursing homes. We're making sure funding gets to residents by capping management funding allocations, and we're improving transparency in the sector by making service providers' expenditure publicly available, delivering the transparency and accountability that aged-care workers and residents have been calling for for so long.
I'm really proud that the Labor government is prioritising these long-overdue reforms. We weren't quite on these issues in opposition. We worked hard to hold the government to account on behalf of aged-care residents and their staff. For months—years—we urged the former government to act, and now, at the very first opportunity in government, that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing what they refused to do. This bill should be a statement to all Australians that Labor are committed to doing what we say we will do. We've said all along that we'll stand up for workers and for vulnerable members of our society, and we're getting on with the job of doing that. The bill is the product of a new Labor government that listens, considers and acts. It is the product of a government that wants to bring people together and leave no-one behind, the product of a government that cares.
This bill starts the incredibly hard but important work of piecing back together a broken system. It is the product of thousands of residents, staff and families generously sharing their stories, their recommendations, on how to build a sector that all of us can be proud of. It is the product of aged-care workers coming to this place time and time again, sitting in the gallery, marching down the corridors of this place, pleading for help, pleading for assistance. It is the product of those aged-care workers time and time again marching on the streets, going out there and talking to people about the conditions in their industry.
Today, as I finish my contribution, I want to thank those aged-care workers for their contribution; for going that extra step for their residents, day in, day out; for being engaged on this issue; for coming here and telling us what needs to be done. This side of the House was listening. This side of the chamber was listening to those workers, and that is why the passage of this bill is the foundation for a safer, more respectful workplace for Australia's aged-care workforce. It is the foundation of a more safe, healthy and dignified life for older Australians, Australians who have done their time, who have contributed to this country and who now deserve a dignified retirement. I commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:24): I'm pleased to contribute to the debate today, as this bill covers important, once-in-a-generation reform of Australia's aged-care system. As the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee during the 46th Parliament, I take a particular interest in a bill that affects senior Australians and their needs.
The opposition support this bill, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, as it is a revised version of the royal commission response bill that the coalition introduced in the last parliament. Essentially, it mirrors the legislation already discussed in this chamber. We also support the delivery of the second stage of critical aged-care reform that was started by the coalition in government in response to the royal commission's final report. What disappoints me about this bill is that the Albanese government could have saved senior Australians and the aged-care industry undue stress by passing these reforms when our bill was before the previous parliament. Interestingly, one of the major election promises of Labor during the federal election campaign was to support aged-care residents. I would argue that making them wait extra time for the introduction of such important reforms is not supportive at all. In fact, the government's treatment of older Australians since the election has been very disappointing. Free rapid antigen tests are no longer available for aged-care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak, and the government has backflipped on its decision not to extend the critical COVID support provided by the Australian Defence Force. More support for aged-care providers was promised but nothing has eventuated as yet.
Like the coalition's 2021 aged-care bill, this bill will replace the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument with the Australian National Aged Care Classification, AN-ACC, residential aged-care funding model from 1 October this year. However, by delaying the passage of this bill the government has now restricted the time available for aged-care providers to transition to this new AN-ACC funding model. This delay has done absolutely nothing to support or help the aged-care sector or any of the senior Australians in residential care.
I'm also disappointed to see that, in addition to delaying this time-critical legislation, the government has removed the worker screening regulations that were contained in the coalition's bill. These were important regulatory arrangements that were supported by the sector. The royal commission recommended stronger regulation of the personal care workforce to increase protection for senior Australians and reduce the risks posed by unacceptable workers. Our bill responded to recommendation 77 from the royal commission, which called for an authority that would conduct pre-employment screening for aged-care workers and those responsible for governance of approved suppliers. Our approach applied to employment across the care and support sectors, incorporating aged care, disability support and veterans care. This approach included using a national database of cleared and excluded people to support those making employment decisions. It is clear the government has bowed to the unions by removing this specific schedule on worker screening within the bill. The government must stand up to the unions and implement good policies to protect the rights of care sector workers by allowing the establishment of a database for all care workers that is consistent at a national level. One database across the care sector would have simplified processes for employers and made it easier for NDIS, aged and veteran carers to move between caring roles in these sectors. It also would have protected aged-care residents and given providers the peace of mind that comes from knowing that their employees are fit to care for older Australians. Instead, this bill, and the remaining protections it introduces for those in aged care, has been delayed for no good reason.
Under the coalition government the number of home-care packages and residential care packages rose every year, and funding for aged care rose too. The 2022-23 budget included $522 million in funding for aged-care reform, which built on the $18.3 billion committed in the 2021-22 budget and the 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. That brought the total investment in aged care in response to the royal commission to over $19 billion. We on this side of the chamber remain committed to providing senior Australians with the support they need to stay in their own home for longer, as evidenced by our term in government. I mentioned that the number of home-care packages rose every year under the coalition; more specifically, these home-care packages had increased from 60,308 in 2012-13 under Labor to a projected 275,597 in 2024-25, an increase of 357 per cent. Additionally, in February this year the coalition government announced that eligible aged-care workers would be paid a bonus of up to $800. The aged-care workforce retention bonus benefited 265,000 workers in the sector and was the fourth workforce bonus.
The opposition will be keeping a close eye on upcoming aged-care reform introduced by the Albanese government, to ensure that appropriate regulatory provisions are introduced and that those who exhibit poor conduct in the aged-care sector are held to account. We listened to the experiences of those who gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and we took decisive action to implement the recommendations and introduce reforms that delivered vital support and improved quality of care within the sector.
STATEMENTS
Revie, Mrs Annie
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:30): On a different topic, today I would like to acknowledge the work of Mrs Annie Revie, who has resigned from the Flinders Council after serving as mayor of this beautiful island paradise for almost four years. Mrs Revie stood down from the leadership role three months shy of Tasmania's upcoming local government elections and plans to focus more on her health and wellbeing. Acting Flinders mayor David Williams said he had enjoyed working with Annie over the past four years and recognised her dedication to the role of mayor and the efforts she put into making our community a better place to live in.
I have witnessed Mrs Revie's commitment to this community for myself during a number of trips to Flinders Island, most recently sitting down with her just a few months ago as she explained the priorities for the island community and the unique challenges faced by residents in this remote archipelago. During that same visit, I inspected the newly sealed section of road that leads to Palana. Mrs Revie championed for this six-kilometre section to be sealed, with this advocacy also leading to the Tasmanian government taking ownership of the road, as it linked to the existing state owned road that connects Flinders' main port and airport.
Flinders Island also embarked on an innovative tourism program during Mrs Revie's tenure. The two-year Islander Way project was created by the Flinders Island community with Brand Tasmania, focusing on the future of tourism in the Furneaux island group. The Islander Way uses community led regenerative tourism principles to co-create the region's future.
I first met Mrs Revie when she was the principal of West Launceston Primary School, when my children were students there. Each time we have met on Flinders Island, she has remembered this, always taking an interest in what my children—who are now adults—are doing. She has an amazing recollection for all of her students, and I'm sure she has impacted many lives throughout her extensive teaching career. We appreciate and thank you for all your service, Mrs Revie.
Roach, Uncle Archibald William AM
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (13:32): I want to say a few words about the late Archie Roach. I remember sitting under my bower shed in Broome with Mr Bill Johnston, the late British actor Pete Postlethwaite and Archie. Archie and Pete had been on a journey of discovery in the Kimberley. They'd camped out in the desert with the Ngurra native title claimants and witnessed the senior leaders painting a huge canvas depicting their country. All night the elders sang songs of their country and its significance. They walked across the old Fitzroy River crossing and heard the stories of Jandamarra, the famous Bunuba warrior, his deeds against the encroaching pastoralists and the police posses out to kill him for he had shot one of them. These were the stories of the killing times in the Kimberley being told to Archie and Peter.
These were travels undertaken after meeting in Perth with Bill Johnston and his family and learning of the brutal murder of Bill's adopted Aboriginal son, Louis St John Johnston, by British backpackers, who used a vehicle instead of horses in the killing. We were all working on a documentary, called Liyarn Ngarn, on how the two stories of our encounters with each other might come together and make us as one and free us from our ignorance, fears and prejudices—trying to expose truth about the events in our historical and contemporary relationships. It involved AFL footballer Michael Long and his reflections on his courageous walk from Melbourne to Canberra. Having attended too many funerals and sorry days. Michael put to the Prime Minister, Mr Howard: 'Where is the love for my people?'
Liyarn Ngarn was a song that Archie composed. The underpinning rhythm was, 'Come together, because we've already been too far apart.' Farewell, my friend.
Roach, Uncle Archibald William AM
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:34): Following on from Senator Dodson, I took would like to pay my respects to the late Archie Roach and give my sympathies and condolences to his extended family. What an incredible human being he was. What an amazing musician he was. What an incredible contribution he made to Australia and, indeed, the world. His music and art had a power that transcends so many others. It had the power to tell the truth about the history of this nation. It had the power to enlist understanding and empathy. It had the power to force us to think about how others are feeling, how they've been treated, and to inspire the action we need to respond. This is the transformative power of music and art.
I also want to make a contribution today in relation to all artists and musicians who are struggling in this country, who have struggled for far too long under years of ignorance and a lack of support from the previous government, and call on the new government not to simply put them in the later basket or the too-hard basket but to actually act now to support the arts industry here in this country. It desperately needs a helping hand, whether for insurance for live events, investment in our cultural institutions or the ability to have a seat at the table.
As we lead into the budget in October, many people will be looking on and hoping that this government does better and more than the last. But it means bringing artists to the table and talking directly with them about what they need to continue their power, their truth-telling, their storytelling— (Time expired)
Canice's Kitchen
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (13:36): I want to give a plug to Canice's Kitchen in Elizabeth Bay in Sydney. It has been providing meals and services for more than 30 years to people who are doing it tough. This year I'm going to be running the City to Surf for Canice's Kitchen. The City to Surf hasn't run for two years, because of the dreaded COVID disease, which is a real shame. It has been a great event for the last 51 years where people have had the opportunity to raise funds for important causes.
In the past few weeks, I have been able to duck down to Canice's Kitchen. It is a one-stop shop for people who are down on their luck. You can go there for a hot meal, but you can also access the services that you would need to get back into the workforce, including an ironed shirt and a practice interview, and access to other services that will help you get back into the workforce and back on your feet.
I met with Carrie Deane, who is running Canice's Kitchen, and a number of her volunteers. She has more volunteers than you can poke a stick at. It really is a great service that she is providing the community there in Elizabeth Bay, and I expect much further beyond Elizabeth Bay. So I'm running the City to Surf for Canice's Kitchen and we are looking for people to provide some support for Canice's Kitchen, which is pretty much running on the smell of an oily rag through the goodwill of the people in the community, without much government support. The City Surf is a good race and Canice's Kitchen is a good cause.
Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
Superannuation
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:38): I rise to give tribute to the very hard work of the SDA 'shoppies' union, who, along with others in the trade union movement, notably the ASU and the ANMF, fought very, very hard in the last parliament to make sure that superannuation goes to all workers.
I note that Senator Bragg was talking about people returning to work. When they return to work, even if they earn under $450, they will be entitled to super. In the last parliament, I was very proud to vote for that at the end of a long, successfully fought campaign. Over too many years, the last nine years, the government was very resistant to this, but, finally, it was delivered. This is a very significant improvement for workers in Australia.
The SDA members, over 200,000 in number, and the 1.3 million workers that exist in the sector in retail, fast food, warehousing, hairdressing, beauty, pharmacy and online retail and modelling are predominantly women. Women, who are 60 per cent of the workforce, or approximately 131,000; workers under 35, 57 per cent, or approximately 120,000 Australians; and low-income earners in retail and food services, which are two of the three lowest median weekly earnings in Australia, will get the benefit of now having a superannuation contribution on every hour that they work and every dollar that they earn.
Now, there's so much more that needs to be done. Superannuation remains inaccessible for some workers. Those in the gig economy who were in this building last week spoke about how not only have they not got superannuation being paid anymore; they've had to dip into their super, as the business model, the Amazon business model, has been attacking their capacity to even make ends meet. There's much more work to do with superannuation, but it's a Labor government in now, and we'll be making sure Australians get their fair share— (Time expired)
Commonwealth Integrity Commission
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:40): I'm meeting this week with Attorney-General Dreyfus to review the planned national anticorruption commission. I'll be taking One Nation's position to the Attorney-General—that checks and balances must be in place to preclude witch-hunts. The terms of reference must allow for all outside influence on our decision-making to be identified and removed. Outside influences are driving lucrative subsidies for unreliable solar and wind energy. These subsidies are lining the pockets of donors and sponsors of members of parliament in both chambers—cronyism worth tens of billions of dollars.
In my speech entitled 'This parliament is a crime scene', I detailed the cronyism that infected the previous Liberal-National government. Crikey has now detailed similar cronyism and conflicts of interest in the Labor Party and their affiliated fundraising entities. Running government for the benefit of oneself or one's party's finances is a betrayal of the trust the Australian people have placed in us. It is corruption and it destroys confidence in government and governance. A government without the confidence of the people must rely on authoritarian measures to maintain control.
This is the path the state and federal governments chose to take during COVID, and those powers have now become permanent. Freedoms stolen are never willingly surrendered. A federal ICAC must investigate the many conflicts of interest and tainted decision-making in governments' COVID responses—questions of complicity, cover-ups and cronyism. A royal commission, though, is the only way to deal with the wider illegal issues that arose during COVID. Constitutional questions about federal and state roles, the legal standing of the National Cabinet, vaccine mandates in the public and private sectors, the use of troops against law-abiding citizens, criminal harm from medical procedures conducted under duress and police use of excessive force must all be reviewed before we can move on, or we will be there again. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation founded on freedom and personal responsibility.
Australian Parliament
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (13:42): It's passing strange that, in a world like the one we're living in today, with all of the challenges households and businesses face, we'd be debating something at least in the public domain like their prayers said at the beginning of any parliamentary session. But, now it's up for debate, I'm going to put on record my personal views around the prayer, and as a Christian I'm very proud to be doing so. As we know, of course, participation in the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of any session of parliament and on any sitting day is a voluntary thing. It's something I encourage others to do, but, certainly, as I say, as with all commencement proceedings it is voluntary; it is not compulsory.
Recognising that we as humans can use all the help we can get is, I would have thought, something that would receive broad support in the community. Acknowledging that we don't have all the answers, that we don't get everything right, that we are, in fact, fallible is something I think that most people out there in the real world would agree with. That's what this prayer that we say every day is all about. It's important to acknowledge that the job we do here is so crucial. On behalf of the Australians who elect us to come here and to represent them, we have to get the job right. So, to that end, asking God to help us can't be a bad thing, in my view, and I wouldn't have thought that, even to atheists, it would it be a bad thing.
As Nick Cater said today in the Australian, in his rallying call for conservatives to unite around causes like this, amongst others, recognising that there is something bigger than ourselves is a good counter for human hubris—again, something I think most Australians would agree with when it comes to representative democracy. As it says in the good book, in Romans 14:16, do not let what you know to be good be spoken of as evil.
Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health) (13:44): I would like to just share with the Senate an incredible weekend with the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land and take this opportunity in the minute and a half that I have to thank all of those involved in organising the four-day festival. It's a massive event, the Garma festival, and I take this opportunity to particularly thank Dr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, Djawa Yunupingu, Djapirri Mununggurr, Yananymul Mununggurr, Balupalu Yunupingu, Mr Barayuwa Mununggurr and Denise Bowden, all of whom are part of the Yothu Yindi Foundation and the board that actually runs the Garma festival. The festival began in 1999 as a community gathering in Gulkula, Gumatj country, in remote north-east Arnhem Land.
It's a place where so many thousands of Australians gather, and it is an incredible weekend. You see academics, you see people from all walks of life who are coming to Nhulunbuy. They fly to Nhulunbuy and then travel up to Gulkula and they have the opportunity to learn more—in particular balanda, non-Indigenous people, learn more—about the Yolngu and the First Nations people. This weekend was incredibly important as well as the Prime Minister and my colleagues Senator Pat Dodson, Linda Burney, Marion Scrymgour, Luke Gosling and Mark Dreyfus were able to attend at the invitation of the Yolngu people. The Prime Minister then spoke about the importance of a voice to parliament and has now engaged with all of Australia, with a proposed question. On behalf of myself and my colleagues, I just say thank you to the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land for your hospitality
47th Parliament
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (13:46): This country is changing, our community is changing and our parliament is changing. More than half of us were born overseas or have a parent born overseas and a quarter of us have a non-European background. Only 44 per cent now identify as Christian, and that number is falling. Other religions are growing, as is the number of Australians who don't have any religion, which is now almost 40 per cent. This parliament is more diverse than ever: more First Nations people, more people of colour, more women. Australia is changing.
I'm glad to see Senator Hanson get absolutely slammed for storming out of here last week during the acknowledgement of country. It was frankly a pathetic stunt from a senator who is struggling with relevance deprivation. If we are genuine about saying to the community that parliament is a place that welcomes people from every race, faith and culture, its systems and norms, which purport to represent the community, must change. How can we continue to open our daily business with the Lord's Prayer? How can we continue to swear allegiance to a monarch of an outdated and terrible institution that has wreaked havoc around the world? How can we allow racism to harm so many?
The truth is First Nations peoples are the sovereign owners of this land, and our society is now highly culturally diverse. Our parliament should be modern and secular, so let's stop pretending that we are a white Christian monocultural society. We are not. We never were. We must shed the shackles of colonialism. Racism, the oath to the British monarch and the reading of the Lord's Prayer to start our day have no place in here.
Climate Change
Senator BABET (Victoria) (13:48): I know this is not my first speech. I rise today to speak of the sheer madness of the government's plan to deindustrialise and shut down Australia in pursuit of an unachievable fantasy of net zero emissions, a fantasy handed down by the unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations and the World Economic Forum who care not for the future and prosperity of our nation or our people and who care not for the environment. Net zero at its core is about power of control for a tiny elite, global corporations and foreign powers. The science that CO2 emissions will clause catastrophic climate change is not settled, and there is no true sign of consensus on the matter. Even if one were to accept the currently pushed narrative, Australia counts for approximately one per cent of total global emissions, and a cut of 43 per cent will have practically zero effect on global climate change. When the government says that it is going to reduce CO2 emissions, what it really should be saying is, 'Let's reduce our standard of living, let's close down Australian businesses, let's close down factories, let's stop making things, let's stop using agricultural land and let's cut back on food production.' We need to cut the rubbish and call it what it is.
Meanwhile, the CCP are not reducing any of their CO2 emissions. In fact, they have plans to build 43 more coal-fired power plants. What we will see is a transfer of wealth and of the means of production from Australia over to the CCP. They will be quite happy with the direction that we are heading in. We shut down our country and they benefit. This will not result in any net decrease in CO2 emissions, as they and others will simply increase their emissions and negate any reductions we make. What we need to do is move away from an obsession with CO2 and open up a conversation around pollution. We want to protect our natural world, keep our rainforests from being cut down, keep chemicals out of the estuaries and the sea, cut plastic pollution, and make corporations accountable for industrial waste which they output when they produce goods and services. Yes, we do. So let's move the conversation to that.
Australian Constitution: First Nations Voice
Senator VAN (Victoria) (13:50): Many complex issues come before this parliament. With all of them I am open-minded and ambitious but also pragmatic. Take Labor's 43 per cent emissions reduction target. I'm supportive of the ambition. Possibly I'm even more ambitious than they are. However, I'm very sceptical of their plan to get there. You see, the devil is in the detail, and, if the details are not properly declared and considered, serious unintended consequences can occur.
I take that same approach to Labor looking to enshrine a voice to parliament. In asking Australians to make a decision to change the Constitution, it is only right to ensure that Australians are given details of the changes and that their consequences are assessed. Most will find the notion the PM put up yesterday romantic in its simplicity. However, constitutional law is neither simple nor romantic. If the Prime Minister wants to be successful, he has to bring all Australians with him. He has to provide a plan. He has to consult. He has to let parliament inquire in it and report back to our citizens so their decision is informed.
It is an unreasonable expectation to simply hold a referendum to ask Australians to give the government a blank cheque so that they can then go and make constitutional changes as they see fit. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. While Labor's intentions may be good, without adequate consideration of the details, we may very well be signing Australians up for something which they do not want and which may make their lives worse.
As my good friend Senator Nampijinpa Price rightly pointed out in her first speech, there are very real problems currently affecting the lives of people in Indigenous communities, and they are what we should be fixing right now.
Abortion
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (13:52): Beryl Holmes, one of the co-founders of Queensland's Children by Choice, described the campaign for abortion rights as 'one of the oldest and hardest-fought of women's political struggles', and, as we watch abortion rights being dismantled in the US, we know that the fight is not over. Abortion in Australia is still a postcode lottery, and, despite decriminalisation across most of Australia, far too many people dealing with an unwanted pregnancy simply cannot access abortion because either they can't afford it, or they can't get the time off needed to travel the sometimes hundreds of kilometres to the only provider in the region or they fall outside the strict access rules in their state.
Abortion is health care and should be provided free at public hospitals across the country. More GPs and nurses should be able to prescribe RU486, and the full cost of abortion and contraceptives should be covered by Medicare. I welcome comments from the Labor women's caucus about harmonising laws and improving access, but I urge the government to go back to their previous 2019 commitment to make abortion care a condition of federal hospital funding. It was very sad that the Prime Minister appeared to dump that commitment last week. I welcome commitments from Lyn Allison and Judith Troeth today calling for free and unfettered access, with personal choice being the criterion. This is not a partisan issue; it's a rights issue.
As Children by Choice celebrates 50 years of operation this week, I recognise that progress has been made, but there is still such a long way to go. If 'our bodies, our choice' is to mean anything, abortion must be accessible, affordable, safe, legal, compassionate and free from stigma.
Superannuation
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (13:54): No sooner had the electoral writs been signed than Labor's new finance minister, Stephen Jones, had come out and said that Labor were going to look at investigating raising the superannuation levy to 15 per cent in their second term. Now why doesn't that surprise me? Labor just can't keep their hands off hardworking Australians' wages. Just tell me this: at what level of superannuation is Labor going to stop taking from hardworking Australians?
If Paul Keating had said, back in 1992, that by 2025 we were going to have 12 per cent of people's wages taken out of their income and given to someone they've never met, and there's no guarantee of them ever getting it back, do you really think that the people would have accepted that? We certainly know that they didn't in New Zealand. In New Zealand they had a referendum on compulsory superannuation in 1997, and they voted that down—92 per cent to eight.
There is no greater drain on the economy of this country than the $30 billion paid in fees to the financial services industries, and I'll include the banks in this—I'm not being partisan here; I don't care what type of superannuation it is—and the $50 billion in tax concessions that mainly go to the top 20 per cent. To put that into perspective, the pension costs $53 billion for the bottom 70 per cent. And that's the thing. Since superannuation's been introduced, the number of people on the pension or part-pension has only been reduced from about 76 per cent to 70 per cent, and a large part of that is because of the index changes made in 2018. Superannuation is not fit for purpose. It is a massive drain on the economy of Australia and it is hurting the people who need it the most: low-income-earning Australians.
Arts and Culture
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (13:56): It was exciting to join Minister for the Arts Tony Burke in Hobart, recently, for the first of a series of meetings across Australia to consult on a national cultural policy. The hundred or so people in the room were also excited, and not just for the opportunity to contribute to the policy. As I went around the room there was a strong voice that the arts sector now has a minister and a government that really understands their issues, a government that understands there is far more value in the arts than just its economic contribution. Arts also contributes to our social wellbeing, our cultural identity and how Australian stories are told to Australians.
The sector is breathing a collective sigh of relief because of the contrast of this government's attitude to the policy vacuum of the coalition. Over almost a decade, the little policy the previous government delivered was either focused purely on the financial returns from arts projects or on prosecuting cultural wars. I could hardly forget participating in hearings across Australia on a Senate inquiry into the government's, since abandoned, Catalyst slush fund. Hundreds of artists lined up to criticise the slush fund, which had been funded by massive cuts to the independent Australia Council.
This misguided policy spoke volumes about the attitude of those opposite to the arts. This was the same government that, when it came to office, tore up Labor's Creative Australia policy and replaced it with—nothing! They didn't replace it with anything. Australia's artists, arts organisations and national cultural institutions deserve much better than the cuts and chaos of the past decade. They deserve a government that values the arts not just for what it contributes to the nation's economy but also for what it contributes to the nation's soul, and that's what they will get under an Albanese Labor government.
Tasmania
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:58): The former coalition government had 10 years to deliver for Tasmania, and they didn't. They failed miserably. A majority Albanese Labor government outlined a holistic plan during the election campaign to deliver for Tasmania—a plan for local jobs, a plan to bring back manufacturing and secure jobs back to Tasmania in respect to our commitment to Waverley Woollen Mills, FermenTas and Green Hydrogen, a plan to access TAFE and skills, a plan to address the cost-of-living, and access to GPs and health services, a plan for end-of-life care with a 10-bed hospice, a training and respite centre to train aged-care workers and disability workers in Northern Tasmania. We outlined a plan to grow our community and help them prosper. In George Town, alongside our hydrogen plan, we invested in a plan for health with a new swimming pool and gym that will be used by all members of the community.
I will be working closely with the respective Labor ministers to make sure that our commitments are delivered in full and on time—something that the member for Bass failed to do during the three years she was part of the lacklustre, no-policy Morrison government. Labor has been elected to a majority government, and we will be focusing on delivering a holistic plan for the people for Tasmania, as I said, to improve the cost of living. (Time expired)
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Questions Without Notice
The PRESIDENT (14:00): Before we move to question time I was asked on Thursday to review the Hansard, and I make the following statement.
During question time on 28 July I undertook to review two lines of questions to determine whether they met the guidelines in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice that:
… supplementary questions are appropriate only for the purposes of elucidating information arising from the original question and answer. They are not appropriate for the purpose of introducing additional or new material or proposing a new question, even though such a question might be related to the subject matter of the original question.
Minister Wong asked me to review questions asked by Senator McKenzie relating to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Indonesia. Senator Birmingham identified that the questions each related to answers given by Minister Watt on the subject the previous day. If that was the intention, the questions could have been framed so as to make the connection clear from the outset. Senator Birmingham asked me to review a line of questions from Senator Ciccone on the same topic. In my view this read from the original answer to the supplementary questions here was easier to discern, and no one took a point of order in relation to those questions.
Senate P ractice has changed since President McClelland provided the guidance on supplementary questions in 1986. In September 1996 President Reid noted:
… many supplementary questions have now departed from these principles and have simply become additional questions.
In August 2018 President Ryan noted:
… the Senate has become, whether it should or not, somewhat more liberal in its application of those provisions …
When supplementary questions were introduced, they were meant as a way of clarifying the answer to the primary question. Now they almost always flow from the original question rather than its answer. This is no doubt because senators write their supplementary questions before the primary question is answered. If senators want to return to the original intention of supplementary questions, I'd be happy to refer that matter to the Procedures Committee. In the meantime, I encourage senators to make the connection from the primary question and answer to the supplementary questions clear.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Wages
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:02): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said recently in Gladstone:
People will be seeing in their bank accounts what the change of government means. People will be seeing in their bank accounts a wage increase …
Can the minister guarantee that there will always be real wage growth under an Albanese Labor government?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:03): I thank the shadow minister for finance on her position and thank her for the question. It is somewhat surprising that I would get a question like this this early on from those opposite. Let's not forget: a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture was to ensure low wages or no wage growth for a decade. I think since we've come to government we have been clear that getting wages moving is part of our economic plan. We have this challenging set of circumstances where the price of everything is going up and people's wages have been going back for the last decade, essentially, under your government's economic architecture. We have a job to do; there is no doubt about that. And getting wages moving is a key part of our economic plan, as is dealing with the decade of wasted opportunities and wrong priorities like a failure to land an energy policy, which is placing upward pressure on bills that people are feeling in their pocket.
So, yes, we have provided a submission to the minimum wage case. That has handed down a wage outcome for those on the minimum wage. We have supported that, something that never featured in your submissions to the Fair Work Commission when you were in government—not once. In fact, you had a whole section on the importance of low-paid workers in the economy. That's how far you went. We are absolutely determined to get wages moving. If you listen to the media reports and the questions of the Treasurer—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator GALLAGHER: Madam President, it's very difficult to answer when you're getting yelled at.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, resume your seat, please. No, Senator Hume, she hasn't finished her answer. I've sat the minister down because I'm having difficulty hearing her answer. Please continue, Minister Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER: Thank you very much. We're getting wages moving to assist households to deal with the increased cost of living, particularly the inflation challenge that we're dealing with— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a supplementary question?
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:05): Given the minister has refused to guarantee real-wage growth, and the Treasurer's economic update predicting that real wages are, in fact, falling, does the minister stand by the previous statement of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations that it's not a recovery if people's wages are effectively going backwards?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:06): We have inherited a very challenging set of economic challenges from those opposite as a result of nine years of wasted opportunities, wrong priorities and a former government that was determined to make sure that people's wages went backwards. We have come in dealing with higher-than-expected inflation, and we are determined to get wages moving by submissions to the Fair Work case and by supporting wage claims like those of aged-care workers that are currently before the Fair Work Commission. These are the things that a government can do: it can help to shape the policies that deliver wage outcomes for people. We do want them to get moving, but we are facing—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, resume your seat.
Senator Birmingham: A point of order on direct relevance—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, you stand and then I give you the call, and then you start. You started to speak as you were rising. Please start now.
Senator Birmingham: Sorry, President, I was trying to be efficient in the use of time. A point of order on direct relevance. The minister has been asked very clearly about a quote attributed to one of her ministerial colleagues and whether she stands by that quote. She has now for some 49 seconds talked around and about the broad topic but has not come directly to the quote.
The PRESIDENT: In the supplementary question there were references to other ministers and a real-wage increase guarantee. I believe that the minister is being relevant, but I will continue to listen carefully. Please continue, Minister Gallagher.
Senato r GALLAGHER: I can assure the Senate that every single minister in the Albanese Labor Government is focused on ensuring that we ease the cost of living on households, that we get wages moving and that we deal with nine years of— (Time expired)
The PRESI DENT: Senator Hume, a second supplementary question?
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:08): The Treasurer recently said that there is no credible economic forecaster in Australia right now who thinks that wages growth is going to keep up with inflation. Does the minister agree with the Treasurer that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations isn't a credible source when it comes to wages, and isn't it true that an Albanese government has already broken its promise on real-wage growth?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:08): I honestly cannot believe the gall of those opposite in talking about real-wage growth when a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture was to suppress wages. The reason we're in the position where we haven't had real-wage growth is because they, when in government, were determined to put pressure on wages growth and make sure there wasn't any.
Every minister in this government is focused on making sure Australians get more money in their pockets, whether it be through child care, reducing energy prices, getting wages growing or training for the high-skilled jobs of the future. These are the areas where government can make a difference. We've hit the ground running. We're doing the work that you lot didn't do for the past nine years.
Australian Constitution: First Nations Voice
Senator STEWART (Victoria) (14:09): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister outline the Albanese government's plans for a voice to parliament?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:10): I thank Senator Stewart for, I think, her first question—is that right?—and congratulate her again and welcome her to the Senate.
Over the weekend, the Prime Minister gave the most significant speech on Indigenous affairs by an Australian Prime Minister since the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. He outlined the government's plan to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, and, specifically, he laid out plans to enshrine a voice to parliament in the Constitution, proposing a referendum question for consultation:
Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?
It's a straightforward proposition; it's a simple principle; it's a question from the heart. Our starting point is a recommendation to add three sentences to the Constitution in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this country:
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
We are seeking momentous change, together. But it is also a very simple one, because, at its heart, it's about consulting our First Nations brothers and sisters, our First Nations peoples. It's about consulting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on the decisions that affect them. It is nothing more and nothing less. And, as the Prime Minister said, it is simple courtesy and common decency.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stewart, your first supplementary?
Senator STEWART (Victoria) (14:11): Can the minister please explain how a voice to parliament can support practical outcomes and Closing the Gap?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): I thank the senator for her supplementary question. The voice will be an unflinching source of advice and of accountability. It's not a third chamber; it's not a rolling veto; it's not a blank cheque. It's a body with the perspective and power and platform to tell the government and the parliament the truth about what is working and what is not—to tell the truth with clarity and with conviction. So it's not an either/or proposition. We can and must do both.
It won't delay our plan to train 500 new Aboriginal healthcare workers or stand in the way of our new investments in lifesaving kidney dialysis treatment. It won't slow us from upgrading roads or expanding education and economic opportunities. On the contrary, recognition and a voice will accelerate progress, because the accountability of the voice will help us get on track to close the gap.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stewart, a second supplementary?
Senator STEWART (Victoria) (14:13): Can the minister explain to the Senate the Uluru Statement from the Heart process leading to the voice to parliament?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:13): I thank Senator Stewart for her supplementary. There are now more First Nations parliamentarians—including the good senator—than ever before, and that does make an enormous difference. But elections mean parliamentarians come and go. The voice will exist and endure outside of the ups and downs of election cycles.
Let's recall that the Statement from the Heart is the outcome of the most significant consultation process of First Nations Peoples Australia has ever seen. It builds on the work of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians and the 16-member Referendum Council. There had been many years of consultation by the time the council travelled to 12 different locations around Australia and met with over 1,200 Indigenous representatives. Whilst I respect that there are differences of views, including in this place, I do urge senators to recognise and respect the years of concerted effort that have got us this far. (Time expired)
Australian Constitution: First Nations Voice
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (14:14): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. Will the government inform Australians of its plan for who will serve on the proposed Indigenous voice, and how they will be selected, prior to asking Australians to amend the Constitution?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:14): I could certainly start to provide an answer, but, if there is more information that I can provide to the senator, I will following question time. I think the idea that the Prime Minister outlined on the weekend is for the consultations to commence on a whole range of detail about progressing this to the referendum stage. I think the Prime Minister was very clear on the weekend that he didn't want to determine arrangements without consultations with First Nations people, but the regional voice arrangements will be put in place and they will provide a nationally-consistent system for First Nations people and government to work in partnership at the regional level. The regional voice arrangements will complement a First Nations voice at the national level. Obviously, there will be consultations across the board not just with First Nations communities but also with state and territory governments, but, if I can provide further information for the senator, I will do that following question time.
The PRESIDENT: First supplementary, Senator Nampijinpa Price?
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (14:16): What process has the government put in place for Australians, including Indigenous Australians, to provide feedback about the proposed question and approach to the voice?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:16): My understanding is that there has been deep consultation with a whole range of stakeholders around the development of the advice that informed the speech the Prime Minister gave on the weekend. Obviously there's been the work that previous parliaments have done, but there is also the work that Dr Calma and Dr Langton have done, which has helped inform the position that the Prime Minister outlined on the weekend. I think the Prime Minister has been clear that there needs to be a lot more discussion, consultation and listening from government as we proceed to the next stages of the referendum process, and that will be done. This is being done in the spirit of cooperation, collaboration and goodwill, and— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Nampjinpa Price, second supplementary?
Sena tor NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (14:17): Prior to the vote on the voice and noting the government is fast-tracking abolishing the cashless debit card, will the government outline its alternative plans for tackling alcoholism, drug addiction, problem gambling, violent assaults and sexual abuse in Indigenous communities?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:18): I thank the Senator for the question. I think the outline that the Prime Minister gave on the weekend was that we want to consult further, listen and get the details right—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator GALLAGHER: That is the approach the government will take whether you guys like it or not. In relation to the second part of the question, we are working with the Northern Territory government in relation to specific supports that need to be on the ground in the Northern Territory, but obviously there are a whole range of programs that are funded from the Commonwealth in partnership with the states and territories to support First Nations communities across the board, whether that be in health, social supports, housing or education. Those of course will continue but with greater purpose from this government than from previous arrangements that have been put in place. We seek to collaborate, to cooperate and to listen to First Nations communities.
Australian Constitution: First Nations Voice
Senato r THORPE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:19): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. How does your proposed constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to parliament affect First Nations peoples' sovereignty in this country?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:19): Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for the question. I think the government have made clear that we will look to implement in full the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which, as you know, goes to voice, treaty and truth. I understand that you personally have a different view about the order of those achievements or those objectives. From our perspective, given the level of consultation with First Nations' communities that grounded the Uluru Statement from the Heart, we are proceeding respectfully in accordance with that statement. I would make this point, and it picks up really what Senator Price asked my colleague Senator Gallagher: I appreciate that this is a big change for many people. And I appreciate that there are those who wish to ask questions of detail. Sometimes, even if those questions are answered, they will not change their position. I respect that, but—
Senator Thorpe: I have a point of order on relevance. My question was: how does going into the Constitution affect First People's sovereignty in this country? That's all.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I believe the minister is being relevant. Minister Wong, please continue.
Senator WONG: As I understand, what has been put to us by the representatives of First Nations peoples, as outlined in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, is that they are seeking that we respond first to the voice before moving to treaty and truth. I would make the point that the enshrinement of a voice is symbolic, but it is also pragmatic. It's symbolic because it will include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the founding document of our country. It is pragmatic given that there is no systematic process for First Nations peoples to provide advice to the parliament. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?
Senator THORPE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:22): How does the Prime Minister's proposal for a referendum honour the principles of free, prior and informed consent as defined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Labor supported in the last parliament?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:22): I'm sorry, I might have misheard. I couldn't actually hear the question.
The PRESIDENT: I will ask the senator to repeat her question, if the clocks could be held.
Senator THORPE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:22): How does the Prime Minister's proposal for a referendum honour the principles of free, prior and informed consent as defined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Labor supported in the last parliament?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): The Prime Minister is seeking to implement not only an election commitment but a call from First Nations peoples for this action. So, when you talk about consent, my view and what I'd put to you, Senator, through you, President, is that the consent is a representative group which has come together—
Senator WONG: I appreciate you may not agree with it. But people from across this country, First Nations peoples, have come together and they have asked for this. They have put out their—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator WONG: I'm not sure if Senator Thorpe and Senator Price want me to continue, or did you—
Senator McKenzie: People talk across the chamber all the time.
Senator WONG: No. No—
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, interjections are disorderly. Minister, please continue.
Senato r WONG: My point is this: I appreciate that you have a difference of views, but we are responding to—and Senator Dodson, I'm sure, could speak with much greater eloquence than I—the call from First Nations peoples across this country as exemplified and as captured—
Senator Thorpe: Point of order on relevance: as the only sitting member in this place that was at Uluru, there was no consensus. There was no consent. I was there. Were you?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. The minister is being relevant to the question that you asked. Minister Wong, please continue.
Senator WONG: Well, this is a call that we wish to respond to. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, a second supplementary?
Senator THORPE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:24): Will you legislate for a makarrata commission before any referendum? We want a treaty before the referendum. Will you legislate it before the referendum?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:24): I know that Ms Burney and the Attorney have had some consultations on this, and I think the phrase 'co-designing' was used. But if I can get further information about the timing of that, I will do so. I'd make the point that we are seeking to progress this reform in the priority that has been identified by First Nations peoples. As I said, I appreciate that isn't your view, but it's the view of a great many who came together to form the Uluru Statement from the Heart, who are also democratic representatives in their own right, who are also democratic representatives in their own right of their peoples, and we are responding to that. But if I can get further information about the process of design for makarrata, I will do so.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister, your time has expired, and I would ask you to address your answers to questions through the chair. Senator Sterle.
Building Better Regions Fund
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:26): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Could the minister outline the findings of the ANAO's report into the Building Better Regions Fund?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:26): Senator Sterle, as a matter of fact I can. I know this is something that you followed very closely in your role as the chair RRAT, the committee we know affectionately as RRAT in this place. I don't know about you, Senator Sterle, but I thought that the election defeat that we saw recently of the former coalition government meant that once and for all the coalition's rorts had ended—the scandals, the rorts, the media reports, finally we might be making it clear of that. But, sadly, these reports have not even ended with the defeat of this government because last week the Australian National Audit Office released yet another scathing report into the former government's management of the $1.15 billion Building Better Regions Fund.
This report confirmed what we already knew about the former government. It was the latest rort from a government notorious for rorts: sports rorts, car-park rorts, stacking the AAT—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, resume your seat, and I would ask you to look to me when you're answering questions so you can see that I am asking you to sit down. Senator Rennick.
Senator Rennick: Point of order, President: the Auditor-General is a partisan hack whose credibility was trashed in the Leppington Triangle.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, resume your seat. There is no point of order. Minister Wong, I've given you the call.
Senator Wong: Point of order, President. Obviously, the Auditor-General can't defend themselves The point of order is that I'd ask that you ensure the Auditor-General are advised of what has just been said in order that the Auditor-General can avail themselves of the protections which exist under Hansard.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister Wong. I'm not sure that it is my job to advise outside bodies, but I'll seek the advice of the clerk, and if it is I will do so. Senator Watt, please continue your comments.
Senator WATT: I think Senator Rennick's interjection indicates exactly why the former government cared so little about accountability if that's the way in which they regarded the high office of Auditor-General of this country.
What the report released last week showed is that communities in regional Australia have been dudded, as the coalition actively ignored grant guidelines for their own political purposes in the largest open and competitive grants program available for regional projects. Regional communities with projects assessed as deserving were dumped to accommodate the political needs of a desperate, failing government in its final hours.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator WATT: Now, we always said in the run-up to the election that the coalition spent public money like it was Liberal-National Party money.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, please resume your seat. I would ask senators to be quiet when the minister's answering the question because I need to hear the answers as well as other senators in this place. Senator Watt, please continue.
Senator WATT: As I say, we said repeatedly that the coalition spent public money like it was the Liberal and National parties' money, and here is yet more proof in this fund. Regional Australia deserves better. Taxpayers deserve better, and they'll get it from this government. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, first supplementary?
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:29): What did the ANAO report find regarding panel composition and record-keeping of decisions, Minister?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:30): Thank you, Senator Sterle. One of the worst aspects of the report tabled last week was what it had to say about ministerial panel composition and record-keeping of decisions. That presumes that there was record-keeping of decisions, which, of course, there was not. Instead of transparent, accountable decision-making, ministerial decisions were shrouded in secrecy. The ministerial panel made decisions on the basis of 'choose your own adventure' criteria—a non-exhaustive list of other factors that were not fully explained to those applying for grants.
I know that the Nationals have again said this was all about supporting the regions, but, of course, what happened with this program was that some regional areas were dumped to favour certain other regional areas. Would they maybe have been regional areas that had the right colour code next to them in a spreadsheet? We all know that's how the Nationals went about decision-making. Who benefited most from this? It was the Nationals. The Nationals benefited the most, as proper process was actively ignored. Those seats got $104 million more than they would have if the proper process had been followed. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, a second supplementary?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:31): Thank you, Madam President.
Senator McKenzie interjecting—
Senator STERLE: Goodness me!
Senator McKenzie interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, resume your seat. I'll wait for quiet before I call Senator Sterle again, Senator McKenzie. Senator Sterle.
Senator STERLE: With pleasure. Thank you, Madam President. Minister, are you aware of any other programs where similar concerns to those identified by the ANAO have been raised?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:31): Again, Senator Sterle, as a matter of fact, I do, because all you need to do is look at year after year of the record of the former government to find rort after rort after rort after rort—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, resume your seat. I'm waiting for quiet until I ask the minister to resume his remarks. Minister Watt.
Senator WATT: I can understand why Senator McKenzie, of all people, gets a bit toey when we talk about rorts in this chamber because, of course, we have had sports rorts, where almost half the projects that were funded were actually ineligible for funding until they had the colour coded spreadsheet that emerged out of Senator McKenzie's office. We've got the car park rorts—$660 million of rorts—which the former government used simply to target their own marginal seats. And, while those opposite love to name-check regional communities, when it comes to funding them, the Auditor-General found that 27 per cent of regional grants awarded by the Commonwealth between 2018 and 2021 actually went to recipients from major cities. Remember the regional pool that just happened to be in North Sydney? That's how much they care about regions. They will rort till they die, and that's why they're out of government. (Time expired)
Health Care
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:32): My question is to Senator Gallagher, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The Tavistock gender clinic in the UK, a leading provider of gender dysphoria services, will close in 2023. Britain's National Health Service asked Dr Hilary Cass, past president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, to review the treatment of children with gender dysphoria. The Cass review found that Tavistock gender clinic has failed vulnerable children, and it recommended closing Tavistock. Finland, France and Sweden have taken the same decision for their gender clinics. Here in Australia, Melbourne's Royal Children's Hospital has many links with Tavistock. Minister, will you review Australia's gender clinics to ensure that these clinics are not causing the same harm to vulnerable children that the Cass review found at Tavistock?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:33): As the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, if there is further information I can provide after question time, I will do so. I would say that the Royal Children's Hospital has an excellent reputation in paediatric care in Australia. It is staffed by world-renowned medical professionals providing first-rate care to younger citizens in the state and also around the country. I don't have close knowledge of the services they would provide to children with gender dysphoria, but I have no doubt that they have the professional standards and the professional skills that are required to provide those young people and their families with first-level advice and health care.
We have no information available to the government, to my knowledge, that we should see it any differently to that—that is, that where there are children who require health services they access them through a children's hospital; that those services are accredited, there are professional standards in place and there are appropriate ethics and various advisory bodies that inform the delivery of those services; and that if there are concerns around them they are dealt with through the appropriate channels—not necessarily by politicians, who have particular views about certain things, but actually through the delivery of health services—as we do in a whole range of other areas of paediatric care.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator R OBERTS (Queensland) (14:35): So you can't say whether you will review? Evidence shows that the use of puberty blockers sterilises children, and the impact on brain development is unknown. The Royal Children's Hospital is currently studying the impact of puberty blockers on children. We are literally offering a treatment we do not know is safe. Minister, when will the Australian government intervene and demand the closure of all gender clinics in Australia until gender treatment in children is proven to be safe, if ever?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:36): The government has no intention to intervene and ban particular services, health services, that are supporting families and supporting children to access the type of care that they need for their individual situation. If there is further information I can provide—and I would say, as a former health minister, that health services in this country, and we are very fortunate, are heavily regulated. The professionals who provide health services are heavily regulated. There are professional bodies in place, there are complaints mechanisms, and there are a whole range of avenues, if there are concerns about any health service, that those would go through and be dealt with. They are not normally dealt with on the floor of a parliamentary chamber.
There are many families that need services. The Australian government is about providing health services, not taking them away. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:37): Minister, One Nation listens to people and this is what we're hearing, so we speak up for constituents. Minister, a child who has not even reached puberty is incapable of knowing their own mind. Doctors, and sometimes parents, are taking these decisions on the child's behalf. Has the government considered the legal liability it is incurring for the government's part in this medical malpractice?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:37): Well, I don't agree that it's medical malpractice; nor do I agree with the proposition being put forward in the question, which is that there are professionals and parents making decisions that are harmful to young people. Perhaps, Senator Roberts, it might be good for you to go and ask the health professionals who are providing these services how they provide them and how they support young people, rather than just taking a particular view. I've always found that going in and asking questions and being open-minded—not necessarily just taking one individual's view about it but actually learning from the health professionals—is useful.
I also think saying it's medical malpractice goes too far. When we're looking at the vulnerability of the young people and children who are needing this kind of support through the health system, we should be very sensitive in how we deal with it, and as a government we're keen on making sure that we are able to provide health services to anyone who needs them, regardless of their circumstances. (Time expired)
Energy
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:38): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Labor's Powering Australia plan says, in black and white, that it will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year, for homes, by 2025 compared to today. Will the Minister representing the Treasurer guarantee that Australian families and businesses will see a cut to power bills of $275 a year by 2025 compared to today?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:39): I thank Senator Hughes for the question. Again, they're leading with their chin on a matter around energy policy. The first question was on wages policy, the deliberate design feature of the economic architecture. The third one is on energy policy. How many was it? Twenty-two. And they didn't land one of them. Twenty-two in nine years, they didn't land one of them, and what have we got now? An energy crisis!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes?
Senator Hughes: A point of order: direct relevance. The question was around bills being cut to families and businesses, and a promise from Treasury that that would occur, not around climate policy. This was about cutting bills.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Hughes.
Senator Wong: Really!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, resume your seat.
Senator Hughes: Yes. It is actually a separate thing. No wonder we are in trouble!
The PRESIDENT: I would ask Minister Wong—Senator Hughes! Senators. I would ask senators not to argue across the table, Minister Wong and Senator Hughes. The minister is being relevant. She is talking about the price of electricity. I will listen carefully to the rest of—
An honourable senator interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: The senator, Senator Hughes, stood up and called a point of order. It is not for other senators to interject. I've made my decision. I've indicated I will listen carefully to the minute and 31 seconds remaining, and if the minister isn't being relevant I will direct her to the question. Minister Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER: The senator asked me whether the government would guarantee Australians lower power prices, and, yes, we will. We will! We will put downward pressure on energy prices, absolutely, because we are doing exactly what we said we would do.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, resume your seat, please. Senator Hughes, unless—
Senator Cash interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cash. I sat the minister down because I couldn't hear her answers. I will wait until there's quiet in the chamber before I call the minister again. Minister Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER: We will lower power prices by implementing the Powering Australia plan, which we took to the election, which was our one-and-only plan compared to their 22 plans that they didn't implement in nine years. We will take the plan—and the absolute gall of the opposition, when we know that the member for Hume, two days before the election was called, actually amended the industry code for electrical retailers, on 6 April, to delay the release of increases in the default market offer for New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. That's what your government did. Two days before the election was called you hid the increase of electricity prices. You hid it! Not only did you not try to sweep it under, you amended the industry code so that people didn't know before the election. That's what you did. Now we will clean up this mess. We will implement powering Australia— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, first supplementary?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:42): Perhaps Minister Gallagher might need to listen to the Australian Energy Regulator, because ever since the change of government the Australian Energy Regulator has stated that increasing prices are likely to persist. Doesn't this show that the independent experts don't believe that Labor's policies will reduce power prices?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:43): I would say that the 19.7 per cent increase to the default market offer, that the former government hid from the Australian people on the eve of an election—
Senator Hughes: It's not about the former government. You're making a bad situation worse with every decision.
Senator GALLAGHER: That is what you did. You didn't want people to know before the election that there was a 19.7 per cent increase coming their way. Our policy will put downward pressure on electricity prices by getting more renewables into the grid. We will do what we said we will do. We will put downward pressure—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Gallagher, resume your seat. I am struggling to hear the minister's answers. Please listen quietly, and interjections are disorderly, particularly those across the chamber. Minister, please continue.
Senator GALLAGHER: We will implement the Powering Australia plan. It will put more renewables into the grid; 82 per cent of the Powering Australia plan will be from renewable energy. It will put downward pressure on energy bills, on electricity bills. You guys weren't doing it because you didn't believe in renewables, right? You couldn't sign up to it. That is what will help put downward pressure on— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, a second supplementary question?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:44): I appreciate that there has been a guarantee—which is probably a word that's not in the talking points, because no-one else from Labor will say that word—but, given the minister representing the Treasurer has signed up with the rest of the Albanese government and its ministers to refuse to guarantee the $275 that was promised—and that's the number we're asking you to guarantee—isn't it true that the Albanese government has already broken its promise on power bill reduction? (Time expired)
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:45): From out of the mouths of those that continuously broke promises! We will guarantee that we will implement our Powering Australia plan, which will put downward pressure on electricity prices and assist households in a way that those opposite never did—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Please continue now that the chamber is quiet.
Senator GALLAGHER: We stand by the modelling that underpinned our plan. We stand by our plan. We stand by the fact—
Senator McGrath: You sold a dud!
The PRESIDENT: Senator McGrath, take a breath.
Senator GALLAGHER: We stand by the fact that we will be honest and up-front with the Australian people. We don't stand by the behaviour of those opposite, particularly the member for Hume, who, on the eve of an election being called, amended the industry code so that the Australian people didn't go to the election knowing that under your watch there had been a 19.7 per cent increase in electricity.
Workforce Australia
Senator RICE (Victoria) (14:46): My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations: Your government has rushed the implementation of the previous Liberal government's new Workforce Australia program, providing only a 30-day suspension of mutual obligations, which ended last week. You've now provided an additional 30-day suspension, but only for points based activities, so people who can't attend their required appointments are still at risk of losing their payments, even when it's the broken system that has allocated them to service providers who are too far away or don't meet their accessibility needs. Will you commit to extending a pause on all mutual obligations for at least 90 days to ensure that no-one loses their payments during this cost-of-living crisis?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:47): I thank Senator Rice for the question. Obviously, as you'll be aware, I'm the representing minister, so I'll certainly do my best to give you the best answer I can—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator WATT: Something that happened when you were in government. I know it feels like a long time ago, but you'll get used to it.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, resume your seat. I'm asking senators to be quiet. I can barely hear the minister's response to the question asked by Senator Rice. Minister, please continue.
Senator WATT: Senator Rice, I will give you the best answer I can as the repping minister, and provide you with further information regarding your questions. This government accepts and believes in the principle of mutual obligation, and that is something that Labor has supported for some time—not just in this government. But the way we go about doing that is by providing people who are unemployed with opportunities to enter the workforce, including by providing skills.
I've heard Minister Burke talk about the fact that, under this program which your question is about, we are not simply going to be requiring people to apply for jobs endlessly. We are going to be providing people with opportunities to gain licences and other skills in order to help them into work. It is an alternative way of assisting people to get into work while requiring people who are in receipt of public funds to take up those opportunities to help find work. That is probably even more important at a time in Australia when we have such low unemployment—we need to encourage everyone who's available to take up work for themselves, for their families and for the country. We stand by this program, I stand by what Minister Burke said and I'm happy to provide you with further detailed answers to your questions.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Rice, a supplementary question?
Senator RICE (Victoria) (14:49): Despite promises of a clean slate, we've seen demerit points carried over from the old system; broken location services, with people being directed to apply for jobs in areas they don't live in; inaccessibility for diverse communities; the deadnaming of trans people in the system; and technical difficulty after technical difficulty. Minister, I know that you have promised to get back to us but, given the rollout has been an unmitigated disaster from day one, how can the government justify not extending the pause on mutual obligations until all the flaws have been wiped out? (Time expired)
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:49): Thanks, Senator Rice. We don't believe that at this point in time a pause is required to the system in the way that you suggest. We accept that this program isn't perfect, and we intend to go about fixing it. The technical issues you refer to are obviously things we take seriously. If there are any additional flaws in the system that you believe should be addressed, I'd be more than happy to talk with you about that or to facilitate a meeting with the minister.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Rice, second supplementary?
Senator RICE (Victoria) (14:50): Thanks, Minister. You say you take those issues seriously, yet right now I'm hearing from hundreds of people who are terrified of losing their income support payments now, through no fault of their own, while food costs are up and many people are struggling to stretch a dollar far enough to survive. What do you say to those people?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:50): Thank you, Senator Rice. What I say to those people is that they can have confidence that a Labor government, under Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister, will stand with them in providing them with the payments they require and in assisting them to find work. People can always have confidence in a Labor government to do that; that is something that is core to our beliefs.
Senator Van interjecting—
Senator WATT: I notice senators over that side are laughing at that proposition. That's really something you'd need to ask yourself, Senator Van.
The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, I'd ask you to direct your questions to the president and answer Senator Rice's question.
Senator WATT: What I say to those people, as I say, is they can have confidence that a Labor government will support them, and we will continue to make systems and programs better and improve them. We will not have a callous attitude towards people who are unemployed in the way we saw repeatedly from the former government, and we will continue to make these programs better.
COVID-19
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:51): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister please update the Senate on the government's response to the latest wave of COVID-19?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:51): I thank Senator Pratt for the question and the opportunity to update the Senate on this very dangerous third omicron wave that is prevalent through the Australian community. There are many Australians who are losing their lives every day. It's a very sobering reminder that we are still in the throes of this pandemic. Our clear message to Australians is: you're not fully protected against COVID unless you have had your third or fourth dose. To those people that are behind with their boosters or eligible for their fourth dose: please go out there and get vaccinated. It will offer you individual protection but also it will offer significant protection across the community, particularly for those that are vulnerable.
We understand that this is a really tough time for many Australians who are fatigued after the past two years of this pandemic, but there are things we can all do to protect ourselves and help protect others. Firstly, go and get your third or fourth dose. If you're eligible for antivirals please get them; ask your doctor for them. If you can't socially distance, then wear a mask. If you're sick, stay at home. And also make sure that you stay up to date with the latest health advice. Australians know that the pandemic is not over and people should continue to act in accordance with the health advice.
We have taken action to take the pressure off our hospitals and protect the health of Australians by extending the national partnership on COVID-19 for the public hospital system. We've extended that support to hospitals, we've expanded access to fourth doses, we've expanded access to antiviral medicines for eligible recipients and we're continuing to get information out to families in the community and also strengthen protections in aged care, where COVID-19 is still such a significant issue.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, first supplementary?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:53): Could the minister update the Senate on the rate of uptake for the fourth vaccine dose?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:54): I thank Senator Pratt for the supplementary. Since expanded eligibility has been made for the fourth dose the number of people getting a fourth dose each week has tripled, from around 180,000 a week to more than 500,000 per week. Over four million people have had a fourth dose, which is up almost 1½ million since we expanded the eligibility. More than 50,000 people got their third dose in the last week, but more than five million Australians have still not had theirs. Data shows that people are more likely to get severe illness, be admitted to ICU or die if they're not vaccinated or are overdue for a vaccination compared with those who have had their recommended vaccinations. For those aged 50 to 69, it's around 16 times more likely. Almost three-quarters of the Victorians who died this year after contracting COVID had not had their third dose.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a second supplementary
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:54): Could the minister update the Senate on the rates of vaccination for Australians in aged care?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:55): Thank you, Senator Pratt. The Labor government has now made COVID-19 vaccination rates of aged-care residents publicly available, to drive the uptake of vaccinations as part of the government's winter plan. We have 78.8 per cent of eligible residents in residential aged-care facilities having received a fourth dose, up from around 50 per cent on 9 June when Minister Wells and Minister Butler wrote to providers to ask them to improve that rate. From today the aggregated data for each residential aged-care home will be available in both a list and an interactive map, and this data will be updated weekly on the Department of Health and Aged Care website. The Labor government's winter plan to boost vaccination rates is already working. At the start of June, less than 50 per cent of residents had had a fourth COVID-19 dose, but vaccination rates have now increased to 78.8 per cent.
Health Care
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:56): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. Why is the government creating uncertainty for people with serious medical conditions by refusing to confirm funding commitments? On 1 March 2022, now Minister Butler announced funding for the Patient Pathways telehealth nurse program from 1 July 2022 as an election commitment. He has now stated that funding for the program is still being finalised and will be delivered, if it is delivered, through the October budget, but is still subject to an independent evaluation. Why is the government now forcing the provider into a period of uncertainty?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:56): I'll have to take that question on notice. I understand the bits around going through the budget process, because those decisions are still underway. And as Senator Ruston, from sitting on the ERC, would note, in the lead-up to a budget you do go through a process of assessing, approving and making decisions about what will be funded in the budget. Those decisions are currently before government. I am trying to be directly relevant—
The PRESIDENT: Sorry, Minister—Senator Ruston?
Senator Ruston: I rise on a point of relevance. I was actually asking the minister in relation to a commitment that had been promised on 1 July—why it was being considered in the budget in October when it actually had been committed to start on 1 July?
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator. I'll draw the minister's attention to that part of the question. Minister Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER: Someone's trying to help me here. If it is relating to a previously funded commitment from the former government, we are also going through a process around that. Look, I think that in the interests of the chamber and giving accurate information, I'm not briefed on this matter and I would bring this information back to the senator following question time.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, a first supplementary.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:58): Why is the government creating uncertainty for young Australians facing mental health challenges by not honouring funding commitments? Young Australians living on Bribie Island were promised greater access to mental health services by the establishment of permanent official telehealth satellite services. Why is the government creating uncertainties for these vulnerable Australians by refusing to confirm this funding? And is it the intention of the government to put all of its election promises through the ERC?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:58): In relation to the second part of the question: yes, we are a fiscally responsible government and we will be putting through all our expenditure.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator GALLAGHER: I don't know how it worked under the previous government; whether you just signed blank cheques that went around ERC or whether the Prime Minister just authorised all the spending, but we have—
Senator Rennick interjecting—
Senator GALLAGHER: I am trying to answer the question, Senator Rennick.
The PRESIDENT: Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I'll wait for quiet. Senators on my right! Minister Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER: All of our election commitments, and other pressures that are coming our way—of which there are substantial—will be going through the ERC process. I don't think that is a surprise—or it shouldn't be a surprise—to anyone.
In relation to the allegation around uncertainty: I reject the insinuation in the question. Labor is always about investing and strengthening Medicare and health services. We will do that, and you will see that in the October budget. Labor is always about investing and strengthening Medicare and health services, and we will do that, and you will see that in the October budget.
The PRESIDENT: Second supplementary, Senator Ruston?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:59): How is the government creating certainty for women escaping family, domestic and sexual violence by not honouring funding commitments? Funding was allocated in the budget for the Zahra Foundation for a national expansion of their successful confidential financial counselling support for victims-survivors of FDSV. Why is the government now proposing to review the budget funding provided for this critical support?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:00): I completely reject the allegation that's implicit in the question—completely and totally. We are going through a process where we are assessing all financial expenditure through our ERC process. Again, that is good government and good governance, and we are being responsible with the nation's finances. If that means going through a process to assess and determine what should go ahead and what shouldn't, then we are doing that. But we'll be delivering on our election commitments and on our election policy in full. We will do what we said we would do. The Prime Minister has made that clear.
Senator Ruston: On a point of relevance in relation to honouring election commitments, if the government is intending to honour its election commitments, why is it reviewing them?
The PRESIDENT: I'm not quite sure that's a point of order, Senator Ruston. Minister Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER: We're not reviewing the merits of our policy commitments. We are going through an ERC process as we go through for the budget. That is how responsible governments that want to manage the budget properly conduct themselves. That is what we are doing, and we're committed to our election commitments.
Budget
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. With inflation and rate rises compounding existing housing and inequality crises, we need real action to address cost-of-living pressures. The Parliamentary Budget Office said Mr Morrison's stage 3 tax cuts will cost $224 billion over 10 years, whereas building a million affordable social homes over 20 years would be an investment of $128 billion, with only a $27.3 billion cost to government. Why are you backing the already wealthy rather than fixing the housing crisis, which is far cheaper?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:02): Well, we're doing both. We will implement our election commitments, and one of those was—and we asked many times around this—around the stage 3 tax cuts. They have been legislated by the previous parliament, and we are not going to change that. That was our policy, and we made that decision probably 18 months before the campaign. As the Prime Minister has said, we will do in government what we said we would do during the campaign and in opposition.
On the housing crisis, yes, that means absolute priority attention from government. This is another one of those areas where nine years of neglect and refusal to work with states and territories have left us in the position that we are in now. We will pick up the mess left by the former government and work constructively with states and territories on how to best deal with the crisis in housing, particularly for those who need housing at the affordable end. We also have our Housing Australia Future Fund, which is one of those key commitments that we will roll out through the budget process to make sure the Commonwealth is back in the game of housing and housing policy, which those opposite absolutely neglected and didn't treat with the priority that they should have been dealt with for the nine years they were in government. We didn't have a housing minister for a long time. We didn't have a national housing policy; I don't think we ever had a national housing policy. These are the things that need fixing, working across the states and territories. They have a big stake in the game here and work with the federal government on improving access to housing and opportunities for housing, and we will do that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, first supplementary?
Senator WAT ERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:04): The PBO says fossil fuel subsidies will cost $117 billion over the decade. The PBO also says that cancelling student debt would cost $65 billion. Why are you backing the fossil fuel companies to cook the climate instead of helping young people deal with the cost of living?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:04): I think these are the PBO costings of the Greens' policy commitments that they took to the election, and we are not implementing the Greens' policy commitments. That's the short answer to the question, but—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I'm waiting for quiet.
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
Senator Watt interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham and Minister Watt! Minister Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER: Having said that, I don't want to dismiss or trivialise the issue of costs of living for everybody at the moment, including young people. Particularly for those lower income households, there's no doubt that higher inflation and higher than expected inflation—significantly higher than what was in the PEFO update before the election—is putting enormous pressure on households, as are the rising interest rates, which are increasing because of this inflationary environment we're in. So government does need to focus on this. We are focusing on it. That's why the policies we took to the election are even more important to implement now.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a second supplementary?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:05): The PBO says that a corporate super profits tax would raise $286 billion over a decade and that adding dental and mental health care into Medicare would cost around a third of that at $100 billion. Why are you backing the big corporates instead of people who can't afford to access the health care they need?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:06): Again, those were Greens policy commitments taken to the last election. They didn't form part of Labor's policy agenda. We are absolutely about implementing our policy commitments to put downward pressure on the cost of living, to lower the inflation that's ravaging the community and to put downward pressure where we can on people's cost of living. That is fundamentally a top priority for this government, and our policies on child care, on skills, on the National Reconstruction Fund and on the Powering Australia plan are all designed with that in mind—
Senator Thorpe interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe!
Senator GALLAGHER: to deal with some of those supply constraints in the economy and to put downward pressure on costs of living for Australians.
Senator Wong: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Domestic and Family Violence
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:07): I have some additional information for the chamber in response to questions I took on notice from Senator Lambie last week relating to family and domestic violence leave. I did write to Senator Lambie providing those answers at the end of last week, but I thought I should update the chamber as well.
The Albanese Labor government believes that workers experiencing family and domestic violence should never have to choose between their safety and their wages. Our bill to parliament delivers a paid family and domestic violence leave entitlement to over 11 million employees in Australia, including casuals. This is a necessary and fair entitlement in line with Fair Work Commission recommendations. This entitlement applies to all national system employees. I table my response to Senator Lambie.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Wages
Energy
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (15:08): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Senators Hume and Hughes today relating to wage growth and to energy policy.
This is an interesting situation we find ourselves in today, dealing with the cost of living and with real wages. It's interesting to note that at the end of the Howard government wages were increasing by 4.4 per cent a year and by the end of the Rudd-Gillard government they were down to 2.7 per cent a year. Arguably, the previous coalition government dropped a little bit, to 2.4 per cent, but it was nowhere near the same level of drop as what happened in the Rudd-Gillard era. I would like to note, however, that in the last nine years we have been wracked by a Senate that wouldn't pass bills and a bureaucracy that worked against us every time it got the chance, and of course we had to get through COVID, which was a very difficult time. And it didn't help when the RBA printed $300 billion and effectively fed that into the economy without any real investment in infrastructure.
It's interesting to note the difference between 2019, 2020 and 2009. When swine flu broke out in 2009, the coalition, the opposition of the day, didn't go and call for an immediate shutdown of the economy like Labor did when COVID broke out. That's really, really important, and, interestingly, it was well known that Nicola Roxon actually told the bureaucrats that we can't shut down, don't be silly. Yet we were forced to shut down and then the RBA went ahead—of course, it's an independent statutory authority, and for some reason people seem to think that we should outsource one of the most important economic levers to unelected officials—and printed $300 billion and thought they'd throw it out to the banks and then lower interest rates to 0.1 per cent. It's going to take a lot of winding back to deal with the inflation from those reckless actions that the RBA has undertaken, and unfortunately they've raised those interest rates. Good luck trying to raise real wages when you have inflation running at over six per cent under the Labor Party. It's not something I'd be getting too self-righteous about right here and right now.
The other thing we need to talk about is Labor's promise of reducing energy bills by $275. This is where the chickens have really come home to roost, because the woke brigade have been pursuing renewables at all costs, or what I like to call 'unreliables at all costs'—and it is at all costs, I might add—and billions and tens of billions of dollars have been sunk into the energy sector. And for what? What we've got is less reliability and higher power prices, and that's not surprising if you're going to go recklessly throwing science under the bus and engaging in junk science. It's junk science because, as everyone knows, heat's kinetic energy, the energy in motion, and the idea that it gets trapped is a complete oxymoron. If you step outside and look at a hot air balloon, when they turn up the gas, the hot air rises in outer space, negative 270 degrees. It’s called the entropy of a system always increases, the second law of thermodynamics. Anyone with a basic understanding of year 12 physics would know that. Anyway, I digress.
We need to go to why energy prices are increasing. It's very simple, because in the old days you had a coal fired power station—somewhere like Kogan Creek, which has 400 million tonnes of coal sitting underneath it or near to it—and you dig it up, put it into the coal fired power station and it goes straight through the transmission lines, including being interconnected to the southern states, and straight away it's in your houses or the factories where we desperately need cheap, reliable energy. But no, no, no, not with unreliables. With unreliables, what we've got to do is to wait for the sun to shine and the wind to blow, and we've got to get it to all these different stranded power stations around the country.
In order to join up these power stations, we've got to add transmission lines. The government opposite us want to spend $20 billion on building transmission lines to connect up all these new unreliable power stations, so that is a cost that isn't going to exist if you never relied on unreliables in the first place. But it doesn't stop right there, because then you have to build all these batteries to store the power for when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. This stuff costs a lot of money. Lithium, for example, is a one per cent orebody. You have to mine 100 tonnes of ore to get one tonne of metal and then you're going to have to duck it through hundreds and thousands of litres of sulphuric acid. Heaven forbid if that ever leaches into the groundwater and gets out to our Great Barrier Reef. I know that the Greens are always talking about how they the Great Barrier Reef; well, I can tell you that that when we've got sulphuric acid going everywhere from the creation of these lithium batteries, we're going to have more problems there.
Then we have the whole problem of stability, so we have inertia control, and all those things are going to add to the costs. That's why power prices are going up, not to mention that there's a slight problem in Russia and Ukraine—I'll leave it to one side for the moment. But let me tell you this: Labor will never reduce power prices unless they back coal in this country. (Time expired.)
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:13): It's always remarkable that when the opposition want to come into this chamber, they ask questions about wage growth. This is an opposition that, whether it was under Abbott or Turnbull or, in fact, Morrison, did nothing to support working Australians. They did nothing to support an increase in the minimum wage. They had almost 10 years to do something for Australian workers and they failed at every single obstacle. Now, we have inherited a huge debt. We've also inherited a situation where this opposition, when they were in government, had no real plan for jobs. They had no plan at all when it came to reducing the cost of living, and all of a sudden, in the short period of time they've been in opposition, they want to come in here and lecture us about what we should be doing and what we haven't done in less than 12 weeks. I mean, realistically! I know you've learnt nothing at all from the election defeat and I know it will take you some time to get used to being in opposition, but we went to the election with a plan: a plan to grow jobs in this country and to increase wages for working Australians. We know and we understand the challenges that Australian families and Australians are facing when it comes to the cost of living. But, to do that, you need to lift productivity, you need to lift wages and you need to ensure that you have skills and opportunities. That's why we went to the election supporting TAFE: to ensure that we have the best, most highly-skilled workforce going forward. We've got a plan. That's the difference between us and those opposite.
Now, I know that it's difficult to face an election defeat, particularly when you've been in government for so long, but the reality is: the Australian people didn't buy your crap anymore.
Senator Hughes interjecting—
Senator POLLEY: They just didn't believe anything that you took to the election. No-one believed a word of what you've been saying for so long, because you have—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes?
Senator Hughes: A point of order: unparliamentary language was just used, I think, by Senator Polley. Perhaps she would like to withdraw.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, the offer's there to withdraw if it caused offence. Otherwise, reflect on your language.
Senator POLLEY: I'm more than happy to, if I did cause any offence. I didn't think that I did, but sometimes the truth hurts, I guess.
I'd like to continue in relation to that plan that our government has. The plan is to increase productivity. It's to support workers and ensure that we have the best trained and skilled workforce.
I'd just like to remind those opposite, as to the care sector in this country and aged-care workers: this government, for 10 long years, had the opportunity to increase the wages, the remuneration, and the skill base for aged-care workers in this country, but did nothing—nothing at all. In fact, people within the disability sector earn more money than those who are caring for some of the most vulnerable people. Now, I support the disability carers. But I also support aged-care workers and childcare workers and early childhood educators.
Now, we're a new government, but we took a plan to the people at the last election. Australians agreed with the agenda that we put forward and supported us. So, when it comes to energy prices and the questions again today about whether we're going to keep our election commitment: well, yes, we are, because we know how important it is to the Australian people that a government keeps its election commitments—unlike those opposite when they were in government.
But, when it comes to energy and renewable energy, we know the track record of the previous governments under Turnbull, Abbott and Morrison. They had no policy. They don't even believe in renewable energy. I come from a state where we have led the nation with our renewable energy, with our hydro. So what we, as a government, will do is: we will invest, and, as I said at the outset, we will keep to our election commitments. We gave a guarantee that we would do everything we could to reduce power prices, because they do have a huge impact on Australian families and businesses. So you can rely on us.
So, when you want to get up—as I'm sure the next speaker will—and try and rewrite history and blame the current government for all the woes in the community, I think what you will see over the next three years is a government that keeps to its commitments and will put Australian people and business ahead of those in opposition—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (15:19): Well! I too rise to take note of answers to questions today concerning real wage growth and the cost of electricity prices. We've heard from Senator Polley that the government has a plan to tackle inflation.
Senator Hughes: Is it a secret plan?
Senator BROCKMAN: This reminds me, Senator Hughes—and I suspect that we've both watched this show, and I won't start commenting on people's age, but I'm going to show my age again—of The West Wing. It was one of my favourite shows; it still is. There's the left-wing President of the United States who bombs other countries, and then one day Josh Lyman is called up by the press secretary to take over in the press room of the White House, and the media force him to admit that they have a secret plan to fight inflation. This government is channelling Josh Lyman. It must have a secret plan to fight inflation, because it's certainly not telling the Australian people what the plan is. So the Australian people can come to two conclusions. They can conclude that the Labor government either has a secret plan to fight inflation or has no plan to fight inflation, because the left hand is not talking to the right hand, or, should I say, the left wing is not talking to the right wing of the Labor Party.
On the one hand, they're promoting wages growth, which will obviously have an impact on inflation. Senator Wong knows that wages growth and inflation are linked. Without productivity increases, wages growth will fuel inflation. It's as simple as that. Without downward pressure on energy prices—which there is no sign of under the current government's policy settings—we're going to see flow-on impacts through the economy and further inflationary pressures on the economy.
It's important that the Australian people recognise the fact that we need a government that takes a fiscally responsible approach to the current economic circumstances. We are now in opposition. We understand that. But the former government made it very clear the economic headwinds Australia would face in the years ahead. They are significant economic headwinds. It's important that the settings the government adopts in the upcoming budget are appropriate for the time. That includes tackling the scourge of inflation.
I am also old enough to remember the period in Australia's history when inflation was absolutely out of control. Sadly, I was a young child. I can remember the impact on my family's farming business during the 1970s when inflation did get out of control. We had a wage and inflation spiral that caused untold pain to the workers of Australia, to working families, to the businesses of Australia, and on our family farm, under former Treasurer Keating. The overdraft that our family's farming business operated on reached 22 per cent. The generation of young people in today's economy, those who have only lived under Liberal governments in their adult life, have seen extraordinarily low interest rates for a long period of time. We have now seen significant increases in a very short period of time.
The challenge for this government in the upcoming budget is to show that they understand the economy, that they haven't bought into the modern monetary theory view of the world that constant spending and constant borrowing is the way to fix this problem. We need to have a set of policies that are appropriate for the times. In doing that, I can absolutely guarantee that this opposition will be looking at that budget with an absolute magnifying glass to ensure the settings that are put in place are appropriate for the times and that we actually do tackle the serious problems that are facing the Australian economy—the cost-of-living pressures on Australian families; the impact of inflation on Australian businesses. That is the test for this government. It's a test that they will be found wanting in.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Sheldon.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (15:24): Thank you, Deputy President. Congratulations on your election, Deputy President.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator SHELDON: Senator Hume must have a very short memory with regard to wages. In the last nine years of a Liberal government, we saw the worst period of wage growth in Australia's history. We saw middle class people in this country wages decline under the previous government. It was no accident. Former Minister Cormann said, 'Low wages growth is a deliberate feature of our economic architecture.' When the Liberals left office, real wages were lower than they were when they entered office in 2013. The labour share of income was at an all-time low while profits were at an all-time high. The McKell Institute has found an average worker would be earning $307 more per week if the wage growth achieved under Labor between 2007 and 2013 had been sustained from 2014 to 2021. That's an extra almost $16,000 per year in the pockets of Aussie workers.
We also know what the cause of low wage growth has been over those nine years. We know that the government's policy was to drive wages down, because that was part of their architecture. Rising job insecurity and a tax on trade unions have kept wages down for a decade. Take the mining industry for example. The Minerals Council had admitted labour-hire casuals get paid, for doing the exact same job, 24 per cent less in their industry, and it's rife through many industries. But the Liberals' response to that, of course, was that it was a made-up issue. Even the Minerals Council were admitting the people were getting ripped off, but it was a made-up issue. No wonder we have had a wages problem in this country for nine long years.
Take gig workers. They are paid just $6 an hour. Former Senator Stoker said, 'That's what they signed up for.' That was her response. Of course, you remember the former Minister Porter saying it was too complicated to turn around and give the minimum wage to those gig workers.
In talking about that, we move to the ABCC, which in six years had received $200 million in funding but only recovered $5 million for workers. That is only $5 million in six years in an industry that's rife with wage theft and wage exploitation. Of course, if you then look at what happened with the CFMEU and construction workers in the second half of 2021, you see the CFMEU got $17 million. That is $5 million for six years compared to $17 million for six months. You can see why they're anti-union. That was real take-home pay that was being affected under the previous government's watch.
Take their approach to migrant workers who were ripped off and exploited with full immunity to the companies under the previous government. As we heard in the job security committee inquiry, specific workers are earning just $3 an hour, living in crowded rooms with 10 other people on farms in one case run by the former Liberal minister Richard Alston—surprise, surprise, surprise! It is fundamentally in their DNA. They don't want to see workers getting a decent wage. They don't mind seeing people getting as low as $6 an hour. They don't mind turning around and spending $200 million whilst getting a measly recompense for an industry that's been ripping people off, in particular the construction industry. And they sat by and said it's part of their architecture to make sure wages are kept low and people are exploited in such a way.
Let's look at the Liberals. Will they change? Liberals thought it was a bright idea to campaign against the lowest paid workers in Australia getting a $1 an hour pay rise. They campaigned against it and they have the hide to come in here and say, 'What are you doing about wage increases?' I tell you what: we'll always do more than you and we'll deliver what we've said we're prepared to do.
You might think the Liberals would have learned from the election that their low-wage agenda is deeply unpopular with Australian workers, but there they are again, defending the ABCC, an agency that exists to keep wages down and safety and conditions low in the building industry. They continue to attack trade unions.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (15:29): It's pretty telling, really, that the Labor Party, who continually sought to undermine the economy at every opportunity whilst in opposition, now realise that there are a lot of things out of their control, a lot of things that occur globally, that impact what happens in our economy, and that government is hard and you actually have to be the ones to make decisions to put in place policies. On this side of the house, we don't ignore that there are global challenges. But what we're seeing from this new government is that, with every decision it makes, it makes a bad situation worse.
After long platitudes through the campaign from everyone who made an appearance, usually to tidy up Mr Albanese's most recent gaffe and then to make a promise that they would guarantee that Australians would see real wage growth, we now know that that's not going to be the case, and that is now being acknowledged by the Treasurer himself. They ran smear after smear after smear—and we just heard them continuing—against the coalition's record whilst in government, but they are now failing to live up to their own promises and guarantee Australians real wage growth. The hypocrisy is unbelievable, but, unfortunately, not surprising.
As I just said, we on this side of the chamber know that not every problem in the economy can be laid at the feet of the government—of either persuasion; not that you would ever give us that grace when you were in opposition—but we will hold you accountable for how you respond to these challenges. The fact of the matter is that it is becoming increasing clear that you have no plan. You keep reciting a plan, which is apparently a plan for a plan, but that does nothing to instil confidence in the Australian people that you will be there to support them and alleviate the current cost-of-living pressures that they're experiencing.
Today we saw Senator Gallagher also walking away from Labor's promise to reduce power bills by $275. I will acknowledge that Senator Gallagher is the first Labor minister who has perhaps moved off the talking points that offered a guarantee to lower power prices, but actually articulating a figure seems to be beyond the scope of this new government. We've seen that Senator Watt can't say a number, and Senator Gallagher here today could not mention the $275 reduction by the end of 2025 that was promised to all Australian households. She talked about being honest with the Australian people but danced her way around guaranteeing an exact figure.
But, again, the important thing to note here is that, for all of Labor's talk, during the election campaign, on easing the cost-of-living crisis, they don't have a plan to make this a reality. They don't understand how to address inflationary pressures. I just note Senator Brockman's contribution—that perhaps they're taking their lead from Josh Lyman in West Wing, and they've got a secret plan to fight inflation. Unfortunately, though, looking at the performance of those opposite over the last week and a half in this place, they may actually be trying to emulate Veep rather than West Wing.
Senator Scarr: House of Cards.
Senator HUGHES: I'm sure there are a couple over there with some House of Cards rhetoric ready to go, someone who fancies themselves a Frank Underwood, but at the moment I think we're just seeing Veep being played out in each act. At least if they were following West Wing, episode by episode, we would know what was coming next! We do know that some of them have a penchant, we might say, for plagiarising speeches, so we should probably run a few of them through some of those checks to see how many West Wing lines they pull out as they make their presentations.
But this is part of a broader pattern here. The Labor Party complained that we, the previous government, weren't doing enough, things weren't happening, and they arrive in government with absolutely no plan to address any of the issues that they're facing. They complained about debt and then propose to add more debt than the coalition. They said real wage growth wasn't good enough under the coalition. Now they refuse to guarantee that Australians will see wage growth under their government and have acknowledged that is highly unlikely. They've also said that we refused to address the cost-of-living crisis, and they have now broken their promise to reduce power bills by $275 for families and business.
So, given Senator Gallagher's answers today, I can assume that there are a lot of Australians out there and a lot of small businesses starting to have a look around, and that buyer's remorse might be starting to creep in. They might be seeing they've been sold a pup, because it's clear Labor have no feasible plan to drive up wages and reduce power bills, as they promised they would. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Australian Constitution: First Nations Voice
Senator COX (Western Australia) (15:34): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Thorpe today relating to the government proposal for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
My colleague Senator Thorpe asked a very, very simple question about how Labor proposed the voice to parliament, which will impact on First Nations sovereignty. Unfortunately, Minister Wong refused to answer that question in a straightforward way. Instead, Minister Wong said that the government is taking a pragmatic approach when it comes to the voice to parliament. We as First Nations people of this country cannot risk our sovereignty because the government thinks it's pragmatic. That is completely unreasonable. Sovereignty is the underpinning principle that we cannot afford, and should not afford, to risk in the history-making changes through Truth, Treaty, Voice when we are talking about the Constitution.
When we talk about sovereignty, we're talking about the relationship of being a sovereign First Nations people, and that is linked to our connection to our water, our skies, our totems and all of our systems—our kinship, our lore, our language and our culture. It is all embedded in them. First Nations sovereignty is about putting First Nations people in the driver's seat when it comes to making decisions about our community; it's not about selling that out. Our culture, our country and our sovereignty are important and should be the primary aspects of what drives all of this change. It's about being in charge of our own destiny, because that is, in fact, what truly represents self-determination. First Nations peoples have an inherent right to protect our lands, our waters and our skies as well as our totems, because we can't survive without these things. We care for country and it will care for us. We cannot survive without that, and it's an assertion of our rights to our lands that all First Nations people have. This is what led to the Mabo decision; it reasserted that this land was never terra nullius.
I'll quote Bundjalung and Worimi saltwater woman Phoebe McIlwraith, who writes:
My sovereignty predates the creation of the English language, it does not come from a crown or a throne, but the sea and soil. No parliamentary oath could ever take that away from me.
This is, in fact, true. We saw this being enacted right here in the chamber this morning by Senator Thorpe.
I'll read another quote, from Aileen Moreton-Robinson, a Goenpul woman, who says: 'Their sovereignty is immeasurable to ours. They cannot see nor understand our sovereignty and therefore can never recognise it.' These are all true paths. Unfortunately, the incoming government don't understand that, have not been able to articulate that and certainly didn't answer the question today on behalf of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
Author Amy McQuire, a Darumbal woman, a South Sea Islander woman, notes the extent to which First Nations dissenters feel that 'a great cloak has been put over sovereignty and treaty, which has been rendered almost invisible in the waves of positive coverage' of what was Labor's first attempt, the Recognise campaign, and now constitutional recognition. Amy McQuire also suggests that despite efforts to repress these views: 'There are still calls for a treaty or sovereignty. They are not white noise.'
I also want to touch on the second question Senator Thorpe asked today, which was about how the government's proposal honours the principles of free, prior and informed consent. Of course, Senator Wong thought that we needed consent to actually make sure we were moving forward with the Uluru statement. That's in fact not what it means. Free, prior and informed consent actually has to be at the heart of decision-making. It's at the heart of everything that impacts on First Nations people and their issues. So how can we pretend giving First Nations people a voice, when they aren't even deciding the voice to parliament themselves, is about self-determination? In the current proposal, the colonising parliament would have the powers to decide on the vote's propositions, functions, procedures. It's definitely not self-determination; nor is it free, prior and informed consent.
When it comes to treaty, Minister Burney has said that the truth and treaty processes can be undertaken simultaneously with the voice and that truth and treaty will take time and they need to be started now. So it's time for the federal government to show some leadership and back the makarrata commission and put it back on the federal agenda. We need to see a clearer commitment on all the elements of the Uluru statement, and I urge the government to act on that.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:40): Are there any notices of motion to be given for another day? Senator Hanson-Young?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:40): Thank you, Mr Deputy President, and congratulations on your appointment. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for related purposes.
It will be called the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill, and I look forward to debating it in this place very soon.
Presentation
Senator McKenzie to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than Thursday, 4 August 2022, the following documents:
(a) all requests for advice from the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet after being alerted to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia; and
(b) all requests for co-operation with state governments from the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in response to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia. (general business notice of motion no. 11)
Senator s McCar thy , Dodson and Stewart to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate:
(a) marks the passing of Gunditjmara and Bundjalung man Archie Roach;
(b) recognises:
(i) Archie Roach was one of our nation's greatest songmen and truth-tellers, and Australia has lost a giant of the music industry and of the First Nations community,
(ii) Archie Roach was many Australians' first exposure to the horrors of the Stolen Generations, and his voice, his music and his story came out of trauma and pain,
(iii) Archie Roach's powerful songs also brought people together, providing strength and they still serve as a source of healing, and
(iv) the songs of Archie Roach will live forever, etched into more than 65,000 years of history and he will be remembered as one of the early Aboriginal artists to bring Indigenous music into the mainstream; and
(c) expresses its condolences and offers its deepest sympathies to his family.
Senator Dodson to move on the next day of sitting:
That:
(a) the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for inquiry and report:
The application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Australia, with particular reference to:
(i) the international experience of implementing the UNDRIP,
(ii) options to improve adherence to the principles of UNDRIP in Australia,
(iii) how implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart can support the application of the UNDRIP, and
(iv) any other related matters;
(b) in conducting the inquiry, the committee may consider the relevant evidence and records of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee relating to its inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia in the 46th Parliament; and
(c) further consideration of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022 be made an order of the day for the first day of sitting after the committee presents its report. (general business notice of motion no. 12)
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:41): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ayres from 1 to 4 August 2022, on account of parliamentary business.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Economics Legislation Committee
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Reporting Date
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:42): by leave—I move:
That the time for the presentation of reports from legislation committees on annual reports tabled by 31 October 2021 be extended to Friday 12 August 2022.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:42): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
Senator Canavan, for 1 to 3 August, for personal reasons.
Senator Liddle, for 1 to 4 August, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged as follows:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi for today, proposing the disallowance of the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022, postponed till 4 August 2022.
General business notice of motion no. 10 standing in the names of Senators McDonald, McKenzie, Davey, Nampijinpa Price, Canavan and Caddell for today, proposing the establishment of a joint standing committee on Northern Australia, postponed till 2 August 2022.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:43): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Energy
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:44): I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 34 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 Payne proposing the following matter of public importance was chosen:
The refusal of the Prime Minister to stand by his election promise that Labor's policy, based on "the most comprehensive modelling ever done for any policy by an opposition in Australia's history since Federation," would "see electricity prices fall from the current level by $275 for households by 2025".
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers for today's discussion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:45): I thank my good friend Senator Payne, who I've known a long time, for proposing this MPI. This is what the matter of public importance is: the need for the government to adopt a plan to ease pressure on cost of living for Australian families and small businesses now—not in October but to actually address the issue now, because we know that Australians are facing those cost-of-living pressures today. We know that because of the economic statement released last week and also the most recent inflation figures. Australia now has, for the year ending 30 June 2022, an annual inflation rate CPI of 6.1 per cent. This is the largest CPI rate since the Australian government introduced the goods and services tax. Even if you take out some of the outliers in terms of the inflationary pressures and trim it down, the trimmed mean inflation rate is 4.9 per cent. Even if you take down the factors which are pulling that inflation rate up to 6.1 per cent, and maybe on the other side pulling it down—so you take the trimmed mean inflation rate—it's at 4.9 per cent. That's the highest level since that particular measurement was actually used from 2003—so the highest level in nearly 20 years. The forecasts are even more grim. The Treasury forecast is that by the end of the year Australia will be facing an inflation rate of 7.75 per cent; that's the forecast for the end of the year.
Australia is crying out for a government that has a positive plan that will actually counter these inflationary pressures, and we simply do not have it. In fact, we have the contrary. At a point in time when Australia is facing these inflationary cost pressures, what is the obsession of those opposite? The obsession of those opposite is with the Australian Building and Construction Commission—gutting the powers of the ABCC and then ultimately seeking, when they take the time to actually present legislation to this place, to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That will actually feed into inflation, and you don't need to believe me; you can look at an independent report that was put out by Ernst & Young. The ABCC is the cop on the beat at our construction sites around Australia. And the work they do is incredibly important in terms of keeping those construction costs down for our schools, for our roads, for our hospitals and for our important social infrastructure. The result of abolishing the ABCC would be to increase those construction costs.
I quote from a study released by Ernst & Young in relation to their economy-wide modelling, in relation to the impact of abolishing the ABCC:
Key economic costs indicated by the modelling involve:
Output in the construction industry could fall by around $35.4 billion by 2030 as higher cost inflation makes fewer projects possible, and capital is reallocated to other economic activities.
Why would you introduce that sort of policy in a high inflation environment? What is the sense of it, apart from providing a sop to the CFMMEU? There's no sense to it in this environment. It's entirely the wrong thing to do if you want to take those cost pressures off the Australian economy.
Ernst & Young says:
Overall economic activity—
as a result of Labor's policy—
could decline by $47.5 billion by 2030 as higher costs and lower productivity act as a handbrake on other sectors.
So those costs that will increase through the construction industry, as a result of the Labor government's policy to abolish the ABCC, will infect all sorts of sectors across the whole of the Australian economy. It goes on:
If the ABCC were abolished—
and that is what the Australian government's—the current government, Albanese's government—intention is—
this could lead to a total economic loss of around $47.5 billion, compared to baseline estimates, to 2030.
'Employment and labour costs impacts'—Ernst & Young go on:
The construction industry is one of the largest employers in Australia, employing almost 1.15 million people. The industry also directly supports jobs in other Australian industries such as timber, steel, and cement manufacturing.
… … …
Modelling suggests that abolishing the ABCC could cost the Australian economy up to 4,000 jobs. Job losses are felt immediately as output in the construction industry falls and labour costs rise.
Then there's the fiscal cost, when every school, every hospital, every road project, is going to cost an estimated 30 per cent more because of the lawless behaviour of the construction division of the CFMMEU, whose representatives sit around the Labor Party's national executive. And as a result of those costs—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart, a point of order?
Senator Urquhart: I note that the MPI specifically talks about electricity prices. I haven't heard one mention of any electricity. I've heard a beat-up on unions, I've heard a beat-up on the CFMMEU, I've heard him talk about the ABCC, but there has not been one mention of anything to do with what's in the MPI that was proposed today. So I would ask you to draw the senator's attention to what the MPI is based on and ask him to point his remarks to that point.
The DEPUT Y PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, do you wish to make a submission?
Senator SCARR: I'm absolutely happy to talk about electricity costs. I didn't see the $275 supposed saving, which is going to flow through to electricity users across Australia. It was promised by the Labor Party during the campaign. I saw absolutely no mention of that when the Governor-General attended this place and gave his presentation in relation to the Labor Party's agenda in government.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, you've moved on from the point of order, have you?
Senator SCARR: Yes.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, return to your speech. Thank you, I was just clarifying.
Senator SCARR: The caravan moves on. I saw absolutely no mention of electricity price savings for the Australian consumer when the Governor-General attended in this place, last week, for the opening of this parliament and, effectively, laid down the government's agenda, absolutely no reference to that $275 electricity price saving. And I will be happy, Senator Urquhart, to come back to that $275 supposed saving that those opposite are going to deliver to Australian electricity users every week this parliament sits, between now and the next federal election, because I do not believe that you will deliver that cost saving in this inflationary environment. I don't believe you're going to deliver that cost saving at all.
It will be fascinating to see how the construction costs, which are going to blow out as a result of your policy with abolishing the ABCC—it's going to be very interesting to see how those additional construction costs for every single transmission tower that is built in this country will cost more, approximately 30 per cent more, as a result of your abolition of the ABCC. That's what's going to happen to electricity costs. That's what's going to happen, because those construction costs feed into every single cost across the whole of the Australian economy, including electricity prices, because you've got to get the electricity from point A to point B. When you construct your solar panel farm, your windfarm—whatever it is, in terms of renewables—you've got to construct the transmission lines, and that's where the construction costs are extraordinarily relevant.
I'll be happy to be corrected, at the time, but I do not believe that those opposite will deliver that $275 saving in terms of electricity costs. We will wait and see. Those, including those in the gallery, who will be receiving their electricity bills between now and the next election, they can be the judge. They should ask themselves, before the next election, whether or not their electricity prices have decreased by $275. We'll see what happens.
Those electricity costs are affecting every single part of Australian society—not just the retail consumer but also the business consumer—and it also includes small businesses where I have my patch in Queensland. I was speaking to a small business just this week about cost pressures on their small business. Nick runs a cafe, and he has been hit with the cost increases in terms of electricity, in terms of wages and also in terms of rent. Small business rent increases are going to go up as a direct result of the inflationary impact, and are provided for under his lease.
That's what we are facing in this country. We are facing increased costs across the board and, in that environment, it is simply not credible, given the government's own plans, that electricity prices will fall by $275. In fact, all the evidence, I believe, will be to the contrary, especially when we consider the costs of transmission, actually providing stability to the electricity grid and getting the renewable energy sources fed into the grid. On that $275 guarantee: Senator Urquhart was keen for me to mention it, and I'm happy to. I suggest that promise will haunt those sitting opposite between this day and up to the next federal election.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (15:56): Well, talk about leading with the chin! This is really quite an extraordinary choice for a matter of public importance for the opposition to propose, isn't it, if we think about their record for just the tiniest of moments. I'm surprised that somebody on their side didn't do that before they submitted this as a topic for discussion. This would be your conclusion: if you were trying—if you set out deliberately to design a scheme—to undermine Australia's electricity and energy sector, you couldn't do it better than what the Liberal-National government did during their time in office. They basically had a three-part recipe for higher electricity prices.
First: announce plan after plan after plan—22 of them—but never implement any of them so that industry has absolutely no idea what is going on and has no real way to plan for the future. Consequently, critical investments are not delivered. Second: stymie, obstruct and disable consideration of climate change by the Public Service and key regulators, and ban the use of the term 'climate change' in key organisations so that Australia's policy development can't properly respond to what every other G20 country has basically accepted to be the key factor driving energy market issues over the long term. Third, and this is the killer: mismanage every energy project that has the misfortune to cross your path, like Snowy Hydro 2.2, which, by the time they left office, was running 18 months late. This was the member for Hume's signature project, running 18 months late—not confessed, hidden, during the election period. The coalition promised a billion dollars—a billion dollars!—which they claimed was going to support 3,800 megawatts of generation over three years ago. Can anyone tell me how much of that was actually delivered? The answer, for those playing along at home, is none. Absolutely no dollars delivered at all in relation to that promise and not one kilowatt of power.
Under the previous government, four gigawatts of capacity left the system and one gigawatt was created. It is a record of failure—crippling failure—and if the coalition had any self-awareness whatsoever, any situational awareness, they would never talk about energy prices again, let alone put an MPI like this up for debate. Instead, what have they done? They've put forward the man behind this debacle, Mr Taylor, as their putative alternative Treasurer. This guy, who ran the Australian electricity system into the ground, is now being proposed as someone who ought to run the economy. The shamelessness is actually quite incredible. Fresh out of office, the coalition are looking back on the damage caused by their last nine years with wide eyes and a faux innocence saying the equivalent of, 'Who, me?'
Australians know that the coalition significantly diminished Australia's capacity to respond to changes in the energy market like the ones we've seen over the past few months as a result of international developments. We have been left vulnerable and more exposed to higher global gas and coal prices. The miracle is that there are very many good people and good institutions that survived this campaign of destruction by the former government, but it is households and businesses who have been left to pay the price.
Our government is doing what we can to clean up the mess that we have inherited from the coalition. There isn't a quick fix. There are nine years of chaos and inaction to undo, and the problems run deep. It's not just electricity but also the broader energy market. Today, the ACCC report that was released confirmed what many Australians already know: that they're paying the price for the crisis in the market that has been left by a decade of division and chaos. We are working to resolve these issues. AEMO released a notice of threat to system security, and they're working with the market. Over the medium term our government is progressing a capacity mechanism with the states and empowering AEMO to buy and store gas supplies. I welcome the announcement from the Minister for Resources that the government will extend and improve the Australian domestic gas security mechanism.
There is work to do across the entire energy system, from generation to distribution. Minister Bowen and the government have helped navigate this tailor-made energy crisis without any load-shedding or blackouts, getting agreement among the state and territory ministers on a way forward for firm renewables. But a key part in our work going forward is to take apart and to resolve the uncertainty, mismanagement, and blindness to climate change that has weakened Australia's energy system during the previous term of government. We're not wasting any time. We have already notified the United Nations of our intention to increase our emissions reduction target. As we've made clear, a 43% reduction by 2030 is the minimum that we'd hope to achieve. As we said in the documentation, our aspiration is that the commitments of our industry, states and territories, and the Australian people will yield even greater emissions reductions in the coming decade. We've scrapped Mr Taylor's dodgy regulation that directed the renewables agency to fund fossil fuels and we've also improved its ability to fund electrification and energy efficiency. We've got moving on the review of the integrity of the carbon offset system, including by appointing Professor Ian Chubb and an esteemed panel to lead that work. We've signed a net zero technology partnership with the United States which focuses on storage, green hydrogen and integrating various renewables into the grid. We've brought forward well-overdue changes to fuel quality standards from 2027 to 2024.
There is so much more to do, and it's an ongoing project, but we are determined to show leadership where our predecessors showed none. We stand by our election commitments, and our climate change and energy commitments are no exception. Our plan will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, with five out of six of those to be created in the regions. It will generate $76 billion in investment and includes modernising Australia's electricity grid through a $20 billion Rewiring the Nation plan. It includes up to $3 billion to invest in renewables, metals, renewable energy component manufacturing and renewable hydrogen electrolysers. It includes 85 solar banks and 400 community batteries across Australia, and 10,000 new energy apprenticeships. Most importantly, it will deliver 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. That is the modelled outcome of our policies, and it is consistent with AEMO's step change scenario.
This will help drive down prices. It will put downward pressure on prices for a very simple reason, one denied by the opposition: we know that renewables are the cheaper form of energy, and getting cheaper. The CSIRO and the AEMO GenCost report for 2021-22 confirmed that wind and solar are the cheapest source of electricity generation and storage in Australia. It is worth noting that here in the ACT, which is 100 per cent renewable, power prices have actually fallen. More renewables will mean we are less exposed to changes in fossil fuel prices like the high global gas and coal prices that have affected Australian energy markets in recent months. Investing in cheaper forms of generating power, like renewables, means that power prices will be lower than they would otherwise have been.
There was an opportunity, of course, when the coalition could have talked about electricity prices, and that opportunity was before the election. But what did they do? They didn't want to have the conversation then, did they? No, in fact what they did was that they intervened to hide the increase to electricity prices, accumulated under their watch, and to hide it from the Australian people, to conceal it until after the election. The Australian Energy Regulator has been required to release its default market offer on 1 May each year, since the price safety net was introduced in July 2019. However—fancy this, what a coincidence—just days before the election was called, Mr Taylor signed a regulation that delayed when that default market offer was made public. When was the new date? The first business day after 25 May—after the election—a fig leaf of a reason to allow more consultation, as if the previous government ever, ever wanted to consult on anything.
In some parts of the country, the price increase was 19 per cent. This is what Minister Taylor wanted to hide. I wonder if he shared it with his colleagues. I wonder if he shared it with some of the senators on the other side, because that government was addicted to secrecy. (Time expired.)
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:06): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support Senator Payne's matter of public importance. Prime Minister Albanese's promise to reduce electricity bills by $275 and his promise to reduce carbon dioxide output by 43 per cent are mutually exclusive. High energy prices will reduce energy usage and assist Australia to reach the 43 per cent figure. Lower prices will increase energy consumption, and that will work against the Albanese government's target. That's why the Albanese government so quickly ran away from his promise. The Prime Minister never intended to honour the promise, making his action cynical political expediency.
One Nation believes any attempt to implement a 43 per cent carbon dioxide reduction is a policy based on lies and distortions which do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Prime Minister Albanese has already signalled, across several issues, his government will be a government based on virtue signalling, not a sensible policy. For senators with no data on their side, the only option is to sell a policy on feelings. Feelings will not keep the lights on, supermarket freezers cold or hospitals open. Feelings will not warm Australians in winter or cool us in summer. Evidence based policy will. Energy deficits in several areas of Australia have already caused blackouts. The 43 per cent target will cause many more blackouts.
Rapidly increasing electricity costs will reduce consumption of electricity and buy the government time, while it asks around for a permanent solution, which is why the government is allowing this to happen. Closing down and sabotaging baseload coal has led to the national electricity racket—sorry market—showing unprecedented wholesale power prices. The average spot price of $264 per megawatt hour last quarter is more than triple the average spot price of $85 per megawatt hour this time last year. Prime Minister Albanese knew this when he made his promise, and clearly economics is not the Prime Minister's strong suit. If the cost of an item is up 300 per cent, the chances of being able to make it cheaper without the government paying for it are zero.
Perhaps the Prime Minister can extend his employment talkfest to more aspects of government business. Let's see if anyone knows how to use wind and solar to replace baseload coal and save Australia from electricity and energy Armageddon, because all I'm hearing so far is, 'Build more wind and solar.' Building more will simply add more capacity when we don't need it, during the day, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Solar and wind will need to be paired with some form of battery technology to move that generated electricity from the day, when we don't need it, to the evening, when we do.
Coal sitting in hoppers ready to generate power on demand is the battery we have used successfully for 120 years. Alternatives to coal are thin on the ground. Battery storage costs are staggering and unsustainable: $1.5 million per megawatt hour. We need around 60,000 megawatt hours of energy in storage to ensure any 24-hour period is not subject to blackouts, yet batteries need 20 per cent above rated capacity to achieve full charge due to heat loss, which is why they catch fire a lot. This means we need 72,000 megawatt-hours of storage, at a cost of $108 billion every 12 years, the life of a big Tesla battery. That is $9 billion every year. The Snowy 2 big hydro battery currently under construction will provide 1,000 megawatt-hours daily for 365 a year at a cost of $5 billion. This means that pumped hydro will cost $300 billion to carry enough power for just one day. Of course, adding electric vehicle charging to the mix means a whole lot more blackouts and a whole lot more electricity price increases.
Net zero is an unaffordable fairy tale that will destroy our standard of living and destroy our lifestyle. We are one community, we are one nation and we know what the hell is needed to get back to affordable, reliable, stable electricity.
Senator VAN (Victoria) (16:10): Australians are hurting. The cost of living is rising through the roof, and we have a government who is refusing to do anything about it. Even worse, we have a government who went to the most recent election with a promise to reduce electricity prices by $275 per household by 2025. However, as the MPI points out, after only a matter of weeks, they are walking back their promise. Prime Minister Albanese said he would take responsibility, but all he seems to be doing is blaming others and making personal attacks. The Prime Minister is doing anything but taking responsibility for the energy crisis we are currently facing.
It seems clear from the contributions in the chamber from the other side that this is largely because they have no experience in the energy sector whatsoever. At least I can say I have spent 20-plus years in the energy sector on and off, including two stints at AEMO, so I bring a little bit of knowledge to this matter.
The energy crisis is largely due to a number of factors, partly the war in Ukraine and our capacity for coal fired power generation being at the lowest level in over a decade. However, we are also facing a gas shortage crisis that has the potential to drive power prices through the roof. As the ACCC report that was released today states:
The east coast gas market is facing a 56 PJ shortfall in supply in 2023, signifying a substantial risk to Australia's energy security.
For those of you who don't know a petajoule from your pet, this is equivalent to about 10 per cent of next year's forecast demand.
The effects of these changes are concentrated in the southern states (NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory) where gas resources have been diminishing for some time …
The ACCC report specifically states:
To address the projected shortfall in 2023 significant additional volumes of gas will need to be:
produced …
Now, I don't see how the government will be able to stick to the Prime Minister reducing power bills if they do not specifically support the additional production of gas. It is this lack of support that is hurting Australians already, with the report highlighting that users are now receiving offers of higher prices with less flexibility.
Australia is now paying the price for some incredible mistakes by the Andrews Victorian government. A government ban on onshore gas exploration as well as fracking and coal seam gas exploration has exacerbated this problem. We only have this supply problem because the Andrews government cut off supply without a thought of how it was going to be replaced. This is a problem entirely of the Andrews government's making, and it is at a time when the cost of living is increasing. Australians are paying for that incompetence and the lack of willingness from the Albanese government to do anything about it.
Here is a quick history lesson. Victoria has had a long history of cheap, abundant natural gas. It has one of the strongest gas industries in the world. The Bass Strait gas and oil wells powered Victoria, turned it into industrial powerhouses, because we had cheap, available gas. Now, with those Bass Strait oil wells drying up and no replacements because of the bans and moratoriums, we are bringing gas down from Queensland, paying extra and expending more energy to transport that via the distribution transmission network. Yet what a lot of people on that side, across the chamber, seem to forget is that a lot of the gas coming out of Queensland is from coal seam gas, fracked coal seam gas. It's a little bit of an inconvenient truth for you, maybe, but it's the actual truth. The only way to drive a disconnect between high global gas prices and our domestic east coast prices is to invest in more supply, which my home state of Victoria has an abundance of but is not being allowed to access.
As published by the International Energy Agency recently, the world has experienced the first global energy crisis in history. Now, I don't know how they missed the 1970s oil crisis, but let's put that to the side. Yes, in a large part, this is because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; however, it highlights what should be a bleedingly obvious point: there are, and always will be, unexpected events and outcomes. If the last three years have taught us anything it is that we really do not know what the future holds and that we can only be prepared for the future by ensuring we are protected against a whole range of scenarios.
While this government is not responsible for a surge in global prices, it is responsible for how it responds. Australians expect that this government act to fulfil its promise to the Australian people and lower their power bills. Now, the Labor Party are correct when they state that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. On a plant based level, when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, wind and solar are the cheapest form of generation. However, as cited in JP Morgan's 2020 annual energy paper, putting more renewable energy on the grid will not guarantee lower prices. I repeat: it will not guarantee lower prices. This is because energy prices rest on an average cost of generation, not the actual cost of sustaining a power source that cannot deliver energy on a continuous basis unsupported. The term we use is firmed. The report notes that the costs include transmission; backup thermal power; and, potentially, if it ever comes, utility-scale battery storage. None of this will come cheap, and ultimately costs will be passed on to the consumer.
Whatever fills the intermittent power void will initially be expensive, and it most definitely won't be easy. Labor's community battery for households policy is to fund 400 community batteries of 500 kilowatt hours each, which is supposed to provide power for 250 households. Assuming the 22 kilowatt hour nightly load, it would take over 80,000 batteries to meet the power consumption of Melbourne's 1.8 million households. Even if the 400 proposed batteries were all built in Victoria, they would only meet 0.5 of the city's winter night-time demand. A 500 kilowatt battery could provide sufficient power overnight for only 23 households. This is equivalent to needing one on every street, not in each suburb.
Snowy 2.0 has the capacity of 350 million kilowatts, the capacity to meet Melbourne's nightly demand for over a week. Labor suggest they can source batteries at $500,000 each, which equates to $1,000 per kilowatt hour. Snowy 2.0, costing $4.5 billion for 350 megawatt hours, comes out to only $12.90 per kilowatt hour. This $500,000 estimate does not reflect market prices and is unlikely to include costs for installation and maintenance. AEMO's latest integrated system plan, released in June, states that we are going to have to double electricity by 2050 as we electrify the economy.
As coal-fired generation withdraws—and it will, and it should—weather-dependent generation will start to dominate. Investment will be needed to treble the firming capacity provided by new, low-emission firming opportunities that can respond to a despatch signal with efficient network investments to access it. Now we're seeing the economic risks of mismanagement playing out before our eyes.
Despite Labor claiming that they had conducted, 'The most comprehensive ever done for any policy by an opposition in Australia's history since Federation,' it is clear that their plan cannot work and will not work. Europe serves as a good example. It severely miscalculated by reducing its production of fossil fuels faster than it reduced its own consumption of fossil fuels. It has now been caught off-guard and is suffering at the hands of Russia due to its energy reliance. We should not make the same mistake.
Senator GROGAN (South Australia) (16:20): I want to thank Senator Payne for this opportunity, for giving this chamber the chance to talk about the Albanese government's comprehensively modelled and thoroughly developed Powering Australia plan. I invite members to have a look at that plan and the modelling rather than throw around baseless emotive accusations.
I want to thank Senator Payne, because I welcome any opportunity to talk about the Labor government's plan to create 604,000 jobs, with five out of every six new jobs to be delivered in the regions. I welcome any opportunity to talk about the $76 billion in investment that will be spurred on by this plan. I welcome any opportunity to outline our plan to deliver 82 per cent renewables by 2030. This means $20 billion to modernise our ageing electricity grid, $3 billion to invest in renewable metals and energy component manufacturing, and 85 new solar banks and 400 community batteries across the country, all of which will be backed in by a shot in the arm to our modern skills base with 10,000 new energy apprentices and a New Energy Skills Program.
Over the last couple of hours, we've heard a lot of debate in this chamber about this. A lot of the argument that I've heard disconnects a range of the policies and looks at them in isolation. The utilisation of renewable energy requires the upgrade in the grid. I say to those opposite, no, the investment in modernising our grid is not a waste. It is not fruitless. It is the sensible plan that should have started long ago to make sure that the cheapest power we can possibly get in this country is delivered in the most efficient way. That is exactly what an Albanese Labor government is going to do. We have laid out the plans. That is what we are going to deliver. That is what will impact those energy prices and the bills that Australians are paying across the country. These are the plans that will make a fundamental difference.
I do not doubt that the chamber and the Australian people would have liked to have known a range of things before the election. Obviously, the outcome is that we are in government on this side of the chamber. The clarity and the honesty should have been there. There were a range of things hidden from the public in the lead-up to the election. The manner in which that was done can only be seen as a political stunt to hide information. There were price rises that were well and truly locked in, but the minister decided not to advise the Australian people of those. The minister decided to hide that information. That information would have told small businesses in New South Wales that their energy prices were about to go up by 19.7 per cent. At the same time, they were saying that they were looking after businesses. I don't think that really can be true. In my own home state of South Australia, domestic or household bills were predicted to go up by 7.2 per cent. Well, of course they weren't going to tell anyone that. And, if you're a Tasmanian, they were going to go up by 11. 8 per cent. So it seems quite obvious that that stunt was purely and utterly political. This is information that is released every year at the same time, apart from this year, when the previous government hid it.
When we start talking about gas, the former energy minister had promised a gas led recovery. What we've actually seen is industry and the community left vulnerable as we faced a global gas crisis. We've seen the lack of a clear policy framework stifle investment and prevent cheaper renewables that could have filled that gap as we were facing this crisis.
When senators opposite talk about energy security and prices, I think the Australian people know not to take them seriously. They know that they are using this as a political plaything. They knew that their signature energy policy, Snowy 2.0, was running 18 months late; they never mentioned that either. The Australian people knew that, when the former government proposed $1 billion to support 3,800 megawatts of new generation, come the election, not one single dollar and not one single kilowatt would have been delivered. The Australian people knew not to trust those opposite to materially provide policy certainty to the Australian community. They trusted us. They trusted an Anthony Albanese Labor government. They trusted us because we have got a plan, and, as the senator opposite's motion indicates, it is a comprehensively modelled plan—well pointed out!—and it is a plan that can be delivered. It's a plan that will ensure that the renewable energy future is very, very bright. We know renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. This has been proven by CSIRO, AEMO and numerous other sources. It is the cheapest form of energy, and it is the form of energy that we should pursue.
I'm proud to be a South Australian and to have seen the significant leadership in our state by a new Labor government, and they have shown the renewables sector to be a prominent piece in their plan. The opportunity presented now by the joint work of an Albanese federal government and the Malinauskas state government is so exciting, and we're already starting to see that gap being filled, and the hope in our community and in business that the policy malaise is in the past.
I know that regional communities see their future in the renewables industry. Investment in solar, wind, grid-scale battery technology and, notably, for South Australia, hydrogen means that those regional communities have a pathway to lead us out of the uncertainty that has plagued us for years. The excitement that I see when I travel to towns like Whyalla and Port Augusta is palpable. They can see what the opportunities are here, they can see that it's real and they can see that we can deliver on it. The excitement will be underpinned by a very sensible, mature policy approach from the federal and the state governments that will actually look at energy that is stable and affordable and will help boost the industry developments that are planned for those regions and broader regions across Australia. But we know there's no quick fix, and we are taking the short-term and the long-term steps necessary to ensure that we do not again end up where we have been for the last nine, long, obfuscating years.
We've taken the short-term steps necessary to stabilise our gas market. AEMO has taken steps to work with the market, using mechanisms available to ensure gas supply is shifted appropriately between the states to meet demand. The Minister for Resources has announced that the government will improve and extend the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, as well as progressing a capacity mechanism within the states.
Long term, we have embarked on the policy agenda I outlined earlier, our Powering Australia policy, one that we are all very, very proud of. It is a policy that means the generations that come after us can be confident that we have a secure energy grid, that we have secure plans that are not going to threaten our environment, a policy that makes sure that families, small business and industry can keep the lights on and keep the manufacturing plants running without breaking the bank, a policy that means jobs, particularly in regional communities, that define our communities' character will flourish into the future. That is what Labor brought to the election, and that is what the Australian people wanted.
I thank you for the opportunity to stand here and talk about this matter of extreme public importance and talk to you about the Powering Australia plan—that will deliver. It will deliver stable, reliable, affordable electricity into the future.
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:30): This is not my first speech. I rise today to speak about the need to reduce electricity prices. High and ever-rising prices contribute to the significant cost-of-living pressures that are being felt by people across the country. I would like to talk about the solutions.
Renewable energy and electrification: these solutions are right in front of us. Across the ACT, households are enjoying the benefits of the clean energy transition. While electricity prices soar across Australia, they are falling—yes, falling—by more than five per cent, when you account for inflation here in the ACT. The ACT is the only jurisdiction in which prices are falling, prices that are already cheaper than most places across mainland Australia. Just across the border, in New South Wales, households pay as much as $800 more on electricity each year. This saving is just the start, with further and more significant savings to be had as households start to enjoy the benefits of electrification.
These benefits are set out in a proposal I put forward for a 'suburb zero' pilot. Under that two-year pilot, participating households would be fully electrified—EVs, rooftop solar, battery storage, all electric appliances and heat pumps. All of these technologies exist and are available, off the shelf, today. Modelling by Rewiring Australia shows that electrification could save participating Canberra households more than $5,000 each year—$5,000 every year. This will put downward pressure on electricity prices and deliver real savings for households. And, just as household electrification reduces cost-of-living pressures, it will also put downward pressure on inflation.
We have heard a lot about inflation recently on the news and, indeed, here this chamber. A clear way to ease inflationary pressures is to reduce the cost of electricity prices, particularly to residential customers. This has been recognised by the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, which commits some $369 billion of investment in clean energy to reduce the inflation caused by reliance on fossil fuels.
The economic argument for renewable energy and electrification is clear: electrifying our households is a capital investment in the future, like buying a mortgage or an education. Businesses should be given confidence to invest in renewable energy and electrification should be incentivised for consumer uptake. I'm proud to represent a community that has seen the opportunities and been a leader on some of the opportunities the clean energy transition presents us with, but we still have a long way to go. I want to work with everyone in this place to maximise the benefits for all Australians.
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (16:34): I rise to make some remarks about this matter of public importance. It was a big mistake that the Labor Party decided it would promise to make a particular saving on people's electricity bills because, in this country, it is the market that is going to be funding the transition—that's what we want to happen—not the government. So without knowing how much capital the country was going to be able to attract, it was always going to be quite a fraught calculation. Of course, the reality is that this whole area of public policy has been a real nightmare for the country over the last 10 years—there has been too much politics—and that has hurt the country. Now this is another example of where a cheap, glib political attempt is going to unravel and damage the argument, because of course the promise that was made by the Labor Party before the last election will not be delivered in this parliament. It won't be delivered in the short term, for the reason I just gave you: that the government has no idea how much private capital the country will be able to attract to fund the transition. Anyone who has read the AEMO reports knows that this transition is going to cost an absolute bomb.
So this is a government that has already broken one promise on this issue. But the promises that it has delivered, it has delivered on behalf of its owners—its parent companies: the union movement and the super funds. It has already delivered on its promise to abolish the ABCC and on its promise to hide the superannuation funds' donations to the Labor Party and to the union movement. So it is a government for vested interests—delivering for the union movement; delivering for the super funds—and it is breaking promises that it made to Australians.
Now, on the matter of emissions reduction, which is a matter of great national importance, what is important is the outcome. It is the outcome that is important, not the embroidery. One of the key outcomes we are seeking here, as a country, in a race for global capital, is capital. We want the capital, and so we need to evaluate and make a judgement about what is going to be the best way to get that capital. One of the ways to not get the capital is to engage in cheap, juvenile, glib promises that you break only a few weeks after the election because of course you don't know what's going to happen in global markets; you don't know how the country will get the capital.
Mr Bowen, who's the minister, has said about the legislation that he introduced last week:
I've said repeatedly that we have designed our Powering Australia plan so that it can be implemented whether legislation passes or not …
So apparently the legislation is a maybe; it could be important, but it may not be. We don't know yet. We'll see how that goes.
But what is very important, and what is most important to me, is that we get the country on a medium- to long-term plan for having accelerated emissions reduction, because the 26 to 28 position is not a credible position; it needs to be higher than that. So we need to try to find some sort of accommodation where we are sending the right signal to the rest of the world that we are committed to emissions reduction and we are committed to enhancing our position over the long term.
But, in the short term, this matter of public importance is about a broken promise. It is about a broken promise to the Australian people that their bills will be cut in the short term, whereas, in fact, their bills will go up. Now, that is very regrettable when you consider that the promises for the donors and the owners of the Labor Party—the unions and the super funds—have been delivered in full. The Labor Party has already gutted the Your Super, Your Future reforms. The Labor Party has already gutted and abolished, in some form, the ABCC, and it has said that, if it can't abolish it in law, it will just de-fund it; it will go around the democratic process. So, if you are a person in Australia, you are not likely to have your election commitment fulfilled. But if you are a donor or an owner of the Labor Party—if you are a trade union or a super fund—you will have your promises delivered in full.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marielle Smith ): Thank you, Senator Bragg. The time for the discussion has expired and I shall now be proceeding to the consideration of documents.
DOCUMENTS
Auditor-General
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (16:39): I rise to take note of document No. 2, the Auditor-General's Report No. 45 of 2021–22, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I welcome this report, an Australian National Audit Office performance audit on the effectiveness of the management of contractors within the Department of Veterans' Affairs or DVA. DVA has relied heavily on a non-APS workforce in recent years to manage the growth in demand for its services. Its use of labour-hire contractors has reduced from 38 per cent on 30 June 2021 to 30 per cent on 30 June 2022. I note the audit found that DVA has established largely fit-for-purpose policies and processes for the management of contractors.
I understand the ANAO has made three recommendations relating to how DVA is implementing the Protective Security Policy Framework. Recommendation 1 suggests the policies and practices be updated to better reflect requirements of policy 12 of the PSPF—eligibility and suitability of personnel. DVA has committed to updates that ensure all personnel agree to comply with Australian government policies and protocols and that all future requests for citizenship waiver are delegated to DVA's chief security officer. Recommendation 2 regards governance updates relating to policy 13 of the PSPF—ongoing assessment of personnel. DVA has committed to updating policies and procedures to ensure better compliance with annual security checks for clearance-holders, and is putting in place processes for better compliance with eligibility waivers for security clearances. Recommendation 3 relates to policy 14 of the PSPF—separating personnel. DVA has already updated cessation procedures to ensure departing staff and contractors acknowledge enduring confidentiality requirements, and policy is being updated to ensure adverse security information related to employees and contractors is provided to new Commonwealth employers. DVA will update these policies by the end of September 2022 and report this to its audit and risk committee.
I understand the report also identified that DVA has implemented an effective quality assurance program relating to security. I'm advised that this is being implemented and monitored, and will incorporate the recommendations of the audit. The annual PSPF maturity assessment is also underway, and we will be reviewing this before it is submitted. I'm pleased that the security of veterans' and families' information has not been exposed to any additional risk through the policy noncompliance identified by the ANAO. We're satisfied that DVA continues to manage the contractor workforce safely and in accordance with Commonwealth requirements, and that veterans and families are well supported. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Auditor-General's report for 2021-22—No. 45—Performance audit—Effectiveness of the management of contractors—Department of Veterans' Affairs: Department of Veterans' Affairs—Corrigendum. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Urquhart. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Joint Committee
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marielle Smith ) (16:43): Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. There are two nominations for the one position on each of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. In accordance with standing orders, ballots will be held to determine which of the two senators are to be appointed. Other committee memberships may also require ballots. The ballots will be held later in the week at a time convenient to the Senate.
Membership
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:44): I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—Joint Standing Com mittee—
Appointed—Senator Liddle
Appropriations, Staffing and Security—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators McKenzie and Ruston
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senators Antic and Brockman
Broadcast ing of Parliamentary Proceedings—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Brockman and Nampijinpa Price
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Community A ffairs References Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Askew, Brockman and Nampijinpa Price
Participating members: Senators Antic, Birmingham, Bragg, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senators McLachlan and Scarr
Economics Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Bragg and Dean Smith
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr and Van
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Bragg, Canavan and Dean Smith
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Brockman, Cadell, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr and Van
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Liddle and O'Sullivan
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Education and Employment References Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Liddle, Nampijinpa Price and O'Sullivan
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—
Senator McGrath
Participating members [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into the 2022 election]: Senators Hanson and Roberts
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Cadell and Hughes
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Brockman, Cadell and Hughes,
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Colbeck and McGrath
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Finance and Public Administration Refer ences Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Colbeck, McGrath and Dean Smith
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, and Van
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Chandler and Fawcett
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Cadell, Chandler and Fawcett
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Canavan, Cash, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Com mittee—
Appointed—Senators Faruqi, Fawcett, Molan, Reynolds and Dean Smith
House—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Askew
Human Rights—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senators Nampijinpa Price and O'Sullivan
Implementation of the National Redress S cheme—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Dean Smith
Participating members: Senators Hanson and Roberts
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senators Antic and Askew
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Antic and Scarr
Participating members: Senators Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Dean Smith and Van
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Antic, McLachlan and Scarr
Participating members: Senators Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Rennick, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Dean Smith and Van
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Bragg
National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators Antic and Van
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators Hughes and Liddle
Parliamentary Library—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators Brockman and Nampijinpa Price
Parliamentary Standards—Joint Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Ciccone
Appointed—
Senators Chandler, O'Neill and Payne
Participating members: Senators Ciccone, Hanson and Roberts
Privileges—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators Brockman, Fawcett and McGrath
Procedure—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators McKenzie and Ruston
Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senators Canavan and Reynolds
Public Works—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Reynolds
Publications—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators Askew, Nampijinpa Price and Rennick
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislati on Committee—
Discharged—Senator Polley
Appointed—
Senators Canavan, Ciccone and Rennick
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Polley, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Canavan, Colbeck and Rennick
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Cash, Chandler, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Hanson, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Molan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payne, Reynolds, Roberts, Ruston, Scarr, Dean Smith and Van
Scrutiny of Bills—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators Scarr and Dean Smith
Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators Scarr and Van
Selection of Bills— Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators O'Sullivan and Scarr
Senators ' Interests—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators Askew, Liddle, O'Sullivan and Reynolds
Trade and Investment Growth—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senators Canavan and Colbeck
Treat ies—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Ciccone
Appointed—Senators Canavan, Chandler, Marielle Smith and Van
DOCUMENTS
Australian Building and Construction Commission
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:44): I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Australian Building and Construction Commission.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:44): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Membership
Messages received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of members of the House of Representatives to joint committees, as follows:
Message no. 17, dated 1 August 2022—
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—Mr Chester and Mr Stevens
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Mr Boyce, Mr Coleman, Ms Daniel, Mr McCormack, Mr Pearce, Ms Price, Mr Wallace and Mr Young
Joint Standing Committee on Migration—Ms Spender, Dr Webster and Mr Wood
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—Mr Goodenough and Mrs Marino
Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme—Dr M Ryan and Ms Ware
Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library—Mr Broadbent, Mr Ramsey and Ms Tink
Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth—Mr Buchholz and Mr Gee
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—Mr Birrell, Mr Pike and Mr Thompson
Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—Ms Chaney, Mr L O'Brien and Ms Price
Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Mrs Archer and Mr Pike
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Mr L O'Brien and Mr Pearce
Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings—Mr Ramsey and Mr Stevens
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—Mr Hawke and Mr Pitt
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—Mr Coleman and Ms Tink
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement—Mr L O'Brien and Mr Wood
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—Mr Coleman, Dr Gillespie and Mr Violi
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works—Mr Chester
Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards—Mrs Marino and Ms Tink.
Message no. 18, dated 1 August 2022—
Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—Ms Claydon, Mr Perrett, Dr Reid and Ms Scrymgour
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Mr Lim, Ms Murphy and Mr Zappia
Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings—Mr Laxale, Ms J Ryan and Ms Templeman
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—Mr Georganas, Ms Mascarenhas and Dr Mulino
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—Mr Neumann, Mr Rae and Ms Thwaites
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Mr Burns, Mr Georganas, Mr Gosling, Mr Hill, Mr Khalil, Mr R Mitchell, Mr Neumann, Mr Perrett, Ms Templeman, Ms Thwaites, Ms Vamvakinou and Mr J Wilson
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—Mr Burns, Mr Khalil and Mr Perrett
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement—Mr Lim, Ms Miller-Frost and Mr Repacholi
Joint Standing Committee on Migration—Ms Fernando, Ms Vamvakinou and Mr J Wilson
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—Ms Claydon, Mr Gosling, Mr Hill and Ms Payne
Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme—Ms Coker, Dr Freelander and Ms Payne
Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library—Ms Fernando, Mr R Mitchell, Ms Stanley and Ms Thwaites
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—Dr Ananda-Rajah, Dr Garland, Mr Hill, Dr Mulino, Ms Murphy and Mr Rae
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works—Mr Perrett, Ms Roberts, Mr Smith and Mr Zappia
Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Ms Scrymgour, Ms Swanson and Mr Zappia
Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth—Mr Georganas, Ms Lawrence and Mr Laxale
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—Mr Burnell, Dr Charlton, Mr Gosling, Dr Mulino, Ms Thwaites and Mr J Wilson
Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards—Ms Claydon, Ms J Ryan, Mr Smith and Ms Vamvakinou.
BILLS
Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government has disrespected older Australians, their families and aged care providers due to their political restriction of the passage of similar legislation in the last Parliament when they were in Opposition".
(Quorum formed).
Senator PAYMAN (Western Australia) (16:48): Before I start speaking on the Aged Care and other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, please note this is not my first speech.
I am proud to stand here in this place as a member of the United Workers Union, a union which represents incredible hardworking and professional aged-care workers. In my previous role as an organiser, I have heard stories—countless stories—of members witnessing firsthand some of the worst crises facing the care sector today. Aged-care workers have been overworked, underpaid and undervalued, like other care industries which are highly diverse and feminised. These sectors were in crisis even before the COVID-19 pandemic and the last two years have put extraordinary pressure on staff, who have been at the forefront of the pandemic, resulting in a worsening of staff shortages and increased pressures on workers and the families who rely on these services—all at a time of record low wage growth. They are struggling to cope. They are suffering from a lack of staff, lack of care time, lack of recognition and lack of respect for their skills and experiences, and, to top it all, poor wages. They are pushed to the limit to cover extra duties due to shortages of skilled staff.
I heard Marina Webb cry as she exclaimed: 'We have no time available to provide residents with social and emotional support. We cut corners with the quality care they deserve. It's heartbreaking.' Aged-care workers find themselves sacrificing their own quality family time as they work two or three jobs during the week and all weekend to ensure they make ends meet and put food on the table for their families. They deserve better.
After 48 years as an aged-care worker, Jude Clarke is tired of the jobs cut, hours cut, workloads increased, a high turnover of staff, less care hours and more profits for CEOs—shame! She believes workers and the elderly they take care of deserve respect, dignity and time: 'The residents should never be hurried or told to wait because I'm too busy. We as workers deserve more time to say our hellos and our last goodbyes. Sometimes we are the only family that the residents have. Is that too much to ask for?' They deserve better.
After being assaulted by a high-care dementia resident, Emma Bowers was left traumatised and could not return to work. Even though the cut had healed, the damage was done. She recalls: 'I was tending to a male patient in the high-care dementia ward at an aged-care facility which I was assaulted. Hit on the head, I only realised I was injured when I saw blood flowing down my face. My initial thought of concern was towards the resident to make sure he was safe and not hurt. This was due to the understaffing of that facility. If we had enough staff that night, we would not be put in situations where our health and safety is at risk.' They deserve better.
These workers have advocated and fought the good fight of recognition, dignity and a day's fair pay. We joined thousands of aged-care workers across the country in walking off the job on Tuesday 10 May with the United Workers Union, across the nation, just before the election, taking action for improved conditions, a good pay rise and increased care time.
There has been a decade of neglect by successive Liberal governments who have overseen understaffing, low pay and insecure work for these overwhelmingly female workforces. The previous Morrison government neglected older Australians and the aged-care system. It's a national disgrace. Just as the workers deserve better, so do older Australians. They helped build this country. They worked hard, paid their taxes and raised their families. They deserve better. The previous government did not support them but this Albanese government will. Both workers and older Australians deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
Aged-care workers regularly report that in some cases just one staff member has been left to take care of up to 40 residents. Inadequate staffing means dedicated nurses and care workers are forced to make heartbreaking decisions every day about who will receive care now and who will have to wait. Too often residents are being left in soiled pads, waiting too long when they call for assistance and not being helped to go to the toilet in time. Avoidable falls, substandard care and accidents are way too common, and it needs to stop. People are also missing out on regular showers, or require assistance to eat or a helping hand to call family and friends through phone calls or video calls.
The royal commission concluded that the aged-care workforce was the foundation of any successful reform in aged care. They said that high-quality aged care 'cannot be achieved without having enough staff'. The Albanese Labor government will take practical measures to ensure that older Australians receive the aged care they deserve and to address the structural problems facing the care sector. That includes registered nurses on site 24/7. Under an Albanese Labor government, every aged-care facility will be required to have a registered, qualified nurse on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This will save thousands of stressful, expensive and, ultimately, unnecessary trips to hospital emergency departments for issues a nurse could solve on the spot. More carers with more time is what we're calling for. Labor will raise the standard of aged care across the board by ensuring there are more carers who have more time to care. We will mandate that every Australian living in aged care receives an average of 215 minutes of care per day, as recommended by the royal commission. That means more care for every resident every day—not just essential medical treatment but basic, important things, like helping people take a shower, getting people dressed or helping them eat a nutritious meal.
Labor will see a pay rise for aged-care workers. We will back a real pay rise for aged-care workers, and we will support workers' calls at the Fair Work Commission for better pay. The Labor government will fund the outcome of this case because, if we want high standards of care, we need to support higher wages for our carers in order to provide safe, quality care to a growing number of older Australians. We will also ensure that there's better food for residents. Since the aged care royal commission was called, we've heard one shocking example after another of outrageous and unacceptable breaches of care standards, including homes re-serving uneaten food from one resident, pureed, to other residents; delays in identifying and treating wounds, leading to severe pain and chronic conditions; overuse of restraints; demeaning practices such as 'floor time'; management ignoring family complaints; and failures in maintaining clinical standards and audits.
The aged-care sector is one which the public believe lacks transparency around taxpayer funding. A recent report found that just 16 per cent of people thought it was open and transparent. There have been too many high-profile stories of dodgy providers misusing funds meant for the care of older Australians. Older Australians need a government that isn't afraid to put the dodgy providers on notice and to take a tough stance on protecting their safety. The Albanese Labor government will ensure that there is better food for residents of aged-care homes and we will work with the sector to develop and implement mandatory nutrition standards for aged-care homes to ensure every resident gets good food.
In regard to dollars going to care, Labor will make residential care providers report in public and in detail what they're spending money on, and we will give the aged-care safety commissioner new powers to ensure there is accountability and integrity. The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 will see the establishment of a new code of conduct that will set high standards of behaviour for aged-care workers, approved providers and governing persons of approved providers to ensure they are delivering aged care in a way that is safe, competent and respectful. The bill will ensure improved information sharing between care and support sector regulators will enable proactive monitoring cross-sector risks and better protection of consumers and participants from harm. The bill also includes a series of measures that provide greater transparency and accountability for providers. Star ratings will be published for all residential aged-care services on My Aged Care by the end of 2022, and those star ratings will enable senior Australians, their families and carers to make informed decisions about aged care.
After a decade of neglect, aged-care workers and older Australians deserve better. Labor has a plan to put security, dignity and quality back into aged care. Only the Albanese Labor government will treat aged-care residents and workers with the respect they deserve. This government will fix aged care through practical measures—registered nurses on site 24/7, more carers with more care time, backing a pay rise for aged care workers, better food for residents, more dollars going into care, and more transparency and accountability. I have faith and confidence in the work of Minister for Health and Aged Care Mark Butler and Minister for Aged Care Anika Wells. I am proud to be a member of the United Workers Union, which have been fighting for these changes, and I am proud of being part of a government that will ensure no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. I commend this bill to the Senate.
Debate interrupted.
FIRST SPEECH
Allman-Payne, Senator Penny
The PRESIDENT (17:01): Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Allman-Payne to make her first speech and ask that the usual courtesies be extend to her.
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (17:02): I begin this evening by acknowledging that we are meeting on the sovereign and unceded lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples. I also wish to acknowledge the Bailai, Gurang, Gooreng Gooreng and Taribelang Bunda peoples, who are the traditional custodians of the land on which I live and work in Central Queensland. The consequences of invasion and colonisation are still being felt throughout this country, and we must always remember that we are standing on stolen lands and centre First Nations justice in all of the work that we do in this place. I hope that this is a parliament that will make significant steps toward addressing the centuries of injustice against First Nations people.
I am humbled and honoured to be the 100th senator elected to Queensland and only the third Greens senator to represent our state. I have been an activist for most of my life. My first act of civil disobedience took place in year 9 at Tully State High School. For six weeks I stood at the back of our classroom, refusing to participate in mothercraft lessons unless the boys were required to do it too. In the years that followed, 'mothercraft' became 'parentcraft', and I like to think that my small act of protest played a part in that.
I was born in Brisbane, but I've lived and worked right across our state. I spent my school years living in Far North Queensland in the small town of Cardwell. Mum's side of the family hailed from the north. My grandmother was born in Innisfail, and my grandfather was one of the sons in Lawson & Sons, which owned sawmills in Tully, Tolga and Mareeba. I loved growing up in Cardwell. Weekends and school holidays were spent on the beach building cubbyhouses in the trees overlooking Hinchinbrook Island, hanging out down at the jetty or riding our bikes along the many trails in the local forest. Later on, I became a competitive swimmer, and so I spent most of my time outside of school in the local pool or travelling to carnivals across North Queensland.
I met my husband, Darin, at university. Like me, he was studying human movement, having previously qualified as a fitter on the railways in New Zealand. After going out for about three weeks, he proposed, and we got married over the summer break. We put ourselves through university by working together in a cocktail bar on the Gold Coast and teaching learn-to-swim at Jindalee.
In our second year of university, despite student protests, the government introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. Our first daughter, Erin, was born in our final year. I began my teaching career at Kenmore State High School. Erin was 10 months old and I was pregnant with our second child. I took 10 weeks off in the middle of my probationary year, returning to work when Tara was only six weeks old. I will always be grateful for the help and support my mum gave us in our first year of teaching. Absent universal free child care, it's unlikely we could have afforded for me to go back to work without my mum's help. And 1993 was also the year I attended my first teachers strike, joining 10,000 public school teachers across the state to push back against the Goss government's proposed cuts to state education funding.
At the end of our first year of teaching, Darin and I were given a required transfer to Gladstone. It wasn't easy to begin with: we moved house three times in the first six months and we had difficulty finding appropriate child care. But eventually we settled in and we made it work. Our time in Gladstone coincided with the most extensive campaign in the history of the Queensland Teachers' Union to defeat the introduction of a new school based management model for schools called 'Leading Schools'.
After six years in Gladstone, Darren and I accepted a transfer to Bamaga. Living and working on country with the communities of Cape York and the Torres Strait brought us face-to-face with the effects of colonisation and systemic racism on First Nations peoples, and I came to fully appreciate the profound impacts that government policy and decision-making can have on people's lives. It was after living on Cape York that I decided to study law. I wanted to better understand how the law and government worked so I could be more effective in helping to bring about systemic change. By that time, we were living and working in Bundaberg, so I took leave from my job at Bundaberg State High School. I worked as a relief teacher during the day and went to uni at night. In 2007, I started working at a law firm in Brisbane. I loved studying law, but what I learned from practising law was that I really loved teaching. And so in 2012 I returned to the classroom.
Since returning to teaching, I've become increasingly distressed by the growing inequalities in our education system. While public school teachers are forever being asked to do more with less, private schools receive ever-increasing funding. Over the past 10 years, government funding for private schools in Australia has increased at nearly five times the rate of public school funding. It's projected that until the end the decade, private schools will be funded over 100 per cent of their Schooling Resource Standard whilst public schools won't even be funded to 91 per cent. As education economist Adam Rorris has pointed out, the Schooling Resource Standard is not an aspirational standard of school funding: it is the minimum amount of funding required to have students reach the minimum achievement benchmarks. When governments fail to reach this funding level, they fail the students of this country—students like Lachlan, Judy, Hannah, Noreen, Maiella, Brittany, Haylee and Jake, who made teaching my last legal studies class an absolute joy, and who will be graduating from Gladstone high this year. Good luck! Every Australian student deserves a world-class education, and public money should be for public schools.
Over the past decade, I've also witnessed the growing inequalities in our communities. As teachers, we meet everyone. We meet the student who comes to school hungry because their parents' JobSeeker payment isn't enough to live on. We meet the family at risk of homelessness because the landlords put the rent up and they can no longer afford to live there, or there simply aren't enough homes to rent. We meet kids who can't get their homework done in the evenings because their parents literally can't afford to keep the lights on. We meet the mother who is desperately trying to protect herself and her children from a violent partner. And we meet the child who is at risk of suicide but is unable to access appropriate mental health services. We meet the child who is at risk of suicide but is unable to access appropriate mental health services.
In the months before Senator Larissa Waters delivered her first speech back in 2011, 75 per cent of our home state of Queensland was impacted by flooding. Thirty-three people lost their lives and 5,900 people were evacuated from 3,600 homes. Now, 11 years later, I deliver my first speech only months removed from yet another climate catastrophe. Earlier this year, a year's worth of rain fell in a week across 23 Queensland local government areas. In three days alone, Brisbane received 80 per cent of its annual rainfall. Thirteen people died, and thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed. Driving into the suburb of Goodna to help out after the water had receded is something I will never forget. It looked like a war zone, with homes damaged up to their roofs and families' ruined possessions piled high in the street.
Climate change is causing more frequent and more severe natural disasters. The cost to the economy of natural disasters will reach $39 billion per year by 2050, and Queensland will bear the brunt, accounting for nearly 40 per cent of the growing national cost. This is a cost that should be borne by the coal and gas corporations that have caused the climate crisis, not by those suffering its effects. Our window to avoid catastrophe is closing. Our future depends on urgent and decisive action to respond to the climate crisis. That means no new coal and gas.
There are some in this place who would have you believe that the people of regional Queensland don't want to see meaningful action on climate change. Well, that's nonsense. Before the election, the Australian Conservation Foundation conducted Australia's biggest climate poll. It found that nearly two-thirds of the people in the electorate of Flynn, which encompasses my hometown of Gladstone, believe that climate action will produce economic benefits. The results were similar in the seats of Capricornia, Dawson and Maranoa. Workers in regional Queensland know that the world is moving away from fossil fuels and that a transition to renewable energy is inevitable. What they want to know is what comes next and how they will be supported through the transition.
As a unionist, I've spent almost 30 years advocating for the rights of workers. I am committed to ensuring that, as we make the transition to a renewable energy economy, no worker is left behind and our regional communities can benefit from the massive opportunities that come with investment in renewable energy generation and manufacturing. As the only senator based in Gladstone, I will be working closely with my community as well as others around the country to ensure that there is a plan for high-quality infrastructure, high-quality services and high-quality jobs as we transition to a net zero emissions economy.
When Larissa delivered her first speech in August 2011, I was sitting up there in the visitors gallery. I appreciated the enormous significance of Queensland having its first-ever elected Greens representative at any level of government and I wanted to bear witness to such an important moment in the history of our party. I couldn't have imagined back then that 11 years later I would be making my own first speech in this place. That I am doing so today is testament to the hard work of so many party members and supporters. I want to thank our 35 lower house and Senate ticket candidates, most of whom campaigned to promote the Greens' vision and lift our Senate vote with no expectation of winning themselves. To Danielle Mutton, Bernard Lakey, Ian Mazlin, Stephen Bates, Mick Jones, Paula Creen, Vinnie Batten, Sally Spain, Sue Ethridge, Renay Wells, Paul Bambrick, Jordan Hall, Max Chandler-Mather, Mickey Berry, Scott Humphreys, Andrew McLean, Jennifer Cox, Phillip Musumeci, Melissa Stevens, Earl Snijders, Elissa Parker, Scott Turner, April Broadbent, Claire Garton, Asha Worsteling, Will Simon, Neil Cotter, Elizabeth Watson-Brown, Craig Armstrong, Nicole Thompson, Ben Pennings, Anna Sri, Alyce Nelligen, Navdeep Singh and Rebecca Hayley. This is your victory.
To Larissa: this Senate seat was only winnable because of the amazing work that you have done for over a decade. You and I are the pointy end of 30 years of political history in Queensland, of which you have played such an important part. Thank you for everything you've done over the years. I'll never forget how proud I was to be in the Senate chamber when you made your first speech, and I'm so pleased and proud that I now get to do this with you.
To Asia, Katinka, Emily, Kirsten, Guy, Sean, Emerald, Lyle, Imogen, Mark, Nikita, Marty, Josie, Izzy, Simon, Sam, Elle-Leigh, David, Marianna and Will, thank you for being the best Senate campaign support team I could have asked for. To Jane, Erin, Tammy and all of our Gladstone volunteers, thank you for making this the biggest Greens campaign we've ever had in Gladstone. To my dear friend Kitty Carra, thank you for keeping the whole show on the road and giving me either a confidence boost or a stern talking-to when I needed it. Over the past 12 years, I've benefited from the mentorship, counsel and friendship of so many people in our party. The list is too long to include here, but you know who you are. Please know that I wouldn't be here without you.
To my family: Dad, thank you for the countless times you drove me to the airport at 4.30 on a Monday morning so I could be home in time for school after a weekend of campaigning. I think Mum would be really impressed by our efforts. To Erin and Tara, I'm incredibly proud of the strong women you've become, and I hope you're proud of me too. To Billy and Esther, you are the lights of my life, and I'm sorry that Ma Ma won't be able to visit you quite as often as I'd like for the next little while. And to Darin: thank you for riding the roller-coaster with me over the past 32 years. I love you.
This election, the Greens vote grew nationwide, and Australian voters returned more Greens parliamentarians than ever before. Across Queensland, there was a surge in support for the Greens which saw us win seats from both Liberal and Labor. Australians are choosing a future in which we place people before profit. They want to see Medicare extended so that it doesn't stop at your teeth or your brain. They want to see safe, secure housing treated as a human right, rather than a scheme for extracting profit from desperate people. And they want to see a climate that is safe to live in, which means no more coal and gas and a rapid transition to cheap, reliable and publicly owned renewable energy.
We have an enormous responsibility as parliamentarians to represent the people who put us here. Representation is a form of service. We serve the people of our electorates. We are servants. We are not the Australian people's masters; they are ours. The major parties have forgotten this. If the major parties served the people, we'd be talking about how to get to 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, not whether we should. If the major parties served the people, we'd be increasing taxes on megacorporations and the super-rich and ensuring that no Australian should have to choose between eating and buying clothes, between paying the rent and filling up their car to get to work, or between violence and homelessness.
The federal election was a wake-up call to every single parliamentarian and corporate lobbyist strutting the halls of this building. People are scared and people are angry. They have had enough of a status quo that delivers record corporate profits while everyone else suffers, and they are willing and able to tear it down.
I represent Queensland. I represent the people of a state that is suffering the effects of catastrophic global heating more than most, where more than 50,000 people languish on the social housing waiting list, some for more than a decade, and where one in eight people live in poverty. I am a servant of the people of Queensland, and I will be judged by the people of Queensland if I fail to serve them and fight for them with a dedication and seriousness that they deserve. I'm up for the challenge. Let's get to work!
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne.
BILLS
Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government has disrespected older Australians, their families and aged care providers due to their political restriction of the passage of similar legislation in the last Parliament when they were in Opposition".
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:24): Congratulations to our new senator, and it was a lovely speech. Talking about lovely speeches, it was following on from Senator Payman, who also made her contribution earlier this afternoon about her personal experience as a member of the UWU, over in Western Australia, and placed on the record her experience in terms of the aged-care crisis that this country, sadly, has had to confront and, thankfully, now the Albanese government is taking seriously to fix.
It's no secret that aged care is in crisis and has been for the last decade, but over the past several years the terrible state of Australia's aged-care system has been, sadly, a recurring headline. As we've heard, advocates, unions and the Labor Party when we were in opposition were, for a number of years, calling on the coalition government to take serious action to address the issues that the aged-care sector was facing. They were eventually dragged, kicking and screaming, to establish a royal commission into our aged-care industry. By the time we got to the federal election this year it had been well over a year since the royal commission had handed down its report. I would like to quote a particular aspect of that report for the benefit of the Senate and those who might be listening this evening. The commissioners said:
The extent of substandard care in Australia's aged care system reflects both poor quality on the part of some aged care providers and fundamental systemic flaws with the way the Australian aged care system is designed and governed.
They went on to say:
People receiving aged care deserve better. The Australian community is entitled to expect better.
It's important to pull out that recommendation from some of the commentary from the fine commissioners because it does shine a light on the core issues we are facing now as a parliament. Thankfully, the Albanese government is prepared to roll up its sleeves and tackle the aged-care crisis head-on. We saw awful standards of treatment of those who needed so much from their government in desperate times in care. We saw examples, sadly, where maggots were in the wounds of residents. Two-thirds of residents were malnourished or at risk of being malnourished. This is absolutely shocking evidence that should have driven the previous government to take urgent action. But, no, what we saw was denial—heads in the sand, pretence that there was no crisis. Again, they were dragged, kicking and screaming, to finally set up a royal commission and take the issue seriously, but today, more than 16 months since the royal commission handed down its report, you would struggle to find an aged-care resident or worker who would say the situation had actually improved. Sadly, we have a lot of work to do. The government has no qualms about it; we will address the issues and address each of the recommendations that were put forward by the royal commissioners.
Sadly, those opposite, the conservative side of politics, were so resistant to a royal commission into aged care because they knew it would show a very ugly picture. Even without a royal commission, there were horror stories in the media every week. It was completely shameful that the coalition resisted calls for a royal commission because they knew it would be politically inconvenient, but that was always the approach that those opposite, the coalition, took. The crisis was never a call to action; it was a political inconvenience, and that was how the Liberals and Nationals treated the report that was handed down by the royal commission. There were maggots in wounds, there was malnourishment, and in 2020 11,000 people died while waiting for an aged-care package. This situation was laid out in front of the coalition and they failed.
So it's great that those opposite expect to vote for this legislation today, but I think it's important that we all remember how we got here—what it took to finally get real action to improve our aged-care sector. It took a change of government. A Labor government has brought forward this legislation, one of our first pieces of legislation. This bill, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, responds to several of the recommendations from the royal commission into aged care. It makes a series of important changes that will improve the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians. People have paid taxes all their lives, and all they expect is that if they're ever put in a vulnerable situation the government will be on their side.
These changes that the Albanese the government is proposing will, I believe, assist older Australians and their families. It's not just about those who are in aged-care facilities. It's also about trying to take some of the burden off those families who are helping their loved ones while they are in the care of our fantastic aged-care workers, who do an outstanding job and have done so in the last couple of years in particular, in the midst of COVID. I also want to give a shout-out to those who are looking after my aunt and uncle who are currently in an aged-care facility. I know there are continuous outbreaks of COVID, and those workers do an outstanding job, particularly with what they've had to go through in my home state of Victoria. I can't thank them enough for the great work that they do day in, day out.
The changes before the parliament that the Albanese government is proposing are introducing a new aged-care subsidy calculation; providing a legislative basis for the star rating system; introducing a code of conduct and banning order scheme; extending the Serious Incident Response Scheme to aged care delivered in home settings; strengthening the governance of approved providers, and I think that's a very important area of concern that we saw play out over the last couple of years; enhancing information-sharing across related sectors; increasing financial and prudential oversight; broadening the functions of the renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority; and addressing the issues with the informed consent arrangements in respect of the use of restrictive practices in residential aged care.
I don't propose to go into any greater detail. I just wanted to provide a very brief contribution today in the Senate. I know there have been others, as we heard earlier today, from those who have been very involved in this sector. I want to stress that it is important and good to see that colleagues on the other side of the chamber are looking at supporting the legislation that the government has put forward. These are very, very important changes, important reforms, and many were recommended some time ago by the royal commission into aged care. But, now that we have a Labor government, I'm glad that we are finally getting on with the job of implementing these essential changes, and I hope that everyone in this chamber can support this necessary and urgent legislation, because, quite frankly, older Australians deserve so much better than the neglect and the abuse that they've experienced over many years.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (17:32): I rise to talk about the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. As its title describes, this bill legislates several recommendations from the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. All but one of the measures in this bill were included in the former government's bill, which lapsed when the last parliament was prorogued. The one new measure relates to star ratings that will provide greater transparency and accountability in the aged-care system. Star ratings will be published online for all residential aged-care services so that everyone will be able to make more-informed decisions about aged-care providers.
I agree with the royal commission's observations that it's critical for the public to have good information about the performance of individual services. The system of star ratings will be an essential tool in differentiating between aged-care services—essential both to those who are needing to choose an aged-care provider and to those who are receiving those services. As the royal commission said, people receiving aged care have 'a right to know about the performance of their service provider and alternatives so that they can make informed decisions about whether to change providers'. Then, of course, families and friends, advocacy organisations, policymakers, legislators and the media should also be able to access the information and guidance that a star rating system will provide.
The star rating system that Labor's legislation will deliver will replace the service compliance rating system which the last government introduced. That system, as the royal commission reported, falls well short of what is needed. That's because, under that inadequate and discredited system, services that meet all minimum standards and have no current sanctions are automatically given the highest ratings. That's not good enough in our book because that rating system does not differentiate between providers who just meet the standards and those who are outstanding. Our scheme will allow older people and their families to make meaningful comparisons of the quality and safety performances of providers.
Our rating system will give comfort and confidence to both those needing to enter aged care and those who are already receiving care. A good rating will be a reflection of good governance, and this bill will serve to strengthen the governance of approved providers. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner will be given powers to take enforcement action for substantiated breaches, such as being able to issue a civil penalty or a banning order. The royal commission was not impressed with the quality of governance across the aged-care sector. It's pretty clear that was the case. The commission gained plenty of evidence to support its findings that the level of substandard care was 'unacceptably high', to put it mildly. As it said in its final report, if all aged-care providers had good governance arrangements in place, it is highly likely that the level of substandard care would reduce significantly.
The final report quotes the Governance Institute of Australia, which explains that values and behaviours determine and define organisational culture. The governance arrangements reflect and promote the culture of an organisation. We in the government agree with the royal commission that the existing governance arrangements and requirements do not provide a sufficiently strong basis for the governance and leadership of aged-care providers. From 1 December this year, approved providers and their governing bodies will be required to meet new responsibilities. The new measures will improve leadership and culture. The emphasis here will be on transparency and accountability to ensure that the focus of approved providers from the top down is in the interests of those in care.
New reporting responsibilities will help those in care and their families better understand the operations of providers. Approved providers will be required to notify the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission of changes to key personnel. Further, there will be increased financial and prudential oversight of the aged-care sector. In particular, this legislation will increase financial and prudential oversight of refundable accommodation deposits and bonds. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner or the secretary will be able to request information or documentation from a provider or borrower of a loan made using a refundable accommodation deposit or bond. It will be an offence if a borrower does not comply with a request. Rigorous financial and prudential oversight was seen by the royal commission as critical if we are going to see any improvement in the aged-care system. It will protect taxpayers' investment in aged-care services and will help identify potential risks to the quality and safety of aged care.
While I'm on the subject of safety, it is important to note that this bill will expand the Serious Incident Response Scheme from residential care to home care and flexible care delivered in a home or community setting, from 1 December 2022. The royal commission noted that the need for oversight of allegations of abuse and neglect in home settings will increase as more people receive aged care in their homes for longer. Those people will also most likely have increased level of frailty, cognitive impairment, or both. As the commission said:
Frailty is directly linked to vulnerability.
Any serious incident response scheme must have the capability to detect patterns in reports that indicate an ongoing risk to the safety of people receiving aged care services.
The royal commission heard a litany of horror stories of abuse and exploitation of elderly people in care. This legislation will ensure that individuals, including persons with a disability, who are subjected to cruelty and inhumane or degrading treatment can be assured that the incident will be promptly reported and impartially examined by the relevant authorities. Further, it extends protections for people who report abuse or neglect so that they don't face repercussions such as civil or criminal liabilities for reporting an incident.
This legislation is long overdue, and that's why the Albanese Labor government has introduced this bill at the very first available opportunity in this 47th Parliament. The Albanese government is determined to protect all people in aged care, especially those at risk of abuse and neglect at the hands of unscrupulous and uncaring operators. We are determined that people who place their elderly and infirm family members in aged care should have peace of mind that their loved ones are being looked after and well looked after. The whole nation has been shocked by the harrowing accounts of abuse and neglect that have been revealed by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, whose investigations and reports have helped to chart this new course of reform. I commend the royal commission for its careful and considered investigation and for its comprehensive report.
This legislation is a first response to that report. We have more legislation in the pipeline that will further improve care and quality standards. The Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill, when it is enacted, will implement another three of Labor's election promises. Importantly, residential care providers from July next year will have to have a registered nurse on site at all times. We also want to cap the amount that providers can charge for administration and management. As the aged care minister, Anika Wells, said when she introduced legislation in the other place last week:
The royal commission report is riddled with examples of people whose lives were up-ended by astronomical fees, by home care packages that were eaten up in administration costs and management charges that reduced care instead of aiding it.
And last, the bill will honour Labor's commitment to better transparency about how much providers spend on care, nursing, food, maintenance, cleaning, administration and profit. The bill will require the secretary to publish this information.
This government is serious about bringing about real change to the aged-care sector. Legislating our concerns will serve to improve the lives of those in care and give comfort to their families, and that cannot come and happen soon enough.
Senator STEWART (Victoria) (17:44): I rise to speak on and support the measures contained in the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. For countless generations, elders have provided care, wisdom, guidance and authority over our culture, country and people. Elders have been our story keepers, our protectors of cultural knowledge and teachers of our young people. Their contribution to our culture and to our country is immeasurable. As I touched on in my first speech, I would not be standing here in the Senate today if it were not for my own elders—especially my great-grandmothers, Alice Kelly and Annabelle Jackson, and my grandparents, Alvie and Joe Kelly. Elders, along with all older Australians—including generations of migrant communities—have helped build and create modern-day Australia. Older Australians have worked hard, paid their taxes and raised their families. It is our elderly, and their sacrifices, who have paved the way for us today and for the generations of tomorrow.
Older Australians have every right to expect that the federal government will support them in their later years. That's what they deserve; that's what they've earned after a life contributing to their communities and to our country. However, as tragically exposed through the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the care and treatment of our elderly in aged care has been far from acceptable, to say the least. The royal commission's findings were clear: it exposed an aged-care system that has been in crisis. As the royal commissioners wrote, over the last several decades successive Australian governments have brought a level of ambivalence, timidity and detachment to their approach to aged care. The royal commission heard countless stories of neglect, of a system in crisis and of thousands of Australians crying out for just a little bit better—for just a little care, for just a sense of humanity.
In particular, it was the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison coalition governments that have neglected older Australians and the aged-care system for the best part of a decade. It is a national disgrace. However, I'm proud to be part of an Anthony Albanese Labor government that is committed to fixing the aged-care crisis. In this regard, I would like to acknowledge our new Minister for Aged Care, Anika Wells; the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney; and the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, for having hit the ground running to begin the hard work of reforming and rebuilding our aged-care sector.
Just as we promised at the election, the Albanese Labor government will take practical measures consistent with the recommendations contained in the royal commission to ensure older Australians receive the care and dignity they deserve. This bill amends aged-care law and other legislation to implement a series of urgent funding, quality and safety measures, several of which were recommended by the royal commission into aged care. The bill replaces the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument with a new model for calculating aged-care subsidies called the Australian National Aged Care Classification model, which has been developed in consultation with the aged-care sector and consumer groups. Importantly, the bill includes several measures that will provide additional protections directly to older Australians. These protections cannot be delayed any longer. The Serious Incident Response Scheme will be expanded to establish obligations on approved providers of home care and flexible care in a community setting to report and respond to incidents and to take action to prevent incidents from reoccurring. A new code of conduct will set high standards of behaviour for aged-care workers, approved providers and governing persons of approved providers to ensure they are delivering aged care in a way that is safe, competent and respectful. Improved information-sharing between care and support sector regulators will enable proactive monitoring of cross-sector risks and better protection of consumers and participants from harm. An interim solution for the provision of consent for the use of restrictive practices will also be established while the state and territory consent arrangements are reconsidered.
The bill also includes a series of measures that provide greater transparency and accountability for providers. Star ratings will be published for all residential aged-care services on My Aged Care by the end of 2022. Star ratings will enable senior Australians, their families and carers to make informed decisions about their aged care. From 1 December 2022, approved providers and their governing bodies will be required to meet new responsibilities that will improve governance. Approved providers will be required to notify the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission of changes to key personnel, and the current disqualified individual arrangements will be replaced with a broader suitability test. Amendments will also be made to increase financial and prudential oversight in respect of refundable accommodation deposits and bonds, and the functions of the renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority will be expanded to include the provision of advice on healthcare and aged-care pricing and costing.
The bill makes a series of important and urgent changes that will improve the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians and will assist older Australians and their families to understand the quality of care and operations of providers. As a First Nations senator, I'm particularly interested in ensuring that policy reform and investment to further enhance aged-care access, service and quality is provided for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, as well as for other marginalised and disadvantaged communities. The royal commission's report, with respect to First Nations peoples' experience of the aged-care system, in talking about First Nations people, stated:
They descend from the first inhabitants of the land we now know as Australia, having developed, over millennia, a rich, varied and unique cultural heritage. In contemporary Australia, Elders and older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are 'cultural knowledge holders'. They provide the 'social glue' within their communities. They are central to the continuation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and communities.
However, the royal commission raised serious concerns with the level of access and care provided to support our First Nations elders through the aged-care system, saying:
There is strong evidence that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not access aged care at a rate commensurate with their level of need …
… … …
A combination of factors creates barriers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's access to the aged care system. These arise from social and economic disadvantage, a lack of culturally safe care, and the ongoing impacts of colonisation and prolonged discrimination. Access issues are further compounded by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's additional vulnerability arising from higher rates of disability, comorbidities, homelessness and dementia. To feel secure and obtain culturally safe services, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people prefer to receive services from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. However, there are currently not enough Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and other people with high levels of cultural competency, employed across the aged care system.
… … …
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people … experience earlier onset of ageing-related conditions and disability compared to the rest of the Australian population. Long-term health conditions affect 88% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over the age of 55 years. Dementia is also more prevalent. By any objective measure, they should be receiving proportionately higher levels of aged and health care.
The current aged care system does not ensure culturally safe care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The report also states:
After a lifetime of experiencing marginalisation, discrimination, disadvantage and racism, the Elders and the older people descendent of the first inhabitants of this ancient land deserve better than this.
Furthermore, with respect to non-English speaking communities and other disadvantaged communities' experience with the aged-care system, the royal commission's report found:
Older people who migrated to Australia from non-English speaking countries find it hard to access care that meets their cultural and language needs. Older people with disability receiving aged care do not have access to services and supports at the same level as those provided to people through the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Other groups that have experienced trauma, such as veterans, people from LGBTI communities, and care leavers, find it difficult to find care that meets their needs.
This bill, thankfully, begins to make a series of urgent changes that will begin to help improve the health, safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders, as well as those of older Australians from non-English-speaking and other minority groups in the aged-care sector. As outlined by the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, we have a significant opportunity to continue to enhance aged-care services for elders.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is projected to grow by 59 per cent by 2031, but the 65-and-over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is projected to grow by 200 per cent by 2031—much faster than the population aged zero to 24, which just sits at just 47 per cent. The rapid population growth is even more prevalent in the cohort of Aboriginal Victorians of retirement age, with this cohort projected to increase by 142 per cent by 2031.
Along with the reforms being introduced today, I look forward to advancing a number of the findings and recommendations contained in the royal commission's final report which will work to enhance options, access and care for the increasing number of First Nations people who will require aged care in the coming years. They include the following.
A Commissioner of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care will oversee the transformation of aged care services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and create a new flexibly-funded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander run service pathway within the aged care program to deliver culturally safe care.
… … …
The pathway should incorporate the best aspects of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program (NATSIFACP), including pooled and flexible funding.
… … …
The proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged care pathway should be embedded in a single national system available across Australia, bringing culturally safe and flexible aged care that meets the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people wherever they live.
I look forward to working with my parliamentary colleagues on helping to progress not only the reforms being debated today but also these future reforms, which will help improve aged-care services for First Nations elders.
In this regard, we do not have to start from scratch. Along with the tremendous work that has been undertaken through the royal commission into aged care and the many submissions provided by stakeholders, when it comes to First Nations aged-care needs, we have pre-existing and longstanding models to draw from and build on. Along with the Rumbalara Elders Facility, which is based in the Shepparton region, Aboriginal Community Elders Services, based in Brunswick in Victoria, have for 31 years operated and served the specific needs of First Nations elders across Melbourne's northern region.
ACES was the first Aboriginal residential aged-care facility established in Victoria and was established due to the tireless work of the late Aunty Iris Lovett-Gardiner and other elders both past and present. They were concerned that elders were dying in mainstream nursing homes without any Aboriginal cultural practices being observed. Since opening their doors in 1991, ACES have been providing invaluable and tailored care to generations of elders through culturally appropriate services and engagements.
I had the pleasure of visiting ACES, along with our then shadow minister for ageing, Clare O'Neil, and the federal member for Wills, Peter Khalil, to announce a $2.1 million election commitment to help ACES continue providing improved service for the growing number of First Nations elders. While the $2.1 million commitment has been warmly welcomed by ACES as it will enable them to upgrade their facilities, as only a 25-bed residential aged-care centre, they will continue to require more investment to expand to cater for the growing number of elders anticipated to require culturally tailored care over the coming years.
In this regard, Labor's broader package to support First Nations aged care contains a number of key elements that will assist across the sector, including investing $115 million to build culturally safe aged-care facilities over four years and $106 million to provide face-to-face support for older First Nations people. This also includes implementation of a Trusted Indigenous Facilitators program to build a First Nations workforce to help individual older First Nations people and their families and carers to access aged-care services that meet their physical and cultural needs. In partnership with the federal government, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation will work with Aboriginal community controlled organisations to assist older First Nations people and their families to navigate and access aged-care services. A workforce of around 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff across Australia will provide this trusted support.
This government is committed to delivering aged-care and health services that meet the needs of our elders and enable them to remain close to their homes and connected to their communities. The royal commission into aged care recommended the government 'ensure that the new aged-care system makes specific and adequate provision for the diverse and changing needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people', and so we are doing just that.
Labor has a plan to put security, dignity, quality and humanity back into aged care. Only an Albanese Labor government will treat older Australians with the respect that they deserve. I commend this bill to the chamber, and I look forward to advancing these reforms and many others we will progress, particularly to ensure we provide better aged-care services for First Nations elders and elders from multicultural communities.
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (17:59): I'd like to join with a range of other speakers from the government side of the chamber in commending the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 and commending both Minister Wells and the government as a whole for bringing this legislation on so early in this term. I think it is a sign of how important the government considers fixing the aged-care system that this is one of the first bills that this parliament will deal with. I think I'm right in saying this is the first bill that the Senate is dealing with in this term of government.
It's been too long since we've had a government in Australia that actually cares about the aged-care system and cares about aged-care residents, their families, and, importantly, the workers who do so much for those we love with so little recognition and so little value for the work they perform. That is something that is going to change under the Albanese Labor government, evidenced by the fact that we are moving so early in this term on this legislation. Australians have been waiting for so long to have a government that takes aged care seriously, that is prepared to fund it properly and is prepared to treat residents, families and workers in the system with respect. This legislation from the Albanese government is the beginning of that.
We've introduced a key piece of aged-care legislation, delivering on the government's promise to ensure that older Australians receive the higher-quality care they deserve. These are our loved ones. These Australians have worked, raised families, paid their taxes and, unfortunately, under the former government, had to experience shocking neglect in the aged-care system. Despite the number of warnings given to the former government, they had to endure those conditions—maggots in wounds; appalling food that you wouldn't feed your dog, let alone your loved ones. This was happening far too often in the aged-care system under the former government. That is what we are about fixing, including via this legislation.
As other speakers have noted, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 will deliver critically needed changes for the aged-care system. This legislation will bring in a few key points. It will bring in a new Australian National Aged Care Classification funding model, which will replace the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument in October 2022, offering more equitable funding that is better matched to providers costs in delivering the care residents need.
Before I go on to mention the other points that this bill deals with, I want to say more about the importance of addressing the funding model. Let's not forget—we should never forget—that the funding model that is being replaced, the Aged Care Funding Instrument, was exactly the funding model that former Prime Minister Morrison, as Treasurer, made adjustments to that starved the aged-care system of the funding it so desperately needed. If you want to look, for one moment in time, what set up the failure of the system, the neglect of the system and the people within it, it was that decision by former Treasurer and former Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, backed by every other member of the former government, that starved the aged-care system of the funding that it so desperately needed.
Senator Polley, if I may, I know that this is something that you often brought up in estimates. We sat through many estimates hearings together talking about this, the decision by the former government that put the brakes on the funding that the aged-care system so desperately needed. So I very much welcome the fact that this new Albanese government will be replacing that Aged Care Funding Instrument to put in place a more modern, more equitable funding system, which will be known as the Australian National Aged Care Classification funding model.
This bill also delivers other changes. The star ratings system will see the Department of Health and Aged Care publish a comparison rating for all residential aged-care services by the end of this year. This will be really helpful for members of the public in assessing the standard of different residential aged-care services. The bill will extend the Serious Incident Response Scheme to all in-home care providers from 1 December this year, increasing protection for older Australians from preventable incidents, abuse and neglect. I think we've all been horrified by those incidents of shocking neglect and, in some cases, downright abuse of residents in our aged-care facilities. Extending the Serious Incident Response Scheme will go a long way to stopping those kinds of things from happening. The bill will also introduce a new code of conduct for approved providers, their workforce and governing persons, setting minimum standards of behaviour to ensure older Australians receive care in a safe, competent and respectful manner. Again, this code will come into force on 1 September 2022.
These are things that the former government found it impossible to do. I mean, the former government went to the trouble of setting up a royal commission into aged care, under sufferance, after all of those examples of abuse and neglect were revealed. They finally moved to set up a royal commission, which delivered some very good recommendations. And what did they do? They sat on their hands, as they had done for the entire time they'd been in office, and didn't act on those recommendations. That's what this bill does. It took a change of government to implement recommendations of a royal commission that was initiated by the former government. I think there's a lot of older Australians and their families out there, and aged-care workers, who are pleased to see the change of government that occurred in May this year because we can finally get these recommendations of the royal commission implemented.
The bill will also deliver new provider governance and reporting arrangements, which are due to begin at the end of this year, which will improve transparency and provide greater accountability on providers to better focus on the needs of older Australians receiving care. I recognise that there are many good aged-care providers out there, but there have been too many examples where providers have done the wrong thing at the expense of residents, their families and workers, and this bill will address that through these new governance and reporting arrangements.
As a result of this bill, first steps will be taken towards harmonising regulation of care and supporting providers across the aged-care, disability support and veterans care sectors by improving information sharing between the bodies that regulate these sectors. The introduction of the next phase of the financial and prudential monitoring compliance and intervention framework will also be delivered by this bill, and that will provide additional protection for older Australians. This will enable greater government oversight of financial risks faced by the sector and help providers meet their obligations to refund deposits to residents.
The bill will also rename the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority to the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority to recognise its role around aged care, and its functions will be expanded to include advice on healthcare and aged-care pricing and costing. And, finally, the bill deals with supporting arrangement that commenced on 1 July last year, and this legislation will also enable providers to meet more robust requirements on the use of restrictive practices in jurisdictions where limitations regarding consent and guardianship laws exist. Again, this is another important reform to improve the rights of aged-care residents.
Put together, these changes will build on the Albanese government's promise to deliver security, dignity, quality, and humanity in care for every older Australian across the aged-care system. I know it's something that I want to see for my parents as they get towards the age when they will require aged care, and it's certainly the kind of thing that I think all Australians want to see provided to our older Australians.
Just before closing, I just want to reflect on the symbolism of this bill and what it means in broader terms beyond the specific elements of the bill itself. I think it's really notable that this is the piece of government business that the Senate is dealing with as its first order of business. It indicates the importance of putting in place a decent, well-funded, well-regulated aged-care system for our older Australians, nothing less than they deserve. It's nothing less than they deserve.
Senator Ruston: They didn't deserve it six month ago, though, did they, according to you?
Senator WATT: I'll take the interjection from Senator Ruston. I am amazed that, with the record of the former government when it comes to aged care, which led to a royal commission—and the title of that report was Neglect—any government senator would want to interject during this debate. If I were a member of the former government, I'd be hanging my head in shame every time aged care was dealt with in this bill rather than interjecting. So, Senator Ruston, I would really urge you to reflect on that.
I am proud of the fact that this is the first bill this new government is dealing with in the Senate, and it sends a very clear message about the fact that we take the rights of residents of aged care, their families and workers in the system very seriously. It's a very big contrast to the former government, who had to be dragged into a royal commission that they didn't implement the recommendations of. It took a change of government to see the implementation of those recommendations.
The approach of the Albanese government could not be more different from the approach we saw from the former coalition government. Under the Albanese government, we will finally see a federal government in this country that focuses and delivers on the needs of residents and their families and that focuses and delivers on the rights of aged-care workers.
I remember, Acting Deputy President Polley, you and I sitting in estimates hearings, year after year, with the former Minister Colbeck, asking whether he and the government supported a pay rise for aged-care workers. He would not even agree with that basic proposition that aged-care workers deserved a pay rise. Not one member of the former government would agree with that proposition, at least publicly. Certain people may have held views privately, but not once did we ever see a member of the former government publicly state that aged-care workers deserved a pay rise and that the former government would intervene or even offer a submission supporting a pay rise in that case that's before the Fair Work Commission. All the former government would do is agree to provide information—what a big step that was!—to a Fair Work Commission. But you wouldn't once get anyone from the former government say that aged-care workers deserved a pay rise. It's something that this government has made clear very early in our tenure.
I truly hope that on a local level, from my home state of Queensland, as a result of the reforms that this government is now putting in place, we will not see a repeat of some of the absolutely disgraceful aged-care situations that we saw in the last term of government. I'll just mention two.
There's the Earl Haven nursing home, at the Gold Coast, which is something that I was very vocal about. That nursing home had seen inspections by the aged-care regulator and recommendations made for action, for sanctions against the provider, which weren't taken. And what do you know? In the middle of the night, that nursing home literally fell apart, in the sense that there was no workforce, there were dozens of elderly, vulnerable people in that nursing home who did not have any care, and it took the Queensland government sending in personnel to ensure that these elderly, vulnerable people were looked after.
Even more recently than that, we saw another example, the Jeta Gardens nursing home in Logan, just south of Brisbane. It was ripped apart by COVID, as so many aged-care facilities were under the former government. Again, once you started having a look at it, it didn't take me much time to ascertain that that nursing home had been the subject of investigations and recommendations for tighter action that never got dealt with. And, again, what do you know? A few months after those inquiries and investigations into that nursing home, we saw COVID rip through, costing people their lives.
That's what happened under the former government, and we should never forget it. Under the former government, we had an aged-care system that was starved of funding, due to direct decisions made by the former Prime Minister and the rest of his cabinet at the time. That resulted in COVID ripping through aged-care homes, in people dying, in people being neglected, in workers not getting the pay they deserved, in people leaving the workforce because they could get better money doing work elsewhere. That's the kind of thing that this government is serious about cleaning up.
We want to put in place an aged-care system that Australians can be proud of, a system that people can have confidence in and a system where people can know that when their elderly parents or grandparents go to it they will be looked after. That's what we're going to see under this government.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:14): The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill makes a series of amendments to aged care and other laws to implement several time-critical measures that are aimed at improving Commonwealth funded aged care for older Australians, and I thank other senators for their contributions to this debate today. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety heard evidence regarding substandard care throughout its inquiry. This bill supports reforms that will give back to older Australians the dignity, respect and safety they deserve. The royal commission's final report made 148 recommendations to overhaul the aged-care system. While the new aged-care act and significant change are around the corner, this bill makes some critical reforms that cannot wait any longer.
Importantly, the bill introduces many reforms aimed at directly improving protections for older Australians. The bill will introduce a new subsidy calculation method to fund approved providers and replace the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument from 1 October 2022. It also introduces new requirements for the secretary to publish information in relation to star ratings, as recommended by the royal commission. Publication of star ratings based on measurable performance indicators will allow older Australians and their families to make meaningful comparisons of the quality and safety of services and providers. The implementation of the code of conduct is the government's first step towards implementing a national registration scheme in accordance with the royal commission's recommendations. The code will set high standards of behaviour across the aged-care sector and ensure that the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission is able to take appropriate enforcement and compliance action against approved providers, their workers and governing persons who fail to meet appropriate standards of behaviour. This will ensure that older Australians provided with care can have confidence in the workforce and be safeguarded by regulatory arrangements.
The bill extends the scope of the Serious Incident Response Scheme beyond residential care to home care and flexible care delivered in a home or community setting. This will improve oversight of providers and ensure the highest protections against incidents of abuse and neglect for all Commonwealth-supported aged-care recipients, regardless of the setting in which they receive care. The amendments will also strengthen the governance of approved providers. The transparency and accountability of providers will be improved through more rigorous requirements for providers and governing bodies and through consumers having greater access to information about the operations of providers. The amendments will give older Australians and the community greater assurance that approved providers and their key personnel are suitable to be involved in delivering care.
The bill will facilitate the sharing of information among relevant prescribed Commonwealth bodies about providers and workers across the care and support sector who may not be complying with their obligations. Improved information-sharing between care and support sector regulators will enable proactive monitoring of cross-sector risks and better protection from harm of consumers and participants. The bill also includes amendments that enhance financial oversight and accountability and prudential regulation, which will ultimately protect the rights of older Australians, support continuity of services and enhance the viability of residential providers. Expanded functions of the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority to include the provision of advice on pricing and costing matters for health care, not just hospitals, and the provision of advice on aged-care pricing matters, will support transparency and evidence based assessment of the costs involved in delivering care.
The bill will enable the strengthening of safeguards for consumers in relation to the use of restrictive practices and the requirement for informed consent to be provided before they can be used. Specifically, the bill will enable the Quality of Care Principles to clarify the existing term 'restrictive practices substitute decision-maker', and provide pathways for residential care providers to safely and legally obtain consent for the use of restrictive practices where the care recipients themselves cannot provide consent and where this may be otherwise prevented due to gaps in state and territory legislation.
These amendments have been developed as a result of significant consultation with stakeholders, as well as through the extensive consultation undertaken during the royal commission. I again thank senators for their contributions to the debate on this bill, and I commend the bill to the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:23]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Polley)
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:26): I wish to move my second reading amendment as on sheet 1598:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety called for the use of restrictive practices in aged care to be based on an independent expert assessment and be subject to ongoing reporting and monitoring; and
(ii) a lack of legislative provisions to ensure aged care residents can access allied health services may reduce the level of care they receive, with clear implications for their health and wellbeing; and
(b) urges the Government to ensure that its response to the Royal Commission includes urgent action to reduce the use of restrictive practices and ensure that allied health care is appropriately funded.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): The question is that the second reading amendment by Senator Rice be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:28]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Polley)
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:33): I have some questions about the bill that I want to ask prior to moving my amendment. The Australian Greens, as indicated by our vote on the second reading question just then, support this bill overall. We think it includes some important steps forward in aged care in Australia. But we've got three areas of concern I want to ask some questions about. The first is the availability of allied health in aged care, particularly physiotherapy, under the new funding instrument, the AN-ACC. The second is issues we've got with the transparency of the findings of the independent pricing authority. And the third area I want to ask some questions about is schedule 9, about restrictive practices.
Starting off with allied health: I want to read out some of an email I received on Friday from Alwyn Blayse, the CEO and principal physiotherapist of the Allied Aged Care health group, who presented to the Senate inquiry on the previous version of this bill under the previous government late last year. What Mr Blayse said to me on Friday was that Labor is ignoring the concerns of allied health that they recognised in the Senate hearing of November 2021.
He said, 'Sadly, all of those predictions I and others made about the future of allied health in our submission have come true. Residents are being claimed for pain treatments not even occurring, and I've got proof, and removed from treatment for economic reasons. Homes have cut hours of allied health all over the country and providers like us in regional areas are facing impending job losses.'
He continued, 'My team and I are doing our best to avoid and bring staff to work in other areas but we want to stay in aged care. We can't, though, as providers are cutting our lists, not paying us and cancelling contracts, using any flimsy excuse they can. And I can share detailed emails on this and that refer to AN-ACC as the reason.' He gives information from various providers and others: 'Helping Homes—read between the lines that allied health isn't required. So cut it and use cheaper wellness and lifestyle instead, which risks unqualified staff treating frail people with hot packs and exercise. They aren't even insured or registered to do this.'
Mr Blayse continues, 'This isn't even the top of the iceberg: 23,000 veterans in aged care won't be looked after. You should see the waffling and buck-passing answers I get from the department of health and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, simply asking if veterans would be able to have treatment under the AN-ACC.'
So my question is: what are we going to be doing about these very serious concerns that allied health providers, particularly physiotherapists, have about this current bill?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:36): Thank you, Senator Rice, for the question about how allied health will operate under the new model, the AN-ACC model.
Residential aged-care providers are funded for and required to provide allied health services to residents in accordance with their obligations under the Aged Care Act 1997 and the associated quality standards. The Australian National Aged Care Classification removes the inbuilt incentives that exist within the ACFI to deliver specific allied health treatment, such as massages for pain management, that are not necessarily the most clinically appropriate or effective approaches for some residents.
This allows allied health professionals more freedom to provide the best targeted treatments that directly benefit the individual, consistent with their individual care plan—for example, treating pain through an exercise program. Existing ACFI funding, which includes funding for an allied healthcare provision, will be rolled into the AN-ACC funding allocation.
The 2021 StewartBrown survey identified that providers currently spend approximately four per cent of their care funding on allied health or approximately $400 million. Under AN-ACC this equates to approximately $700 million of the care funding that will be provided in 2022-23. Furthermore, the 2021 StewartBrown survey also identified that providers currently spend approximately three per cent of their care funding on lifestyle, approximately $300 million, and under AN-ACC this equates to proximately $550 million of the care funding that will be provided in 2022-23.
From 2020 to 2021, and moving to quarterly from 1 July 2022, more detailed expenditure information will be collected from aged-care providers, including staffing costs and direct-care hours delivered across a range of staffing types, including allied health. This will give visibility over the use of allied health services during and following the transition to AN-ACC, enabling the government to respond as necessary. I hope that answers your question.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:38): Thanks, Minister. Sadly it doesn't, because it doesn't give certainty to the physiotherapists as per Mr Blayse's concerns of having their contracts cut as of now. It will take some time before we have that transparency to show whether or not the physiotherapy is continuing to be provided.
The evidence, certainly, that was presented to our Senate committee and what Mr Blayse has followed up on with his email, as of Friday, is that physiotherapy services are being cut. So what certainty can you give to physiotherapists and other allied health providers in the interim, before we have the extra transparency information and before there may, indeed, be further modifications under the new aged-care legislation that would make sure that all residents get the allied health services they need?
Senator GALLAGHE R (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:39): Thank you, Senator Rice. I think the answer—and I did cover it in that earlier question. There will be some changes but there's extra resourcing going in and extra flexibility, and decisions will be made on the needs of particular residents or residents' individual needs. If you're getting advice that providers are making decisions about what services will be offered, I'm not in a position to argue with that. But the position is, as outlined in my earlier answer, that there is additional resourcing going in and additional flexibility about how that resourcing is used to match the needs of individual residents, whether that be physiotherapy or some other type of allied health care that's required. I don't think it's fair to say that resourcing would be reduced, but certainly changes may be made as to the type of therapy or allied healthcare service that residents might receive based on their individual needs.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:40): I certainly hope that you're correct, but there is grave concern from the allied health sector, as of now, about the allied health services that residents in aged-care facilities need not being provided. At this stage, I think it is going to be a situation where we're waiting. I would have liked to have seen some more certainty being given to these allied health providers, but it sounds like you're not able to give me that certainty.
I want to move on to some questions about schedule 8—the independent pricing authority. We've just been talking about further transparency, so that the information's on the table about what money is being spent in the aged-care sector. One of your key election commitments was to increase transparency in the aged-care sector. What I want to know is why you haven't made it a requirement that the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority publish its findings, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the government.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:41): Just to finish off on that final question in the area that you were asking about in allied health: I would say that, from the government's point of view, we acknowledge that concerns have been raised and we are actively engaging with the sector, and we'll continue to do so during the transition to the new arrangements.
In relation to your question, Senator Rice, about the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority, both of the aged-care amendment bills currently before the parliament will contribute to increased transparency in the aged-care sector. The provisions in this bill ensure that the parliament and the public will have visibility of the work of the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority. The pricing authority will independently and transparently advise on aged-care pricing, supporting the transparent and evidence based assessment of the costs of delivering aged care to older Australians.
Schedule 8 of the bill specifically provides for the pricing authority to report annually to the parliament its healthcare costing and pricing advice. This is not discretionary. That advice will also be the result of an extensive annual public consultation and fact-finding process. These arrangements will enhance community confidence in aged care and the funding allocated to aged care. The government remains accountable to the community for the expenditure of resources across health services, including aged-care services. As a result, having considered the pricing authority's advice, the government will continue to determine aged-care prices through a legislative instrument.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:43): Thank you. I'm sorry; I got distracted with sorting out our logistics here. You're saying that, yes, the government will retain that decision-making process. But why, as part of that, won't you commit to actually publishing the findings of the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority? Will you commit to making the pricing authority's findings public?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:43): Yes. I did say earlier in my comments that it would be reported annually to the parliament.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:44): Thank you. I'm sorry I missed that amongst all of the things going on here. I want to move onto schedule 9—restrictive practices—which is one of the biggest areas of concern that many advocacy groups have raised with me. The concerns with schedule 9 are about both the hierarchy of decision-makers in order to authorise restrictive practices and the immunity from prosecution. As we know, the issue of restrictive practices was a massive issue that was covered in the royal commission, the use of physical and chemical restraints, and the royal commission made some very strong recommendations about reducing the amount of restrictive practices. We also have the evidence that since the royal commission in fact the use of restrictive practices has not decreased, and the data is showing that there has continued to be an unacceptably high use of physical and chemical restraints.
I've certainly been having quite a lot of communication with the minister's office about schedule 9 and about who gets to decide whether restrictive practices are going to be put in place. As I understand it, there is going to be subordinate legislation that will be put in place that will outline that hierarchy of decision-makers and quality-of-care principles. My question is, first, we are discussing this legislation now, but those quality-of-care principles and the hierarchy of subordinate decision-makers are not yet public, so I want to know: when are you going to make public those quality-of-care principles and the hierarchy of subordinate decision-makers?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:46): Thank you. I'm just getting some wise counsel before I jump to my feet. On the quality-of-care principles, an exposure draft of the amendments to the quality-of-care principles is expected to be made publicly available imminently, so very soon. Publication is intended to assist with sector preparedness and is also aimed to alleviate any concerns regarding the proposed immunity provision, as it will confirm how the immunity is proposed to be limited. In relation to the of subordinate decision-makers in the quality-of-care principles, the answer there is the same: it will be released very soon. I can talk a bit about the hierarchy of decision-makers, if you want, but the answer to your question is: very soon.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:47): If you were able to share some more information about the hierarchy of decision-makers that would be helpful.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:47): I led into that one, so I'm not sure I'm going to tell you anything that you might not be already be aware of. But let me have a crack. Where an individual cannot provide informed consent to restrictive practices, it's considered that the person who knows the person best be identified as someone to consent to the specialised care of their loved one. The amendments in schedule 9 create a pathway for the quality-of-care principles contained in subordinate legislation to establish a hierarchy of substitute decision-makers from a person's partner to family and friends with a close connection to for the person. It will also be possible for the person, where they have capacity, to nominate a person to take on the role of substitute decision-maker for restrictive practices in the event that they lose capacity. But I understand you have had a briefing, Senator Rice, so that's probably information that's for the chamber rather than for you.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:48): Yes, and I think it is important information for the chamber and all of the advocates and organisations who are listening and who are very concerned about this. Yes, given the briefing I'm willing to put on hold our concerns about how that hierarchy works. Initially, I was proposing to amend the legislation to remove all of schedule 9 and I have changed from that to now only addressing the area that I want to go on to now. Okay, we've got the quality-of-care principles, we've got the hierarchy of decision-makers, but then if aged-care providers have followed all of this, they are given immunity from prosecution if things go wrong and if harm is still caused despite having gone through the quality-of-care principles and complied with those and gone through the hierarchy of decision-makers.
I want to know, first, what the rationale is around the immunity from prosecution. Again, in briefings it's been very unclear, and no-one seems to have a good idea as to how many cases you'd be talking about and the significance of offering immunity from prosecution. But offering immunity from prosecution is a really significant stripping away of rights It's not something that should be done lightly at all, and I have yet to be given any evidence that this is needed. In particular, I note the comments by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in their report on this bill earlier this year, where they said:
Any limitation on a right must be shown to be aimed at achieving a legitimate objective. A legitimate objective is one that is necessary and addresses an issue of public or social concern that is pressing and substantial enough to warrant limiting the rights in question. While addressing gaps in legislation and ensuring consistency in consent arrangements would appear to be an important aim, it is not clear that the measure addresses a pressing and substantial concern as required to constitute a legitimate objective for the purposes of international human rights law. It is not clear why providing a blanket immunity is necessary, noting that seeking an outcome regarded as desirable or convenient, such as alleviating fears of prosecution, is, in and of itself, unlikely to be sufficient to constitute a legitimate objective.
… … …
Furthermore, by depriving care recipients who are deemed to lack capacity the ability to pursue a remedy for any violation of their human rights arising from the use of restrictive practices, the measure has implications on the right to an effective remedy.
… … …
By granting immunity from any civil and criminal liability, care recipients who are denied legal capacity do not appear to have access to an effective remedy for any violation of their rights arising from the use of a restrictive practice against them.
What is the rationale for taking what's basically a sledgehammer—using immunity from prosecution in these circumstances?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:51): I would say it's not correct to say it's a blanket immunity that is given in this area. If aged-care workers have utilised restrictive practices where they are unnecessary, they will not be protected from prosecution. This has been widely misunderstood and misrepresented. The immunity provision does not give general immunity where restrictive practices are used; it only protects people where all of the strong legal requirements around using restrictive practices are strictly followed.
Schedule 9 of the bill has to be viewed in the context of the whole scheme that governs the use of restrictive practices in aged care. It is included in the bill as a temporary measure, to clarify requirements in relation to consent to the use of restrictive practices, until the matter can be revisited as part of the new Aged Care Act in 2023. It addresses a gap between Commonwealth legislation and state and territory guardianship and consent laws, a gap which has the potential to prevent restrictive practices being authorised, even when required to prevent harm to aged-care residents. So, without it, harm to older Australians could occur.
The bill authorises new persons and bodies to consent to restrictive practices who would not otherwise be authorised under state and territory law. It also includes an immunity provision to cover these circumstances. But immunity from civil or criminal liability only applies where consent is provided by an authorised person and where these practices are used consistently with the principles—that is, where restrictive practices are used as a last resort and only to the extent that is necessary, for the shortest time and in the least restrictive form, and to prevent harm to the care recipient. Where there are state and territory laws on restrictive practices, that legislation also still applies.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:53): Thanks, Minister. A lot of what you read out there in terms of addressing the gap is covered in the first part of schedule 9, and didn't address why you need to have the immunity from prosecution. It's the Quality of Care Principles and the hierarchy of decision-making—yes, that sets out covering the gap that's not currently covered in state and territory laws. But, once again, that's not giving me a rationale. After all of these processes are followed, it is still possible that harm is done. It is still possible when the boxes have been ticked. But the determination of what is necessary may be questionable. There could be a case where people say, 'Okay, you've ticked all the boxes,' but, still, harm was done by the use of restrictive practices.
The Australian Lawyers Alliance today in a media statement called upon us in the Senate to remove this clause from the bill, saying:
Like the rest of the community, aged care residents must retain the right to seek justice for a wrongdoing …
The current aged care bill includes a clause that will unfairly strip legal rights away from aged care residents in situations involving the use of restrictive practices. It was not a recommendation of the Royal Commission nor of the Commonwealth in its response to the Royal Commission's recommendations.
… … …
Immunity removes the basic legal and human rights of residents which has serious—and unprecedented—social, policy, legal and human rights consequences …
Providing one particular sector of the business community with immunity from criminal charges, which can result in penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment, and civil claims in return for compliance with regulations made under an act of parliament signals a new and serious blow to upholding the rule of law.
Offering immunity to commercial businesses is unprecedented. Many aged care providers are 'for-profit' and some are publicly listed companies.
Again, I'd like you to go to the rationale as to why having immunity from prosecution was necessary. Once you've got all of these guidelines and this hierarchy in place and you're requiring the aged-care providers to make sure that they've done all of their due diligence on why restrictive practices are needed—okay, we can accept that. But, once that's occurred, why does somebody, having gone through that, need to have immunity from prosecution?
Se nator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:55): Well, I would say that this is being used in this bill to, as I said, clarify requirements in relation to consent to use restrictive practices, and it will be further looked at in the Aged Care Act.
In terms of the rights and protections for aged-care residents themselves, that's where the quality of care and the hierarchy document, hierarchy of decision—sorry, I'm looking for the correct language. That's where those two principles provide the protection for aged-care residents. But I think you do have to accept that, when you have met all of the requirements through the processes outlined earlier in this debate and restrictive practices are required, when you have done the right thing, when you've followed the law—certainly, for those involved in those decisions and the people providing care, why should they be prosecuted after they've followed, essentially, the law that's been put in place to oversight these arrangements? If they're not used properly and if it's not used in the way that the legislation provides—so, if restrictive practices are used where unnecessary or they haven't followed the correct procedure—they'll not be protected from prosecution. But, in the event that they have and then they've had to make that decision, there is a strong argument to protect them from prosecution for the act that they've had to do in relation to keeping people safe in a facility.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:57): Thanks, Minister. You say there's a strong argument. That's not what the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights felt. They felt that granting immunity from any civil or criminal liability means care recipients who are denied legal capacity do not appear to have access to an effective remedy for any violation of their rights. Basically, immunity from prosecution is such a significant thing, and it seems to me that it's not needed in this case. Indeed, if aged-care providers have followed all of the provisions they need to, then they're not going to be prosecuted. Why do you need to have immunity from prosecution? The Australian Lawyers Alliance, in their media release today, went on to suggest:
A possible solution is the offer of an indemnity, rather than an immunity. Such a solution would be workable based on the history of claims arising from unlawful restrictive practices in aged care. The number of recorded cases over the last 25 years is probably as little as half a dozen and not all were successful for the complainant.
They note:
There are previous examples of such indemnity schemes—most recently the indemnity scheme offered by the former Federal government for health practitioners who may be found liable to pay compensation for serious adverse events suffered by people receiving COVID-19 vaccines.
Has there been any consideration to step back from this offering of immunity and introduce an indemnity scheme, rather than immunity from prosecution?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (18:59): I have a couple of things there in response. One, I would say to the stakeholders that are arguing for that change: I'm sure that can be put and argued in relation to the new Aged Care Act in 2023, if they believe that is the superior way of doing this. I would say that this only applies where it is inconsistent with state and territory laws—so, again, that narrows it. Again, it's not a blanket free-from-prosecution arrangement; it's where all of the necessary steps of the quality of care and the hierarchy of substitute decision-makers—where all of that has been followed. This is something that I'm advised the Council on the Ageing agrees with.
For anyone who has worked in aged care—and I certainly spent some time in aged care about three years ago—you have to have clear arrangements in place around how these arrangements are used. But there are times when these arrangements do need to be used. They need to be used carefully and in accordance with the law. But where that happens it is reasonable for the staff involved, making those very difficult decisions in very stressful circumstances, to also be given appropriate protection for the decisions that are made when they have followed all the other requirements of the law. And that's the position the government's come to. Whether there's further discussion from stakeholders around how they believe that can be better managed, I'm sure the minister will be very open to those discussions in relation to the aged care act that will be introduced next year.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (19:01): Thanks, Minister. Yes, we agree with you that there are some very important steps that need to be stepped through. As I said, we accept you're putting in place the quality-of-care principles and putting in place that hierarchy of decision-makers where there isn't state and territory legislation. But what I want to put on the record is that, in fact, there is a significant divergence of opinion from stakeholders, and I have had many stakeholders come to me deeply concerned. I've had the Law Council brief me about how significant it is to put in place an immunity from prosecution. They were unwilling to say whether it was something they would come out strongly against because they weren't sure as to just how many cases it would apply to. Nothing that they said to me, nothing that you have said to me today, has given me any reason as to why we should be putting in place an immunity from prosecution.
From a human rights centred approach to aged care, it does not seem to be the appropriate thing to do—to be taking away the human rights of aged-care residents, even if it is only in a very small number of cases and even if it is only in circumstances that are exceptional, where guidelines and hierarchy of decision-makers have been followed and somebody has made the determination that's necessary. We want to still maintain the possibility for people who feel, despite that determination that it was necessary having been put in place, that harm has been done, and to give people the opportunity to have their human rights upheld by allowing a case to be taken against them. Yes, some of the sector support this but many others in the sector don't. I go back to the findings of the joint committee on human rights that basically pointed out to us the significance and the seriousness—which does not seem to be justified, and I've heard no arguments tonight as to why it's justified—as to why we should be giving providers an immunity from prosecution, even if it's only in these particular tightly controlled circumstances.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:04): This bill that's currently before us almost directly replicates the bill that was in the parliament under the previous government, which was voted on nearly six months ago. Can I say that, as part of that, the previous government was very keen to make sure that the provisions that are contained in this bill were implemented as soon as possible, because we understood the extraordinary importance of these amendments to the aged-care sector and obviously to older Australians who rely on aged care. In that view, at the time, an amendment was moved by then Senator Rex Patrick that required for the provision of a nurse on site 24/7 in all aged-care facilities from 1 October 2022, so I'm keen to understand, in saying that we obviously want to make sure that we move to a position where we are supporting our aged-care facilities and our older Australians in a consistent, responsible and timely manner, why this particular bill, which you sought to amend in March to contain 24/7 nursing care by October 2022, does not contain that particular provision?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:05): I thank Senator Ruston for the question. As the senator knows, that was an amendment by former Senator Patrick. We certainly supported the provision of 24/7 nursing care in aged care, but the government's policy, which will be implemented, was to have those arrangements put in place from 1 July 2023. I would also acknowledge that the bill, as amended, really got stuck because the government wouldn't bring it on in the House for debate in the previous parliament. We supported 24/7, but our election policy was clear that it was 1 July 2023, and that's what we will deliver.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:06): I'm seeking clarification as to what was the basis and the rationale behind the decision to move on 30 March from a position of 24/7 by 1 October 2022 to the policy decision that was reported a couple of days later and said that it would be 1 July 2023.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:06): I can't speak for why the former government didn't bring the bill on for debate in the House, which would have dealt with that amended bill, but I can tell you that we were keen to support 24/7 nursing care in aged care, which is why we supported that amendment. But our policy, our costings and all of the debate we had in the lead-up to the election were very clear that our policy would start on 1 July 2023.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:07): The opposition too is very keen to make sure that we see 24/7 nursing care, along with all of the other provisions of the royal commission, in place, and we have certainly been willing to work with those provisions as a holistic package of reforms in response to the royal commission. I'll give you another opportunity to answer. I wasn't talking about 'our' position. I was saying you voted to support 24/7 nurses on 1 October 2022. You subsequently, within a matter of 48 hours, changed that position to 1 July 2023. I'm just keen to understand what the advice was that made you change your mind from it being 1 October 2022 to 1 July 2023?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:08): Thank you. It does feel a bit like we are relitigating debates from previous parliaments and prior to the election. I accept that the committee stage does allow for wide-ranging debate, but it's the question Senator Ruston puts isn't really relevant to the bill that we are debating right now in committee. So I think it's best to say Labor policy, the government's policy, is 1 July 2023. That's what we costed. That was the policy agreed by the Labor caucus. That's the policy we will implement. You will see it in a bill that comes before the parliament shortly.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:09): I'll reserve my questions to the next bill that comes through, where it is absolutely relevant to that bill. Can you confirm that this bill is actually going to use the AN-ACC model as the mechanism to transition to the aged care royal commission requirement for 16/7 nurses in aged care and 200 minutes of care, of which 40 minutes of care is registered nurse care?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:09): I'm sorry, Senator Ruston; I was getting some expert advice there. My understanding is that it will be dealt with by subordinate legislation under the existing Aged Care Act, that there is already the ability to do that.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:10): Are you in a position to advise the chamber when this subordinate legislation is likely to come forward? The reason I ask this is that the sector has an expectation or previously had an expectation that it would start to receive the change in the AN-ACC funding from 1 October 2022, which would include funding for the 12-month period of transition. We're now sitting here on 2 August 2022. I'm just seeking to understand when this subordinate legislation will be brought forward in order for the funding provisions that the sector expects to be able to be put in place.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:10): I'm advised that it will be made in coming months, and ahead of 1 July 2023, to allow the transition to occur.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:11): Can I seek clarification? Your advisers may be in a better position. My understanding was that there was going to be funding made available through the AN-ACC model for the transition to 16 hours a day, seven days a week, 200 minutes of care, including 40 minutes of registered nurse care, and that those transitional funding arrangements were going to be made available from 1 October 2022 to enable them to be in a position to have that particular provision in place by 1 October 2023. I'm keen to understand how the funding arrangements from this AN-ACC amendment that we're putting in place relates to the provision of that transition funding that the sector is expecting.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:12): The answer is yes. I understand that you were advised of that today. Is that correct?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:12): I'm not quite sure I am understanding. The previous answer to a question was that it was going to be contained in subordinate legislation in relation to these provisions. I'm seeking to understand, to put it bluntly, will the sector be receiving the additional funding that has been provided for under the AN-ACC model to enable them to get into a position to transition by October 2023? Is that funding going to start to flow from 1 October 2022?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:12): Yes.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:12): Where is this funding currently located? Is it exactly the same amount of funding that was provided for by the previous government in the 2020-21 budget?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:13): I'm sorry, Senator Ruston; I think you had two parts to your question. One of them was, 'Where is the funding?' I think you said. And the other was, 'Is it the same as what was provided under the former government?' The answer to that is yes, it is there, as you had allocated in the 2022-23 budget.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:13): In the previous legislation there were a series of exemptions that were able to be considered. Could you flesh out for me what exemptions are contained within this legislation for aged-care providers or facilities that would enable them to seek an exemption if they were unable, by 2023, to meet the requirements of this particular model?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:14): Senator Ruston, are you asking about exemptions for the 24/7 nursing care?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:14): No.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:14): No, I didn't think so. Could you repeat the exemptions you were seeking under the previous—
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:14): The exemptions that relate to the 16 hours a day. I mean, we don't even have the subordinate legislation in place. Are you seeking to bring an exemption schedule in with the subordinate legislation as it relates to these arrangements for AN-ACC?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:14): Sorry, Senator Ruston. I am trying to be as helpful as I can. My understanding is no, there are no exemptions and nor were there exemptions under your proposal either.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:15): So, in the absence of the subordinate legislation, which we have no time line on—I'm not talking about the subordinate legislation as it relates to the second bill; I'm talking to the subordinate legislation that speaks to this bill—how long before the requirement for aged-care providers to be in compliance with the conditions they need to be in compliance with in order to meet their funding agreements for AN-ACC will they see subordinate legislation?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:15): I am advised 'well in advance'—that they will have enough time to see that before the new requirements come in.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:16): Just on a couple of specifics before we move on to allow Senator Rice to find out the outcome of her amendment: in this bill you've removed the requirements for worker screening regulations. I'm just keen to understand who you consulted with on the removal of those regulations.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:16): The royal commission response bill does not include the worker screening arrangements proposed in schedule 2 to the previous government's bill. This is not, however, because we are shying away from ensuring that aged-care workers meet professional standards and do not engage in inappropriate conduct—to the contrary. The government is committed to implementing a much more comprehensive and robust national registration scheme for personal care workers that is consistent with recommendation 77 of the royal commission as well as the code of conduct which is implemented through this bill. This scheme will include ongoing training, English proficiency and criminal history screening to further professionalise the aged-care workforce. The government is currently exploring options on the best way to implement this scheme to ensure it is robust, operationally effective and, above all, designed to ensure maximum protection for older Australians receiving care. As a result, former schedule 2 has been removed from the royal commission response bill in the interim so that sufficient care and attention can be given to designing the new scheme, which will be delivered as part of the new aged care act.
In practice, these measures will also not be delayed as, while the previous arrangements would have established an aged-care screening database for workers and governing persons, I note that the time frame for commencement was within 24 months following royal assent to the bill. In the meantime, the usual criminal history checks for workers will continue to be required.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:17): Thank you, Senator Gallagher. On that basis, given that you are now seeking for the registration provisions to be contained in the new aged care bill, can you give a guarantee that these provisions, these really important protection provisions for older Australians in aged care, will not be delayed at all as a result of the decision not to include them in this legislation?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:18): Well, as I said, the provisions that the previous government had in place were for the screening database for workers with a time frame to roll in of two years following royal assent. As we are determined to strengthen and build on those provisions, we would be putting them in place as soon as possible within that time frame through the new aged care act.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:19): Can I just get a confirmation? So you, Senator Gallagher, on behalf of the minister, are saying that the worker registration provisions will be in place before they would have been in place had they been contained in this bill, which obviously would have been two years from the royal assent of this bill—bearing in mind this bill could well have been in place six months ago, which means it would only be 18 months? Nonetheless, can you guarantee that they will be in place by then? The other thing I raise is that, in my previous question, I asked you who you had consulted with, and you didn't answer that part of the question.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:19): My understanding is that the minister consulted with the providers peak body, which supports this approach, and the intention is to have it in place within that time frame.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:20): Could you also advise whether the minister consulted with the workers union around this? If so, what was that advice?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:20): My understanding is that this was an election commitment by the government as well, so I'm sure that the minister—the shadow minister at the time—consulted widely in the formulation of Labor's election policy. I have no doubt that the shadow minister would have spoken to a lot of people in finalising Labor's policy.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:20): Thank you. On that basis, could you advise when the new aged-care act will be introduced?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:20): My advice is that it will be introduced next year—2023.
Senator R USTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:20): And, obviously, on the basis of your previous statements, you will guarantee that the worker screening provisions and regulations will be included in that act when it's introduced?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:21): Yes.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:21): Just quickly on the Aboriginal community controlled organisation providers, how many ACCO aged-care providers are currently eligible for the exemption under the '40-member or four board members' current exemption provision?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:21): How many? I'll see if we've got that information for you, Senator. Approximately 40, I am advised.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:21): Could you then advise how many additional ACCOs will now become eligible due to the expansion of the provision to exemption to ACCOs?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:22): That figure of 40 includes that, Senator Ruston, I'm advised.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:22): Then, could I take you back a step and ask: how many were provided for under the original exemption, and how many additional ones will be provided for under the new exemption? My question is: how many people have actually been collected by the new exemption that wouldn't have been covered by the old one?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:22): I'm sorry, I don't think we have that information to hand, Senator Ruston. I can see what we can provide, if there is any further update, whilst you go on with your questioning. But, at the moment, we don't have that information. I'll see if I can get a more comprehensive answer.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:23): On that basis, you may not be able to answer this one either, but I'd just be keen to understand: what was the advice that you received that led you to make the decision to expand the provision in relation to this particular exemption? Who did you consult with in the process of making this change in policy that's included in this particular bill?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:23): There are two parts to that. There were concerns about requirements for independence on the board. That is one of them. In relation to the other one, did you ask me who was consulted?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:23): Yes.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:23): The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, or NACCHO; the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ageing and Aged Care Council; consumer and provider sector reference groups; the Council on the Ageing; the Older Persons Advocacy Network, and the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations were consulted throughout the process of drafting these provisions.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:24): Could you provide advice as to whether all of those organisations supported the expansion of this particular measure?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:24): My advice is that yes, they did.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:24): Final question from me: were any ACCO providers sanctioned by the regulator in the last 12 months?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:24): I think we might have to take that on notice, Senator Ruston. Yes, we don't have that advice, but I am happy to provide that to you when I get it.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (19:25): I want to move my amendment, amendment No. 1 on sheet 1593.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:25): We need to follow proper process here, but there are no divisions until 7.30.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Sulliv an ): You are correct.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:25): I don't know whether you want to keep talking for a while.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, the option is to keep going for a few minutes; otherwise, we will have to defer. I'll confer with the clerk. Yes, we can just keep talking for the next three or four minutes. But we're in the hands of the Senate for what you'd like to do. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:26): Would I be able to move my amendment? I don't need to; it's been debated so much!
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Perhaps if you just ask a question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:26): Minister, why are there no provisions for registered nurses compulsorily to be in attendance?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:26): I thank Senator Roberts for helping us to keep this discussion going. It's because they will be in the next bill, so we'll be bringing them back in the next bill to deliver on the election commitment we took to implement 24/7 nursing care in residential aged care from 1 July 2023.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:27): Senator Ruston touched on this topic, I know, but why wait so long? If you think it's needed, why not get on with the job?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:27): The bill is currently in the House, but my understanding is that last week the Senate resolved to refer it to a committee for a short inquiry. That means we have to go through that process before it can come here, but the commitment is clear. The election commitment that we made about having 24/7 nursing care in aged care is a really important one. It will be funded in the budget, and it is due to commence on 1 July 2023, which means there is enough time to ensure that it's dealt with through the bill that's currently before the House, on its way to a Senate committee, and then in here for debate.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:28): Minister, how long are you expecting it to be in the House—12 months?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:28): No. In fact, I think it’s due in the Senate committee for a report by 31 August. The Senate committee is due to report on it to the Senate by 31 August, which would allow for debate, following that, this side of Christmas.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:28): The date for it, then, Minister—from July to February?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:28): I think anyone would understand that you need time to recruit nurses into residential aged care. The costings we did for our election commitment also had the money flowing from 1 July 2023. If we moved it forward, I think there would be issues about implementation, for sure, but we haven't accounted for that in our figures that we presented to the election. The Prime Minister's repeatedly said that what we said we'd do in the election campaign is what we're going to do in government. That commitment was for registered nurses 24/7 in residential aged care from 1 July 2023. The budget will have that commitment contained in it. The legislation can pass here whenever the Senate is ready to deal with it post the committee inquiry. Providers will have enough time to recruit nurses into residential aged care, and the funding will flow from 1 July.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:29): When we set a date on our amendment for February, we used one of our advisors, who has extensive experience in the health sector and in the public service. He suggested that February would be entirely appropriate. So, why stall it beyond February? In other words, it would be a practical date for aged-care facilities to be able to recruit registered nurses.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:30): I accept that's the advice that One Nation got from its advisors, but our election commitment was from 1 July. It's a big change to implement across the aged-care system, and an important one, but we want to get it right. Our commitment was to have it start from 1 July 2023, and once the legislation gets through the Senate committee that is what the committee will provide for.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:30): At the moment, we rely on our advisors very much, and yet Mr Albanese—without any consultation initially—wiped 75 per cent of our advisors. We now have 25 per cent back, so we have had 50 per cent gone in a matter of a few weeks. This particular advisor has been very helpful to us, and he could be one of the ones facing the sack. Is that what the government is trying to do, limit our advisors?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:31): No, not at all. Those are decisions for Senator Roberts to make about his advisors. I'm not sure it's relevant to this legislation, but I have no doubt all advisors right across the Senate work very hard. I accept that. We rely on them heavily, and I thank them all for their work.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (19:31): I have one last question on Senator Roberts' amendment, which hasn't been moved yet. Labor, when in opposition at the end of last year, joined Senator Rex Patrick and the Greens in supporting Senator Patrick's amendment to get registered nurses 24/7 in aged care from October this year. I know this is the question that Senator Ruston was asking before as to what's changed since then. I'm certainly quite partial to the idea that getting registered nurses in aged care by February is better than by July, given that it's something that we all now accept is really important. I want to know why. Given that we're in July now—and if this bill comes back we could pass this now—it would give aged-care providers some eight months to be recruiting. I don't see why we need to wait until July to get registered nurses 24/7 in aged care as per the second piece of legislation that the government is proposing to introduce.
Senator G ALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:32): I thank Senator Rice for the question—I think I've answered it. Labor's policy, which we took to the campaign, was to implement this commitment from 1 July 2023. That was the commitment we made. The Prime Minister has made it clear we're going to do what we said we'd do. We're going to implement our election commitments.
I accept that others have different positions and different policies that they may have taken to the election, but we're going to implement the one we took, which is 1 July. It will allow for this significant change to occur through the budget, but it will also deal with some of the implementation issues around that and some of the workforce challenges, working with providers to make sure the arrangements are in place from 1 July.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (19:33): Now that it's after 7.30, I move my amendment regarding the immunity from prosecution:
(1) Schedule 9, items 3 and 4, page 140 (line 13) to page 141 (line 11), to be opposed.
To recap, I didn't receive any good rationale as to why there should be immunity from prosecution for restrictive practices after they've gone through all of the various hoops. Yes, let's make sure that the provisions are appropriate, but at the end of the day there does not seem to be any justification for giving immunity from prosecution to providers for those circumstances. My amendment would remove the second half of schedule 9.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Sullivan ): The question before us is that items (3) and (4) of schedule 9 stand as printed. Sorry—one moment. Just to be clear to the chamber: if you support retaining these items in the bill, you vote yes; if you are, obviously, the opposite, you vote no. The question is that items 3 and 4 of schedule 9 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [19:39]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Sullivan)
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator O'Sullivan ) (19:42): I believe Senator Roberts is seeking the call to move amendments.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:42): Thank you, Chair. I have tabled amendments to the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. Senator Rex Patrick first moved these amendments, and I acknowledge and appreciate his work. Our amendments directly contribute to improved safety and quality for our respected seniors in aged-care facilities, providing for 24 hours a day, seven days a week nursing support on site from a registered nurse. So many problems were identified in the royal commission's report, and this addresses a significant gap in care and response times that will help to alleviate the concerns of many aged-care residents and their families.
We recognise that remote and regional areas have problems in attracting and retaining a skilled workforce. Accordingly, we have provided for exemptions subject to reasonable conditions. I commend these amendments.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The committee divided. [19:48]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Sullivan)
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (19:52): I move:
That further consideration of the bill be an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Question agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Senator GALLAGHER: I move:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Hocking, Ms Debra Ann
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (19:53): Tonight I'm continuing my very personal condolence motion about an amazing Australian and an amazing Tasmanian, Debra Hocking. As I've stated, I knew Deb for about 50 years, so I have lots of stories. I edited and edited my notes last week; I started this speech in Senators' statements last week and I digressed so much because memories just flooded back to me. As you can imagine, over 50 years there's lots of memories and I ran out of time, so I just want to continue today.
I just want to reiterate why I think Debra Hocking was such an amazing woman. She was a child of the Stolen Generations and suffered physical and sexual abuse by members of her foster family. She didn't tell us when we were at school about her horrible life outside school; she didn't tell us until we were adults. School was her safe place and she put, literally, a boundary around school and being safe, and didn't want to discuss it. But Deb had a strong sense of self-belief, forged as a child, and it give her great strength—an amazing strength.
I remember her talking to me one occasion about not believing in God. She was telling me this story: she had been slapped in the face a number of times by her foster mum because she refused to go to church. Correctly, she saw it as hypocritical because they went to church and then they came home and physically abused her. She was told, 'You have to believe in God.' She said, 'Well, I don't.' She was asked, 'What do you believe in?' When her response was that she believed in herself, she was slapped again. But she stuck by her self-belief. She would often proudly say she came from a long line of strong women—the Mouheneenner people, from south-east Tasmania.
She also spoke to me on many occasions about the extra perceived demand to prove her worth as Aboriginal, being she was fair skinned. As a younger person she thought maybe she shouldn't say anything about her Aboriginal heritage. It was a hard world for her to move into. Her response to people who said things to her like, 'You don't look Aboriginal'—well, she came up with a response to that, which would be, 'Well, haven't you been conditioned?' She would explain her Aboriginality as being 'a latte girl'. She used to do this at schools; she'd have half a cup of coffee in a clear container and she'd add milk to it and ask, 'What have I got here?' They'd say, 'A cup of coffee.' She'd add milk to it and say, 'What have I got here?' They'd say, 'It's still a cup of coffee.' She would use that as an example to explain how it didn't matter how much white you put into a cup of coffee; it was still a cup of coffee. She would often say: 'I'm the latte girl. Big deal. Deal with it.'
As I said the other night, Deb ran away at about 15 or 16 and lived on the street. She survived by scavenging in skip bins. Eventually she realised this was no way to live and wanted to change her life. So she got a job in a bank; they were the days when you could literally walk into the bank and do a math test, and if you passed you got a job. She actually became a head teller. She was pretty good at math. She could have easily turned to drugs or crime but she instead found that internal courage, that internal fortitude, that made her who she was. Deb achieved so much throughout her life. One of the greatest honours she received happened shortly before her death, when Charles Sturt University offered her an honorary professorship. She went from the kid that ran away and was scavenging in skips to being a professor. I'm pretty proud of you, Debra Hocking!
Deb believed in forgiveness. She never forgot—she didn't believe in forgetting—but she did believe in forgiving. She told me that once she came to that belief that changed her whole life. She studied Aboriginal health, which really gave her an insight into the disadvantage Aboriginal people suffered. She put her energy into helping and representing Aboriginal people, and was a driving force behind progress towards truth telling and Reconciliation Tasmania. She was an advocate and an activist.
Just some of her other major achievements include being chair of the Stolen Generations Alliance. She was the facilitator of the committee that organises Sorry Day events in Tasmania. She used to visit schools to explain to schoolchildren the importance and significance of Sorry Day, of saying sorry, and the importance of forgiveness. She was instrumental in former Tasmania Premier Paul Lennon delivering an apology to the stolen generation. Apparently when she went to meet with former Premier Lennon and had a chat to him, he said, 'It was going to be very hard.' She said: 'Well, I do hard. Let's do it.' And they did. She was instrumental in discussions about the wording of the national apology, working alongside Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. She took the lead role in organising the reconciliation walk in Tasmania, where one in 20 Tasmanians participated. She was coordinator of the University of Wollongong postgraduate Indigenous health program, and was chosen by Harvard University to be the local coordinator of the Australian version of a program that focuses on compounded trauma in Aboriginal people. The program is to train health practitioners in treating patients as survivors of trauma often across several generations and which gives rise to behavioural and physical symptoms. Deb believed that seeing Indigenous Australians through the prism of trauma could be the key to closing the gap.
Deb gave evidence to the inquiry into the stolen generation. I found her personal statement the other day, so I want to quickly read that:
In my experience, the sense of loss and grief from being removed as a baby has left a scar so deep, that recovery seemed almost impossible. We find forgiveness to allow our own healing to begin, but that should not give qualification or sanitisation of these wrong doings and injustice. My mum and dad I am sure would have loved me very much and the pain they must have had to endure is unimaginable. My strength of spirit has been challenged many times as has keeping the anger and frustration at bay. We share our stories so that others may understand what the legacy of child removals has left behind. It's not about blame or guilt now, as that takes us to a negative space which I consider produces destructive behaviour. It is about considering the ways we can make sure this never happens again. If we become forgetful, the injustices of the past could well be repeated. Listening to these stories which I consider so generously shared with all, may seem hard and confronting for some, but just remember, it has been even harder to live the journey.
I'm sorry that Deb, despite her incredible contribution, did not live to see the task of reconciliation achieved, because I know that she would have been delighted to see the election of a federal Labor government that's committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. While we still have a long way to go, I hope that, before she died, Deb was at peace with the knowledge that she had a key role in building the foundations for the progress Australians have made towards reconciliation, truth-telling and choosing the gap. I hope that we can honour her legacy, and the legacy of so many other people who have fought for the cause of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, by seeing future where there is genuine and lasting reconciliation—a future where the oldest continuing civilisation on Earth is embraced and celebrated, where the gap between the health and economic circumstances of Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians has been closed and where Australia has come to terms with the truth of our colonial past.
Rest well, Deb. Rest well, my dear, dear friend. You were my hero and you used to laugh every time I'd say it, but you truly were—and I don't have that many heroes, I've got to say. You fought an almighty good fight and you will always live in the hearts and minds of your old Ogilvy friends, the Oofs. Thank you.
Climate Change
Senator COX (Western Australia) (20:02): I rise tonight to speak about the groundbreaking work being done by Tiwi traditional elders in opposing the terrible Barossa gas project. Santos's Barossa gas project in the Northern Territory is close to the Tiwi Islands. It's potentially one of the world's most carbon intensive gas products. If Santos actually go ahead with this project, it will be one of the dirtiest offshore gas projects in all of Australia. Climate change already poses an enormous threat to Tiwi culture, traditional practices, food sources, water and land. The Barossa project would mean climate catastrophe for the Tiwi Islands and also for the Tiwi people.
The extraction, development and burning of Barossa gas would release 15.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually. To give you an idea: that's more than three million cars for each year that this project operates. The main component of the gas is methane, which is a hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term and is emitted in vast quantities across the entire gas supply chain. At a time when the International Energy Agency says we cannot develop any new gas if we are to avoid climate catastrophe, Santos's plans for one of the most polluting gas projects in the world is reckless, and it absolutely must be stopped. The cultural, social, ecological and environmental impacts of the Barossa gas project are significant. The Barossa gas field lies next to the Oceanic Shoals Marine Park, which is a critical area for sea turtles, and these sea turtles are integral to Tiwi culture. The construction of the Barossa pipeline would harm the turtles' feeding habitat and create light and noise pollution that could disrupt the turtle hatchlings. It's horrifying to know that an unplanned oil spill from this project would pollute the Tiwi Islands traditional waters alongside four government marine parks.
Tonight I want to highlight the incredible work being done by the Tiwi traditional owners to challenge the Barossa project. At the moment, the Federal Court is considering a challenge launched by a Tiwi elder and Munupi senior lawman, Dennis Tipakalippa. With the support of his community, Dennis is arguing that Santos's Barossa gas drilling approvals should be set aside because he and his community were never actually consulted about these drilling plans.
The Barossa gas field is not a new development, and, sadly, this story spans almost two decades. To give you a brief time line, back in 2004 the Northern Territory government approved exploration drilling. In 2016, NOPSEMA approved appraisal drilling for the Barossa wells. In 2018, NOPSEMA approved the offshore project proposal and master plan. And, in 2020, NOPSEMA approved the Barossa gas pipeline.
Throughout this entire process, the Tiwi people have never been consulted. In fact, many Tiwi people have only recently learned about the Barossa project, thanks to the work of First Nations people like Antonia Burke and civil society organisations like Environment Centre NT.
I was absolutely heartbroken to hear that Santos's so-called consultation process about the drilling environment plan consisted of sending two emails and making one unanswered phone call to the Tiwi Land Council. Santos made a final investment decision on the Barossa project without the consent—you guessed it: without the consent—of the Tiwi people. I was also incredibly angry to learn that Santos's legal team have claimed that, because the project falls into federal waters, Tiwi people are not the relevant people that they need to consult with! Well, Santos, if the traditional owners who have been here for over 60,000 years aren't the 'relevant people' that you need to consult with, then who is? Tiwi people would be the first ones impacted by the Barossa gas project, and it is shameful that Santos is trying to deny their connection with land, culture, sea and sky. It is also shameful that NOPSEMA are not doing more to fix their woeful, inadequate and almost superficial requirements when it comes to consulting with First Nations people. It is not good enough to list these projects on NOPSEMA's public website and call that consultation. We had this discussion earlier today.
As part of the current Federal Court case, the Environmental Defenders Office and the Munupi claim group have requested on-country hearings with the federal judge. In a historical move, the judge agreed, as recently as last Friday, to travel to the Tiwi islands in August to receive evidence on country from five witnesses who are the traditional owners from that area. They would be the ones who would be most affected by this project. The judge also agreed to receive this evidence in song and dance, because, as we know, in some First Nations communities, English is not their first, second, third or even fourth language. The Tiwi people will be able to talk about cultural heritage and how the Barossa project could interrupt cultural and spiritual practices if it goes ahead. This is a remarkable step forward in addressing the shocking consultation processes which have been bandied around to date.
Earlier today, we were debating Senator Thorpe's private senator's bill on the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I think it's important to reflect on the links between the implementation of UNDRIP and the serious failures of Santos to consult with the Tiwi people. So, just for a moment, I'd like everyone in this place to imagine that, if we implemented the key principles of free, prior and informed consent, which lots of people on both sides of this chamber have talked about today, we could put those principles into Australian laws, policies and practices. Embedding these principles would stop companies like Santos from taking First Nations people for granted—seeing consultation as simply a box-ticking exercise—instead of recognising our sovereignty and the ongoing connection to country, to the sky and to the seas. This, in fact, is a landmark court case. It is the first time a traditional owner has gone to NOPSEMA to challenge their approvals processes. I know I, for one, as a senator, have asked them to clearly outline what that means. This is not just a huge achievement for Tiwi people, although I don't want to remove that from them; it's also for all of our First Nations communities who are continuing to fight against industry who say that they are our friends but in fact are not doing the right thing.
I would like to end by sharing some powerful words from the senior lawman about his work and how he triggered this court case:
We are going to court because we have not been properly consulted about what is happening to our sea country, so for Santos to begin drilling at this moment shows disrespect for our culture and our interests.
We are worried to hear about drilling going ahead soon, before the court has decided. That is why we want this injunction, to protect our sea country and our culture until the court decides what is right.
We have cared for this sea country for millennia. Once those holes are drilled into the ocean floor, that cannot be undone. For that to happen when Santos has not consulted with us would be devastating to our culture and a huge betrayal.
I am doing this for my ancestors and for future generations. We want to tell our children our traditional stories. If this drilling goes ahead now, it would be a very bad story to tell.
I want to thank the Tiwi people for their ongoing commitment, their resilience and their fight to save their sea country.
Employment
Senator GROGAN (South Australia) (20:11): We're experiencing a skills shortage in industries that are vital to the wellbeing of Australia. We have a situation where industries that everyone across this chamber will agree are vital, such as aged care, early childhood education, teaching, nursing and other industries, simply cannot find enough staff. Australia's skills shortage is one that's been simmering away for years. This is not a surprise. There has not been a clear plan, and, without proper investment, when we hit the pandemic it boiled over into a crisis.
We saw our aged-care workers forced to work in multiple facilities, sometimes unsafely, simply because that was the only way of providing enough staff to cover the care needs. We saw our nurses pulling hours that were well beyond what anybody would say is safe, just to ensure that our COVID wards were safely and appropriately staffed. This left so many of them in such a dire situation. We simply did not have enough people with the skills required when we needed them. And, when we did have workers with the skills we so desperately needed, we didn't have a system to ensure that their wages kept pace, that they had enough money to put food on the table and that they were keeping up with skyrocketing rents and increased transport costs. We did not have a system that protected our most vulnerable and most vital workers.
Jobs and Skills Australia will be an incredible tool to actually start to address this. It will act in partnership with unions, employers, education providers and state and territory governments, and it will take immediate action on our skills shortage. Jobs and Skills Australia will provide advice on current, emerging and future workforce skills issues, and it will help keep Australians in work by having that long-term view and having that long-term perspective. As industries change, so will our training, to ensure that there are jobs available for people who need them. Jobs and Skills Australia will work to ensure that there is a shared understanding of the issues facing Australia through a balanced approach to working in multiple industries.
In February of this year, 17 per cent of businesses reported that they did not have enough employees, and the recruitment difficulty rate for higher skilled occupants was sitting at 67 per cent. In my home state of South Australia, we felt the impacts of skills shortages particularly in our youth unemployment rates and in our regional workforce shortages. In Australia, the youth unemployment rate is currently sitting at 7.9 per cent, and this youth unemployment rate is being deeply felt in South Australia. The younger members of our workforce are having to face the consequences of a government that refused to prioritise education and refused to invest in skills, even though we've all been talking about the shifts in our economy and in our industry base for so many years. It would seem a no-brainer to connect that high youth unemployment rate to the skills shortage, to build pathways for those young people to be sufficiently skilled up to take the available jobs, and to address that issue with a resource that we have right in front of us.
I've had the great fortune of working in the tertiary education sector and particularly on pathways for students from more disadvantaged backgrounds into university and vocational education, and I can assure you that there are a great many young people out there who would love the opportunity of a pathway into a career in some of those areas where we have desperate skills shortages. Vocational education, providing alternative pathways for school leavers into trades and different kinds of skilled workforces, allowing young people to match their dreams with the needs of our economy—these are the things that we should be looking towards. But not enough was done over the last nine years under the former government to prioritise this type of education, to prioritise vocational pathways and actually build a system that understood what our available resources were and where our industries needed those skilled workers.
So we need a plan. The vocational education and training sector trains four million people annually in Australia, and this is a central element of our education system. Action is required to match the training participation, the skill sets and the demand. Jobs and Skills Australia is the vehicle that is going to deliver this. It will produce independent data and analysis so that we can understand the costs involved in delivering the vocational education and training courses to students and what the impacts are going to be across government, training organisations and industry. It will recommend funding, based on genuine needs, to help us address youth unemployment and the other great scourge in South Australia, which is regional skills shortages. Jobs and Skills Australia will undertake specific plans for targeted groups, such as the regions and youth—obviously, in other parts of the country there are other priorities also—and it will provide the targeted data that directly informs policy development and program delivery so that we can provide the match between what is needed and how we go about getting there. This will all be complemented by the Albanese Labor government's commitment to creating 465,000 fee-free TAFE places that are focused on areas of skills gap.
In South Australia we have been facing mass nursing and aged-care workforce shortages, and the training that's being provided in many areas is insufficient, particularly when we're talking about aged care and disability care. We've heard today through much of the debate around the aged care bill about the inaction of the former government in not addressing issues within the aged-care sector. We've known this is a growing area of skills shortage for some considerable time, and yet nothing has been done to address it. As a result, aged-care workers are having to overwork themselves and not provide the care they want to. It is thanks largely to workforce shortages and the skills crisis. Throughout the regional towns of Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Mount Gambier and Port Lincoln, the aged-care sector's skills shortage is an immediate issue. Prior to the election, I did a range of forums out through those regional areas, talking about aged care and the broader health workforce, and the stories were alarmingly similar everywhere I went: there were shortages; there weren't enough staff; people were overworked and they didn't believe they were able to provide the care, because they didn't have the time and they didn't have the staff.
That is why Jobs and Skills Australia is so essential, and why the Jobs and Skills Summit in September is so important in bringing together the critical areas, the critical stakeholders; understanding what that's going to look like into the future; and building a plan—a short-term plan for immediate relief, a medium-range plan and then the longer-term plan about where the industries in this country are growing and where they are shrinking, and building a plan accordingly. The Albanese Labor Government has got big plans also across manufacturing and in the renewable energy sector, and being able to plan for what that skilled workforce looks like is critical to being able to deliver on it. There is no point building an industry if you can't then provide the relevant staff with the relevant technical knowledge and experience to fill those gaps.
So, as we recover from the pandemic economically, now is the time to pull together and think very strategically about what our economy will need, going forward, in the short term, medium term and long term. We know we need to care. We know we need to teach. We know we need to build things. To do that, we have to understand what that future looks like. We have to understand how we are going to put the right people in the right jobs to build the future that we know that we can build across Australia, so that we can deliver well-paid and decent jobs and help people deal with the rising cost of living through multiple ranges of policies, ensuring that people can put food on the table, they can afford their transport costs and they can have pride in the job they are doing to build the economy.
Senate adjourned at 20:22