The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Community Affairs References Committee
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 1 pm.
The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:31): I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the routine of business for today.
Leave not granted.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow me to move a motion related to the routine of business for today.
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: You have five minutes to speak to that motion, if you wish. I would ask senators to respect that Senator Birmingham has the right to be heard in silence.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I note that the government has a proposal on the Notice Paper for another variation of hours—this time, though, to apply the guillotine in relation to their climate bills, and in applying that guillotine their intention is to ensure that debate concludes by 1.30 pm today. Let's understand that we haven't even started the committee stage on this bill yet. There are eight pages of legislative amendments proposed from the crossbench and elsewhere around the chamber. From seven different senators there are some 16 different amendments, some of them detailed amendments with nine different clauses attached, and the government's proposal is to truncate this debate into this morning only in relation to the passage of these bills and the conclusion of the committee stage.
The coalition are making an offer to the government in this regard: don't have the guillotine; we're happy to stay here for as long as it takes until the bill is done. That is the motion that we're circulating. We're not preventing you from concluding this bill; we are, though, suggesting that you should live up to the higher standards you said that you would bring to government. You as an opposition continually criticised the use of the guillotine. Senator Wong herself at one stage said:
I would remind those opposite that, whatever criticisms you might have of us, you are guillotining when you have been offered more time.
The motion I seek leave to move offers more time for those opposite to have their bill considered. Indeed, Senator Wong then ascribed motive as to why the then government was guillotining. She said:
You are not guillotining and gagging because it is the end of the session—
well, it's not the end of the session right now—
You are not guillotining and gagging because … you have to get bills through.
They certainly don't have time pressures to get this bill through. She said, 'You are guillotining now so that you can hold a prime ministerial press conference in time for prime-time television.' Guess what they're doing? They're guillotining by 1.30 today so that they can hold a prime ministerial press conference in time for prime-time television. The exact criticism that Senator Wong levelled at the former government is what they are now doing in the first week, essentially, in which the Senate has got down to the consideration of legislation and business—this first time.
Senator McAllister interjecting—
Senator BI RMINGHAM: Senator, as I've said, the motion being circulated in the chamber gives the opportunity. We will stay as long as it takes for you to be able to have the bill considered, to get the bill done. But, for those on the crossbench to equally have the chance for all of their amendments—be they Greens amendments, be they other crossbench amendments—to get the airing that they deserve through that process.
This is an invitation to the crossbench: if you don't like our proposal, that doesn't mean you have to go with the government's proposal for such a short, sharp guillotine either. You don't have to work to the Labor Party's media cycle. You don't have to work to the Prime Minister's press conference schedule. You can dictate your terms, because what is being proposed in the motion that Senator Gallagher has brought to the chamber is far too short. What is being proposed demonstrates an arrogance from those opposite already, clearly working in collusion with the Greens—that they think they can just ram things through, that they can use this Senate as a rubber stamp, that they will do whatever deals outside this chamber but then not care about what happens in the chamber.
This is an opportunity for the crossbench and for the Greens to demonstrate that they're bigger and better than that. Of course, the Greens themselves were even more strident critics of the use of guillotines previously. And yet last night we saw the Greens, amazingly, guillotining their own disallowance motion. They moved to guillotine themselves in that process. So this, Greens, is an invitation to you, too. Live up to the standards, Senator Waters, that you called for previously. We've said we're happy to sit longer. We're not seeking to prevent debate. Indeed, we've indicated we will give primacy to the Climate Change Bill, as we will then to dealing with other important bills such as the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, as is scheduled. All we're proposing is extra sitting hours, time for debate, rather than the use of the guillotine.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:37): It's 2022, and some things in this world don't change, do they? And one thing that will never change, no matter what—no matter what facts are put on the table; no matter how many of their safe, moderate Liberal seats they lose—is that the coalition will never support action on climate. They will never support action on climate. Senator Birmingham comes in here and says, 'We want a debate. We'll stay here.' You've had nine years. You've had nine years and an election campaign where you lost seats on this issue—that's a matter for you. The Australian people have spoken: enough delay. No amount of talking will change your mind. No amount of talking will give you some principle on this issue, because on this you have no principle. On this you have had no principle in a decade, and you all know that.
Senator Canavan, and before him, Mr Abbott, and all those—including Senator Abetz—who don't believe that climate change is real have been perverting your policy position on this for years, and the Australian people are the ones who have suffered. Those so-called moderates over there who know this is the right thing to do just roll over while the right wing of the Liberal Party and the National Party continue to control the agenda. And no matter—
Senator McKenzie: That's not true.
Senator WONG: I'll take the interjection 'it's not true' from Senator Michaelia Cash. I'll take that interjection, because I've really noticed her—
Government senators interjecting—
Senator WONG: I'm sorry. I apologise. Was it you? Senator McKenzie. I'll take that interjection from Senator Bridget—
Senator McKenzie: It's not true.
Senator WONG: 'It's not true.' She says it's not true. Well, it is, and history demonstrates that, as does the election result. If there were ever a parliament that had been elected—regardless of what differences of views we have—to take action on climate, it is this one, in this place and the other. So don't come in here and pretend that you are somehow safeguarding democratic principles. You're not. You're safeguarding your outdated, conservative position which the Australian people have left behind. That's what you're safeguarding. You're safeguarding your internal unity because you don't have the spine to take on the people in your party room. No matter how long we are here, you will not change your votes. I have been in this chamber for debate after debate on climate, and you will never change your position, no matter how much—
Senator Rennick: You don't even know what net zero is.
Senator WONG: Senator Rennick—case in point. It doesn't matter how much debate we have; he will not change his position on climate. He will always stand in the way of progress. I commented in the chamber some time ago that it's like the last days of the Soviet Union—against progress. The world has changed, but you're still holding on to opposing action on climate. I do respect that there are those who have different views. Senator Roberts has different views on this, and I understand that. But the government has been elected with a very clear policy position which is reflected in the legislation before you. Everybody knows that, no matter how long we stayed—we could debate this all week—those opposite would not change. I would remind them that they have chosen also to filibuster on a range of other matters, so that it would defer debate on this. Delay, delay, delay—obstruction. I think the Australian people have had enough. On that basis, I move:
That the motion be now put.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the question be put.
The Senate divided. [09:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The PRESIDENT (09:51): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [09:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The PRESIDENT (09:52): (In division) Senator Pocock, you need to sit down. I remind all senators: once tellers are appointed, you are to be in your seats and not moving.
BILLS
Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that in the time between this bill passing the House and being debated by the Senate, the Government has opened up 46,758 square kilometres of ocean acreages for new oil and gas exploration; and
(b) acknowledges the advice of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency, that to meet the Government's own target of net zero by 2050, no new coal, oil or gas infrastructure can be built."
The PRESIDENT (10:00): The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:00]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The PRESIDENT (10:03): I believe, Senator Roberts, you foreshadowed a second reading amendment. Do you wish to move that?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:03): Yes. I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) increased carbon dioxide is associated with increased quality of life for humans, plants and animals and reducing carbon dioxide will do harm to everyday Australians,
(ii) the relationship between carbon dioxide output from human activity and temperature change has been disproven by scientific analysis and empirical observation,
(iii) there is no mechanism to calculate temperature outcomes from reductions in human carbon dioxide output thus negating the reason for this bill, and
(iv) this bill does not require consideration of the economic, social or health outcomes from policies that will be implemented under this legislation; and
(b) calls on the Government to address the preceding matters in future legislation or policy".
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The PRESIDENT (10:16): The question is that the bill be read a second time.
The Senate divided. [10:16]
(The President—Senator Lines)
In Committee
Bills—by leave—taken together and as a whole.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:19): by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1616 together:
(1) Clause 10, page 5 (line 10), omit "43%", substitute "at least 75%".
(2) Clause 10, page 5 (line 16), omit "2050", substitute "2035 and working towards negative emissions thereafter".
(3) Clause 10, page 5 (line 20), omit "43%", substitute "75%".
These amendments would increase the targets for cutting pollution in this country to something resembling science. The bill that we have before us today was designed not by climate scientists but by political scientists, and the flimsy 43 per cent emissions reduction target that this bill will enshrine is not enough. It's not based on science, and it puts us nowhere near the 1½-degree aspiration of the Paris Agreement on climate. It puts us closer to two degrees, which we know is an incredibly risky scientific situation where we may see catastrophic effects that set off a chain reaction that is not stoppable. I don't know about anyone else in this chamber, but I can't actually bear the thought of that. We must do everything we can to stop that from happening.
So we are moving today to change the targets in this bill to a 75 per cent reduction by 2030, which is what the science says is necessary. People will have heard us say before that this isn't just the Greens' proposition. This is what international scientists are recommending is the necessary target for our nation to help us do our bit to globally keep warming limited to 1½ degrees.
We don't have support for this amendment—spoiler alert! The two big parties will both oppose this, because we know the influence of the fossil fuel sector on this building, and it continues while those political donations continue to flow into the coffers of both of the big political parties. I see the now opposition shaking their heads about how we keep mentioning this inconvenient fact, but one does wonder what is the basis for the climate policy of the other parties when it's not science and when they do take millions in donations from fossil fuel companies. It's pretty hard not to draw the conclusion of who's in charge of writing climate policy.
That is why we are moving today to increase the targets to 75 per cent by 2030 and to make sure that our net-zero target is brought forward to 2035. We can actually do this, and I have a lot of confidence and optimism in the ability of our nation and our workers to take this transition seriously and create the fantastic domestic manufacturing opportunities that 100 per cent renewables will provide. This could be a real boon for our economy, and I think most people understand that. They know that coal is on the way out. Even the coal workers themselves know. They know they're being lied to when the big parties claim that the coal industry will still be employing them in decades to come. They just want to know what happens next and they want a chance to say what happens next in their local region, and they deserve that say. You'll hear us continue to talk about a worker led transition and a transition authority. We look forward to progressing, through various different channels, because this country is ready to have, and capable of having, 100 per cent clean, renewable energy and a prosperous economy that will flow from that.
We can meet net zero by 2035, and we don't really have a choice, because look at what we're already facing with the natural disasters. I'm from South-East Queensland. We've just had terrible floods that we are still recovering from. Of course, that then went down to the Northern Rivers, exacerbating the homelessness crisis that was already there. We actually can't take the increasingly severe and regular natural disasters. It's too much for people to bear, so we've got to do everything we can to avoid that and have targets that reflect science and give us the best shot of not only managing and lessening those natural catastrophes them but actually embracing the future, the new green economy that will be good for workers, good for regional communities, good for our agricultural sector, good for our tourism sector and good for all of us. It is a jobs generator. There are no economic downsides except for the coal and gas companies, who are used to bringing in record profits, paying no tax, ripping off their workers and having fancy dinners with people in this building. They are the people that will miss out under a clean economy, and I'm okay with that.
So we're moving this amendment today because, if we stick with the 43 per cent, it just makes the task harder later. If we've got science based targets that we can work towards delivering now, that transition can be smoother and it can be managed. If this government kicks the can down the road then the task for the next parliament will be harder, and those cuts will need to be deeper and faster than in an approach that is based on science from the outset and allows us to plan that transition to 2030 and to 2035. The science won't forgive us if we kick the can down the road.
As I said, I don't expect we'll get support for this amendment today, because, sadly, the fossil fuel companies seem to have more influence than the scientists in this building. Maybe one day that that will change. Perhaps we'll see a government with the guts to say, 'We're going to ban donations from fossil fuel companies, because we're sick of them running our democracy.' Certainly the Greens have been saying that for 10-odd years, and we look forward to the day when that actually becomes law. But, until such time as that happens, we want to see this 43 per cent target increased in this term of parliament.
As many of my colleagues have said, the climate wars are not over when you are still ignoring science and when you are opening new coal and gas mines. As we know—and I'll be asking the minister some questions about this—there are 114 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline that this government has to decide whether it's going to approve or not.
And so that brings me to my first question to the minister, and it's about your modelling behind the 43 per cent target. Have you factored in the emissions from those 114 new coal and gas projects? To be specific, there are 69 new coalmines and 45 new gas projects proposed in the pipeline. Have you factored the emissions from those projects into your modelling to create your 43 per cent target?
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (10:26): I was very interested in this amendment, and I note the points that have been made by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate in proposing this amendment, but I'm also interested in modelling. This is just in relation to the points that have been made about the idea that we would be replacing 43 per cent with 75 per cent—setting aside the fact that the coalition believes this is legislating something that doesn't need legislating. Given the commitment made by the new Australian government to the relevant international bodies about our emissions reductions target, as has been said by their own environment spokesperson, this is just a symbolic move. But I would be interested in what modelling the Australian Greens have done on the impact to household bills if this new threshold were brought in. What would it cost for any household? What would be the increase to the average quarterly power bill? What would be the cost to those who wish to fill their car up with diesel—their Toyota Hilux, for example? What cost would be applied to household budgets that are already under pressure? As we know, only yesterday we had the—what day is it? Thursday. Two days ago, we had the Reserve Bank of Australia hand down their decision on interest rates, which, of course, we're seeing passed on by the major banks. I think—or at least I'd hope—that all of us in this place have a high degree of concern about the impact this would have on household budgets. I think that's one of the most important things we need to have regard for here.
As I've said many times, there are two fragile things that we need to look after here. One is the environment, and we need to take practical, science based, commonsense steps in that regard to protect the environment. But also we need to protect the economy, because without a functioning economy—much as without a healthy, thriving environment—we can't live. We can't keep the houses warm, the lights on or the ovens cooking our dinners. So I just wonder. I ask this question, like Senator Whish-Wilson, as someone who comes from a state where energy generation is 100 per cent renewable for domestic consumption, something I'm very proud of, although we do use coal to create concrete, which is probably one of the only materials that it will be possible to use to replace timber when we phase out native forest logging in this country, as, unfortunately, it appears is going to happen.
But I would be interested—going back to my original question—in what impact the Australian Greens' proposal will have and what modelling that is based on. I'm assuming they've done modelling for this proposal. If there is no modelling, please tell us, because that just demonstrates that there is no regard for the impact for Australian households, and the budget's already under strain.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:29): I wish to add to questions from the Greens and from Senator Duniam to the minister. This has been described, and I reinforce it, as the most important bill that's ever been introduced into this parliament in terms of its costs and its consequences to the people of Australia.
I want to quote some costings found by an independent economist, Dr Alan Moran. These cannot be sensibly refuted, Minister, because they came from the government's own figures, budgets and department reports, state and federal. The report, titled The hidden cost of climate policies and renewables, prepared in August 2020, states:
… the financial impact of climate policies and renewable subsidies …
—this is not basic cost for electricity; this is additional costs for electricity due to the financial impact of climate policies and renewable subsidies—
… costs households at least $13 billion annually, or around $1300 per household …
When the median income is $51,000, the after-tax median income is about $46,000. How the hell can anyone on $46,000 a year take-home afford an extra $1,300? That's before the impact of this savage rise to 43 per cent that the government proposes. In addition, according to the report—this was when the Morrison government was in power—the extra climate policies and renewable subsidies account for 39 per cent of household electricity bills, not 6½ per cent as the government typically quotes. Thirty-nine per cent—almost 40 per cent of the cost of a household bill—is additional costs due to climate policies and renewable subsidies. The report finds that there's a net loss of jobs in the economy, with every solar and wind job created causing 2.2 jobs to be lost in the real, productive economy.
Is anyone interested in that? It's not the people in this House that will be affected; it's the large majority of Australians who will suffer. Also, the market distortion that, through subsidies to solar and wind, increases the wholesale price of electricity to $92.50 per megawatt hour, up from $45.40 per megawatt hour. It's going to be horrendous. This will cost Australians trillions of dollars. It's a highly regressive tax because it will be much more impactful on the vulnerable and the people on low income.
Yesterday, we saw Senator Wong, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in proposing this bill, unable to define what net zero is. They do not know what their own policy is. We just wanted a simple interpretation from the Leader of the Government in the Senate as to what net zero means, and she could not provide it. I'll tell you why you can't: because you've never provided any logical scientific points which are simply empirical scientific evidence provided in a framework that proves cause and effect. No-one in this chamber nor any predecessor to anyone in this chamber has ever provided that. You have never provided the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate factor, whether it be temperature—air temperature, ocean temperature or land temperature—or the frequency, severity or duration of storms, droughts, floods or snowfall. You've never provided it on ocean alkalinity or ocean salinity. You've never provided the specific impact, and yet that is fundamental to any policy. If you cannot provide the specific impact, how the hell can you make a policy? If you cannot provide the specific impact, how the hell can you make a cost-benefit analysis? If you cannot provide the specific impact, how the hell can you measure progress? Senator Pocock has foreshadowed some good amendments, we see, but there's no basis for the actual policy. You can't track the progress without the specific measurement. What is the impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor? Nothing at all has ever been provided on that, anywhere in the world.
Sixty-seven, heading for 68, per cent of Australians did not vote for the Labor Party to be in government, yet the debate has been gagged. Senator Macdonald, who was Father of the Senate at the time, in 2016 brought to the Senate's attention that the climate science has never been debated in this chamber. It's never been debated in this chamber and it still isn't being debated. I've challenged Senator Waters many times. I challenged her 12 years ago, in October 2010. She ran from the debate. She would not debate me. I challenged her again in May 2016; she ran from me again. I challenged her here in the Senate. She ran from me and has refused to debate me on either the corruption of climate science or the science. That is fact.
Senator Whish-Wilson: I have a question on process. Senator Waters had a specific question for the minister. This committee stage is a chance for us to ask the minister questions and get responses. I understand Senator Roberts has amendments he may wish to speak to. I haven't heard him talk about them yet. I am just wondering if we could bring this back to what the committee stage is designed for, which is to scrutinise the legislation.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Chandler ): I recognise your point, but I'm sure Senator Roberts was getting to the question he might have for the minister. It's not really a point of order, but I will suggest, Senator Roberts, that you get to the questions before your time expires in 4½ minutes.
Sena tor ROBERTS: I am getting there. Senator Waters has talked about 'targets that reflect science' but the minister has never provided any science to back this bill up. Neither have the Greens and Senator Waters in particular. Then she talked about science-based targets. Never have we seen them.
The point I'm getting to is that my amendment will require cost-benefit analysis to be inserted into the bill for future progress reports from the Climate Change Authority. I want to know if the minister understands that there has never been provided specific, quantified evidence, so how the hell can we ever have a basis for this legislation? Is the minister aware, for example, that 10 senators and MPs have put in writing the fact that nowhere have they been provided with any evidence from their party or from the parliament? I'll read these names out. These are the names of senators and MPs with character, courage and integrity: Mr Llew O'Brien, Mr Craig Kelly, Mr Kevin Andrews, Mr George Christensen, Mr Bob Katter, Senator Eric Abetz, Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Senator Gerard Rennick, Senator Pauline Hanson and I. We have provided been provided at any time ever in parliament or from their parties with such evidence. Is the minister aware that this bill of hers builds on Prime Minister John Howard's position in complying with the UN's Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and that later on, after he introduced the Renewable Energy Target and stole farmers' property rights through his government, he then said in 2013 that he was agnostic on climate science? I care about that because it's hurting people right around the country.
My amendment introduces the concept of cost-benefit analysis into climate change. It introduces the need for specific evidence into the basis for legislation. Will you support my amendment and, if not, why not?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (10:38): I want to return to the amendment moved by Senator Waters in this debate. It's a simple amendment seeking to change the emissions targets under this bill. My understanding of this amendment is it would change the 43 per cent target by 2030 to at least 75 per cent by 2030 and also substitute a net-zero target with what is termed here a negative emissions target. My primary question to the Greens, on whose behalf I believe Senator Waters moved this, is: are these increased obligations on Australian businesses and industry matched with reductions that would occur overseas in other countries? Would other countries be expected to match the increased emissions reductions we would take in just the next eight years before we take the same reductions in our industries?
It's an extremely pertinent question, given what is happening around the world right now and particularly what has happened since the Glasgow conference only last November. Less than a year ago all the rich and well-to-do members of our global society flew on private jets to Glasgow and the surrounds. In fact, the Glasgow Airport was too congested; they had to go to other airports close by. There were that many private jets. There was a flotilla of private jets flying into Scotland. Not since the Spanish Armada had the British Isles been attacked in this way! They flew in and they made all these commitments. We were all told coal is dead and what have you. Less than a year later, European governments are now subsidising follow fuels.
Yesterday, the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced massive subsidies to people using electricity which comes from gas and coal in the United Kingdom. That's less than a year later, from the German Greens party. May I remind the Australian Greens of this? They don't talk much about this. I used to hear the Australian Greens talk a lot about the German Greens, because I believe their party kind of started in Germany. That's where the first Greens party came from, and I suppose they're just following the German Greens. Soon we can look forward to the Australian Greens reopening coal-fired power stations in this country! But they got their start in Germany. They often mentioned that, but they don't mention them much anymore. They're very silent about their colleagues there on the east side of the Rhine. There, in Germany, the Greens have opened up—or they are opening up; they're in government—21 coal fired power stations right now.
My question to the Greens is: is this policy going to make sure it's mandatory that our businesses shut down and reduce their emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 while we sit back and—not even criticise—just let the German government open up coal fired power stations to keep their petrochemical industries and refineries and smelters going? Is that the plan? How would this plan, which seems unbelievably unfair to Australians and to Australian businesses, in any way help the environment? I think that's what we're all here for or what we're debating here—to apparently reduce emissions to protect the environment. That's the objective of this bill. The objective of this bill is to help reduce the impacts of global climate change and make our contribution in that way. How would adding on this extra burden to Australian businesses, in the context of Europe reopening coal-fired power stations—Italy said only last night that they're reopening coal-fired power stations; Europe is going in the other direction—in any way affect the climate at all, even one iota? And why would we do that to our own businesses and industry?
I do give the Greens some leeway here in that at least the United Kingdom government have themselves committed to, I believe, a 68 per cent reduction of emissions or something of that level. Sorry; it's a 78 per cent reduction in emissions by 2035—so it's a little bit later. That's similar to what the Greens are suggesting here. As I say, the United Kingdom are doing nothing to get towards that. They're fracking again and opening up the North Sea et cetera. But that's their target, like the Greens' target of 75 per cent. It's not far off that, albeit five years earlier.
My second question to the Greens is: what analysis have you done of the impacts of the United Kingdom's 78 per cent target on their own economy, their own business and their own cost structure? A slow-moving disaster is unfolding in the United Kingdom at the moment, at least in part due to their naive and ill-thought-through commitments to net zero emissions and, in this case, particularly, a 78 per cent reduction by 2035. Because of those commitments that they have made in the last few years, the United Kingdom had said no to fracking. They banned fracking right across the British Isles. Because of those commitments, they had refused to release and license new gas exploration areas in the North Sea, which has been for decades the United Kingdom's means of gas and oil access. Because of all those commitments, they have left themselves in a position where they are vulnerable to the aggression of a Russian dictator, and they are now having to take desperate measures just so people can heat their homes over what are brutal winters in the Northern Hemisphere.
It is an unbelievable situation when, months away from winter beginning, a developed country cannot guarantee that people will be able to stay warm. At this stage, unless something changes, it is not too dramatic to say that people will almost inevitably die over the European winter, unnecessarily, because of the failed, naive climate change policies that have put Europe in this mess. That is exactly what's happened. They have refused to take sensible decisions to develop their own resources and allow their countries access to reasonable amounts of energy, and now they're in this position where there are not many options available for the United Kingdom.
The new prime minister, Prime Minister Truss, has already announced that she will cap electricity bills. While that may provide some temporary relief for British residents, it is going to create a whole lot of other problems that have not even been considered yet, No. 1 being cost. The projected cost of this price-capping scheme is estimated at 130 billion pounds—a quarter of a billion Australia dollars—just this winter or this coming year. To put that in context, the United Kingdom's pandemic response—their JobKeeper scheme, which they termed a furlough scheme—'only' cost the British taxpayer $53 billion. The costs of net zero are approaching, and probably will exceed, three times the cost of the pandemic response in the United Kingdom. Has there ever been a more costly, more failed policy than net zero emissions? It is failing and failing so quickly. It's only been a few years since we even heard the term 'net zero emissions'. It was kind of invented over the last decade by some corporate types associated with Richard Branson. It didn't come from the grassroots or any public uprising. It was a corporate plan. Over the last decade, over these 10 years, it has led to utter bankruptcy for what were once proud developed countries. The Australian Greens are saying, 'Let's do that.' Through these amendments, the Australian Greens are saying: 'What's happening over there in the United Kingdom with their 78 per cent target looks fantastic. It looks really, really good. Let's do that here!'
Shouldn't we pause here? We should just pause and not go further down this track, which is clearly inflicting enormous pain on the British taxpayer. It is unclear yet how this will actually flow through in the European winter. The United Kingdom government is destroying the price mechanism, which is trying to ration demand given that there's not enough energy. Now they'll destroy that link, and the people won't reduce their power demand because prices won't go up as high. They still will not have enough energy, so it's very unclear what will happen now, whether there'll be blackouts or whether there will have to be mandatory government type restrictions. Indeed, the President of the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen, said last night that they may have to have 'mandatory controls' on energy use, in her words, 'to flatten the curve'. Where have we heard that before?
Senator Rennick interjecting—
Senator CANAVAN: It will only be two weeks, Senator Rennick. It'll only be two weeks. Don't worry about it—we're all in this together! Well, I don't think we should go in this together with the United Kingdom. I think the Greens need to explain to this parliament why we are adopting the same targets that have failed in the United Kingdom and will potentially inflict the same pain on Australians that is happening to the British people right now. (Time expired)
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (10:48): It's great to address the chamber on this very important bill. I'd like to address Senator Canavan's concerns about the environment as a result of these renewables because that is what really concerns me about the path that we are taking. If we continue down the path of constantly getting rid of our base-load energy in this country, like coal, and replacing it with wind, solar, lithium batteries and transmission lines, we are going to create an environmental catastrophe. I touched on this last night. It is well known that wind farms kill millions and millions of birds and bats. They kill apex birds. They kill lots and lots of bats. Many people probably don't know that bats, along with bees, are one of the major pollinators in our environment.
Then we've got the issue with batteries. Batteries come from rare earth minerals like lithium, for example. Lithium is a one per cent ore body. You have to mine a hundred tonnes of ore to get one tonne of metal. That involves an intensive electrolysis process that in itself requires lots and lots of energy. However, these rare-earths mines—it's just not that simple to go in and get the ore; you have to mine around and around and around. So, quite often you're going to have a stripping ratio of something like 10 to one, so you might have to move 1,000 tonnes of dirt just to end up with one tonne of metal. That metal, after it's been extracted through an extremely energy-intensive process, will then get shipped over to China, where it's put into a car battery, and that car battery is then shipped to the States, where it's put into a Tesla, and then the Tesla comes back to Australia, where basically you have to charge the battery by sticking it into the wall and using energy from coal.
We've also got solar panels. I just put an article up on my Facebook page this morning about the environmental catastrophe that is going on in California at the moment, and we'll have the same catastrophe here, whereby we'll have dangerous substances leaking from these solar panels once they are taken to the trash. This is concerning, because, as the head of the CSIRO said to me in estimates, it costs three times as much to recycle a lithium battery as it does to actually produce a battery. So, the big concern is, how are we going to afford—and what is the Labor Party going to do about this—recycling all these rare-earths batteries?
The other thing we need to touch on is the transmission lines. We are going to have to have hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines. The Labor Party have already earmarked a $20 billion Rewiring Australia Fund. But it's not 'rewiring'; it's additional transmission lines that are going to have to connect all these tiny solar panels and windfarms, because these solar panels and windfarms don't produce anywhere near the same amount of energy as a coal-fired power station does. Going back to the nineties, when 70 or 80 per cent of the east coast was powered by coal-fired power, there were only about 30 stations, and only a limited number of transmission lines were needed in order to get the power to the home.
However, what I really want to do today is address the issue from yesterday, when Senator Wong couldn't actually define what net zero is. I spoke to her about it this morning, and she said, 'Senator Rennick, why do you think so many scientists have all got it wrong?' Well, I don't actually follow scientists. I follow the mathematics behind the science and, in particular, the algorithms that underpin good science. Last night—and I'll do this again, because I can see Senator Chisholm sitting over there with a silly grin on his face—the first scientist I referred to—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Chandler ): Order! Senator Rennick, please direct your comments through the chair.
Senator RENNICK: the first paper I raised was none other than Albert Einstein's 1917 quantum theory on radiation. He himself said that radiation is so insignificant that it drops out.
This is the thing about the whole science argument about how we're living in a greenhouse effect et cetera. At the end of the day, the two strongest forces of heat transfer in the environment are convection and conduction. Climate change theory wants you to believe that the atmosphere is a closed environment. The way a greenhouse works is that it traps convection. So, during the day, as the sun heats up the greenhouse, the air rises—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, a point of order?
Senator McAllister: The tradition in our chamber is to have a wide-ranging debate. However, there is a motion before the chair from Senator Waters, and an amendment before the chair, and I do wonder whether Senator Rennick is being relevant. He may be, but I wonder if you might remind him of the question before the chair.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you very much, Minister. Senator Rennick, I will remind you that the question before the chair is that the amendment moved by Senator Waters be agreed to, and I would direct you to be relevant to that amendment and, if you have questions for the minister, to get to them in a timely fashion. Thank you.
Senator RENNICK: I am being relevant, because at the end of the day, whether it's a 43 per cent reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere or a 75 per cent reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, it's convection that drives heat transfer in the atmosphere, not radiation.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator RENNICK: You don't believe me? Then take Albert Einstein's word for it, because, at the end of the day, carbon dioxide absorbs and emits photons at only two frequencies. One is at 2.8 microns, which, according to Planck's law, has five times more energy—and that's incoming solar radiation. And the other one is outgoing long-wave radiation at 14.8 microns. The whole point of this discussion is to debunk the junk science behind climate change. I did this last night, but I'll just run you through the five different laws that prove that this disproves climate change.
Number 1 is the first law of thermodynamics: conduction. Basically, all carbon dioxide does is absorb and emit photons that come via the sun. That law is actually Einstein's special theory of relativity, E equals MC squared. As I said last night, he came up with that in 1905. Interestingly enough, he didn't get a Nobel Prize for that. He actually got a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, which is one of four papers he wrote in1905. The photoelectric effect impacts the fact that every molecule has a specific vibrational frequency, and it's at that frequency that it can only absorb heat.
The other law that I also used last night was Wien's Law. That describes the frequency at which the CO2 molecule will emit heat. As I pointed out last night, that law says that carbon dioxide only emits heat at 192 degrees Kelvin, which is negative 80 degrees Celsius. So the only place where carbon dioxide will actually release heat is either at the bottom of Antarctica or about ten kilometres up in the troposphere. This matters because this disproves the science; the science is bogus.
I'll continue. What I have here is an energy budget from the Australian Academy of Science. They want you to believe that downwelling radiation averages on a 24-hour period over 342 watts per square metre. Funnily enough, the CSIRO says that the downwelling radiation from CO2 is 333 watts per square metre. That is a difference of nine watts per square meter. What does that tell you? These guys can't measure downwelling radiation. They can't even measure it. We're told the science is settled, but they can't even measure it. Guess what? The IPCC says that the increase in downwelling radiation since 1750, from the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, is only two watts per square metre. Get this. Their error in measurements has a margin of error of 400 per cent. You can't even properly measure what it is you're supposed to be spending billions of dollars on. How is that going to work? Not too well.
Here's the other crazy thing. They want you to believe that the downwelling radiation from carbon dioxide is actually stronger than the incoming solar radiation from the sun. That's absurd. As we know from Plank's law from 1902, solar radiation effectively has a higher frequency of about up to 100 times in the ultraviolet range and the visible light range—the visible light range is about 30 times stronger than 14.8 microns in the infrared range. They want you to believe that infrared has more energy than ultraviolet and visible light. This stuff is pathetic.
Here's the real doozey. What's missing in this energy budget, people? I will tell you what it is. I'll give you a bit of a clue here. A bloke by the name of Isaac Newton hypothesised this back in the 16th or 17th century. That, of course, is gravity. These guys want you to think that photons aren't influenced by the gravity of the earth, which happens to be 5.6 trillion billion tonnes. They seem to think that that's not going to have a pull on a photon. So the whole thing is totally debunked.
My question to the minister is: why are there 40 different models to calculate net zero, if the science is settled? That came from the head of the CSIRO, who said there were 40 different models used to calculate net zero. The science is not settled if the head of the CSIRO in this country says there are 40 different models. Which model are we going to use here in Australia, and how do we know there isn't going to be arbitrage with the different models between different countries to exploit the confusion in climate change and to milk Australia dry?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (10:59): If we needed any more graphic demonstration of the chaos that has beset coalition government energy policy over the last nine years, we've had it this morning. So far the contributions from the coalition side have included Senator Canavan, who indicated that he believes net-zero policies are failing policies; although, as I understand it, that is the current policy of the coalition. Senator Canavan doesn't believe in net zero. Senator Renick just doesn't believe in the science, and he's leaving the chamber.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Chandler ): Senators won't cast aspersions on other senators leaving the chamber, please.
Senator McALLISTER: True; my apologies, Senator Rennick. Senator Roberts of course also does not accept the science, and he doesn't accept that anyone has ever provided him any evidence.
Senator Roberts: On a point of order, I accept the science. That's the basis of my point.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's not a point of order.
Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts has on many occasions asked people to provide him with empirical evidence, and I've sat through extended exchanges at Senate estimates where Senator Roberts engaged with the CSIRO on the extensive science that is in fact in the public domain and available to him. But he's asked particularly what's been provided to him in this chamber, and it has been engaged with on many occasions in the chamber as well. With the agreement of the Senate I would like to table just one contribution, which is a speech I made in 2016, funnily enough in response to a request from Senator Roberts that we put the science on the record. On that occasion I read through the names of the 20 most cited peer-reviewed papers about climate change and its effects, which was compiled by Thomson Reuters. I made the observation at that time that there were, in 2013, 4,000 papers that expressed a view on climate change. There are vast quantities of scientific information available to Senator Roberts; the problem is that Senator Roberts cares not to engage with them. That is the problem with this argument. There is nothing that can be provided in response to this request for more information that will ever satisfy Senator Roberts.
Senator Rennick: A paper is not an algorithm. Science is underpinned by algorithms, not papers.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's not a point of order.
Senator McALLISTER: I seek leave of the Senate to table this speech, which is a record from Hansard.
Leave granted.
Senator McALLISTER: No wonder it has taken a Labor government to land a climate policy and an energy policy. The previous government was so racked by division and dysfunction, so unable to agree amongst themselves, that nothing was ever able to be done, and the cost of that is being felt by the Australian people. It's being felt by an energy market that is experiencing real challenges. It's also the opportunity cost of the jobs in regional Australia, a part of Australia that the National Party claim to be so concerned about, for young people leaving school now which might have been developed in new industries or for the future that were stymied, not developed, because of inaction and uncertainty. Time after time business came before us and said, 'What we're looking for is certainty. What we're after is a clear policy that will let us make final investment decisions and let us plan for the transformation of our businesses to meet a low-carbon future.' So little of that was possible, so much of it impeded, by the chaos, division and dysfunction, and it's why the bill that's before us matters.
The amendment before the Chair from Senator Waters seeks to change the target. I don't think it will come as a surprise to Senator Waters that we will not be supporting this amendment, and I want to step through why. We have a mandate for the targets proposed in this bill. They are ambitious targets, and they are responsible targets. It's a policy we sought a mandate for during the election. We have talked about it after the election and consulted further with our community, and we will be sticking with that policy. It's a mandate we respect. It is a significant step up in our ambition. It is an achievable and responsible contribution to global efforts to keep to 1.5 degrees of warming.
The net zero by 2050 target is consistent with the Paris Agreement global temperature goal to hold the global temperature increase to well below two degrees and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1½ degrees. The bill does emphasise the importance of climate science. Its object clause refers to the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. It requires that the Climate Change Authority's advice to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on targets must explain how the targets have taken into account the matters set out in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement, including the global temperature goals.
As set out in clause 10 of the bill, this is a floor in Australia's emissions reduction ambition, and not a ceiling. Our aspiration is that the commitments of industry, states and territories and the Australian people will yield even greater emissions reductions in the coming decade. The Australian government outlined in its updated nationally determined contribution under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, on 16 June 2022, that this is our approach. And, in addition, each successive target must be more ambitious than the last, as required by the Paris Agreement. The government must consider independent advice from the Climate Change Authority prior to making each new nationally determined contribution.
In concluding—and I expect Senator Waters wishes to make another contribution—I will just respond to her question about the way that the government deals with proposed projects in the oil, coal and gas sectors. Essentially, there are, as you have observed, a range of projects that proponents have flagged as possible projects in the future, and they are at different stages of development. As you all know, the economics of resource projects are changing. The projections that are developed by the Australian government are regularly updated. They incorporate the emissions associated with the anticipated demand for Australian exports, and that is something that is updated on a regular basis.
Senator D AVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (11:06): It seems like a pretty sad day in Australia when in 2022 we're hearing arguments about climate science. After however long of the bullshit that Australians have had to—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator C handler ): Order! Senator Pocock, that language is not parliamentary. I ask that you withdraw.
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That may be very well, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Pocock, I ask that you find another term to use.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: I withdraw this truth. In 2022 to be trying to debunk climate science in 10 minutes is why Australians are so frustrated. The arguments we're hearing are about increasing Russian gas prices, which is thanks to the two major parties not actually having good policy in place to prioritise Australians, and that's why we're actually subject to export prices. Let's keep that in mind when we hear the talk of Russia: we don't import gas from Russia. Why are we subjected to those prices? We've heard about how 43 per cent is ambitious, yet there's modelling showing that, if you add up all of the states and territories' commitments, that potentially gets us to 42 per cent. If one per cent is ambitious, I think Australians are going to be asking questions.
We know that climate policy is increasingly complex. In Australia we don't have a cap-and-trade framework, and these reductions in emissions will come from more targeted policies. With this complexity, there's the potential for uncertainty around investment decisions, particularly investment in renewable energy. I'd like to ask the minister: is the government prepared to consider a process that would set out the emissions reductions expected of each sector?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (11:08): Thank you, Senator Pocock, and thank you for your constructive approach to this debate. I'm happy to confirm that this government is not scared of accountability in providing detailed information on our emissions and policies across sectors. Under paragraph 12(1)(d) of the bill the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's policies in reducing emissions in the sectors covered by each policy must be included in the annual statement, and the government will meet this requirement. For example, the safeguard mechanism has a particular focus on reducing industrial and fugitive emissions. Our national inventory reports, quarterly updates and the official projections of emissions under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement already detail sectoral emissions. For example, our last quarterly report, released last week, found that, for the last full year of the previous government, emissions for the year to March 2022 are estimated to be 487.1 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent.
The 1½ per cent increase in emissions over the year to March reflects annual increases in emissions from stationary energy, transport, fugitives, industrial processes and agriculture sectors. The report details the emissions of each of these sectors as well as electricity waste, industrial processes and land sectors. Our official projections look at changes in these sectoral emissions over time and at our challenge of reversing the decade of inaction, secrecy and denial.
These sectoral emissions and projected changes will also be clear in the annual climate change statements. We are already working with the policy frameworks for key sectors, such as our National Electric Vehicle Strategy and National Energy Transformation Partnership with the states and territories. The issue of sectoral emissions will also be a key issue for the Climate Change Authority's advice on future targets, including the 2035 target.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:10): I, too, would like to observe that it's nice to finally get to questions in the committee stage, because that is, in fact, what this part of the debate is for.
I thank the minister for almost answering my questions, but I'm going to have some more questions about this. There are 114 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline, and I did ask whether or not the modelling that underpinned the 43 per cent target, which I understand was prepared by RepuTex, factored in those 114. My understanding is the answer is no, but I think the minister actually shared some information about departmental modelling for future coal export demand. So my first question is for the minister to explain what question she thought she was answering and for her to then answer my actual question.
I have some supplementaries as I fear the diatribe of climate denialism will resume if I sit down. So I'll ask all of my questions whilst I have the call, lest I not have an opportunity in the future. The International Energy Agency, in their Coal 2021 report, showed that Australia has more new coal export mines than anywhere else in the world. So I want to know how the government thinks it can meet the 43 per cent target while opening these new coal mines? I note that the New South Wales and Queensland governments have approved three coal mines since this bill passed the House of Representatives, and I'd like to ask whether the government intends to reject approval for those coal mines?
I also note that BHP has just put in an application to run a coalmine until—I don't even know how to say it!—2113, which is insane. How is that consistent with the government's climate bills. So I'm really keen for the minister to respond to how on earth we have a chance of meeting this inadequate target whilst opening and considering opening 114 new coal and gas projects?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator WATERS: I want to note that I'm flattered by the questions from the opposition about cost of living and global progress. I fear they're actually not genuinely asking for me to respond, but the answer, of course, is that if we don't act on the climate crisis the cost of living will absolutely dwarf everything else—as every thinking person understands. This bill does not even get us close to the Paris Agreement, so it is clear that Australia is a global laggard. So with that done, Minister, I'm interested in using the committee stage for its appropriate purpose.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (11:13): In answer to your first question: the RepuTex modelling was built on the 2021 projections published by the then government. The 2021 projections assumed some new fossil fuel developments in light of projected global and local demand.
You asked more generally about the government's approach to new projects. This is an issue that has been well litigated inside this chamber and outside of it, but I will go through our approach again. Business, industry and investors all say the same thing: domestically, we need to upgrade the transmission, upgrade the grid and inject more firmed renewables. The government agree that this is what is required. We are not unrealistic about the role of gas in our energy mix. We understand that gas plays an important part in powering communities by firming and peaking electricity, and as a feed source and a source of heat for industry and for manufacturers. Any new large-scale coal or gas project will automatically come under the remit of Labor's reformed safeguard mechanism. This is the way that we will be reducing the emissions of Australia's biggest emitters.
The government has released a consultation paper on the design of the safeguard mechanism reforms, with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water beginning with extensive consultation process across the country, and we strongly encourage all stakeholders to have their say. We also need to support our trading partners.
Progress reported.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Tyrrell for today, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Prime Minister and Cabinet's Portfolio Measures No. 2) Regulations 2022, postponed till 12 September 2022.
Withdrawal
Senator S HOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (11:15): Pursuant to notice of intention given yesterday, I, and also on behalf of Senator Tyrell, now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in our names for the next day of sitting, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework Supplementary Powers Amendment (Prime Minister and Cabinet's Portfolio Measures No. 2) Regulations 2022.
Presentation
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate only recognise a Dalai Lama appointed via Tibetan Buddhist traditions and practices, without interference by the Chinese Government.
COMMITTEES
Selection of Bills Committee
Report
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:16): I present the fourth report for 2022 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 4 OF 2022
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 7 September 2022 at 7.15 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the provisions of the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 November 2022 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 November 2022 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(c) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2] be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2023 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022
Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2022
Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015
Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022
National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022
Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020
Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020
Federal Environment Watchdog Bill 2021
Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022
Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022 Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022
High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022
Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022
Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021 [No. 2]
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022
Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022 Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022.
(Anne Urquhart)
Chair
8 September 2022
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Hears from stakeholders
Hear from traditional owners
Hear from Department
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Traditional owners
Academics
Department
Relevant Companies
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Sept—Oct 2022
Dec—Feb 2022-23
Possible reporting date:
First sitting Tuesday 2023
(signed)
Senator Nick McKim
Appendix 2
SELECT ION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Complicated issue with huge ramifications for disaster affected communities
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Community Groups, Emergency services, Individuals that are affected
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Finance and Public Affairs Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
September—January
Possible reporting date:
Friday before the first sitting week in February 2023
(signed)
Senator Wendy Askew
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Examine importance of the bill
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Environment Stakeholder
Industry Stakeholders
Committee to which bill is t o be referred:
Environment and Communications
Possible hearing date(s):
Late 2022/early 2023
Possible reporting date:
28 February 2023
(signed)
Senator Nick McKim
Senator URQUHART: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Consideration Of Legislation
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education and Assistant Minister for Regional Development) (11:16): I move:
That—
(a) government business order of the day no. 6 (Military Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment (Incapacity Payments) Bill 2022) be considered from 12.15 pm;
(b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm;
(c) general business order of the day no. 18 (Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022) be considered during general business; and
(d) the following bills be considered at the time for private senators' bills on Monday, 12 September 2022:
(i) Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020, and
(ii) Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Leave Of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:17): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Farrell for today, on account of ministerial business.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Bragg for today, relating to international digital platforms operated by multinational technology companies, postponed till 12 September 2022.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ) (11:18): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.
BUSINESS
Consideration Of Legislation
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education and Assistant Minister for Regional Development) (11:18): I move:
That on Thursday, 8 September 2022—
(a) from 12.15 pm, consideration of the Climate Change Bill 2022 and the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 have precedence over all other business until determined;
(b) if consideration of the bills has not concluded by 1.30 pm, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate;
(c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(d) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm, and after 4.30 pm, for the purposes of the bills only; and
(e) following consideration of the bills, the Senate return to its routine of business.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:19): I ask that the provisions of that be put separately, please.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How would you like it divided, Senator Birmingham?
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I would like parts (b) and (c) to be put separate from parts (a), (d) and (e).
Senator Hanson-Young: Can we have Senator Birmingham's request repeated?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, please repeat your request.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I am asking for the vote on parts (b) and (c) to be taken separately from the votes on parts (a), (d) and (e). The consequence of doing so would be to give priority to consideration of the Climate Change Bill over all other Senate business, and would do so without limitations in terms of the conduct of that debate, including without time limitations. It would enable that to continue throughout the rest the day, without application of the guillotine.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that parts (a), (d) and (e) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that parts (b) and (c) be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [11:25]
(The President—Senator Lines)
DOCUMENTS
Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:28): On behalf of senators Cash, McKenzie and Davey, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister by no later than midday on 13 September 2022:
(a) briefing notes, file notes and any written communication between the Prime Minister and/or his office and the Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery, Senator Sheldon, and/or his office in relation to Senator Sheldon's announcement of $30 million in funding for Northern Rivers region, dated 1 September 2022;
(b) briefing materials, file notes and any written communication produced by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that were provided to the Prime Minister and/or his office and the Special Envoy and/or his office in relation to Senator Sheldon's announcement of $30 million in funding for Northern Rivers region, dated 1 September 2022;
(c) any correspondence between the Prime Minister and/or his office and the Special Envoy and/or his office in relation to his role as Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery since his appointment on 24 July 2022.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Environment and Communications References Committee
National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee
Membership
The PRESIDENT (11:29): I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education and Assistant Minister for Regional Development) (11:29): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Environment and Communications References Committee —
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Hanson-Young for the committee's inquiry into climate-related marine invasive species
Participating member: Senator Hanson-Young
National Capital and External Territories — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senator David Pocock
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education and Assistant Minister for Regional Development) (11:30): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education and Assistant Minister for Regional Development) (11:30): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech r ead as follows—
Every worker in Australia has the right to be safe at work, and safe at home.
No worker should ever have to choose between their safety and their income.
It is unacceptable that millions of workers in Australia still face this impossible choice.
This is why the Government is proud to bring forward the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 which will provide employees with 10 days of paid leave to deal with the impacts of family and domestic violence.
It is not an overstatement to say that this is a workplace entitlement that will save lives.
Family and domestic violence affects people from all walks of life, in every community, in every city, and in every region across this country.
While family and domestic violence affects everyone in our community, it impacts on women most severely. First Nations women, younger women, women with disability, and women in remote and regional areas in particular face acute and significant challenges.
The facts set out by the Fair Work Commission in its recent review are frightening. Since the age of 15, approximately one in four women experienced violence by an intimate partner. First Nations women are 32 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family and domestic violence than non-Indigenous women. On average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every ten days in Australia. The prevalence of family and domestic violence has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Family and domestic violence devastates the lives and livelihoods of those who directly experience it; and its damaging impacts reverberate throughout our communities, our workplaces, and our national economy.
Unacceptably, rates of family and domestic violence are not declining in Australia. For many women, the most dangerous place in Australia is her home, and this must change.
The Government is putting forward this Bill because as a nation we can and must do better.
An urgent, whole-of-community response is required, and workplaces have a key role to play as a source of critical support for people experiencing family and domestic violence.
Frontline workers have told us that there are two issues at the forefront of the minds of women seeking to escape from violent relationships. First, they are worried about disruption to the lives of their children. Second, they are worried about disruption to their income and employment.
More than 68% of people experiencing family and domestic violence are in paid work. However, many can't leave violent situations without risking joblessness, financial stress, homelessness and poverty, leaving workers having to choose between their safety and their livelihood.
Getting out is hard, really hard. Reporting is hard, really hard—and turning up to court can be another trauma altogether. This Bill makes everything just that bit easier.
Getting out will still be hard. But it will be less likely that getting out makes you unemployed or poor. People in family and domestic violence situations have enough challenges already. This Bill says you will no longer have to ask "can I afford to be safe".
This Bill sends a clear message that family and domestic violence is not just a criminal justice or social issue, but an economic and a workplace issue.
Frontline workers have told us that leaving violent relationships costs time and costs money. People leaving relationships often become sole parents; they have to find a new place to live and new schools for their children. People often leave a relationship with just the clothes on their backs, and have to start from scratch to build a new life. The economic impact on these workers and their families is nothing short of devastating. Paid leave provides the financial support and employment security these individuals so urgently need to help them leave dangerous situations safely and rebuild their lives.
The principle behind this paid leave entitlement is simple—getting out shouldn't mean losing pay. Normally, leave entitlements are at the base rate of pay. But applying the principle that getting out shouldn't mean losing pay requires a different approach.
The new leave entitlement will be paid at the rate people would have received had they not taken leave, not just at their base rate of pay. Once in place, the 10 days' leave will be provided upfront, allowing immediate access to the full entitlement from commencement of employment.
In its review of family and domestic leave, the Fair Work Commission recognised that family and domestic violence erodes women's access to work, career progression and financial independence. By reducing these negative impacts, paid family and domestic violence leave will help to reduce the gender pay gap, support gender equality, and increase women's economic security.
An increasing number of employers—both large and small—are already providing a range of support to their employees experiencing family and domestic violence leave, including access to paid leave. All states and territories now provide their employees with access to paid leave to deal with family and domestic violence. These efforts are to be commended. This Bill will enshrine family and domestic violence leave as a minimum employment standard for all, ensuring that wherever you work and whoever your employer is, you will be guaranteed access to this lifesaving entitlement if you need it.
This entitlement will be enshrined in the National Employment Standards and cover up to 11 million employees. It will be a lifeline when women most need it, allowing workers to take necessary steps to stay safe, while retaining their jobs and their income.
Normally casual employees do not have access to paid leave. But applying the test—"getting out shouldn't mean losing pay"—takes you to a different conclusion.
This Bill provides a paid entitlement to family and domestic violence leave for all employees, including casuals.
There are currently 2.6 million casual employees in Australia.
Family and domestic violence doesn't pick and choose based on whether you are a permanent or casual worker.
Casuals are not spared from family and domestic violence. In fact, women who are experiencing or have experienced family and domestic violence have a more disrupted work history, and are more likely to be employed in casual work, than women with no experience of violence.
Casuals are already dealing with the consequences of being in insecure work and are unable to access other forms of paid leave, making them more vulnerable when they are dealing with the impact of domestic violence.
Under this Bill, casual employees will be paid for rostered shifts, including where a shift has been offered and accepted, providing employers with certainty about the rate of payment for casual employees.
Employees facing family and domestic violence will no longer have to ask—"do I have leave to help me get out?"—the answer for every employee will now be "yes".
There will be no gap for any employees who are not eligible for this paid leave entitlement. Casuals who are not rostered will still be entitled to be absent from work without pay for 10 days per year to deal with the impacts of family and domestic violence, without having to worry about losing their jobs.
Australians are increasingly living in more diverse living situations. First Nations families and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse communities also have familial responsibilities, households, and relationships that must be captured.
Violence can be and is perpetrated by unrelated people who live in the same household. In a tragic recent example, a woman at the Sunshine Coast was killed, allegedly at the hands of her unrelated housemate.
People increasingly live separately to their intimate partners; young people in particular. The amendments made to the definition of family and domestic violence will ensure that violent or abusive behaviour in intimate relationships—whether or not the partners cohabit—will also be captured, and employees can take paid leave to seek necessary assistance.
Some might suggest that these additions broaden the definition too much. During the two extensive hearings on family and domestic violence leave conducted by the Fair Work Commission, there was no evidence whatsoever of any misuse of paid family and domestic violence leave. This is just not an entitlement that employees rort.
Unless we include intimate partners in this way, we are left with a situation where a person suffering violence or abuse at the hands of an intimate partner needs to move in with their abuser in order to access paid family and domestic violence leave to seek assistance. This would be an absurd outcome.
People experiencing violence in their home or at the hands of an intimate partner should have access to paid leave to escape or deal with such situations, and the changes made to the definition of family and domestic violence will ensure this is the case.
Employers are bearing the significant costs of family and domestic violence leave in the form of reduced productivity caused by absenteeism, recruitment and retraining costs. The costs to the national economy are huge, with estimates ranging between $12.6 and $22 billion per year, with the cost to employers being about $2 billion per year. Paid family and domestic violence will assist to reduce this cost.
The Government recognises that business will need some lead-in time to adjust their payroll systems to ensure this entitlement can be provided confidentially and appropriately to employees. The Government recognises that small businesses face a number of unique challenges. They often have lower cash flow and lack the sophisticated human resources capacity to administer this new leave entitlement and manage associated sensitive issues.
Support for small businesses is essential.
The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has consulted with business representatives on implementation. To assist business, the entitlement will have a phased commencement, with most businesses having around 6 months from the date of introduction, and small businesses will be afforded an additional 6 months to prepare. We will also be consulting on a package of implementation support measures for small business to assist with rolling out this entitlement.
It is a fair question to ask why the government is providing these lead times for business. Truth is, we wish the starting date was years ago rather than next year. But we need to ensure the entitlement is understood by workers and employers.
We don't want a worker being refused leave simply because the employer didn't understand the new entitlement. We want there to be a chance for business to work through essential principles such as, how to describe this on a payslip without using terms that could make an awful situation worse.
We will work with businesses, large and small, so they will be equipped to have a sensitive conversation with their employee, understand their obligations, and have appropriate mechanisms and payroll practices in place to sensitively manage leave information.
Gender equity, women's safety and women's economic security are at the heart of this Government's agenda.
We are serious about tackling family and domestic violence in Australia. In addition to paid family and domestic violence leave, our commitment includes measures to bring about long-term cultural change to tackle entrenched discriminatory attitudes and behaviours, as well as ensuring supports are in place to help people safely leave abusive situations. We are establishing a new Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Commission; investing $77 million in high quality consent and respectful relationships education in schools; and delivering more safe and affordable housing to assist women fleeing violence.
This Bill is an important part of that framework.
The Government might be introducing this Bill—but it didn't start with us. This Bill is the result of the tireless efforts of frontline workers, unions and gender equity advocates who have been campaigning for this entitlement for close to 15 years. In 2009, a group of experts from the Domestic Violence Clearing House at the University of New South Wales approached the trade union movement in NSW to discuss the possibility of a ground-breaking new paid leave entitlement to help workers impacted by family and domestic violence.
We acknowledge and thank one of those experts, Ludo McFerran, for her vision and her leadership on this issue over the past 15 years. Ludo drafted the first ever paid family and domestic violence clause. That first clause did not get up, but it set in train a nation-wide community and union campaign—a campaign which ends here today with this Bill.
In 2010, the Australian Services Union and the Surf Coast Shire Council in Victoria negotiated a collective agreement providing access to 20 days paid family and domestic violence leave for staff of the Council. As far as we know this was the very first example of this kind of entitlement anywhere in the world. Linda White was the Assistant National Secretary of the Australian Services Union at the time of this ground-breaking achievement, and is now a Labor Senator for Victoria. We acknowledge and thank her for the key role she has played in the development of this life-saving entitlement.
Since the first clause was negotiated in 2010, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its affiliates, including the Australian Services Union, which represents frontline family and domestic violence workers has led a national campaign to have the entitlement rolled out in more and more workplaces; with the mutual benefits for workers and employers increasingly recognised.
About 1.13 million employees now have access to paid family and domestic violence leave through collective bargaining between workers and employers. This legislation will take the figure from just over 1 million employees, to 11 million employees.
We would like to acknowledge our incredible frontline workforce who strive day-in and day-out to support and assist individuals and families impacted by violence; including our paramedics, doctors, nurses, police officers, community legal centre lawyers, educators and community sector workers.
We acknowledge you and thank you for your commitment to supporting those impacted by family and domestic violence. We respect and value your essential work.
We also acknowledge those in our community who have lost their lives due to family and domestic violence.
We recognise those we've lost, those who've survived, and those who still feel trapped.
This Bill is for you.
You have asked us to do more to help and we are here now getting this done for you.
This Bill will not by itself solve the problem of family and domestic violence; but it does mean no employee in Australia will ever again be forced to make a choice between earning a wage and protecting the safety of themselves and their families.
Debate adjourned.
Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022
In Committee
CLIMATE CHANGE BILL 2022
Consideration resumed.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Reynolds ) (11:32): The committee is considering the Climate Change Bill 2022 and a related bill, and amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1616, moved by Senator Waters.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (11:32): My question for the minister is a simple one. I have three very simple questions, one that leads from the other. It has been reported through Climate Analytics and Climate Council and widely reported in the media that the ALP's 2030 target of a 43 per cent emissions reduction is consistent with two degrees of warming globally. Do you agree with that characterisation, Minister?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (11:32): Thank you for the question, Senator Whish-Wilson. We've been very clear that the targets that we have adopted put us on a path to meet our Paris objective commitments. As you understand, the Paris Agreement asks the world to contain warming to less than two degrees and to leave open the possibility of containing it to 1½ degrees.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (11:33): You were very cute with your language there, Minister: 'path to meeting the Paris Agreement'. My colleague Mehreen Faruqi said publicly that your target failed the Paris Agreement. That was fact checked by AAP, who found that she was indeed correct, that your 43 per cent target is consistent with two degrees of warming, which is above the 1½ to well below two degrees of warming that is the Paris target. I'm going to assume that the two degrees is uncontroversial.
Minister, my second question to you is: do you also agree with the IPCC forecasts first released in November 2018? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change differentiated between 1½ degrees and two degrees in their impact on the ocean. It said that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees would likely be the difference between the survival of the Great Barrier Reef coral and its complete decline, according to the United Nations assessment of the climate science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report basically said that if global warming reaches two degrees, which is consistent with your target, more than 99 per cent of coral reefs were projected to decline this century, and indeed an annual bleaching event was expected on the Great Barrier Reef and the world's coral reefs. Minister, do you agree with the science and that characterisation by the IPCC?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (11:35): I think I have answered the question about our objectives. We are committed to the Paris Agreement. We are not only committed to reflecting those commitments in our own approach to policy here in Australia, but we are committed to participating in the global conversation to make sure that the world can reach those objectives because there is no disagreement between us on the questions you raise.
A warming world is dangerous for people and damaging to ecosystems. We have to do everything we can, as a country and as a globe, to contain warming. The Paris Agreement gives us the best chance of doing that. You will know better than I that the world has been through stops and starts in our ability to generate global momentum. It mattered a great deal to strike the agreement that was struck in Paris, and it matters, too, that at Glasgow the level of ambition globally was increased. It matters that businesses in Australia are being encouraged by investors globally to set their own targets. There is a momentum towards change and there is more that is going to need to be done.
But, Senator Whish-Wilson, I think where you are really going to is a question about our target. And I've answered that question already in response to questions from Senator Waters. We went to the election and sought a mandate, and we did it in a particular context. We did it in an environment where this country, under the government of those who now sit opposite, was unable to land an energy policy and unable to land a climate policy for nine years—a period in which almost nothing was done by the Commonwealth government on decarbonisation, where the heavy lifting was left to other people, to local communities, to businesses, to states and territories.
Going to an election and receiving a mandate, a wide mandate, to begin a process of change led by the Commonwealth is no small thing. You may think it's a small thing, and that's fine for the Greens. But for a party that seeks to be the party of government, taking a commitment to the election, having it scrutinised in the context of an election, having it debated with those opposite—who, as we've seen this morning, want to deny the science and want to dispute the objective of net zero emissions, as Senator Canavan did—means something. And it means something to walk into a room and to update your nationally determined contribution in the presence of AIG, the ACTU, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Clean Energy Council.
Building consensus, and bringing people with you, matters. We have a mandate for the target that is embedded in this legislation. We are pursuing the policies that we took to the election. That is actually more important than you appear to be willing to acknowledge.
Senator D UNIAM (Tasmania—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (11:38): Earlier on, at the very beginning of the committee stage, I did ask a question to the mover of this amendment around what modelling had been done with regard to the impact on retail power prices of inserting a 75 per cent reduction target. In response, at the end of her last contribution, the leader of the Australian Greens said she was flattered by the question, but she declined to answer. All I asked was what modelling, if any, existed. None has been provided, so I can only assume there is absolutely no regard for what impact this would have on household budgets. I presume that is the standard that we are now setting. We will just focus on one side of the equation and not the other.
I made the point earlier on, and I think it's not an unreasonable one, that in every decision we make we should balance the economy and the environment, which are two very fragile things. We would never make a decision purely on economic grounds, and nor should we ever. The days of those decisions are long gone, thankfully, but we should balance those decisions. The Greens do need to be held to account for such propositions. They aren't the party of government—and I hope they never will be. But when you come in here and try to alter legislation which, I believe, will have a very negative impact on something as simple as household power bills, you should answer the questions being asked about the amendment being put forward. I know that no modelling has been done. They refuse the answer the question. Let that be known publicly. So, I will then ask the minister: what modelling has been done on the impact on household power prices of your 43 per cent target?
Senator Whish-Wilson: Chair—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( S enator Reynolds ): We've had a question here, and I was giving the minister the opportunity to answer the question. But okay—Senator Whish-Wilson.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (11:40): I also had a question before the minister, before Senator Duniam jumped up. There are a couple of things. Senator Duniam, the 75 per cent target is not controversial. It's been modelled by the IPCC. It's well recognised that that is what is necessary for us to meet the Paris targets. This goes directly to this debate that we're having here today and this amendment before the chair that was put by Senator Waters. Seventy-five per cent is not controversial. And I wonder whether you have modelled the impact on power prices of the climate emergency in the next 20 or 30 years, from extreme heatwaves and extreme cold and floods. I bet you haven't thought about the cost of inaction, have you? Anyway, I do digress.
I would like to get back to my question to the minister. Minister, we also have a mandate—the Australian Greens. We have the balance of power in the Senate because millions of Australians voted for real climate action. It's entirely legitimate for us to be in here fighting for our mandate, as it is for Senator Pocock, for the people who voted for us and for climate action and the one in three Australians who now vote outside the two major parties. It might seem like a small thing, 1½ to two degrees. But Minister, I'm confused about your response here today. Regarding your target of 43 per cent, regardless of whether you feel you have a mandate for that—that's not the issue before the chair—the question is: does 43 per cent equate to an ambition of limiting global warming to two degrees this century? It clearly does. Two degrees is different to 1½ degrees. In fact, all the things we've seen, especially in the past decade—the extreme weather events we've seen in Australia, the fires, the floods, back-to-back bleachings on the Great Barrier Reef, a bleaching during a La Nina year, record La Nina weather in the past nine months—are all happening on one degree of warming above preindustrial levels.
We are talking about trying to hold that to 1½ degrees. To put that in perspective, that is 50 per cent warmer than the planet is right now. Your bill here today will double the amount of warming captured in this atmosphere this century—a 100 per cent increase. An ambition of 43 per cent by 2030 means a 100 per cent increase in warming on this planet. So, the difference between 1½ and two degrees is so material.
My second question to you is, do you agree with the IPCC assessment that if we can't limit warming to 1½ degrees then we will see an annual bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef and the loss of 99 per cent of the world's corals probably in our lifetime? That's how serious this is. This is not climate ambition. This is not what I've been fighting for in this place for the past nine years, during the swamp and desert years of the LNP, as they sat back and watched the fire burn the house down. This is not the climate ambition that Australians voted for. So we need to be very clear here. Why, Minister, are you, for example, opening up 46,000 square kilometres of new ocean acreage to oil and gas companies to explore for the exact product that, when they burn it, is killing our oceans and warming our planet and condemning future generations on this planet? Can you please explain to me—and I'm asking this in relation to the second reading amendment that was moved last night in here by my colleague Senator Shoebridge—why you are opening up new areas of ocean to oil and gas exploration in a time of climate emergency while you are trying to limit emissions and Australia's emissions ambition?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (11:45): Thanks for your question and for what I'm going to take as a long preamble, Senator Whish-Wilson. You asked a specific question about acreage release, and I will answer that, perhaps by saying that we're fully committed to delivering on our 2030 and 2050 climate targets. It's why we're here today and it's why we're debating it.
The release of offshore areas for greenhouse gas storage and petroleum exploration is an annual process. While we are quickly scaling up renewables, other forms of energy, such as gas and oil, continue to play a part in our energy mix. Our approach is to reduce emissions while growing the economy and supporting key industries, and we are working with industry as a partner on our journey. We understand that gas is not a low-emissions fuel, but it does play an important part in helping to power communities by firming and peaking electricity and as a feedstock and source of heat for industry.
Equally, we understand the changing and reduced role that fossil fuels, like gas, will play in a decarbonising global economy. But the truth is that the best way to drive down emissions is with policy certainty, and that is the purpose of the legislation that is before us today.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:46): Firstly, Minister, I agree with you that there is evidence of confusion besetting the coalition. It has been doing so since John Howard's prime ministership in the early 2000s, when he changed his mind on climate and later admitted that he was agnostic on the climate science.
Minister, I will be reading your papers yet again, but let me ask you—because you have still not answered—what is the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate factor? I would like to know that number. That is fundamental to the basis of any policy or legislation. No-one has provided it anywhere in the world. This is your bill. You need to provide it.
Secondly, I only need that specific, quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity. If you provide it and it's accurate, then I'll be silent. This issue long ago became a matter not of science or of the environment; it became a matter of integrity. We've got hypocritical parasitic billionaires doing a reverse Robin Hood, stealing via a highly regressive tax from the poor and the vulnerable—and you endorse that. We've got a Paris Agreement that is not an agreement. In the Paris Agreement they agreed that each country would do whatever it wanted to do. China said, 'Up yours; we're not doing anything!' India said the same. But Australia said, 'We will gut our economy.' And now you're going to ramp it up even further.
I'd like your view on this, Minister. Senator Whish-Wilson said that his party has a mandate. Mandates do not supplant science. Mandates based on positions that are based on lies are not mandates. Until you provide this Senate and the people of Australia with the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on the climate, or any climate or weather factor, you will not have a mandate.
Senator Whish-Wilson raised the IPCC. Let's have a look at the creator of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Senator Whish-Wilson: Put your tinfoil hats on, everyone! Here it comes!
Honourable senators interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order in the chamber! Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Rennick: Senator Roberts will be heard in silence.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The late Maurice Strong was the first Director-General of the United Nations Environment Program, a position that he created for himself after he formed the UN Environment Program. He became the first Secretary-General later on that year, in 1972. Maurice Strong is the concoctor of climate alarm. After forming the IPCC in 1988—at his instigation—he wanted to create an aura of scientific endorsement. Never has the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided any specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate—never! He created an aura of scientific endorsement. He entrenched climate alarm through fermenting the staged illusion of grassroots movements and UN conferences, including Rio in 1992, which formed Agenda 21; Kyoto in 1997, which formed the UN Kyoto Protocol; and Paris in 2015, just after he died.
At the same time, Strong built systems to drive behaviour and enrich himself. Maurice Strong formed and part owned the Chicago Climate Exchange for global trading of carbon dioxide credits. Al Gore invested in that. In 2007 Kevin Rudd, as Labor leader and predecessor to the current Prime Minister, brought Gore to Australia to peddle climate alarm with the intention of starting Labor's emissions trading scheme, involving carbon dioxide credits that would ultimately be traded on Maurice Strong and Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange.
Separately, law enforcement agencies have reportedly sought Strong for alleged serious criminal charges and then reportedly he exiled himself in China. This is the man who created climate alarm. This is the man on who your policies are based. Strong had been Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and used that position to push unfounded climate alarm via the United Nations and later combined with the World Economic Forum. He was founding Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program, responsible for the deaths of 40 to 50 million people from malaria when the United Nations Environment Program drove the ban on the insecticide DDT, and did so contrary to the science. That man had a track record of contradicting the science, vilifying the science, usurping the science and then claiming the science. He's basically been responsible for the deaths of millions of people and now wants to impoverish the world.
He's made two stated aims of his life. His first is to put in place an unelected socialist global governance, which we can see the evidence of almost daily around the world and particularly in this country. His second objective was to deindustrialise Western civilisation.
The senior level of many of the leaders of the United Nations have said that they want to put in place a new world order. That's what this is about. It is about control of energy, control of property, control of water, control of resources. It's control of society through the United Nations environmental program and then through the United Nations Agenda 21. Are you aware of these facts, Minister?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (11:52): I want to return to the question before the chair just briefly, which is the Greens' amendment. I haven't made a contribution to this, but I asked a couple of questions of the Greens, of Senator Waters and the amendment she moved. Very briefly and quickly the questions were: is there any escape clause, if you like, for Australia if other countries don't act and reduce their emissions to the proposed 75 per cent? Can we not go through with it or are we locked in? The other question was: why are the Greens expecting a different outcome in Australia than in the UK, who have committed to a 78 per cent reduction by 2035—a very similar target—and are in a complete and utter mess right now, at least in part thanks to that target?
Not only have I not received answers to those questions, the leader of the Greens in the Senate, Senator Waters, had the temerity to stand up and dismiss it and say: 'We don't need to answer that, because this is about a government bill.' She's too good to answer questions.
I think it's very important to point out that the Australian Greens are very good at asking for transparency and information from other groups, from the government and from us when we were in government, but when the shoe's on the other foot and they are moving an amendment, they are seeking to change our nation's laws—it's their proposal not anyone else's—they refuse to answer basic questions about their own proposal. If nothing else, that is why we should vote this down, because they are not a responsible political party. This is clearly a stunt from Senator Waters, not a sensible and realistic attempt to change these laws, because she won't even answer basic questions about her proposals. I give respect: at least the government minister has answered a number of questions in this place through this committee process. But this is a committee of the whole; it's not a committee just to look after the government. It's not Senate estimates. It's a committee of the whole. If you are going to come into the committee of the whole and move amendments, you should be expected to answer questions about the amendments you are moving. If you can't answer those questions, we certainly should say no to this amendment. That's what we should do.
I briefly want to also take issue with the many interjections—the remarks might have been in contributions, but at least in interjections—saying, 'You're just in the pockets of the fossil fuel companies.' Apparently we're all funded by the fossil fuel companies. We all know, don't we, that there's no money in renewable energy! No-one makes any money out of renewable energy! It's all a charitable act! We know all the companies in the renewable energy space, and they're all doing it out of the goodness of their hearts! They don't make money, they don't have dividends, they don't have shareholders—it's all just charity! I just want to pay tribute and respect to all of those hardworking Australian investors out there who are building wind turbines and putting up solar farms and don't expect anything in return! They don't expect anything! All those people importing solar panels made from Uighur slave labour—they're good, charitable organisations! I will not stand here and have a word said against them!
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:56): Can I indicate to the Senate, we have quite a number of amendments that Senator Pocock and others wish to move. I have had an indication—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator WONG: Actually, I think the difference between us and them is that when senior people on that side said, 'We will try to resolve the debate,' my people did the right thing. Whereas, on your side, when your people say that you are going to try to move to the next amendment, you all jump. I understand there's a lot of division inside your party room. Can I make this point: this is debate where people have very different views. I accept that and I respect that. I disagree fundamentally with the position Senator Canavan puts. Nothing I say will change his mind, and nothing he says will change mine. We do have some new crossbenchers in here, including Senator Pocock, who do wish to have the opportunity to move their amendments and speak to them. So I would ask the opposition and the crossbench—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator WONG: We have time. I'm asking for some courtesy. All I'm asking—
Senator Canavan interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Reynolds ): Senator Canavan, Senator Wong has the call.
Senator WONG: I'm simply asking that we vote on this amendment, allow Senator Pocock to move the amendments he has circulated, and then you can do all you want through the rest of the committee stage. But it would be good if we could get through at least the first amendment, so that other senators could have the opportunity to put their views. They also have views, Senator Canavan. As a matter of courtesy, I'm requesting that. If the chamber doesn't wish to do that, it's a matter for the chamber.
The TE MPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1616 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [12:03]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Reynolds)
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (12:06): by leave—I move Climate Change Bill 2022 amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1621 and Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 amendment (1) on sheet 1620 together.
CLIMATE CHANGE BILL 2022
(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 24), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (f) risks to Australia from climate change impacts, such as those relating to Australia's environment, biodiversity, health, infrastructure, agriculture, investment, economy or national security.
(2) Clause 14, page 8 (line 24), after "subsection (1)", insert "in relation to the first annual climate change statement".
(3) Clause 14, page 8 (after line 25), after subclause (3), insert:
(3A) In considering advice to be given to the Minister under subsection (1) in relation to:
(a) the second annual climate change statement; or
(b) a subsequent annual climate change statement;
the Climate Change Authority must make provision for public consultation.
(4) Clause 14, page 9 (line 5), after "website", insert "no later than the day the annual climate change statement to which the advice relates is tabled in a House of the Parliament in accordance with subsection 12(3)".
(5) Clause 14, page 9 (lines 7 and 8), omit "Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister", substitute:
Parliament:
(i) within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister; and
(ii) no later than the day the annual climate change statement to which the advice relates is tabled in that House in accordance with subsection 12(3).
CLIMATE CHANGE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2022
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 2, insert:
2A At the end of section 8
Add:
Note: Paragraph (f) allows additional functions to be prescribed related to renewable energy technologies as well as electrification technologies or energy efficiency technologies.
The first amendment on sheet 1621 requires that the annual climate change statement consider the risks presented by climate change. Climate change presents unparalleled risks to the systems that support life on this planet and all the people and places we love, including the future of the young people observing us today.
Climate change is already affecting Australian farmers. ABARES data shows that the average broadacre farmer in Australia has lost 22 per cent of their profits since the year 2000 due to the impacts of climate change. Proper consideration of these risks leaves us with no option but bold action to reduce emissions. This amendment will allow the Australian people to hold the government to account if it fails to mitigate against the risks of climate change.
Amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 1621 require that there is public consultation before the annual statement on climate change. These amendments will allow the scientific community and the broader Australian community to make clear the risks of inaction and the benefits of action.
Amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1621 require advice from the Climate Change Authority be made public before or at the same time as the annual statement on climate change. The explanatory memorandum to this bill uses the words 'accountability' and 'transparency' 18 times. This amendment means that if advice is not accepted, the government can be called out. This is fundamental to transparency and accountability.
The amendment on sheet 1620 relates to ARENA. During the inquiry into the bill, concerns were raised in relation to the scope for ARENA to fund non-renewable energy sources and other problematic technologies. This amendment closes potential loopholes that could allow ARENA to fund such technologies.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:09): Thank you, Senator Pocock. We support these amendments, which improve the Climate Change Bill and are consistent with our intention to both legislate the targets and make the government accountable for meeting them. We consider that the risks to Australia from the impacts of climate change are real. We have to reduce emissions to avoid the worse of these impacts. But we're already living with the impacts of climate change, and making progress on climate adaptation is one of the key issues that I will be progressing for the government. The amendments also ensure that the authority must consult on climate change statements, while recognising that consultation for this year is difficult in the time available. They also ensure that the authority's advice on the annual statement is not hidden when the statement is delivered to the parliament.
Finally, we also support the amendment that you have circulated on sheet 1620 in relation to the prescribed functions of ARENA. We established ARENA when last in government to support renewable energy, and we have opposed numerous attempts by the previous government, first, to abolish ARENA and then to make regulations to force ARENA to invest in the then government's pet projects such as fossil fuel-based hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. Your amendments are important in clarifying the functions of that organisation. More broadly, we thank you for your engagement—or I should say, through the Chair, we thank Senator Pocock for his engagement with us and his work to improve the bills.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:11): I just have a few questions for the minister around the issues that Senator Pocock's amendments go to, which is increasing the transparency and accountability for not just this government but future Australian governments in ensuring that our ambition on climate change and lowering emissions is reflected in measurement and accountability pieces throughout the government's systems so that Australians can be very clear on where the benefits of action on climate change occur and where there are clearly 'disbenefits', to quote some of the mayors from the mining communities' submission to the inquiry on this bill.
Minister, when I look at the nationally determined contribution, which was changed rightfully on your government winning the election and having a mandate to change our ambition as a nation on climate change, one of the first things you did was remove from that document a five-yearly review of the impacts of our climate ambition on rural and regional Australia. We have heard time and time again, in the inquiry and in this place and out in our communities, that, yes, on a pathway to net zero by 2050 there will be opportunities for our communities and our industries. But you're kidding yourselves if you don't think there are going to be challenges for these industries and these communities. It is not just the National Party that is saying it; it's the union movement as well.
Part of our role as legislators is to think about, when we implement these policies, making sure we mitigate some of the negative impacts on those communities. We all know who they are, and we all know where they are. It is why our government, in securing a pathway to net zero, combined that with over $20 billion of new money to support these communities, to seize the opportunities that a pathway to net zero by 2050 would bring, but to help them overcome the challenges. You are choosing to legislate your target, which you didn't have to do. You yourselves have admitted that it is unnecessary and largely symbolic. It'll cause a whole heap of unintended consequences, and I outlined some of those in my second reading speech last night.
But in setting that ambitious target without putting in place significant support and programs and projects to support rural and regional communities, you're setting them up to fail and you are causing an incredible amount of stress and concern in our mining communities, our agriculture communities, our manufacturing communities. So, my question to you—and I have a range of them—is: why did you remove the five-yearly clause that we got written in so that future governments, before they update our nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement, have actual data, not just on the benefits but on the impact? Even if you look at Europe and what they're going through at the moment, it's not all going to be plain sailing, so we need to be cognisant and aware of that so we can assist our communities on this journey.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:15): Thank you for your question, Senator McKenzie. I find myself unable to agree with your characterisation of the regime that is being legislated. The Paris Agreement in fact requires signatories to update their contributions every five years; it is baked into the Paris Agreement. The regime that we are implementing requires government to seek independent advice on every occasion, in each of those five-year intervals, when we seek to update our agreement. So it meets the objective that you establish, which is that the benefits and impacts of the targets that are adopted by the Australian government be independently considered and advice be provided, both to the minister and publicly. That is the nature of the regime that is being proposed in the bill before you today.
What is most curious, though, about this is that when a specific proposition was put in the other place, your colleagues in the Liberal and National Party not only voted against it, but called for a division so they would be on the record voting against the amendments put in the other place to ensure that the interests of rural and regional communities were considered in that advice. I find that very strange, actually almost incomprehensible. So, yes, we do think that regional economic development is important, and our policies are expected to result in an additional 604,000 jobs to 2030, with five out of six of those jobs in the regions.
What is harder to understand is why the National Party and the Liberal Party teamed up in the other place to prevent an examination of those issues in the reports provided by the Climate Change Authority to the parliament.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:17): Minister, that wasn't my question. Somebody had to come in and help the Albenese government appreciate that their ambition was going to impact the regions. You needed to just check with the AWU; they would have been very, very happy to tell you what that impact would have been. You raced off to update our nationally determined contribution, and I'm happy to table your 2022 change to our NDC where you explicitly remove what we had put in, which was the five-yearly updated review.
You stand up here today and you make an argument like it was all Albo's and Bowen's kind of plan the whole time to make sure that rural and regional Australia impact would be part of your plan, but it wasn't. Getting the Climate Authority to do this and only look at the benefits is the concern of mining communities, Labor towns, around the country have with your bill. A much more rigorous, authentic and genuine way to address that concern would be to have a five-yearly review by the Productivity Commission. So if you were serious about actually genuinely understanding the impact, and therefore ponying up on levels of support for those communities, then you would be supporting our amendment around the Productivity Commission. I think it's the height of cheek to come here into this chamber and make out like it was always the Labor Party's plan, because it wasn't, because if you read what you put forward in our nationally determined contribution, there is no mention of a review, there is no mention of analysis specific to rural and regional communities, and that's just a fact.
My second question to you is: given that the impact is unquestionable, the desire to move on a pathway to net zero by 2050 is occurring, what guarantee will rural and regional Australians have in your October budget around the programs that our government put in place to support those communities around the country—over $21 billion of new money? What guarantee do those communities have that your government recognises that there will be benefits and challenges for different places in our country?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): Before I call the minister, I just remind you, Senator McKenzie, to use the titles of people from the other place. Show them that respect. I didn't pull you up, but I will in future.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:20): Rural and regional communities can be absolutely assured that this government is committed to the jobs and industries that will come from clean energy transition, and will in fact secure the futures of regional communities.
We know that there may be changes in some communities. No-one denies that. And had Liberal members of your government decided to attend the Jobs and Skills Summit, they would have observed a very extended discussion between a range of stakeholders about the way that we will support communities to transition. At least part of that response lies in the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which will provide various forms of support for new jobs and industries with a focus, in part, on clean technology and with a strong focus on regional communities.
Unfortunately, the actual consequence of the policy settings that have been in place for the last nine years, under the previous government—your government—have meant that regional communities have not been able to benefit from the scale of investment that would otherwise have occurred had there been certainty for investors about the energy transition underway. We know that because during the period of your government, those investors, those businesses, came before parliamentary committees over and over again and said to us that this was the case. They said to us that the consequence of having 22 different energy policies, none of which was ever landed, was that a whole series of investments didn't take place. That has direct costs, but it also has downstream costs.
During that same period, four gigawatts of capacity left the energy system, and only one gigawatt was invested to replace it. That makes a real difference to manufacturing operations; it makes a real difference to power prices; it makes a real difference to the capacity of the National Electricity Market to perform its functions, and all of those challenges are on your head.
So Australians find themselves in a very difficult situation, and we are working methodically and carefully with industry to resolve it. Providing business certainty about our approach to climate and to energy is part of the repair job that is currently underway.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Before I give you the call, Senator McKenzie, I just want to check something with Senator Pocock. When you moved your amendment, you said sheet 1621, amendments (1) to (5). On the sheet it says (1) to (6). Are you still including (6)?
Senator David Pocock: To clarify, Chair, I excluded (6). It's only (1) to (5).
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Are you going to move (6) separately?
Senator David Pocock: No, I'll withdraw that.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you for that clarification. Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:23): Minister, I know it's part of your talking points to talk about a decade of delay in this policy area et cetera, et cetera, but you're in government now. We heard, through the Senate inquiry, the real impacts—positive and negative—that this change will have on rural and regional communities, on working-class people across this country. So for you to stand up and look backwards when you're about to bring down a budget—it was a very simple question: will you guarantee the projects and programs that were the first tranche of investment that our government put on the table while on a pathway to net zero by 2050? Things like $1.5 billion to diversify the Pilbara. Things like $2 billion for our Regional Accelerator Program for the regions, where communities that had the ambition to grow and diversify were going to be supported through developing and harnessing manufacturing capability and the like. Things like $750 million to diversify the Hunter. Things like over $2 billion for the Northern Territory. Actual money on the table for things to assist these communities and their working families to deal with what is legitimately coming. We've all got on the same page. Everybody had been talking a big game that there was not going to be anybody seriously impacted by this, but you were kidding yourselves. You are finally able to admit that, and I thank the union movement for assisting with that. The reality is when you look at the EU on this question, they put hundreds of billions of euros on the table to help regions overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities. It is a pretty simple proposition: The money was budgeted for, over $20 billion specifically to this end, in the last budget. Will you guarantee that money will continue to flow? We care about these communities; we thought very long and hard about the types of projects and programs that would help them over the next four or five years with this transition.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:26): Senator McKenzie will find that decisions contained in the budget will be announced on budget night.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:26): Minister, the Senate committee that inquired into this bill heard stark evidence of how the burning of wood from native forests for energy can in no way be considered renewable and in fact very clear evidence that burning native forest wood for energy actually emits more emissions than coal. So I'm pleased that in your speech last night you committed to the Senate committee recommendation to review the renewable energy status of wood from native forests, noting that Labor rejected classifying the burning of wood from native forests as renewable in both 2011 and 2015, and I urge you and the government—and scientists and forest protectors are urging you—to make this change as a critical part of protecting our forests. I also want to go more broadly to the importance of protecting our forests and the link with acting on climate and bring to your attention the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessment. They found in their Sixth Assessment Report earlier this year that the protection, improved management and restoration of forests and other ecosystems have the largest potential to reduce emissions and/or sequester carbon and that safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems is fundamental to climate resilience development.
So I've got two questions that I want to ask you, and I'm going to ask them both at once in the interests of time. Firstly on that latter point, in light of those findings from the IPCC I want to know what work the government is doing or is intending to do on the bigger picture to assess protecting Australian forests for their value in carbon sequestration and storage. My second one, then, is asking whether you could give us some more details, please, on the process that you outlined last night, where you said that you were going to:
… release a consultation paper … consider next steps in light of the results of that consultation and look to make any necessary changes to the regulations by the end of the year.
But then you committed to:
… exploring further amendments to primary and subordinate legislation to embed the targets and the Paris Agreement into a wider set of relevant legislations and schemes.
So I want to know the potential of embedding protection of forests and not considering wood from native forests as a renewable in further work down the track.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (12:29): I want to return to the amendments before you, Chair. Senator Pocock has suggested some amendments to provide for a review mechanism of certain particular impacts. An amendment that dealt with similar issues from Dr Haines went through the House, and it was very general. I note Senator Pocock has been a little bit more specific with his proposal. The Haines amendment was quite general. So I wanted to ask the government: to what extent would the Haines amendment, if you like, and the reviews now contained in this bill before us allow and provide for a benchmark of electricity prices over the next decade against what was promised in the Labor Party's Powering Australia plan?
The bill before this place is one element of the Powering Australia plan that the Labor Party took to the election, and in that plan they made very specific promises about what Australians could expect from the implementation of their climate policies. In particular, I read from—I'm just finding the page number, but there are no page numbers! Sorry, it is page 4; it's just landscape. Thanks for clarifying that. On page 4 of the Powering Australia plan it says, 'It'—with 'it' being their Powering Australia policy—'will bring down household power bills by $275 in 2025'—just three Christmases away—'and $378 in 2030.' We've heard about the $275, but we don't hear as much about the $378. The Prime Minister mentioned the $275 20-odd times during the campaign.
Senator Duniam: Ninety-seven times!
Senator CANAVAN: Ninety-seven times, thank you, Senator Duniam. Nearly 100 times, the Prime Minister promised the Australian people before they voted that he would lower their power bills, by implementing these policies, by $275 a year. Their policy said it would be by $378 by 2030. We all know that since the election, since people have been hoodwinked into voting for this plan, the Labor Party hasn't mentioned the $275. It won't come from their mouths. Hopefully Senator McAllister will inform us about this $275 promise where the Prime Minister has refused to provide clarity.
We do now have this review mechanism. Because of the Haines amendment there is a review mechanism, and Senator Pocock is suggesting it go a little bit further and be more specific. So my question is: will the Haines amendment and/or the Pocock amendment allow for the benchmarking of the promise made to the Australian people? Will we see through these reviews what has happened to power prices and how it compares to what Labor promised their climate policy would achieve?
I note that there already has been substantial criticism of the Labor Party's modelling of that figure. They released a related report on their Powering Australia policy, a modelling report by RepuTex, but by modelling report standards it was fairly skinny on detail. It didn't provide much detail on the assumptions that were made going into this report, nor did it include any related spreadsheets or tabulation of these figures. It would seem that the Labor Party has made a schoolboy error here, for want of a better term, on their calculations. Perhaps it explains why they are so shy about repeating a promise that they made very prominent in their campaign, and which presumably did influence a number of Australians about how they voted. I know that, at the election, living costs were a major issue for people, and the Labor Party were out there, saying: 'Hey, we're going to save you nearly 300 bucks. Vote for us!' But now they won't speak that number.
The modelling from the Labor Party showed, or purported to show—like all modelling, it's not gospel—that if you implemented the 43 per cent target and a range of other policy measures that Labor had promised, wholesale power prices would fall by 30 per cent. What the Labor Party seems to have done, from the skinny amount of detail we have, is that they've taken the 30 per cent drop in wholesale prices and said that retail prices will also drop by 30 per cent, giving you the $275 figure.
Now, business is not the Labor Party's strength. We all know that. But even if you didn't know a lot about the electricity market, you'd probably know that the wholesale cost of something typically is only a proportion of the retail cost of something. In the old days, if you had a Campbells cash carry card, you could go down and buy a bunch of red frogs at a cheaper price because the wholesale price was cheaper than the price in the retail store. That's how the electricity market works. The wholesale costs of power, which are traded on a 30-minute interval every day, are paid for by the large retail companies, large customers who are buying a lot of power, who then on-sell that power to others. So the wholesale costs generally, to simplify matters, are the price of power as it leaves the power plant, as it leaves the solar farm. That's the cost up to that point.
But of course we don't hook our electrical appliances into a coal-fired power plant. We don't hook them straight into a solar farm. Power then has to be transported over large transmission lines. The voltage has to change, it has to go to distribution networks, and the retail companies themselves have costs and overheads associated with billing and customer management et cetera. The wholesale prices typically are only about a third of the total cost that you pay or a household pays in your electricity bill every quarter.
So the Labor Party are only out by a factor of three. They have estimated that the wholesale power costs will come down by 30 per cent. Then they promised the Australian people: your power bills will come down by effectively 30 per cent—the $275 figure. But they forgot to do the calculations in between—it should actually be a 10 per cent reduction, roughly, in power prices, not a 30 per cent reduction.
They've never really come to answer the question about these criticisms. As I said, these criticisms have been public and well known in the economic modelling community, which I used to sometimes be involved in. RepuTex, Labor's modellers, have been very scant in replying to these criticisms. But it is the modelling that the Labor Party stood behind and that they promised to the Australian people, so I think it is absolutely relevant for the minister here to tell the parliament and the Australian people: were there mistakes in the Australian Labor Party's modelling? Do they stand behind that modelling? Do they accept the criticisms that have been made about the mistake that seemingly was made between wholesale and retail power costs? Do they accept that? Do they stand behind everything that RepuTex says? We deserve to know that before we vote on this plan. It may have been a mistake to defraud the Australian people; it would be a catastrophic error to defraud the Australian parliament as well. That's what is before us here right now.
We already know the Australian people have been hoodwinked on this issue, but it's our job here in the Senate to scrutinise and evaluate the detail of the government's plan. Because of these unexplained errors that have been identified, I think it is very important, before we vote on this legislation and/or Senator Pocock's amendment about reviews, that the minister and the government come clean on their modelling and these issues that have been raised in a way they have refused to in the public domain. They have refused to answer these questions properly out in the public. But it is our job here—we should sit here as long as we need to. I'm on the clock for the Australian people. I'm happy to stay here as long as we need to, to get answers for the Australian people. As I said, this was not a little issue. This was not a non-core promise. This was a key part of the Labor Party's election platform, which they have walked away, ducked and weaved from being held to account for. Well, now is the time, before we vote for this.
Other senators, particularly new senators, like Senator Pocock: don't let the government get away with this. You have the power here to hold the government to account to provide a detailed and sufficient explanation to the Australian people about their election promises, about the work and analysis that was done to make those promises, before we vote on anything. As I said, we can stay here as long as we need to, to get these answers. Let's do that. Let's actually do our jobs as senators. Let's not be a rubber stamp; let's actually be a magnifying glass that gets to the fine print in the Powering Australia plan and identifies a number of deficiencies in this Powering Australia plan that the Labor Party released. We deserve to know the extent of those deficiencies before we vote on the plan here.
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (12:38): I'm pleased to continue this discussion. Senator Canavan made some very excellent points about modelling. But I'm not here to talk about modelling. I actually want to talk about measuring—about measuring data. Senator Canavan is an economist; I'm an accountant. The difference between economists and accountants is that we accountants actually have to count the real numbers.
It's interesting that in my first ever Senate inquiry—it was a Senate inquiry into the Great Barrier Reef—my first ever question, to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, was: 'Do you have a database of all the health KPIs relating to the reef that demonstrates a change or a trend from 1980?' That's when they first started recording data, or pretended to record data. The lady who was the head of the Australian Institute of Marine Science at the time spent the next seven minutes avoiding answering the question. All I wanted to know was: are these so-called scientists actually recording and measuring things like coral cover, things like coral growth rates, things like dissolved nitrogen, things like seagrass? And the answer is no. This is the problem. They make these extreme statements, like Senator Whish-Wilson did before, about how the Great Barrier Reef is dying. That's completely wrong, because the recent data has shown that coral cover is now at record highs.
It's very important to look into the detail of how this stuff is measured. Take coral bleaching, for example. They do these runs over the coral where they've got about a 50-metre boom on the back of each side of the boat, and that runs for about a kilometre. If they happen to find one little bit of bleaching on any coral, that entire area is then deemed to be bleached. That is so, so misleading.
Later that afternoon, the Queensland department of natural resources turned up. One of the great things I love about our federation is there's always a wrangle between the two levels of government. The Queensland department of natural resources is responsible for measuring run-off from the waterways on our big rivers, especially our big rivers in North Queensland. I asked them what the margin of error was and what their confidence interval was in terms of their measurements of dissolved nitrogen as it ran out of the river. Their response was—and I have to say I was quite shocked—between 60 and 90 per cent. In other words, their accuracy isn't even much better than a coin toss. This is something we see quite a lot of.
Now we jump to our old good friends at the Bureau of Meteorology. I'm not sure if the people upstairs understand that we actually have three databases of temperature in this country. We have the raw data set, we have the ACORN-SAT 1 and we have the ACORN-SAT 2 dataset. Most people don't realise that when the media now report the change in temperature over the last hundred years they're actually reporting using the ACORN-SAT 2 dataset. The Bureau of Meteorology themselves admit that they fudge their numbers.
I will give you one example, which is Marble Bar. There've been 13 adjustments. Don't laugh, Senator McAllister; this is serious, and you need to take note of this, because this will be a question. There've been 13 adjustments to Marble Bar. Seven of them are statistical. In the little sub-footnote they say, 'We don't have to provide any documentary evidence for this.' So, out of the 13 amendments—and some of them are valid, like you move a weather station, so you may have to adjust for different things. I get that. Sometimes you have to homogenise data, or at least try to work out what it would have been had you not moved. One thing they didn't do I'll touch on in a minute. But of course, they won't do that. They just go: 'We don't have to provide data.'
The problem with that is they have a supercomputer that homogenises the data. The Bureau of Meteorology have admitted to me in estimates that this supercomputer has made 450 million iterations to the maximum temperature at Marble Bar and 250 million iterations to the minimum temperature at Marble Bar. What sort of a clown show are we running in this country when we're spending billions of dollars to try and control the temperature or limit the rise in temperature, and the way the actual temperature is being measured is being manipulated by a supercomputer that makes 450 million iterations? And when you actually want to then go and dive down into the detail, they say, 'We don't have to provide any documentary evidence.' If I did that as an accountant, if I went back and amended prior year records of a set of financial statements, I'd be thrown in jail.
I'll just have another shot at Senator Canavan here: economists can change their models all the time. That's the thing with models, you can change models all the time, but when it comes to real data, when you take that temperature measurement—
Senator Canavan interjecting—
Senator RENNICK: That's true. With models you just fudge numbers, you change your assumptions, blah, blah, blah. But you don't get to do that. If I say I've got a million dollars in the bank or I've got shares in a company and it says you've got a million dollars in the bank, you'd better have a million dollars in the bank. You can't just go around fudging real data. I've asked the ABC about this in estimates, as well, because they report what the bureau calls homogenised data, what I call fudged numbers. If any other organisation did it they'd be thrown in gaol.
I'm not saying the way the temperature was measured a hundred years ago was always accurate, either, but the way you report it is with a margin of error. You can't just go and change the number, because you don't know how much it's changed in the last hundred years, so you're guessing.
Anyway, I want to talk about one other thing, this whole idea of job creation in the regions. Let me tell you that that is not the case. I happen to come from south-western Queensland, and the devastation to four great rural communities—Cunnamulla, Quilpie, Charleville and Thargomindah—because of the laws around mulga clearing has absolutely gutted that part of the world. The mulga blocks are being brought by foreign corporations, and they're being locked up for carbon storage. When the farmers sell out, they move out of the shires, so those regions are suffering because their populations are declining. You've now got unmanaged mulga, and, let me tell you, you have to manage your mulga. You have to constantly push it. It used to be a lot of Mitchell grass—it wasn't always all Mitchell grass—but you need to keep it relatively open. What we've now got means we're going to have an overrun of feral pigs and feral goats. Dingos are getting out there again, and that's not good. Then it will eventually be a fire hazard—heaven forbid. Luckily it's acacia and not eucalypts, but it can burn and, if it gets going, it will burn.
I'd also like to talk about my home town of Chinchilla and how you're going to create jobs. I note Senator Pocock said, because he listens to ABARES, that farmers' incomes are off 20 per cent. Well, I tell you that's not due to climate change. That' due to all the red tape and green tape around climate change. I know one farmer who brought a property at Chinchilla recently, and he had to find out what he can do in cultivation A little part of it was zoned a blue zone, so he went to confirm this with the department of natural resources. He also had to confirm it with another department in Queensland, the environment department. Guess what? They came back with a different definition of what the blue zone was. Then this farmer had to employ a consultant to go back to the bureaucrats to get them to work together to define what the blue zone was, because of these stupid arbitrary laws that the government makes up.
This sort of constant red tape and green tape out there is absolutely killing our farmers. These guys are the backbone of the country. I note that we've got 40 different models to determine net zero and all these arbitrary crazy models on different regulations—they discount coal, for example, at 14 per cent but they discount renewables at seven per cent; that's a great way to fudge a set of numbers. That's what we see. My question is: what dataset will the Labor Party be using? Will they use the dataset that's recorded at the time the temperature is measured, or will the Bureau of Meteorology continue to go back and change prior years' data in order to push their narrative and the Labor Party's narrative?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (12:48): I have a question for the minister, and then I'll have a series of other questions. Firstly, Minister, could you please clarify or define what you mean by 'net zero'. Senator Wong failed yesterday, but we'd like you to have a shot. Secondly, how exactly will net zero be achieved in Australia—exactly? Thirdly, how much will this plan—well, it's not a plan because we've seen no plan—how much will this goose chase cost to achieve net zero in Australia?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:48): There are a number of questions asked by senators, and I thought it best perhaps to let people get their questions out before taking up any more of the Senate's time. I'll start with the questions that Senator Rice asked me. Her primary interest was in understanding more about the government's response to the recommendation made by the Senate committee when they were reviewing the bill, and in particular the recommendation that goes to the eligibility requirements for native forest wood waste in the Renewable Energy Target. We accept this recommendation, and I made a few remarks about this last night, but I will put it on the record again. The concerns raised—and I understand the committee heard a good deal about this—relate to a decision by the Abbott government in 2015 to change regulations and put native forest wood waste back into the scheme. That was a decision that we opposed at the time. As the minister said in the House of Representatives, and recently in the media, we are happy to consider the concerns raised. The government will consult on changes to the relevant regulations. The issue raised is a technical issue with eligibility requirements under the Renewable Energy Target. Our response to that recommendation shouldn't be understood as a reflection on the government's general support for sustainable native forest industries and the workers that depend on those industries.
I understand that the industry is generally looking for higher-value uses for native forest products and electricity generation, and we note the evidence from the Clean Energy Regulator to the Senate inquiry that the use of this particular fuel source is not economic, with only one small project currently registered. Nonetheless, we do agree that consultation on this issue is important, we want to make sure that any changes are understood by stakeholders, and we want to make sure that issues for the existing project could be considered. We would aim for any necessary changes to the regulations as a consequence of that consultative process to be made before the end of the year.
Senator Rice also, I think, noted the recommendation from the committee report which asked the government to undertake further consultation on possible legislative amendments and appropriate policy responses. The government has already committed to this. We intend to look at additional amendments to legislation or subordinate instruments over the next year to further embed the targets and the Paris Agreement into relevant schemes. We're happy to do so, and we look forward to consulting with interested stakeholders during this process.
Finally, I note Senator Rice's advocacy for the significance of native forests as an opportunity for sequestration. The government is of course interested in opportunities to maximise sequestration. The land use sector is a core part of our response to climate change. It offers very significant opportunities, and I note that there are many in the agriculture sector who are looking to take advantage of those opportunities under schemes that have been in place for quite some time now.
The questions from the opposition are a little different in character, because, again, we have had contributions that essentially dispute the value of perusing a net zero objective, despite the fact that this appears to be an opposition policy, but that is of no concern to Senator Canavan. And then there was a series of objections from Senator Rennick, which are a little harder to get one's head around, shall we say, in this environment. The curious thing is that on these questions the coalition seem to be increasingly isolated from the stakeholders that they claim to represent.
What did the National Farmers' Federation say to the Senate inquiry about the matter before us? The National Farmers' Federation said that they recognise that this is framework legislation that embeds a national 2030 and 2050 target in legislation and makes consequential amendments to related acts and this provides a level of business certainty that is otherwise absent.
Senator Canavan interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): Senator Canavan, we will have silence, thank you. We respected your right.
Senator McALLISTER: It is relevant to the debate we're having now, because Senator Rennick has offered a range of anecdotal observations about what all this means for regional communities, but the National Farmers' Federation say, 'We support the passage of these bills, noting that they are framework legislation that can provide business certainty.' They talked a lot, actually, about how industry was ahead of the government that you all participated in. They said:
One—
of the things—
we've already articulated in the submission and which is the most longstanding is the red meat sector CN 2030, so carbon neutral 2030, which they are all advanced on in an implementation context. I think the number as at yesterday was a 59 per cent reduction from 2005 levels … The second one is grain growers have an aspiration of a 15 per cent reduction in emissions intensity. That's specifically focused on the nitrous oxide issue … The pork sector have a 2025 ambition for carbon neutrality.
There's the Farmers Federation talking about the industries in their sector, all of which are on a journey to net zero. But we have the National Party questioning whether making that transition is something that should be happening. It's already happening. It's already happening in the industries that you claim to represent, and it speaks to the isolation and the strange position that you have all got yourself into. So determined were the coalition through your last decade in utilising this issue in a base way for narrow political purposes that you actually lost track of the people that you suppose to represent. It was all on show. It's all been on show in the Senate inquiry and in the discussion around this bill and this process.
Senator Canavan put a series of questions about power prices and his views. Of course, the entire country is still coping with the mess left by Mr Taylor. Mr Taylor as energy minister presided over an utterly chaotic energy policy that left investors and businesses totally confused about their obligations. I can't tell you how many private conversations, how many people, have offered up the insight that they are relieved to be in a position where they can actually talk about the climate transition, the challenge facing their business and the way that business and government will partner to meet that great challenge.
So I'm reluctant really to contemplate in any serious way the contributions from a group of people who appear unclear about who they represent and who appear to be unwilling to concede the mess that they left for the sector. However, I will go to the specific issues that were raised by Senator Canavan. He speaks, of course, about our proposals for the power sector. The modelling suggests that, if we pursue 43 per cent and we implement the arrangements around transmission, we will see a significant increase in the penetration of renewables. The facts are that that will put downward pressure on power prices, because any assessment that examines the levelised cost of energy will show that firmed renewables offer the cheapest possibility to put new-generation capacity into the system, cheaper than any of the proposals pursued by you and certainly cheaper than the propositions that you never implemented for new generation—billions of dollars promised for new generation; none of it ever actually delivered under the programs championed by the National Party—downward pressure on prices as a consequence of the program that we are implementing. I know they don't want to hear it, because the mess that they left behind is embarrassing.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator McALLISTER: But this government will get on with tidying up the great big mess that you left behind and delivering to Australians the energy system that they require.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): I remind all senators that interjections are disorderly and not respectful. Senator McKenzie, I'm sure you'll be heard in silence.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:59): Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope so. Minister, there was a lot of rhetoric around that last answer, particularly invoking the entire nation of farmers and primary producers as somehow only supporting the Labor Party. We in the National Party and rural and regional Liberal members have been very, very public about supporting industries' goals for zero emissions. The cattle industry made a decision, without a government mandate, to move towards a net zero position for the beef industry by 2030—knock themselves out. What we're discussing here in this chamber today is the government legislating it. For you to stand up and make out that we don't accept that the Australian people voted for you to have the right to change our nationally determined contributions to 43 per cent by 2030, on a pathway to net zero by 2050—they did. You have that right. You changed the document. What we're discussing here is not climate change action or no climate change action. What we're actually talking about is legislating a target and what implications that has for our communities and our people—above symbolism.
One of the questions that the farming community does raise is—they are very concerned, particularly the cattle industry and the livestock industry more generally—by legislating this target, are we going to see the Albanese government sign up to the global methane pledge? That is a significant issue. You make out like they're all singing kumbaya with the Labor Party. They're not. They are great stewards of their land. They tread lightly. They were conservationists before you all thought it was a thing, because they are intergenerationally linked with their environment and they care for it. They take is seriously. But they did not sign up to the UN methane pledge. I am very, very interested in whether this government is going to make our nation head down that path. I want you to rule that out. On behalf of Australia's livestock industry, I want you to guarantee that you won't.
I'm also the shadow minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development. One of my roles is to look after Infrastructure Australia, one of the14 agencies that legislating a target will actually be captured into. They will now have to assess infrastructure projects in this country according to this target. I had severe concerns when I was legitimately asking these questions—so I could understand it—of the agencies before the Senate inquiry: 'What's going to be the impact of legislating this target?' Was it going to be negative? Was it going to be positive? What is it going to mean for the list that you give to the infrastructure minister? Does it mean that rail, road and bridge projects in rural and regional Australia are going to fall down the list, because public transport projects in Sydney and Melbourne are going to suddenly go up the list, because of legislating this target?' I have severe concerns about that. You know what? They couldn't answer the question. They had no idea how they were going to do it. They couldn't actually tell the Senate what the impact of this legislation would be on their decisions and, therefore, on the infrastructure projects that are going to be delivered across our nation—$120 billion worth of spend. They didn't have a clue. Minister, I hope you've got a clue. I hope you can enlighten me on that.
The third issue and question I have is around the concerns about increased vexatious green lawfare as a result of legislating, not as a result of your right to go and change our nationally determined contribution. Forty-three per cent by 2030—knock yourselves out with a suite of policies to get there. We will hold you to account on the way. What we've seen in Germany and what we've seen in the UK is that there has then been a slew of organisations—environmental defenders office, friends of the Earth—taking federal governments to court about much needed projects, like the third runway at Heathrow. They're holding that project up. It's defeated. It can go. It can stop. It can start. It can stop.
I note the finance minister is in the chamber and she is very concerned about how we actually maintain our productivity as a nation going forward if we aren't going to be investing in these types of infrastructure projects, which is how we're actually going to drive our productivity across our economy. Yet today we are looking at legislating a target which is going to increase lawfare.
In the Senate inquiry we asked every single one of those NGOs: 'In legislating this target will you guarantee you won't be taking the Albanese government to court? Do you guarantee you won't be taking any future federal government to court as a result of legislating the target?' You know what, Senator Duniam, Senator Canavan? No, they wouldn't rule it out. They can't wait to take you to court on every single infrastructure project that will come under this bill. Recognising that you have a mandate for a 43 per cent target is not the same as baking it in to the way we run this joint and planning projects for the future so that they are not held up in court, so they are not blowing out the time lines for critical nation-building infrastructure—Inland Rail, airport runways in Melbourne, which will be critical to driving our critical infrastructure going forward—and we should all be bipartisan about that. They refused to rule it out.
Minister, three questions: The methane pledge, the methodology which the 14 agencies you are going to be make their assessment subjected to this legislated requirement, how are they going to do it? What impacts will that have for rural and regional Australians and for infrastructure in our communities? What are you going to do when the Friends of the Earth come for you, just like they have in other jurisdictions that have chosen this path, that have chosen to seek grandstanding symbolism over actual action on climate change? You don't need a legislated target; you can just get on with the job. Stop talking about it; get on with the job. As this will probably be my final contribution to this debate—
Senator Gallagher interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you, Senator Gallagher. I would really encourage the government, as they head into their ERC process for budget, to be serious about supporting the regions, keeping the programs and projects that we handed down in the March budget—the additional $20 billion—that were specifically to support these communities on their journey to net zero, to not only seize the opportunities but importantly to overcome the challenges that are coming their way, and you are naive if you think that's not happening.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (13:07): I have three quick answers. I'm very conscious that Senator Pocock is seeking the call and Senator Roberts was seeking the call at some earlier point. On methane, we have spoken about this publicly but I will reiterate it. The government is in the process of careful consultation with Australian farmers and the resources sector regarding the global methane pledge. We are working with key industry stakeholders and peak bodies, and that process is led by my colleagues Minister Watt and Minister King.
The government is fundamentally committed to working in a collaborative and genuinely consultative way. I reiterate again that there has been an enormous sense of relief in many of the stakeholders that I have spoken to that that is the case with this government because it wasn't their experience with the last.
n relation to Infrastructure Australia, the consequential amendments bill amends the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to allow Infrastructure Australia to take account of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets when conducting audits of nationally significant infrastructure, developing plans and providing advice. This does not preclude other relevant issues being considered, including in relation to climate risk and adaptation. It is merely an additional feature of the things that that body may consider when they are undertaking their work.
Finally, Senator McKenzie asked about lawfare. This was the subject of some discussion in the inquiry process. There was a number of quite interesting submissions. The Wilderness Society gave evidence that the nature of the bills do not give rise to actions that can be taken against the government. The Australian Forest Products Association explained that lawfare is already prevalent in forestry operations; therefore, they do not expect that this legislation will have any additional material effect. BP said, 'Our hope is that by legislating the target and by providing a transparent and accountable framework for its delivery, the legislation might even reduce the uncertainty that can sometimes be a driver for litigation.'
The clear message coming through from business in that process and more broadly is that certainty helps. Comparisons between this bill and legislation in other countries doesn't assist us in this case, because the legislation before us is quite different to the form of the legislation that is in place in other countries. The evidence that was provided to the committee was that this was an unlikely outcome of the legislation that the committee was examining. I hope that that provides assistance to Senator McKenzie.
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (13:10): I would like to note Senator McKenzie's concern for rural and regional Australia and commend her for it, along with her concern about lawfare. But I would like to point out to the Senate that this is already happening. We've seen young people take the former government to court, saying that they have a duty of care to future generations. We are seeing at the moment Tiwi Islanders and Gamilaraay people taking Santos to court over fossil fuel projects. Lawfare is happening. Litigation is happening.
It's my sense that that happens when the government's not actually doing what the Australian people want and not actually making decisions that are in the best interests of all of us. It seems to me that this bill before us is a way to begin to do that, to turn another page in terms of climate change, and to say that we're actually going to get serious about this and we're going to deal with the challenge at hand. The battle should be about how we act, rather than if we should act.
With that in mind, I would urge the Senate to bring a vote on the amendments that I have put forward. I note that there are other amendments that we are yet to get to, and I'm sure that will provide Senator Canavan with opportunity to ask more questions of the minister and others. In the interests of time, if it's okay with you, Chair, I thought I might speak to the amendment that I hope to move in the next section.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fawcett ): Continue.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: I'm talking about the amendments on sheet 1619. The first amendment requires that the annual climate change statement address Australia's progress in reducing scope 3 emissions, which we know dwarf our domestic emissions. Fossil fuel exports account for more than double our direct emissions. If we are to take climate change seriously and commit to climate action we have to reduce the source of the majority of our emissions, which is exports. I'm not saying we shut it down overnight; I'm simply saying we don't open up new projects.
The second amendment requires that the Climate Change Authority consider the best available scientific knowledge in advice on emission reduction targets. We have ignored scientists for far too long. Science has to guide our policies on climate, and it makes sense to me that any advice given to the minister would be based on the best available scientific evidence that we have, given the wealth of knowledge in the scientific community, including a number of pre-eminent climate scientists across Australia and in the ACT.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:13): I want to reflect on a couple of the answers given by the minister in the debate so far. I think Senator Canavan asked some very important questions, not dissimilar to the questions I asked, around what modelling has been undertaken on the impact that a 75 per cent reduction in emissions would have on power prices. I did not get an answer to this question, because apparently it's not worth answering, and we don't need to be accountable on those sorts of suggestions.
Senator McAllister interjecting—
Senator DUNIAM: Not from you, Senator McAllister, but from the leader of the Australian Greens. I don't think it is right that an answer was not given to Senator Canavan around the $275 promise made by the Australian government nearly 100 times in the lead-up to the election. In the answer you gave, you made no reference to that promise at all; you just talked about downward pressure. I don't think it is unfair for us to ask—on behalf of the Australian people, some of whom are in the gallery today—whether that promise is going to be delivered. Is the $275 figure, which was specified nearly 100 times in the lead-up to 21 May, going to be delivered as a result of all of this? I think a direct answer on that would be good.
If I can go to the matter of lawfare and the issues Senator McKenzie raised that have also been touched on by Senator Pocock—you have provided some response to that, as well. I note in your answer you gave to Senator McKenzie you talked about how the legislation here takes on a different form to that of legislation passed in other countries; I presume the United Kingdom, Germany and France. I am interested that, regardless of the form of legislation, the end result is a target enshrined in legislation, which is what we will have here. At the end of the passage of this bill, 43 per cent will exist in legislation. What analysis or advice was considered in the development of the government's view on this issue that it will not pave the way to greater lawfare? We heard only earlier this week—it might have been Monday—the Greens environment spokesperson say:
The climate wars will not end this week with the passage of Labor's climate bill …
That was a direct quote from Senator Hanson-Young. They're upfront, they're open and they're honest about it, and that is the position they are going to take. This bill will pass, but there's a guarantee that, should new coal and gas projects be opened up, the wars are still on. What advice or analysis, based on the legislation that has been drafted, was considered—are you able to take us through that?—in order to back the guarantee you put in place before, given the legislation here in Australia we are currently debating in this Senate is in a different form to that of legislation passed through other jurisdictions and put in place? If you can't provide that guarantee, I think it will just end up as a matter before the courts and we will see perhaps a torrent of legal action.
The Wilderness Society, along with other organisations who are defenders of the environment, as they say, suggest there's not going to be an issue, 'Don't worry; this will not pave the way to greater lawfare.' The point has been made that these things already happen. AFPA, the Australian Forest Products Association, a great organisation, weren't waving away concerns that this might pave the way to greater lawfare. The fact that it already happens is not a good reason to give those who seek to cause these issues a bigger platform to stand on. To that end I think we need to take seriously these concerns and provide a guarantee, so we have some sort of intent expressed on behalf of the government, around what it is that this law should and should not enable to happen.
In terms of overseas examples I turn to the United Kingdom and specifically the case of the Transport Action Network, who took action against the UK Secretary of State for Transport and the Highways England company. In referring to this case, in the statements of facts and the grounds for the case the Transport Action Network stated that the UK Secretary of State for Transport failed to take account of the impact of the UK government's Road Investment Strategy 2 on achieving specific climate change objectives, in particular the carbon budgets that were set by the government pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008 and the targets set by section 1 of the Climate Change Act for the net UK carbon account to be zero by 2050.
At least the second of those elements sounds pretty similar where we're going to end up, bar the detail of the specific number, after the passage of this legislation. According to the Transport Action Network in their case, new road infrastructure projects result in the loss of vegetation and of soils. There's embodied carbon in concrete, asphalt and raw materials which lead to higher vehicle speeds over time. It also allows for more traffic. So given that sort of case that has been presented in the United Kingdom, on the basis of the facts I've just read out to you, what guarantee can you give us? Again, you made a statement earlier suggesting that, because the legislation here takes a different form, we won't have the same issues they have had in the United Kingdom, putting to one side the cases we've seen in France and Germany, where we have the judiciary directing the legislature and the executive on how to deal with carbon emissions and laws around that place.
So I'd be keen to understand that, on behalf of those people we are enacting these laws on behalf of. Again: power prices, the $275—a direct answer on that—and 'lawfare', what guarantees exist from the government around what is going to happen once these laws are passed.
Finally: sadly, this is what happens when we guillotine debate. The coalition would happily sit here tonight until this debate is exhausted. Instead, we are dealing with one of their signature pieces of legislation in a couple of hours. All these amendments—on which many of the crossbenchers aren't going to be able to speak, because of the fact that time is running out—this is what happens in this brave new world of Labor-Greens politics: we've guillotined the debate.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fawcett ): Minister, are you proceeding?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (13:20): I will proceed. I am just conscious that Senator Roberts has sought the call a couple of times. It may be that he seeks to remind me that he asked me a question about net zero, and I thought one of the things I could do in this contribution would be to respond to that question.
But first I will step through the amendments that Senator Pocock foreshadowed in his earlier contribution and indicate that the government will not be supporting these amendments. Amendment (1) on sheet 1619 is the amendment that goes to scope 3 emissions. We do not support this amendment, because our plan is focused on the framework set out by the Paris Agreement, and that agreement sets out obligations to reduce Australia's emissions.
The second amendment on sheet 1619 asks the Climate Change Authority to explain how it has taken into account best available scientific knowledge in preparing advice. We essentially do not support this change, because we consider it redundant. I should clarify, though, that—unlike the previous government—we are in no way afraid of science or scientists or independent advice. We've already amended the bill in the other places to reference the best available science. It's in the objects clause. The objects clause also makes explicit reference to article 2 of the Paris Agreement. That includes the global temperature goals, which are science based. For that reason, we do not support further amendments to duplicate the existing provisions of this bill. However, as I indicated earlier, we support some of the other amendments moved by Senator Pocock that are before the chair.
I think they're both of the matters that are dealt with on sheet 1619. Senator Duniam asks that I step through the legal advice. I think Senator Duniam will appreciate that it is not common practice for governments to make explicit or public the legal advice that they rely upon. But I can perhaps provide some information. The purpose of the legislation is to create a framework for private sector investment and to provide policy certainty. We have canvassed this already, and that is what business tell us that they need. The bill's development was informed by legal advice, including regarding potential litigation risks. Neither bill limits, constrains or directs how the government's policies are set or how the government would consider approving new resource or infrastructure projects, and the bills impose no legal obligation on any minister to make decisions on such projects in a certain way. It's on that basis that the department's advice was that there is no reason to expect that this bill will result in increased successful litigation.
Jurisdictions like Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Mexico, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and Victoria, where similar legislation—but not the same legislation—already exists have not seen an increase in successful litigation against the government. But they have seen increased investment and reduced emissions. That is part of the reason the government supports the bill as international best practice.
Finally, Senator Roberts asked about what net zero emissions means. Perhaps the best thing to do, Senator Roberts, is refer you to article 4 of the Paris Agreement, which talks about that. It says 'to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases'. What that really means is a balance between sources and sinks.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:24): Balance between sources and sinks—wonderful!—and no impact of costs on the economy. So let's have a look at another aspect of this. You're not aware of net zero—it took you a long while to come up with that—and the best you can do is go to the United Nations, a fraudulent organisation—the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Senator Wong couldn't do it yesterday, so let's consider another agency that you rely on, the CSIRO. From September 2016 to March 2022 I've cross-examined the CSIRO and the previous Chief Scientist on climate science. CSIRO's climate science team made three presentations to me and my Senate office team, each about 2½ hours in length, and the first one was attended by the Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall. During the CSIRO's presentations, Minister, they made these facts, they stated these statements or they failed to confirm. Are you aware of these?
First of all, I must say that the CSIRO has been the primary reference for the Greens, the Labor Party, the National Party and the Liberal Party in government for their positions on climate change. The CSIRO admitted in its first presentation to me, under my cross-examination and my team's cross-examination, that it has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger. So we asked them, 'Where did the politicians come up with this pronouncement that you have stated that?' They said, 'Well, you'd better check with the politicians.' This is a political issue. Statements of danger came from politicians.
The second point: the CSIRO never quantified, in any of their three presentations or in Senate estimates since, any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate or weather variable such as temperature, rainfall, droughts, storms, ocean alkalinity, ocean salinity—nothing. Yet these are the fundamental basis that the National Party, the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the Greens and Senator Pocock rely upon as a basis for climate and energy policy.
Thirdly, the CSIRO admitted—admitted—today's temperatures are not unprecedented. Today's temperatures are not unprecedented, CSIRO admission. CSIRO has failed to provide any logical scientific point showing that carbon dioxide from human activity causes climate change and needs to be cut. CSIRO relied instead upon unvalidated, erroneous and discredited computer models, which is what you're relying on now to squeeze the Australian people. The CSIRO has failed to provide any statistically significant evidence of any change in any climate or weather factor. They've never provided the empirical data or the logical scientific points on that. CSIRO initially relied upon one discredited paper on temperatures, Marcott 2013—one paper, after 48 years of so-called climate science. We demolished that—in fact, it had been demolished when it was first released. CSIRO has failed to actually counter what we've said about Marcott. They ran away from that discussion and stopped talking about it. Then they presented Harries 2001, a sole paper on carbon dioxide. They could not refute our criticism of those papers. Then they presented Lecavalier on temperatures. They have failed to produce any response to that—any response at all. That Lecavalier paper on temperature was in 2017 and, on carbon dioxide, they came out with Feldman 2015. Again, that was shown to be completely irrelevant, and the CSIRO has failed to come back to us again.
These are fundamental things. The CSIRO admitted that it has not done due diligence on data that it's brought in and relied upon from external agencies. CSIRO admits to not doing due diligence on reports from external agencies or on supposedly scientific papers it has provided. This is what this bill is based on. CSIRO revealed little understanding of papers it cited as evidence. CSIRO allows politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO without correction, and the CSIRO has misled parliament. Minister, are you aware of these fundamental facts?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (13:29): Senator Roberts, it sounds like many of the pieces of information you seek to put into the public domain in this debate are drawn from your personal interactions with the CSIRO. I wasn't present for those, and I'm not really in a position to assess whether your account of their information or their behaviour is accurate or to respond meaningfully to what you've put in public domain. I am sorry about that. I'm just not in a position to answer that question.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Cox ): The time allotted for debate on the bills has now expired. After I put the question before the chair, I will put the question on the remaining stages of the bill. The question is that the amendment on sheet 1620 and amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1621, moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [13:34]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Cox)
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Cox ) (13:39): The question is that the amendments on sheet 1619, circulated by Senator Pocock, be agreed to.
Senat or Pocock's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 24), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (g) the progress made during the year towards reducing Australia's scope 3 emissions of greenhouse gas.
(2) Clause 15, page 11 (after line 2), after subclause (3A), insert:
(3B) The advice given under subsection (1) must include an explanation of how the Climate Change Authority has taken into account the best available scientific knowledge for the purposes of giving the advice.
The committee divided. [13:39]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Cox)
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Cox ) (13:45): The question now is that Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party's amendment (1) on sheet 1629, circulated earlier, be agreed to.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party 's circulated amendment—
(1) Clause 12, page 7 (after line 24), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) A statement under subsection (1) must include:
(a) the total amount of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions for the financial year to which the statement relates; and
(b) a cost benefit analysis of each of the Commonwealth's policies mentioned in the statement, including:
(i) the amount by which the policy reduces anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; and
(ii) a regulatory impact statement for the policy which includes an outline of each of the matters mentioned in subsection (1B).
(1B) For the purposes of subparagraph (1A)(b)(ii), the matters are the following:
(a) the impact, if any, on the Commonwealth budget of that policy in the year to which the statement relates;
(b) the estimated impact, if any, on the Commonwealth budget of that policy in the following 3 financial years;
(c) the impact, if any, on Australia's gross domestic product that can be specifically attributed to that policy;
(d) the policy's compatibility with human rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011).
The committee divided. [13:45]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Cox)
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Cox ) (13:54): The question is that the Nationals amendment on sheet 1607 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [13:54]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Cox)
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Cox ) (13:57): The question is that amendment (1), to the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022, on sheet 1606, circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network and Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [13:59]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Cox)
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (14:07): The question is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.
The Senate divided. [14:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)
MINISTRY
Temporary Arrangements
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:11): I inform the Senate that Senator Farrell, the Minister for Trade and Tourism, will be absent from question time today. I will take questions relating to the trade and tourism portfolio. Minister Gallagher will represent the Special Minister of State, the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Minister for Government Services, the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness. Senator Watt will represent the Minister for Resources and the Minister for Industry and Science.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Solomon Islands: Election
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:12): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to her failure yesterday to address the specific question of whether the government of the Solomon Islands was given the courtesy of advanced knowledge of her intention to publicise the Australian government offer of financial assistance for the conduct of the Solomons Islands elections on schedule in 2023? I again specifically ask the minister: Was the government of the Solomon Islands given the courtesy of advanced knowledge of the minister's intention on Monday of this week to publicise the Australian offer of financial assistance for the conduct of the Solomon Islands elections on schedule in 2023?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:13): Thank you, Senator Birmingham, for another question about Solomon Islands. I again refer to my previous answer and make the point that no announcement was made. As I said to him yesterday, I answered a question about Australian electoral assistance in the Solomons, which has been ongoing for 20 years. I am surprised that the opposition continues, knowing as they do, having been so recently in government—and Senator Payne, I'm sure, can advise Senator Birmingham about the challenge of a greater contest in our region—to want to press this. I was very clear—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator WONG: I will take the interjection about we were so reserved through the campaign. We remember the campaign. We remember the attempts from the other side to call people who are on our side of politics a 'Manchurian' candidate. It was an absolute disgrace.
I would hope that there would be bipartisanship around what is occurring in our region. The government has been very clear about the importance of both the Pacific and South-East Asia. The Prime Minister, myself, Minister Conroy and others have been in the region. We have increased the assistance through the development assistance program. We have shifted on climate, which is the first national security priority of Pacific Island nations. And what I would say to the shadow minister for foreign affairs is that it might be best to leave behind some of the mistakes that were undertaken in government and perhaps work in a bipartisan way to strengthen Australia's security position in the Pacific.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary question?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:15): Has the minister or Prime Minister Albanese spoken with Solomon Islands Prime Minister Sogavare since the Solomon Islands released the extraordinary statement on Tuesday accusing the minister and the Albanese government of interference in their domestic affairs? And if not, why not
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:15): We will engage in the way that we, as the government of Australia, consider to be most appropriate for Australia's national interests with the government of the Solomon Islands. If the shadow foreign minister had been looking at some social media, he would have seen that foreign minister Marsudi is visiting. Obviously we will continue to engage with them, as we do. And I have to say, I find it passing strange that I'd get a question about engagement from a government that had so little engagement, both before and after a security agreement with China was entered into, and whose best response was to send Minister Seselja.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary question?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:16): I refer the minister to her statement in relation to Timor-Leste's use of media to pressure the Australian government when, whilst in Timor-Leste, she told a media conference on 1 September that discussions between countries 'are best done respectfully and directly and not through the media'. Does the minister concede that she failed to live up to her own standard by publicly revealing details of the offer to the Solomon Islands government? And I again invite the minister to be clear as to whether she or Prime Minister Albanese have spoken with Prime Minister Sogavare since Tuesday.
Senat or WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:17): In response to the first part of the question, which deals with Timor-Leste, the shadow minister might know, if he actually—and I hope he does—takes the time to familiarise himself, the context of my responses to the media in Timor-Leste. Unlike for many years, we actually have visited. I think the last Australian foreign minister to visit was Ms Bishop, and I had very good private discussions as well as public engagement with the President and with my counterpart, the Minister for Finance. The issue that concerns Timor-Leste, correctly, is the economic and fiscal difficulties they see into the future as the Bayu-Undan field and the Petroleum Fund diminish and the fact that the Greater Sunrise project has been stalled for years. Unlike your government, we will work with them to try to resolve that issue.
Climate Change
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:18): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Can the minister please update the Senate on the Albanese government's progress on ending the climate wars? And what does this mean for the Australian people?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:18): Thank you to Senator Pratt for the question. For many people in this chamber—regrettably, not those opposite—this day is a day that has been a long time coming, a day on which historic legislation has been passed in response to one of the most urgent and pressing issues of our time: climate change. It is no accident that the bill that the Senate has just voted on was one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Albanese government, because we know that Australians deserve and our nation needs overdue leadership in this area.
Senator McKenzie: It's all symbolic.
Senator WONG: I'll take that interjection from the National Party: 'It's all symbolic.' It is all symbolic, is it? Well, it just really demonstrates how out of touch those opposite are and how little those in the coalition actually understand that the Australian people voted for climate change action and might want to be listened to.
With the passage of the legislation in this place, can I first acknowledge those who worked with the government constructively on sensible amendments, and can I also acknowledge the support from the business community. The Business Council of Australia said:
This legislation brings Australia a step closer to ending the so-called climate wars, which have been counterproductive and served as a handbrake on progress towards decarbonisation and have slowed our economy.
The National Farmers Federation said in evidence to the Senate inquiry that the bills are 'framework legislation that can provide business certainty'. I know it's hard for the National Party to realise that their base is not with them on this. I know that's hard, but they are not. The Investor Group on Climate Change talked about the opportunity to 'unlock hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of investment in climate solutions'. It is those opposite who are out of touch.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, your first supplementary question?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:21): What are the international implications of the Albanese government's climate policy?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:21): I thank Senator Pratt for her supplementary question and for her interest, along with every Labor senator's interest, in progress on climate. The rest of the world does watch closely what Australia does on climate. As well as lifting our international competitiveness, the passage of this legislation is a watershed moment in Australia's international standing. Countries of our region in particular look to Australia as a member of the Pacific family to act with respect for their existential interest in action on climate change. If the shadow foreign minister actually wanted to ensure we had stronger relations with the Pacific, he would not have voted against action on climate change, which is precisely one of the disadvantages to our national interests that the former government continue to hold on to. It is simply not good enough for senators to say, 'Well, this country isn't doing enough,' or, 'That country isn't doing enough.' Our Pacific family expects more from us.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, your second supplementary question?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:22): How does the Albanese government's climate policy listen to and deliver on the will of the Australian people at the last federal election?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:22): We all know that this Senate, for too long, has stood in the way of climate action. Whether it's former senator Barnaby Joyce or former senator Abetz in the past or Senator Canavan, Senator Rennick and so many others today, too many senators have been part of the problem, not part of the solution. Unfortunately, some senators still persist. We see Senator Rennick now. We see people who refuse to listen to the Australian people. They refuse to acknowledge the message at the federal election three months ago. So far, it has been more of the same for them. They opposed the climate bills before they saw them. What is most extraordinary is they just ignore the message of the Australian people. They just ignore the message of the Australian people. You're not content with losing touch with Australians in Boothby, Curtin, Goldstein et cetera. You're just out of touch— (Time expired)
Child Care
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:23): My question is to Senator Watt, the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education. Minister, under Labor's proposed childcare changes, what will the increase in childcare subsidy be for a family earning $60,000? Is it true that the subsidy will lift from 90 per cent to 95 per cent under Labor's proposal?
Senator McKenzie: He's only the representing minister.
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:23): Thank you. Yes, I am the representing minister; that is a statement of fact. As the representing minister, what I can tell you is that the Albanese Labor government will be delivering cheaper child care for Australian families, something that your government did not do. As a result, 97 per cent of families in Australia will be better off.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes?
Senator Hughes: A point of order on relevance. It was a very specific question: is it true it will go from 90 to 95 per cent for a family with $60,000?
S enator Ciccone interjecting—
Senator Hughes: Thanks, Senator Ciccone. You should be the minister!
The PRESIDENT: I did remind senators yesterday, and I'll remind senators again today, when you call a point of order you simply state the point of order and then not get into argument or other statements. I do believe that the minister is being relevant. He has just started answering the question. There were a lot of interjections the minute he stood so it's quite difficult to hear him, but I am listening carefully. Thank you, Minister Watt.
Senator WATT: Thank you, President. As I was saying, I'm very happy about the fact that the Albanese Labor government will be delivering cheaper child care to Australian families. Not just one family, not just two families, but 97 per cent of Australian families using the early childhood sector and childcare system will be better off as a result of our policy—something that you were not able to do in your first year, your second year, your third year, your fourth year, your fifth year, your sixth year, your seventh year, your eighth year or your ninth year.
Senator Hughes: Point of order on direct relevance: it was a very specific question that the minister should be able to answer—families on $60,000 and $90,000 to $95,000.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, there is no need to—
Senator Hughes: It's not relevant—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, you've asked me for a point of order. You may not agree with what I say, but I am the President. It's your job to make your point of order, sit down and then not further interject. Senator Watt, I would draw you back to the question. Thank you. Please continue.
Senator WATT: Thank you, President. I'm happy to take the exact details of that question on notice for Senator Hughes. And I'm happy that she is showing an interest in this issue, because I don't remember any opposition senator ever doing anything to support child care in the way that the Labor government is doing. What I do remember is the now opposition copying the policy of Labor, then opposition, when it came to child care, but not delivering that policy in full, and for that reason, that policy—what was then your policy—left a lot of Australian families much more out of pocket than ours will. That's what I remember.
Senator Hughes: A point of order on relevance: I ask you to direct the minister to actually answer the question.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Hughes. I will remind the minister. I note he has agreed to take the question on notice—
Senator Hughes: He's finished his answer then—
Senator Watt: No, I still have 30 seconds—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, resume your seat. I am not entertaining any further points of order from you on this matter. I've directed the minister to be relevant. Minister Birmingham.
Senator Birmingham: President, on the points order that have been taken, and indeed Senator Watt's assertion while you was speaking before, cavalierly, that he still has 30 more seconds, with a tone that apparently means he can say whatever he likes, just because he has taken the details on notice does not remove the obligation for him to be directly relevant to the question that has been asked and does not provide him with free licence to simply talk about the previous government. I encourage you to draw him back to the direct relevance of the question.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Birmingham. You might recall I was in the process of responding to the point of order raised by Senator Hughes and Senator Hughes took it upon herself to interject again so I have not been given the opportunity to respond. I will draw Senator Watt back to the question. And I would ask all senators to raise their points of order respectfully and to sit down when asked to do so. Minister.
Senator WATT: Thank you, President. As I was saying, and I appreciate the opportunity to remind the chamber, all Australian families who use the childcare system will be better off under the Labor policy that we will now implement than under the policies that existed under the former government. It took a change of government to deliver the cheaper child care that Australian families so desperately need. There is one party that is delivering a cost-of-living benefit to Australians. It is Labor in child care and other areas. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, a first supplementary question.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:29): Under Labor's proposed child care changes—and I'm assuming you'll have to take this one on notice, but if you could stick to that—what will the increase in childcare subsidy be for a family earning $400,000? And is it true that the subsidy will now lift from zero to 27 per cent under Labor's proposal?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:29): Again, I'm happy to take the details of that question on notice for Senator Hughes. I'm sure that her colleagues in the House of Representatives are posing the same question to the actual minister to get that level of detail. If that's not occurring, perhaps she could have a chat to her colleagues about that.
I think the other point to be noticed here is that, as we have consistently said, child care is not simply a social welfare program. Child care is not simply about economically supporting families who receive childcare benefits, as important as that is. Increasing childcare payments is an important economic policy of this government to broaden, in particular, women's participation in the workforce. Having affordable child care, regardless of income, is an important measure for this government to take to increase women's participation in the workforce. It is a shame that the former government didn't take the opportunity in any of the nine and a bit years that it was in government to do the same thing. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, a second supplementary?
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (14:30): Whilst I appreciate the minister—the 'not my job' minister—Senator Watt, has taken on notice the getting of the figures, some of us have actually had a look at these papers. Perhaps you might like to explain why, under Labor's much-vaunted cost-of-living support, it's proposing to give more than five times in assistance to a family earning over $400,000 than it does to a family earning $60,000. (Time expired)
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:31): There's nothing quite like being condescended to by Senator Hughes, is there, to make one's self-esteem feel that much stronger! Whenever I'm feeling any degree of self-doubt—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister!
Senator WATT: The condescender-in-chief's back.
The PRESIDENT: I'm waiting for silence.
Senator Hughes: You're so good for women, aren't you!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes!
Senator Hughes: I ask the minister to withdraw. That was disparaging to me and to every woman in this place. He should withdraw.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, it would assist the chamber if you withdrew.
Senator WATT: If it would assist the chamber, I'm happy to withdraw. I will point out that I was directing those remarks to only Senator Hughes when it comes to condescending other people in this chamber.
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat.
Senator WAT T: But I'm happy to withdraw if that assists the chamber.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. When I ask people, in the interests of the chamber, either to withdraw or to withdraw fully, I expect it to be done in a serious manner and that no other commentary be put with that. If you would, consider the chamber, withdraw and move on.
Senator WATT: I'm happy to withdraw.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator WATT: In answer to Senator Hughes's supplementary question, as I was saying in answer to the previous question, something that the opposition seems to fail to grasp is that childcare payments are not only a social welfare measure; they are an important measure to encourage more women to participate in the workplace. We know that women's participation in the workplace is far lower than men's and we know that increasing women's participation in the workplace is an important economic measure for this government.
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat.
Senator Ruston: I raise a point of order on clarification. Is the minister saying child care is a social welfare measure?
The PRESIDENT: That's not a point of order, Senator Ruston.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Ruston interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections across the chamber are disorderly, Senator Ruston. Minister Watt, please continue.
Senator WATT: If Senator Ruston requires me to do so, I will repeat the point. The point I was making is that childcare payments are not only a social welfare measure; they are an economic development measure. The Australian workforce needs more women, and childcare payments will assist. (Time expired)
Economy
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (14:34): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, yesterday's national accounts showed that profits share of national income hit a new record high and that wages share of national income hit a new record low. This means that, in the 60 years that the national accounts have been kept and published, never have business owners been getting a bigger slice of the pie and never have workers been getting a smaller slice of the pie. Will your government now finally accept that in the domestic context it is corporate profiteering that is a key driver of inflation and that wages are actually not driving inflation?
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) (14:35): I thank Senator McKim for the question on the national accounts and his ongoing interest in the economy. I don't think we have ever said, in response to the final part of your question, that wages have been driving inflation. I don't think anyone on this side of the chamber has been saying that at all. On the broader question, there are some challenges in the national accounts that are clear, which makes our economic plan even more important than ever to roll out in relation to some of those issues we've seen in supply chains and in relation to some of the issues around productivity.
On the point about businesses and their profits, we want business to do well. We think it is important that business does well, but we've been on the record a number of times, including as a major part of our election campaign, speaking about the fact that we want to see wages moving. That's why we have done absolutely everything we can since coming to government to make sure that we are supporting sensible and reasonable wage increases, particularly in areas like the minimum wage for working people on the lowest wages in the country and also in the area of aged care, where we're supporting the Fair Work Commission.
We've got some work underway around workplace relations reform, which, as you know, the Senate will have to deal with at some point later this year. We are doing everything we can to make sure that working people are getting a decent pay rise. That has been one of the major failings in our economy over the last 10 years, and it was because the mob over there had wage suppression as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. We are breaking down that architecture because we want to see wages grow. (Time expired.)
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, a first supplementary?
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (14:37): Minister, today in his speech to the Anika Foundation, RBA Governor Dr Philip Lowe yet again failed to acknowledge the role of corporate profits driving inflation—and, I might reflect, neither did you in your answer. Yet in July Dr Lowe said workers should anchor their expectation of wage increases at 3.5 per cent, well below inflation. Are you comfortable with an RBA governor jaw-boning down wages but saying nothing about corporate profits?
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): I'll have to go back and look at it. I remember the governor making comments about wanting to see wage increases with a three in front of them. My recollection is he said that at a time when inflation was sitting below three per cent, probably in the order of 1.7 per cent. My recollection of that is that the governor was saying that wages were a handbrake on the economy, or slow wages growth was a handbrake on the economy, and he wanted to see them get moving. We are now, of course, in a different environment, and I've only had a short opportunity to look at Governor Lowe's remarks in his speech today. But I think that in his speech he went through that and explained. I think he used the word 'surprised' around the increase in the rate of inflation, and he certainly went through the unexpected nature of that inflation surge and some of the reasons behind that in detail. I think his record on wages has been— (Time expired.)
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, a second supplementary?
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (14:38): Minister, last year Dr Lowe said that the RBA would not increase interest rates until wages growth was materially higher. Real wages are going backwards, but the RBA has increased rates for five consecutive months after effectively telling Australians they would not go up until 2024. Do you agree that we need some accountability in the system, and do you agree that Dr Lowe has got to go?
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): In the minute available, there was a lot in that question to unpack. I strongly support the independence of the Reserve Bank and the longstanding convention that the bank should not be interfered with by politicians. I think the review that's underway is useful, and Governor Lowe has made comments on that today. I think the Reserve Bank is doing the work that it needs to do to bring inflation down, but the review will certainly assist all of us to ensure that the Reserve Bank remains fit for purpose. And I think the governor has been accountable for the comments he's made and some of the decisions the bank has made, particularly in the last few months, in raising interest rates. I understand he's given his speech today, he's given a long press conference afterwards, so, in that respect, he has been accountable for those decisions.
International Relations: Timor-Leste
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Yesterday Australia and Timor-Leste signed a defence cooperation agreement. Can the minister update the Senate on how the agreement will strengthen our defence relationship with Timor-Leste?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:40): I thank Senator Bilyk for her interest in foreign policy and for her question, which does go to a very important issue about how Australia can work best with the countries of our region to support and promote our mutual security and sovereignty.
Australia is committed to supporting Timor-Leste's security and sovereignty, including through our enduring defence cooperation. The Albanese government was pleased to sign a defence cooperation agreement with Timor-Leste, and the agreement signed yesterday by our defence ministers is a status of forces agreement that sets out reciprocal protections, responsibilities and privileges each country will grant the military personnel of the other in its territory. It will allow both countries to increase defence and security cooperation, especially in the maritime domain, given our shared border and adjacent maritime zones. This responded to, particularly, a priority that was expressed publicly by President Ramos-Horta. It will announce our ability to operate together as required, conduct exercises and training, and cooperate on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
I'm pleased to advise the Senate the agreement also means Timorese military members operating or exercising or training in Australia will receive the same protections, responsibilities and privileges as Australian personnel will receive in Timor-Leste. Australia welcomes this defence cooperation agreement. We acknowledge the contribution of the Timor-Leste government, and I particularly acknowledge my counterpart, Minister Magno, for her assistance in bringing this agreement to conclusion.
The agreement provides the opportunity to deepen our close defence and security partnership with Timor-Leste. This is the government working to listen to our partners in the region and responding to their needs in order to maintain a stable, prosperous and peaceful region.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bilyk, first supplementary.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (14:42): How will the Albanese Labor government continue to help Timor-Leste build its economic resilience?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:42): Senator Bilyk, thank you for that question. The economic resilience of Timor-Leste is of great importance not only to the people of East Timor, but also to Australia, which has a stake in the Timor-Leste independence and sovereignty, and obviously there are very close personal relationships and friendships between our two peoples.
On a recent visit I announced an additional $20 million in budget support for Timor-Leste to support its economic resilience and recovery from COVID-19. We're also on track to provide our first bilateral concessional loan for Timor-Leste for the development of Dili airport. We have a partnership to deliver a submarine fibre-optic cable, the first such connection between Timor-Leste and Australia. And we continue to support Timor-Leste's ASEAN member aspirations and its path to ascension to the World Trade Organization. We will continue to work with Timor-Leste— (Time expired.)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bilyk, second supplementary.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (14:43): Thank you, Minister Wong. It's great work that you're doing there. How does this agreement complement the Albanese Labor government's approach to strengthening our relationships across the region?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:44): The government is looking to rebuild and strengthen our relationships in South-East Asia and the Pacific. As senators may be aware, across the government—whether it's the Prime Minister, myself or other ministers both within cabinet and within the portfolio—we are obviously actively engaging in the region. What we hear from other nations in the region, from friends and partners, is the value of genuine engagement, of respect and of listening. Most importantly, we want to engage in a region that recognises that our futures are shared. These are challenging times in the world. We all understand that. But it's best that we navigate these challenges together—stronger together—with our friends and our partners in the region. The region does value partnership, and that is the approach that this government will continue to take.
Superannuation
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:45): My question is for the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. APRA's review of super fund marketing expenditure found that 12 funds spent $87 million on marketing between 2018 and 2020. Funds have a legal duty to spend members' money in a way that financially benefits the members. The regulator found funds had a lack of evidence that this spending can be justified. But, instead of cleaning up this apparent waste of money, your government is cutting back on transparency over how this spending gets disclosed. Why are you making it easier for funds to spend the retirement savings of everyday Australians on billboards and TV ads promoting themselves when the regulator clearly says this money isn't delivering benefits to members?
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) (14:46): I thank Senator Lambie for the question. Labor is committed to delivering accountability, transparency and good governance in every part of our financial system. Our world-class superannuation system is a massive success story, delivering $3.4 trillion in national savings and better retirement outcomes for Australians. I think Senator Lambie is referring to the regulations that will come before this Senate around some changes that were being made to streamline disclosure requirements for superannuation funds and aligning those with the national accounting standards. The new regulations will still require superannuation funds to disclose, in particular in relation to any political donations, and they will ensure that the new regulations will have a high level of meaningful transparency for superannuation members.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a first supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:47): This supplementary question is actually really simple. Under your draft annual members' meeting regulations, will it be easier or harder for members to identify specific payments their fund has made on advertising to industrial bodies and related parties? We just want to know: will it be easier or harder?
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) (14:47): I think the issue around the annual members' meetings is around the process of holding those meetings, so the idea is that members are able to ask for further information through those mechanisms. I would say that they are still able to ask for that—
Senator Hume: How do they know what to ask about if you don't disclose it?
Senator GALLAGHER: If they're interested in that, they will know they want to ask about it. Then they can ask for it through that process and have the information provided.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a second supplementary question?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:48): The assistant minister previously said these regulations need changing because the compliance costs for funds are too high. I just don't get it. Funds have to keep track of all their expenses and report the big number they add up to. So here's my question: how much extra would it cost, exactly, for funds to tell people what numbers they added up to get to their final figure?
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) (14:48): If there is further information to provide to Senator Lambie I will come back; I don't have a figure in front of me. But I do understand that there is a view that aligning some of the requirements or reducing red tape around them, but still allowing requisite information that members will be after, is behind the regulations that the minister has made. I should say that the regulations still do require a level of information to be provided through these annual members' meetings. I see, and the government sees, no reason for any reduced transparency for members. This allows streamlined reporting in line with some of the other arrangements, including the Australian Accounting Standards.
Ministerial Conduct
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:49): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer to the government's Code of Conduct for Ministers. Clause 3.11, under Shareholdings, states:
In recognition of the collective responsibility that Ministers bear in relation to Cabinet decisions, this Code requires that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business, other than public superannuation funds or publicly listed managed funds or trust arrangements where:
… … …
(ii) the fund or trust does not invest to any significant extent in a business sector that could give rise to a conflict of interest with the minister's public duty.
What is the definition of 'significant extent'?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:50): Thank you to the senator for the question. He refers to a provision in the code which, as I said yesterday, did not exist under the government in which he was a member. It is—
Senator Scarr: A point of order on relevance. I asked a question specifically in relation to the ministerial code of conduct currently in place. There should be no need to refer to historical documents.
The PRESIDENT: The minister has just begun her response. I believe she has been relevant for the short time she's been on her feet, and I will continue to listen.
Senator WONG: Obviously any legal phrase can be subject to interpretation, but I think the intent is very clear. This is because, unlike those opposite, we recognise the potential and, frankly, at times the inherent conflict of interest in ministers in a cabinet making decisions whilst owning shares. So we have set a higher standard, and I appreciate that the opposition want to probe the merits of that. We do think it's appropriate. It's in recognition of the collective responsibility that members of cabinet or members of the executive bear in relation to decisions.
Unlike what has gone before for the last decade, it was the Prime Minister's view, shared by his cabinet, that it is important that divestment is the way in which these matters are ultimately resolved. As you would have seen in the media, and I know the opposition have asked questions about this, that is what is taking place.
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:52): We'll add that to net zero. In question time yesterday in response to a question from Senator Hume, Senator Wong said:
It is the Prime Minister's expectation that ministers do comply with the code. He's made that clear both privately and publicly.
On what occasions has the Prime Minister privately made his expectations clear to each of Ministers Shorten and McBain and Assistant Ministers Ayres and Kearney?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:53): I'm certainly not going to go into every discussion the Prime Minister has, and nor would you expect me to. My remarks went to the standard that is expected. I would say to you that questions have been asked, in relation to a number of the ministers to which you refer, in the House this week. They have been appropriately answered. I know that doesn't satisfy your thirst for some political hits, but they have been appropriately answered in the House.
I again say that Australians will look at you asking these questions, recognising that you never set such a standard for yourselves. We saw, over the nine years in your government, the number of ministers who did have shares in companies which may have been affected by decisions of the federal cabinet.
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:54): I think it is more pertinent to ask whether or not it satisfied the code of conduct, as opposed to me. Minister, has the Prime Minister requested you, or had any discussions with you, about ministers or assistant ministers who have breached or may be in breach of the ministerial code of conduct?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:54): No. What the Prime Minister has said publicly reflects his private position, which is his expectations are that all of us comply with the ministerial code of conduct.
Energy
Senator BABET (Victoria—United Australia Party Whip) (14:54): My question is to Minister Wong, representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister name one country in the world where a higher share of solar and wind power has led to lower electricity prices?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:55): Thank you to the senator for the question. I would say to him that it is not a highly contested position by most who look at the energy market in Australia that the cheapest new form of generation is clean energy. In fact, there is a live market experiment for that, and that is the state of the electricity market today. We had four gigawatts exiting, one coming in, during the life of the previous government. Those are the figures that I recall. Senator McAllister will tell me if I'm wrong. They reflect the lack of certainty in the market, as a consequence of the failure of those opposite to deal with their internal divisions, as is the case today.
Senator Canavan: Madam President, a point of order on relevance: this is becoming a pattern from Senator Wong—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, I don't need the statement. What is your point?
Senator Canavan: My point of order on relevance is that the question was clearly about whether a country in the world has experienced lower prices. Yet Minister Wong, as I said—it is a pattern—is going back to talk about the previous government's record, nothing to do with the question.
The PRESIDENT: I do believe that the minister is being relevant. It is a broad topic and she is within the realm of the question.
Senator WONG: Senator Babet, I'm happy to ask the minister I'm representing whether there are examples around the world of what we also see in Australia, which is that renewable energy is the cheapest form of new generation capacity. That is an unremarkable proposition—a proposition that is shared by those who manage our electricity system as well as the business community. I respect that Senator Canavan is very clear in his interjections about his views on this issue. They're not shared, as I understand it, by the remainder of the coalition. But we see, as do business, benefit to Australian consumers from certainty that enables the investment in renewable energy in order to ensure that we have a system that has greater supply and relatively lower prices.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Babet, a first supplementary question?
Senator BABET (Victoria—United Australia Party Whip) (14:58): The minister just now referred to renewables as the cheapest form of energy. In June this year the Australian Energy Market Operator found that, on a per capita basis, in 2018-19 Australia added four to five times the solar and wind generation of any of the European Union, the USA, Japan or China. If Australia is installing more of the so-called cheapest forms of power— (Time expired)
Senator WO NG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:58): I'll try and do my best. I'm not sure where you got to at the end of the question. But I think I understand the argument of the question, and if I don't then I'm sure the senator can follow it up with a supplementary question. But the proposition that we can simply stay with the old coal-fired power electricity generation and that that's going to give us cheaper energy is just no longer the case. And do you know how we know that? It is because no private sector entity wanted to invest in the new coal-fired power.
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator WONG: Well, the private sector.
An honourable senator: Only Senator Canavan.
Senator WONG: I know Senator Canavan did! But my point is that the market showed us. Senator Babet, I do recall that in your first speech you talked about the benefits of the free market. What I'd say to you is that the free market has spoken on this. The free market has spoken on this, and it hasn't gone down the path Senator Canavan wanted.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Babet, a second supplementary?
Senator BABET (Victoria—United Australia Party Whip) (15:00): Last year the Biden administration banned the import of key solar panel material from China based Hoshine Silicon Industry Co. because it was involved with the forced labour of Uighurs in China. Will the government take similar action to restrict the importation of solar panels made from forced labour from the CCP?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:00): That is a very good question, Senator Babet, one about which I am deeply concerned, as is everyone on this side. That is why we went to the last election with a position to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act and regulation within our economy, because whether it's from Xinjiang, as the senator has referenced, or elsewhere in the world, you know from the work that Walk Free and others have done that forced labour, which we regard in our heads as something of the past, is something of the present. We should do what those opposite failed to do in government—in fact, they voted against provisions to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act here in Australia. We should be clear about ensuring that we require companies to be far more careful in assuring their supply chains and that we do not allow our purchases unknowingly to condone forced labour anywhere in the world.
Australia: Natural Disasters
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. How is the government working to improve Australia's resilience, response and recovery ahead of the 2022-23 high-risk weather season?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:01): Thank you, Senator Sterle, who I know has been very interested in this topic in WA—cyclone Seroja and other events, as well. In recent years we've seen the increasing impacts of climate change on our communities and our environment, from the most savage bushfires our country has ever seen to some of the most devastating floods on record. As our climate changes and natural disasters become more common, the way in which we manage our emergency response needs to change as well. Unlike those opposite, we are committed to acting on climate change, both through reducing our emissions and by supporting those communities most impacted by the effects of climate change. The bill we have just passed today is an important part of reducing those emissions, and better preparing for future disasters also protects communities as well.
As a country and a government, we need to be better prepared and we need to respond more quickly to natural disasters. Unfortunately, when those opposite were in power they did neither, and that left Australians exposed. If we are asking Australians to be better prepared for natural disasters, then our government needs to do the same thing. That's why, last week, I formally launched the National Emergency Management Agency, or NEMA, bringing together the capabilities of Emergency Management Australia and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency into a single agency. NEMA will bring together the capabilities of both agencies to provide support, prepare for future disasters, lead the response when disaster strikes and remain deeply connected with communities during recovery. It simply made no sense to have two separate disaster agencies in two different departments reporting to two different ministers, which was the situation we had under the former government. Bringing these agencies together as one, NEMA, will provide better coordination at a national level and ensure that we are better prepared for natural disasters and that we respond more quickly.
Good governments plan for the best and prepare for the worst. Now NEMA will be a big part of that. NEMA will work side-by-side with state, territory and local governments from beginning to end. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, a first supplementary?
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (15:03): Will the minister advise the Senate what concrete steps the Albanese government is taking to prepare communities for future natural disasters?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:04): Thank you again, Senator Sterle. Yesterday in the House of Representatives the Albanese government introduced amendments to the Disaster Ready Fund legislation. These amendments will ensure that $200 million a year allocated in the fund is spent on disaster mitigation while maintaining our commitment to support communities as they recover from disasters. I think members on both sides of this chamber will remember the comments that I had to make about the former government's Emergency Response Fund, set up over three years ago with the support of the then opposition with $4 billion in it. It was set up to spend money every year on disaster mitigation and disaster recovery. By the time we got to the election, after three years it hadn't built a single disaster mitigation project and hadn't released a single cent for disaster recovery. We're determined to change that, and I'm happy to report that this legislation has been welcomed by stakeholders across the community, from the Insurance Council of Australia and Suncorp to the RACQ and the Local Government Association of Queensland.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, a second supplementary?
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (15:05): Although there's a great focus on floods at the moment, we know that parts of the country will experience bushfire. What is being done to prepare these communities, Minister?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:05): I know that Senator Sterle and the President are both interested in this because WA, of course, experienced bad bushfires again last year. I've recently been briefed by the Bureau of Meteorology about what they are forecasting for the upcoming high-risk weather season, and members of parliament and senators were invited to a similar briefing this week as well. It's true that, while there is a very high chance of a third La Nina this summer bringing more rain and flooding to the east coast states—and we need to be ready for that—in addition, in Central and Western Australia communities are facing increased chances of bushfire.
That's why last week I met with the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council, or AFAC, who coordinate the National Aerial Firefighting Centre, and they have assured me that the resources available to them are appropriate for this season and that preparedness activities are on schedule. That may well include the redeployment of some aerial firefighting units to the west. Also last week the new Australian fire danger rating system was launched. This is a once-in-a-generation change to how the sector forecasts and warns about fire danger. Unlike our predecessors, the Albanese government is looking over the horizon and ensuring we're better prepared.
Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (15:06): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. Given today's announcement that the Labor government has appointed a working group on the Voice, can the minister advise the Senate if this working group will confirm the membership of the Voice, the selection process for the Voice and powers of the Voice prior to the proposed referendum?
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): I think those are matters that the minister will be dealing with. I understand there is a meeting tomorrow, and those matters are firmly within her areas of responsibility. This will be an important group. I heard—
Senator Canavan: Gatecrash it, Lidia.
Senator GALLAGHER : Sorry? It is a very important—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator GALLAGHER: I think this is a very important group, dealing with an issue around constitutional recognition, a voice to parliament that is one that we should all engage in. There is an opportunity here to do something nation-building, something inclusive, something that will right a previous wrong, and a lot of work needs to be done. This Senate has a role to play in that, about listening to different opinions—
Senator Thorpe interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe!
Senator GALLAGHER: finding where there is shared agreement to progress this issue that is important to so many Australians, including so many First Nations Australians.
Senator Thorpe interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Wong.
Senator Won g: I'd ask you to call Senator Thorpe to order.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I did not hear any comments you made.
Senator Thorpe interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! But your constant interjections are disorderly, and I would ask you to—
Sena tor McKenzie interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, at the time that I am calling another senator to order for being disorderly, you yourself are being disorderly. I would call senators to order and ask them to listen to answers to the questions. Minister.
Senator GALLAGHER: Thank you, President. What I was saying is that the referendum working group will be an important part of implementing a First Nations Voice to parliament. We want to progress it in a way that brings people together, understanding that there are different views about how to progress this. But there is an opportunity here to work together to do something meaningful—
Senator Thorpe interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe!
Senator GALLAGHER: and respectful to progress reconciliation and to ensure that we deliver on all of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in an organised and respectful way.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Nampijinpa Price, a first supplementary?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDEN T: Order! I would invite those senators who are constantly interjecting to put their hands up to ask questions when it's their opportunity to do so. Your constant interjections are disorderly.
Senator Thorpe: Why are you looking at me?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I've called you to order. It's not your chance to debate this. Senator Nampijinpa Price, a first supplementary question?
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (15:10): Can the government outline how free, prior and informed consent will be obtained by Aboriginal Australians during this new group's engagement activities, given the body will form the basis of the 'yes' campaign for a referendum?
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) (15:10): I repeat the answer I gave to the last question, which is about the referendum working group being an important part of implementing the First Nations Voice to parliament. It will assist the government and provide advice to the government. We have Minister Linda Burney working with Senator Pat Dodson and a whole range of other highly eminent Australians on the referendum working group.
Senator Thorpe: Oh, please!
Senator GALLAGHER: I'm not going to argue with you on that, Senator Thorpe. They are highly eminent Australians.
Senator Thorpe: Eminent!
Senator GALLAGHER: Yes. There are first-rate Australians in this group. Absolutely.
The PRESIDENT: Senators, interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Senator Nampijinpa Price.
Senator Nampijinpa Price: I rise on a point of order on relevance, specific to the question of how free, prior and informed consent will be obtained.
The PRESIDENT: I do believe the minister is being relevant, and I will ask her to continue.
Senator GALLAGHER: My point is that the working group will work through a whole range of issues in formulating their advice and progressing the implementation of this commitment. That is the job and that is why it's being formed. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Nampijinpa Price, a second supplementary question?
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (15:11): Can the minister outline how much the new working group on the proposed Voice model is costing taxpayers, including the expenditure already allocated to the National Indigenous Australians Agency on developing the 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) (15:12): There are costs associated with progressing the Voice to parliament. There was provision made for some of this by the previous government when you lot were in power. There was some money put aside in the budget. We expect that there will be some additional investments—we see them as investments, rather than costs—that go to making sure that we do this properly, that we bring people together, that we unite the nation and that we do it properly. That is why so much work is going into the engagement mechanisms and making sure that the working group is able to have all of the conversations they need to have to bring people together, to make sure that we do this in a way that unites the country rather than divides it. If there are additional costs, they will be in the budget.
Senator Wong: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories
Solomon Islands: Election
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:13): I have two additional answers. In question time yesterday, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Hume in my capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister relating to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. I've written to the senator to provide additional information, and I table my letter to Senator Hume for the information of all senators.
I also indicate that, in the course of question time, the Leader of the Opposition advised me that Senator Payne in fact visited Timor-Leste in August of 2019, so I correct the record on that answer.
Child Care
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:14): I'd like to provide answers to the questions I took on notice from Senator Hughes today. I'm advised that a family with one child earning $60,000 a year currently faces out-of-pocket costs of $2,430 a year. Under Labor's cheaper childcare plan they will pay only $1,620 out of pocket per year. A family earning $400,000 a year with one child faces current out-of-pocket costs of $16,000, and under the Albanese government's plan they will pay about $12,000. Under the government's plan, 96 per cent of Australian families with children in child care will be better off. This is a cost-of-living measure with an economic dividend. It will help get women back into the workforce, unlocking an army of skilled workers our economy is crying out for. It's good for kids, it's good for families and it's good for the economy.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Question Nos 99 and 100
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (15:15): I seek an explanation from the minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, of the minister's failure to answer questions on notice 99 and 100, which are now overdue. In doing so, I acknowledge I gave him only about 10 minutes notice of my intention to do so, so I will not be surprised if he doesn't have the answers on him. I seek his assistance in achieving a timely resolution to these questions.
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:15): I thank Senator Paterson for the heads-up on this. I will, of course, seek an explanation from the minister and respond to the chamber.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Ministerial Conduct
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:15): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer by Senator Wong to the question which I asked today relating to the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus.
Might I say that I'm absolutely gobsmacked by what is transpiring as we sit here today in the lower house with respect to the investments and the disclosures made by the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus MP. What is happening in terms of this issue in the lower house is absolutely extraordinary. There was, in history, a famous affair called the Dreyfus Affair, in relation to a Captain Dreyfus, who was wrongly accused of doing the wrong thing in the turn of the 20th century, but it will be very interesting to see how this unravels.
What we're finding out is that the Attorney-General appears, through his self-managed super fund, to have held a material interest in a managed fund called Greencape, which holds just over nine per cent of the shares or about $100 million worth of a company known as Omni Bridgeway, which provides class-action litigation funding. This is extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary! The Attorney-General!
I asked a question of Senator Wong in relation to the definition in the ministerial code of conduct, where it clearly says that the fund or trust must not invest to any significant extent in a business sector that could give rise to a conflict of interest with the minister's public duty. The Attorney-General is not permitted, under the ministerial code of conduct, to have an interest in a fund which invests in an entity which has a material potential conflict with the discharge of his duties. Here we have the Attorney-General of the country, through his self-managed super fund, with an investment in a fund called Greencape, which actually has a material interest in a class action litigation funder. This is extraordinary stuff. This could be the end of this Attorney-General. It is extraordinary.
I say this as someone who in a previous life was a company secretary and used to have responsibility of oversight of the company share trading policy. I can tell you, in terms of interpreting 'significant extent' from a general application in the corporations world, an interest of five per cent is considered material. In fact, any increase over five per cent in increments of one per cent has to be released to the Australian Stock Exchange through an announcement. It's considered a substantial shareholding.
Here we have a situation where the federal Attorney-General, through a self-managed superannuation fund, has an interest in a fund which owns nine per cent of a litigation funder. This is extraordinary. I don't see how he gets a way out of this. I don't see a way through this for the Attorney-General. On a plain reading of the ministerial code of conduct, he's in clear breach. This is not de minimis, this is not a few hundred bucks—a little one per cent here or there—this is an interest in his self-managed super fund which holds an interest in a fund that holds nine per cent of a litigation funder. The Attorney-General—you don't get away from that. Of all the ministers—I can excuse to some extent Assistant Minister Ayres—but for the Attorney-General to appear, on the face of it—and I'm looking at the article from The Age newspaper by James Massola on 8 September 2022 at 2.42 pm—this is extraordinary.
The Dreyfus affair. This will be known as the 'Dreyfus affair'. And just as Captain Dreyfus ended up on the literal Devil's Island in French Guiana, I suspect Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus is going to end up in the Devil's Island of the ministerial code of conduct. You don't come back from this. This is a material interest. This is a significant interest. That's what the code says. Senator Wong said it's all about intention. Yes, it is. It is, and I expect the Attorney-General, the first law officer in this nation, to actually discharge his responsibilities and understand the significance. Nine per cent? He owns an interest in a fund that owns nine per cent of a litigation funder. Absolutely extraordinary. The Dreyfus affair 2022.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:20): In question time today we heard these remarks about our Attorney-General from Senator Scarr when his own government set practically no standard at all. Not only in terms of ministerial accountability—
Senator Scarr: You can't defend him, Senator Pratt. It's indefensible.
Senator PRATT: No, I'm quite happy to. I don't want to be interjected on while I'm making my remarks, through you, Mr Deputy President. We have looked at this debate. These questions that have been asked of Mr Dreyfus—he has disclosed in his member's interests register everything that is required of him. On the other hand, we have seen countless episodes from members in the Liberal Party where we've been unable to even have a public debate about the nature of a conflict of interest, because they have squirrelled and hidden away their interests and their vested interests.
Mark Dreyfus, our Attorney-General, has been absolutely clear and transparent about his interests, and he has said very clearly that he expects to have to divest those interests if—if!—it should be satisfied that there is a perception of a conflict of interest, according to the requirements of the code.
This high standard that the Attorney-General has set and that this government has set is not a standard that those opposite were ever prepared to hold themselves to. There was not even a provision in the code of conduct of the previous government that would see someone divesting themselves of shares because of any perceived conflict of interest. We've seen this over and over again. Those opposite have had inherent conflicts of interest as ministers in the cabinet, making decisions whilst owning shares.
We have set a high standard, and there's nothing wrong with probing the merits of that here in question time. That's fine. That's appropriate. But we have a collective responsibility in this place—be we senators, members of the executive or not—to bear in mind what has gone on for decades before. We are pursuing, under the Prime Minister, a divestment process where these matters are ultimately asked about, and that is indeed what is taking place. Those opposite never held themselves to account in such a way.
Senator Wong, in responding to those questions, was very clear in what she said. The minister outlined that those questions have been asked about a number of ministers in the House this week and that they have been appropriately answered, based on the accountability of the ministerial standards. I liked the colour and flavour in Senator Wong's answer, where our leader said, 'That doesn't satisfy your thirst for some political chutzpah, that we should have such straightforward, clear, transparent processes.'
It's all very well for those opposite to seek to get some political mileage out of this, when they have never ever sought to set a decent standard at all. To that end, under the last government we did not ever see a national anticorruption commission that could also have oversight of such matters. We are very clear and positive in our duty to introduce legislation to establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission in the next session of parliament. (Time expired)
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (15:26): Senator Pratt would like to use a hundred days, or a hundred days plus, since the federal election to talk about the last 10 years. But let me make this statement: there is no virtue in raising the bar of ministerial standards if you're only going to lower the bar on compliance, and that is exactly what's happened.
We have a situation where the Labor Party, in seeking government, made much of the virtue of lifting standards of integrity in our country. I agree with that. Standards of integrity in our parliament and in our country need to be lifted. Indeed, I'm on the public record as supporting a federal integrity commission, and I will look with great interest when the government delivers its bill.
But the Labor Party have made much virtue of coming to government wanting to raise the integrity standards. Indeed, in the ministerial code of conduct, which contains Anthony Albanese's signature, he says:
Australians deserve good government.
The Albanese government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability, and Ministers in my Government (including Assistant Ministers) …
Hold that thought—including assistant ministers.
… will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australian people.
That's what the Prime Minister not just said but signed off on in the ministerial code of conduct.
Labor is confused about integrity. It says: we're committed to integrity because we're going to have a national integrity commission. But in the first hundred days it seeks to abolish the mechanism for establishing integrity on our construction worksites. It says: we're going to abolish the construction industry watchdog. Then it says it's going to remove measures of transparency introduced by the coalition over the superannuation industry. On one day they want to be committed to integrity, but on the following days, by their actions, they remove mechanisms of integrity in our country. Wow!
We've had three parliamentary sitting weeks—just three parliamentary sitting weeks—and we now have five ministers, including assistant ministers, who are in breach of a ministerial code signed by the Prime Minister himself. We are seeing a conga line of Labor ministers in breach of the ministerial standards: in this place, Senator Ayres, the Assistant Minister for Trade; in the other place, Mr Bill Shorten, the Minister for Government Services and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We've heard comments in regard to the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care. Add to that the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Just three weeks of sittings, and already it is one, two, three, four, five ministers—five members of the executive government. Add to that Senator Scarr's contribution on the latest development, in just the last 45 minutes, in regard to the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus. Labor said at the election that it would make permanent and much-needed changes to standards of integrity and accountability in government. Labor said it would have the lowest tolerance for core integrity standards in government. Judge Labor not on what they said but on what they now do.
Some senators in this place have tried to make a virtue of the fact that Mr Albanese, in his ministerial Code of Conduct, has said, 'We're going to do better.' Well, the measure of integrity is not what you're going to do but the standard that you apply to those new measures. Mr Albanese, as the new Prime Minister, would do well to learn the lessons of past leaders in our country. And we would hope—it is our great ambition—that every day, every week, every year the standards of integrity in our parliament and our community are lifted. But these breaches of the ministerial code are a dangerous precedent, and they deserve a stronger response from the Prime Minister.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:31): It never ceases to amaze me that senators from the opposition can come in here and try to lecture the new Labor government about integrity. The previous speaker talked about learning from past leaders. Well, I can say one thing for sure—that those people on this side and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will not take any lessons from Scott Morrison, from Malcolm Turnbull or from Tony Abbott. We have set a very high standard when it comes to the ministerial Code of Conduct. We also have set out to the Australian people our plan when it comes to legislating a national anticorruption commission. We will deliver on that.
But let's not forget that the integrity of a government doesn't lie just with a ministerial code of conduct. Let's not forget the waste and rorts—and that's clearly what they were; they were rorts by the former government. So, the hypocrisy of those on that side—to come into this chamber and try to sing their virtues: 'We did nothing wrong.' Let's also talk about the dishonesty they perpetuate in this place in relation to the trillion-dollar debt they have left. This hasn't just been left to the Australian government, to the Albanese Labor government. This is a debt that has been bestowed on the Australian people. To come into this chamber, as they do, trying to say that this was all about the pandemic, is quite wrong. It is in fact a lie.
Let's also not forget the $20 billion in JobKeeper money that was paid to companies who profited. Let's not forget about the lack of integrity and honesty of those opposite when they were in government in relation to the billions of dollars spent on the French submarines—but there were no subs. What they did deliver was a blow to the French government and the relationship between the two countries. Again, because of our government's integrity, because of the leadership of the Prime Minister, we have gone about renewing and restoring that relationship. Let's also not forget—because I think this is one that will stay in the Australian psyche for such a long, long time—the $660 million car park rorts. Those opposite were going to build these car parks where there were no trains.
If you want to come in here and lecture us about integrity and standards, then I would say that people in glass houses should not throw stones. Let's also go back to—what was it?—the $100 million sports rorts. These are the same people who come into this chamber, as they did today in question time. I know there'll be a further contribution from those on the other side, but let's get real here. Do you really think that the Australian people are going to put their faith in what you say on the standards that your government set and that they would want to measure ours against those? Because they will not. They will not.
I know it takes a little while to get used to opposition. Those opposite are not very happy because today we have passed climate change—another election commitment that we took to the federal election—and so they're all a bit sore and a bit narky today. I guess it's been another long week. The former senator reminded us that we've only had three sitting weeks. Well, the reality is the Albanese Labor government is setting a standard, a very high standard, and we will work to make sure that our standards are upheld. But our standard is so much higher than anything that those opposite had when they were in government, and even that very low standard was never, ever met.
Senator VAN (Victoria) (15:36): Wow. We just heard about this side of politics being depressed after losing an election. We all know parties lose elections from time to time. When I first came into this place in 2019 what we saw on the other side was—how did Senator Cormann put it?—the seven stages of grief being displayed each and every day. What you can say about this side of the chamber is our tails are up. We're positive. We're fighting. We're holding this government to account, every time, every day. If we had more sitting days, you'd see them being held to account even more. Today people ask: Why do you need to hold them to account? Well, we just learned of our fifth example today.
The Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, the leading law officer of the land, can't even get right or understand what 'significant extent' means in the ministerial code—wow. Now, maybe it's okay for a foreign minister not to know what 'significant extent' means. Maybe it's okay for Senator Ayres not to know what it means—you know, he is just the Assistant Minister for Trade—but for the Attorney-General not to know what the term 'significant extent' means—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator VAN: Well, it would go down in writing and then be codified in very many places in law. You'd think that our primary, our No. 1, legal officer in the land would have some idea of what 'significant extent' means. It's talking about materiality; it's not talking about, oh, a little bit here or a little bit there. It has an actual meaning, and that meaning is written in the ministerial code that the Prime Minister himself has signed, as my good friend Senator Smith has shown us today.
The other side keep on talking about integrity, but talk is cheap, and we're seeing that daily from this government. They want to talk about integrity, they want to talk about parliament being a better place, they want to talk about it being more family friendly yet last night we saw, with the help of the Greens, that they guillotined debate. The Greens even guillotined their own disallowance motion. They just got rid of their own disallowance motion—like, really? This is transparency and a better parliament? I don't think so. Even the comments of my good friend Senator Hughes today in question time agreed that the way this government is acting towards people, particularly women in parliament, shows no respect. There's no respect even for their own code of conduct.
This is just an incredible show of hubris. They come in here and talk about this code and transparency and integrity, and, apparently, we're going to see an integrity commission come before the parliament sometime soon. Do we know when? We don't know when. They signed an agreement with Timor-Leste yesterday. I tried to get a copy of that cooperative defence agreement. It's not available. There is no transparency from this government, let alone with what's happening with their ministerial code of conduct. What did they say in the Pirates of the Caribbean? Something you lean to rather than something to be observed in the obvious.
So we're not going to take lectures from those on that side about integrity. We will look not at what they say; we will look at what they do. We will ask them to be transparent—we will demand that they're transparent—and we'll hold them to account in question time, in take note of answers and, in a few short weeks, in Senate estimates.
Budget estimates, I might say, have been cut down from the normal two weeks, or eight days, to five or six days. They're not even going to allow us to hold them to account during Senate estimates. I'm just waiting for them to cut the hours of Senate estimates as well, to be a little bit more family friendly. But it won't be transparent, and it won't be integrity.
Question agreed to.
Economy
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (15:41): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the 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 (Senator Gallagher) to a question I asked today relating to the economy.
Yesterday the ABS released the national accounts and the national accounts showed that profits share of national income hit a new record high and that wages share of national income hit a new record low. These are astonishing statistics. In the more than 60 years since records have been kept, never have businesses been getting a bigger slice of the pie and never have workers been getting a smaller slice of the pie. Workers are back, in terms of their share of national income, to where they were 60 years ago—60 years, and no progress. What did the RBA governor have to say about this astonishing statistic in a speech he gave today? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, the word 'profit' wasn't even mentioned once. Instead, what Dr Lowe did is do what he's been doing so well this year, and that is running cover for corporate Australia. Here's what he said in his speech today:
… business people are able to stand in the public square and say they are putting their prices up, and they can point to a number of reasons why. The community doesn't like it, but there is a begrudging acceptance. And with prices rising, it is harder to resist bigger wage increases, especially in a tight labour market.
This is truly gobsmacking stuff from Dr Lowe. You've got corporate profits at record highs, you've got wages at record lows, yet Dr Lowe is making up excuses for businesses to put up prices—just another high priest of neoliberal economics, as my colleague Senator Steele-John says. Dr Lowe, at the same time, is selling the fantasy of wage increases coming down the line. I wish he was right, but I don't expect that he is. He's blabbing on about the RBA's business liaison program, and he's ignoring the fact that wage rises are a fantasy, in part because he himself spends a fair bit of his time jawboning down wages. In July this year, he told workers they need to anchor their wage increase expectations at 3½ per cent, while at the same time saying inflation was going to be higher. Well, real wages are where they were 10 years ago in this country, and you've got the RBA governor out there making a case for real wages to go even further backwards. This is truly Alice in Wonderland stuff. It's hard to make sense of at times. But I did see one distillation of the situation that I thought had significant merit. It was a tweet from Mr David Taylor, who's a reporter with the ABC program The Drum. Mr Taylor tweeted this out after Dr Lowe's speech:
How did we get to the point where it's OK for the RBA governor to warn publicly against rising wage growth without mentioning record profits
We know profits are contributing to the vast bulk of inflation—real wages are going backwards
I just don't get it
Well, Mr Taylor, I just don't get it either. And do you know who else I reckon doesn't get it? That's the vast majority of the Australian people, whose purchasing power is going backwards, and yet they just got smashed by a 50 basis points interest rate rise from the Reserve Bank, smashing mortgage holders, smashing renters, smashing small-business owners, to allegedly try and get on top of inflation, which is actually not being driven domestically by wages. It's being driven by corporate profits. I asked the minister today to acknowledge—and not for the first time, I might add—the role corporate profiteering and price gouging is playing in driving inflation, and yet again the minister would not, in her response, acknowledge the role that corporate profits are playing in driving inflation. We need truth and we need accountability in the system, and we're not getting it.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Procedure Committee
Report
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:47): I present the Procedure Committee's second report of 2022 and I move:
That the Senate adopt the recommendation of paragraph 1.10 of the report with effect from the first sitting day in October 2022.
The Procedure Committee has considered a proposal from the government to vary the Senate's hours of meeting and routine of business. The proposal responds in part to a recommendation of the Jenkins review that the houses review their sometimes long and irregular hours to strike a better balance between wellbeing and parliamentary business.
The committee agreed that significant improvements could be made in the Senate by adjourning earlier on Monday nights and a providing additional times when business would proceed on a no divisions basis. These changes reduce the need for senators and staff to attend into the evening unless they are directly involved in the matters being debated. The committee also agreed that sittings should start at 9 am on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Private senators' bills will be dealt with on those mornings, with Monday mornings reverting to government business time.
The committee also recommends procedural changes for matters of public importance and urgency motions so that two such matters may be dealt with each day for 30 minutes each and that these be rostered by informal agreement between party whips and others, rather than being subject to a daily ballot. The motion I have moved would make the relevant amendments to the standing orders effective from October sittings. I commend the report to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
BUDGET
Consideration by Estimates Committees
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:49): I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Budget estimates 2017-18 (Supplementary)—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information.
Additional estimates 2017-18—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information.
Budget estimates 2018-19—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information.
Budget estimates 2018-19 (Supplementary)—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information.
Additional estimates 2018-19—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information.
Budget estimates 2019-20—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information.
Economics Legislation Committee—Budget estimates 2022-23—Additional information—
Industry, Science, Energy and Resources portfolio.
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications portfolio. Treasury portfolio.
COMMITTEES
Human Rights Joint Committee
Report
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:49): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present Human rights scrutiny report: report 3 of 2022.
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Report
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:49): On behalf of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 and a related bill, together with accompanying documents.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Documents tabled earlier today (see entry no. 2 in today's Journals) were considered as follows:
Motion to take note of document nos 1, 3, 5 and 7 moved by Senator Askew. Called on and adjourned
Motion to take note of document nos 2, 4 and 6 moved by Senator Askew. Agreed to.
Motion to take note of document no. 8 moved by Senator O'Sulivan. Agreed to.
Motion to take note of document no. 9 moved by Senator O'Sullivan. Called on and adjourned.
Motion to take note of document no. 10 moved by Senator Davey. Called on and adjourned.
Motion to take note of document no. 11 moved by Senator McKenzie. Called on and adjourned.
Motion to take note of document no. 12 moved by Senator Shoebridge. Called on and adjourned.
Motion to take note of document no. 13 moved by Senator McKim. Agreed to.
COMMITTEES
National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:51): Today I want to inform the Senate of an extraordinarily inspiring event that I was privileged to be part of this morning. This morning, seven-year-old Jeremy Carr from North Brighton in South Australia addressed the Power of Speech Breakfast here in Parliament House. He told us that he loved skateboarding and BMX. He plays soccer. He loves baking zucchini muffins. He wants to be a car designer when he grows up, preferably for Lamborghini. He spoke for five minutes with no notes. For any seven-year-old this is a pretty extraordinary accomplishment, but the fact that Jeremy was born bilaterally and profoundly deaf makes his story one of the most extraordinary stories of courage and immense inspiration. He won the Prime Minister's Award for Courage for his outstanding speech.
Jeremy was joined by a number of other young people who were very inspiring in their own stories: Matthias Berndt from New Zealand, an incredibly articulate young eight-year-old; twins Evie and Lilla Harmsworth from Western Australia, who entertained the audience with a double act of comedy that was absolutely entertaining; Audrey, a bubbly, bubbly young lady from Queensland who wants to be a singer; Harper Rollinson from New South Wales, who lost her hearing as a result of treatment for cancer but who certainly hasn't lost her sense of humour; and Abigail Loganathan from the Northern Territory, a cheeky and talented eight-year-old.
The stories that these kids told us were absolutely inspiring to hear. They're real-life examples of the ways that good policy and focused investments can allow people to better connect with the full scope of life's opportunities and interests. That's because all of these children are cochlear implant recipients. The children spoke at the Power of Speech Breakfast here in Canberra, which was hosted by First Voice and sponsored by Cochlear. It celebrates the remarkable outcomes for cochlear implant recipients. The event was MC'd by Rosie Gallen, herself a beneficiary of cochlear implants. I give a really big shout-out to First Voice and its chair, Jim Hungerford, for their longstanding commitment to improving and enriching the lives of children who are deaf or hearing impaired. Their strong advocacy, their leadership and their role in informing meaningful public debate and health policy have changed the lives of so many young Australian children. I also extend the same gratitude to Cochlear for its work as a global leader in hearing solutions, having provided over 600,000 implantable devices that are helping people of all ages live full and active lives. Thanks to Cochlear, the lives of children with hearing impairment are a world of possibility, not one of limitation as they used to be.
But there is a message from the kids to Cochlear. They really want the new and improved version of the implants to be waterproof, because they really love swimming. So, if you could just do that, you'd make it absolutely perfect. But I have to say that was the only thing that the kids were asking for. Their lives have been changed. They acknowledge it, and they were so happy for the experience that they now have that enables them to hear like other kids.
It's the role of governments to invest in medical research, supporting early intervention to ensure that those born with hearing impairment can get the best out of life. I strongly believe in the importance of looking to people's ability rather than disability, and these children should be our inspiration in ensuring we support Australians through our investment in the NDIS and how we ensure its viability into the future. Thank you, Jeremy and all the other kids, for inspiring us to keep focused on that goal.
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (15:56): I seek to speak to the government response to the Intelligence and Security Joint Committee's Interim report: inquiry into extremist movements and radicalism in Australia.
The government has responded to the recommendation that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security consider an inquiry into extremist movements and radicalisation in Australia. The growth, in particular, of right-wing radical extremism in Australia has been a matter of very real concern, I know, to my party and to many people in the community that we speak to. It is particularly troubling, though, that this inquiry will be done under the cloak of the secrecy of this committee, without the broad representation that is necessary to deal with the threats of extremism. This will, of course, go to the club that is the Parliament Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—the club that's been established between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party; the club that has fed the beast that is the growing surveillance state, the growing security laws, the increased resourcing and empowering of security and intelligence agencies in this country.
But, of course, that growing body of laws, agencies, budgets and staff that is there, apparently and purportedly to keep us safe, has been conspicuously failing to deal with the growth of right-wing extremism. We have seen repeated calls from across the community for some of the most offensive right-wing extremist organisations to be dealt with as terrorist organisations, as they have been in other, comparable countries. But there is the inexplicable refusal of the previous government or this government to step up and do the same.
What do we know from this very brief interim report into extremist movements and radical movements in Australia? Well, we know—and this is from the Director-General of Security—that, in the two most recent annual threat assessments and, in fact, as recently as March of last year, the Director-General stated:
In addition to the enduring threat from religiously motivated violent extremists is a growing assortment of individuals with ideological grievances.
So-called right-wing extremism—
And I stop there to ask: why is it 'so-called'? It just is right-wing extremism. It's not so-called right-wing extremism; it is right-wing extremism. But I continue:
So-called right-wing extremism has been in ASIO's sights for many years, and last year I called out what we have been seeing.
Again, I'm just going to stop there. It may have been in ASIO's sights, but there's no evidence that, having viewed it, ASIO has taken the steps appropriate to deal with it, or, if they have, they haven't persuaded the government to make adequate responses, having observed it. I go back to the comments of the director-general, who said:
Since then, ideological extremism investigations have grown from around one-third of our priority counter-terrorism caseload, to around 40 per cent. This reflects a growing international trend, as well as our decision to dedicate more resources to the emerging domestic threat.
Then, in February 2022, the director-general stated:
The most likely terrorist attack scenario in Australia over the next 12 months continues to be a lone-actor attack—and that fact weighs heavily on my mind and the minds of our staff …
He then says:
Most of the radicalisation occurs online …
So it is inexplicable, in those circumstances—given the threats of right-wing extremism and given the appalling attacks we've seen on democracy and on civil society by right-wing extremist elements—that, whilst Canada and New Zealand have moved and listed the right-wing extremist organisation Proud Boys as a terrorist threat, there's been zero action from the Australian government. Indeed, when this government was in opposition, as I'm sure you will remember, Acting Deputy President, we heard a lot of noise from the then Labor opposition shadow, saying: 'Why isn't the government listing these extremist right-wing organisations? Why haven't they taken action?' Where's the action from this government? New Zealand and Canada have listed Proud Boys. We're still waiting. Right-wing extremism is growing, our security agencies are not addressing it and this government, to date, has been silent.
Question agreed to.
Consideration
The following committee reports and government responses were considered:
Economics References Committee—Report—Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability: All at sea...—Government response. Motion of Senator Steele-John to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—Interim report—Extremist movements and radicalism in Australia—Government response. Motion of Senator Shoebridge to take note of document debated and agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Report—Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020— Government response. Motion of Senator O'Sullivan to take note of document called on and adjourned.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Report—Federal Government's response to the drought, and the adequacy and appropriateness of policies and measures to support farmers, regional communities and the Australian economy—Government response. Motion of Senator O'Sullivan to take note of document called on and adjourned.
Community Affairs References Committee—Accountability and justice: Why we need a Royal Commission into Robodebt—Report. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of report called on and adjourned.
Community Affairs References Committee—Provision of general practitioner and related primary health services to outer metropolitan, rural, and regional Australians—Interim and final reports. Motion of Senator Ciccone to take note of reports called on and adjourned.
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—General Issues: Work of the committee in the 46th Parliament—Report. Motion of Senator Steele-John to take note of report called on, debated and adjourned.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 3 of 2022-23
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:01): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I rise to take note of the Auditor-General's report, Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout: Department of Health and Aged Care. This report is pretty damning of the last lot, isn't it? For folks watching at home who might not have had time to read this—and I don't blame you at all if you haven't—I'd like to draw the collective attention to a quote from the report's first lot of conclusions:
Initial planning was not timely, with detailed planning with states and territories not completed before the rollout commenced, and Health underestimated the complexity of administering in-reach services to the aged care and disability sectors. Further, it—
being Health—
did not incorporate … targets for the rollout into its planning until a later stage.
The reality of these missed targets, the underestimations and the untimely planning is 14,214 deaths from, or with, COVID-19. That is 14,000 people taken far too soon from their families with a virus that could have been stopped had the previous government acted in time and if they had listened to the warning signs given by the disability community, who knew from day one of this pandemic that there was the most mortal danger that we would be left behind by a government that so continually failed to incorporate lived experience into its planning processes.
That is 14,000 people gone, including people like the incredible disability advocate and leader, John Moxon, whose loss has devastated our community this week. I want to take the opportunity to offer my sincerest condolences to Margaret, to Bruce and to everyone who loved him so dearly. Rest in power, John. It's one of the great regrets of my life so far that I didn't get a chance to know you more than I did or to learn from you more while you were with us than I had the opportunity to. We have lost so many people it is often too hard to think about. COVID 19 isn't close to being over. How is it that our state and federal governments have become so good at ignoring the reality of this deadly situation? Everyone deserves to be able to participate in society safely, comfortably and fully, and the Australian government should be working towards this end.
This report sets out in writing what so many in our community already know, that the previous government had no previous serious plans to provide vaccines to those who needed them. The previous government clearly and evidently mismanaged the rollout. They underestimated the entire process, and only when we were already in the thick of it, with vaccines having been available for months, did they start to make any kind of decent progress for those who needed these vaccinations the most. I urge this government not to do the same now as we face the continuation of this virus and of long COVID and the extensive symptoms and suffering for thousands.
I want to finish by speaking directly to anybody—in fact, to the tens of thousands who I know in the disability community are immunocompromised, who feel as though the nation, the conversation, has left them behind and is quite happy to see people pass away from COVID 19, as long as the rest of the business community is no longer inconvenienced. I want you to know that the Greens understand that for you this pandemic is not over, that COVID 19 is still keeping you in your homes. I therefore seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (16:07): I rise to speak to the Auditor-General's Performance audit: Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout. I have to say I was shocked when I heard that the Auditor-General had even done a report into the rollout, because the Auditor-General wouldn't know what he's talking about. We should also remember that the Auditor-General is an ex-Labor staffer who has been shown in the past to be partisan, as we saw with the Leppington Triangle.
I want to make this very clear. The World Health Organization came out in September 2020 and said that the vaccine would not be ready for another nine months because there needed to be greater safety testing. They needed to do much more safety testing of the vaccine. Lo and behold! Six weeks later, about a week after President Biden was elected and after trying to find a vaccine for 40 years, three different pharmaceutical companies had suddenly found a vaccine. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a bit too much of a coincidence for my liking.
For Senator Steele-John to be saying that the Morrison government didn't do everything it could to roll out the vaccine in time, when just six weeks earlier the World Health Organization had been saying that the vaccine wouldn't be ready till June 2021, is complete rubbish. How can you make a plan when there hadn't been a vaccine, when a vaccine hadn't even been invented? They had been searching for a vaccine for up to 40 years, and they certainly have never used an mRNA encased in a lipid at all. So to suddenly blame the Morrison government for not rolling out a vaccine that wasn't properly tested on immunocompromised people—remember that, Senator Jordon Steele-John. It wasn't tested on immunocompromised people. It wasn't tested on people who were getting anti-immune tablets at all. So for you to be claiming it wasn't rolled out fast enough isn't actually true at all. As it turns out, we still have had one of the lowest COVID death rates in the world, not because of the vaccine, I might add, but because we kept the country locked down for two years.
The best part of the country was locked down for two years, and you're still complaining—you and your mate the Auditor-General, who we know can't be trusted, because he couldn't actually know the difference between an agricultural zone and an industrial zone and ran partisan politics. I will be writing to the Attorney-General about his inability to remain impartial—the Auditor-General.
I will be writing to the Attorney-General about his inability to remain impartial. Why would he suddenly find the urgency to have to do a report into the rollout of the COVID vaccine? This guy would not have a clue, and we should also point out that he never once talked on what the TGA did. I will quote that Pfizer never tested the spike protein in humans. How can you roll out something that's never been actually tested on somebody and then say it's safe and effective? But did the Auditor-General raise that? No, no. I would suggest that the Attorney-General should really take a good look at his own position. I don't think it's right that he stays in this position, given than he's an ex-Labor staffer. He was a staffer back in the late eighties for a Hawke-Keating government minister. I think, because he's meant to be impartial, he should reconsider his position. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Question agreed to.
Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide
Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (16:11): I wish to continue my remarks on the interim report of the Royal Commission on Defence and Veteran Suicide. The royal commission's interim findings are both shocking and sobering—deeply sobering. What they show is a system that is failing veterans. The Australian government has spent some $14.4 billion on wars in the Middle East, including Afghanistan, since 2001. That includes $8.5 billion on military operations just in Afghanistan and more than $4 billion on operations in Iraq. While the country is spending billions of dollars to send mostly young people off to fight wars in far-off countries, we are failing to properly support veterans when they return home, fundamentally changed and, in many cases, deeply traumatised by their service. It's a tragic fact that more current and former ADF members have died by suicide than in combat in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.
The royal commission in its interim report—and I commend the commissioners for the work they have done, for the sensitivity of their report and for their survivor focused approach to the royal commission—identified over 50 previous reports, conducted since just 2000, that are relevant to the topic of suicide and suicidality amongst serving and ex-serving members of the ADF. It also noted more than 750 recommendations and found that most of these recommendations have not been implemented. Indeed, the royal commission was limited in how it could review particularly reports of this parliament because of the operation of parliamentary privilege, and has made urgent recommendations to the government to seek to lift parliamentary privilege to be able to appropriately scrutinise and reflect upon the reports and recommendations of committees of this parliament.
What we have seen since 2000, in those 50 previous reports and 750 recommendations that were largely unimplemented, is, in fact, two decades of failure. As the commissioners noted:
We have been dismayed to come to understand the limited ways that Australian Governments have responded to these previous inquiries and reports
And dismayed they were. The royal commission has heard damning evidence demonstrating that the system that's meant to be there to help veterans is, instead, too often harming them.
I don't hold the current government responsible for the mess that the system is in. They've inherited it. Yes, there may be some culpability going back over a decade, but the veterans I've spoken to don't hold the current government responsible for the mess. But I and they do hold the government responsible for stepping through and fixing it and responding with urgency to the recommendations from the interim report of the royal commission.
The way the Australian government is currently dealing with veterans' claims for compensation and rehabilitation was found by the royal commission to be a contributing factor to defence suicides. Let's just pause and reflect on that for a moment. The system that is meant to be there to help veterans is instead contributing to veteran suicide—a double failing of the duty we have to those people who have served. That's a shocking conclusion. Indeed, as the interim report shows, there are currently 41,799 outstanding claims. Some have been outstanding for well over 300 days. Indeed, that number has almost doubled in less than two years. Yes, some efforts are currently being made by the department to increase staffing and respond to that. But the backlog doubling in just two years and the delay that that causes in veterans getting urgent treatment and having their health prioritised is a significant part of the harm that has been delivered to veterans. Veterans are too often left to deal with traumatic experiences of war and then are further traumatised by the system's failure to appropriately respond, compensate and—importantly— rehabilitate them.
As one veterans' advocate said, this waiting time is the damaging fact for a lot of veterans. They're sitting there hanging on, waiting so that they can go to the doctor and find out exactly what's wrong with them and get it paid for and get looked after. This is what they're waiting on. They're waiting on treatment. They're waiting on being helped.
Survivors of abuse within the ADF face similar injustices and interminable waits, sometimes stretching out five to 10 years. They struggle, equally, against broken systems and a culture that permits abuse and exacerbates trauma by obstructing calls for support, fair compensation and accountability.
We can and must do better. The government can and must urgently respond to the recommendations of the interim report. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Pensions and Benefits
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:17): With reference to Senator Smith's return to order motion of 6 September 2022, I table documents relating to three orders for the production of documents concerning pension changes.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:17): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:18): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The introduction of the Climate Change Bills, as well this Electric Car Discount Bill -
Sends an unmistakable signal to this Parliament, to the Australian people, and beyond -
That Australia now has a Government that recognises the economic and generational imperative of acting on climate change.
The communities we represent recognise this too.
They have rejected the fear campaigns of the past.
And they have embraced action.
In the knowledge that the cost of inaction gets higher every day.
And in the knowledge of the historic opportunities that climate action presents.
A future with cheaper energy bills and a more resilient energy grid.
A future with hundreds of thousands of new clean energy jobs, in new and growing industries.
And a future with a climate and environment that's been kept safe and strong for the next generation.
We now take the first major steps towards that future.
Australians will see this new approach right across government—and the Treasury space is no exception.
We know that Australian businesses are desperate for clearer guidance on reporting the climate risks impacting their operations.
That's why we are working closely with regulators to develop a standardised approach to climate disclosures for businesses—for a framework that is clear, credible and globally comparable.
We are signed up supporters of the G20's ambitious sustainable finance agenda—and we are doing more work here at home, in conversation with our regulators.
And, importantly, our Government will restore the Treasury's role in modelling climate risks and opportunities for the Australian economy—rebuilding this capacity after it was left to decay by the previous government.
Treasury modelling will help make sure we are charting a path that grabs the opportunities for growth and jobs that climate action offers.
And the Bill I introduce today is also about grabbing opportunities.
This Bill implements the Albanese Government's election commitment to provide a fringe benefits tax exemption for eligible electric cars that are made available by employers for employees.
It amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to provide an exemption from fringe benefits tax for this purpose.
The exemption applies to battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars that are below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel efficient cars.
The exemption will apply to fringe benefits arising from the use or availability of an eligible electric car from 1 July 2022—provided that the car was first made available for use on or after that date.
These changes will ensure that employers providing employees with an eligible electric car will not have to pay fringe benefits tax on that car—and the cost to employees of entering into salary sacrificing arrangements in order to lease an eligible electric car will now be less than it previously would have been.
If a model valued at about $50,000 is provided by an employer through this arrangement, our fringe benefits tax exemption would save the employer up to $9,000 a year. For individuals using a salary sacrifice arrangement to pay for the same model, their saving would be up to $4,700 a year.
The fringe benefit tax exemption for eligible electric cars will be implemented as an ongoing measure. It will be reviewed after three years, in light of higher rates of electric car take-up, to ensure it remains effective.
The fringe benefit tax exemption is one component of the Government's Electric Car Discount, and forms part of our Powering Australia Plan—being delivered by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.
The Electric Car Discount also includes the removal of five per cent tariffs for eligible electric cars with a customs value below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel efficient vehicles.
The Electric Car Discount package aims to help encourage greater take-up of electric vehicles and reduce transport emissions—as part of the Government's broader climate action agenda.
These measures help reduce the upfront and ownership costs of electric cars, addressing a significant barrier to buying electric cars in Australia.
The Electric Car Discount is one of the first new initiatives in the Government's plan to improve electric vehicle uptake, with further measures to be delivered as part of the National Electric Vehicle Strategy.
This includes a $500 million investment to boost electric vehicle charging infrastructure right across Australia.
Our Government has also committed to ensuring 75 per cent of new Commonwealth fleet purchases are electric by 2025. This will increase the number of second-hand electric vehicles on the market, providing more options for consumers and driving down prices in the coming years.
The transport sector is one of the fastest-growing sources of emissions in Australia, and the stronger uptake of electric vehicles can make a substantial impact in our efforts to tackle climate change.
Yet right now, Australia lags far behind our international peers when it comes to electric vehicle use.
About 15 per cent of cars sold in the United Kingdom are electric and plug-in hybrids. In Australia, it's only about two per cent.
Obviously, we are very different countries in terms of our transport networks and needs—but even so, two per cent is much, much lower than it could be, and should be.
More and more Australians are interested in the benefits of owning an electric vehicle—but they remain unaffordable for many motorists.
There are only 10 electric and plug-in hybrid cars on the domestic market selling for less than $60,000—whereas in the UK, there are about two dozen under this price.
Because they have policies and incentives to help increase the take-up of electric vehicles.
And now, Australia does too.
Accelerating electric vehicle uptake will help pave the way for a lower-cost transition to our emissions reductions targets.
This Bill is good for motorists, good for employers and their workers, and good for climate action.
Full details of the fringe benefit tax exemption measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Standards Joint Select Committee
Reporting Date
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McGrath ) (16:18): The President has received a message from the House of Representatives agreeing to the Senate resolution proposing an extension of time for the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards to present its report.
BILLS
Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:19): I rise today to make a contribution on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. This matter has a lengthy history. A decision was made in this place 25 years ago to pass the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, which amended the right of Australia's territories to legislate in this space. This bill intends to undo that decision.
Parliament has seen separate attempts over the last 18 years to hand the territories power to legislate assisted suicide. The first was in 2004, and the most recent was just last year. The bills were either voted down or scrapped. It must be pointed out that this bill has made another comeback under the guise of restoring rights to territorians. But ultimately it cuts through one of the very core values of our country which have been held since Federation, the sanctity of life. This bill is only about giving those living in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory access to assisted suicide.
Personally I will not be supporting this bill, and that position comes from a deep and personal conviction. Under no circumstance could I ever support a human being ending their own life, whether it's sanctioned by the government not, and it simply does not sit right with my conscience. I believe life is sacred and life should not end on anyone's terms: not your own, not the doctor's and not the government's. The outcome of signing a paper by a doctor is the same as dying by any other method. Euthanasia is a relatively new practice in Australia, and it is one that is changing the way we view health care. Instead of investing in better palliative care in Australia, this bill puts that very thing at risk. If we continue to view euthanasia as a palliative care alternative, we will discourage further investment and research and better care for those who need it. In 2018 my colleague Senator Patrick Dodson told this place:
… more needs to be done to ensure that First Nations people are receiving palliative care within their communities. Where First Nations people are already overrepresented at every stage of our health system, it is irresponsible to vote in favour of another avenue to death. Paving the way for euthanasia and assisted suicide leaves First Nations people even more vulnerable, when our focus should be on working collectively to create laws that help prolong life and restore their right to enjoy a healthy life.
Senator Dodson reflects on the grave disadvantages of euthanasia for Indigenous Australians, but these issues apply to all Australians. If we choose euthanasia as an acceptable palliative care option, then over time it will depreciate the value that we place on life. Intended or not, once you start something it always finds a way to advance itself. I do not believe that the sponsors of this bill intend to cause any harm, but over time as more people access euthanasia, Australians will become desensitised to its use as a genuine end-of-life option.
The Netherlands made euthanasia legal in 2001, and in 2005 they became the first country to decriminalise euthanasia for children. In Belgium, euthanasia was made legal for adults or, under rare conditions, emancipated minors in 2002. In 2014 they amended euthanasia laws to allow voluntary child euthanasia without any age restriction. The child can request it and verify that they understand what they're asking for, and with the parents and doctor's consent the child is euthanised. Over 27,000 people have been euthanised in Belgium since the laws were passed in 2002, and almost one in five of those were not expected to die of natural causes in the immediate future. People are now accessing euthanasia for psychological conditions, and this extract is drawn from the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, volume 46, 2021:
Another point of controversy is the fact that the Belgian Euthanasia Law allows euthanasia for both physical and psychological suffering, but does not specify how the difference between the two should be conceived. The absence of any consensus or legal guidance on how to define psychological suffering makes it possible to use the concept in an increasingly broad way. Available empirical evidence and reports show that euthanasia is performed increasingly frequently in cases of psychological suffering (e.g. for schizophrenia, borderline disorder, or depression)
These mental health issues are, sadly, increasingly common here in Australia. However, what's distressing is that these conditions are treatable but the Belgian government allow these patients to euthanise themselves in the name of compassion or human rights.
I don't think anyone here would want to see Australia go down this path—the path towards an on-demand assisted suicide. But I remind this place that the territories do not have the same degree of checks and balances as the states do. We must ask ourselves: if we allow the territory authorities to pass assisted suicide laws, can we guarantee that the appropriate safeguards and checks will be in place to protect Australians? No, we cannot. The Australian Capital Territory government is the first and only government to have decriminalised the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs like ice, heroin and cocaine, the drugs that have caused so much pain and destruction in our community. How can we ensure that Chief Minister Barr does not take legislation of assisted suicide to the extreme, like we've seen him do with his drug laws?
Looking past my personal objections, our Constitution grants powers to the Commonwealth to make laws for the government of any territory. We've been given a great responsibility over our territories to make sure that there is a sufficient level of accountability. Passing this bill and granting the territories the right to legislate assisted suicide laws with limited accountability, in my view, is a risk far too high.
I wish to remind the chamber that, only two years after the Hon. Kevin Andrews introduced the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, the Northern Territory held a referendum to decide if it should become a state of the Commonwealth of Australia. It's pertinent to note that the Labor opposition of the day supported the 'no' campaign. Accordingly, the good people of the Northern Territory narrowly voted it down, and the result of this referendum meant that the Commonwealth continued to retain its oversight of this matter. I do not support this change. Do not pretend that this bill is about giving the same rights that states have to territories when the Northern Territory had the opportunity to have those rights but declined.
Having listened to the other contributions when we started this debate earlier in the week, I want to reflect on the fact that this debate has been engaged in in a very respectful way. I understand that there is a real diversity of views on this matter. People will come at this from all sorts of different perspectives, and I respect the fact that we are able to have a debate as important as this and do it in a respectful way. The discussion on this matter is of course very important.
But I encourage all senators to truly consider what's at stake here. Do we want to set ourselves on a path that could lead us in the same direction as that of other countries around the world—I cited the situation in Belgium—where we end up providing euthanasia, assisted suicide, for people with clinical diagnoses of depression, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses? As we've seen, there are countries where children are able to access these services. There's no law in Australia right now in any state that would allow that, but that's the point. The passage of this legislation here would enable the ACT and the Northern Territory to put in place laws without the same checks and balances that there are in the states, which could quite easily allow for an even greater move towards use of those services without limitations. I don't think that that is something that we'd want to see. So I urge senators, when you consider where you're going on the conscience vote that's appropriately before us here, to consider all of these matters, and I urge you to vote against this bill.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before I call Senator Bilyk, I remind all senators that, because this is a conscience debate, I will be coming down particularly hard on any interjections, as all senators should be heard with respect and be allowed to express their views.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (16:30): If I can begin by making a couple of comments about Senator O'Sullivan's contribution. I want to make it very clear: I've done a lot of work over many years with both Palliative Care Tasmania and Palliative Care Australia. The issue in this debate is that palliative care and voluntary—I underline 'voluntary'—assisted dying are not mutually exclusive. In fact palliative care can be a great resource in the area of voluntary assisted dying.
I thank my Labor colleagues in the House who introduced this bill, the member for Ballarat, Ms King, and the member for Eden-Monaro, Ms McBain. It's hard to believe that it is now 27 years since the Northern Territory parliament passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. It was the first state or territory in Australia to legislate for and regulate the process of voluntary assisted dying. It's not euthanasia and it's not suicide; it's voluntary assisted dying. After the act was passed and before it was overridden by the federal parliament, seven people sought assistance to end their lives under the act. All seven had advanced stages of cancer. Of the seven, four were able to use the provisions of the act to end their lives. Another two sought assistance but died before the act became law, and one died after the act was repealed.
The Northern Territory's act was enforced for almost two years when the Australian Parliament passed the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997. The federal act prevented not only the Northern Territory but also the ACT and Norfolk Island from passing laws to allow for voluntary assisted dying. Since the bill was introduced there have been many attempts in this parliament through private members and private senators bills to repeal the provision of the Euthanasia Laws Act and restore the rights of the territories. I won't at length go into those various attempts to do that but I will say this: in 2016 a bill was introduced, this time a collaborative effort between Senator Di Natali and Labor Senator Gallagher, but, like most of the others, wasn't proceeded with. In 2021 during the last parliament, Nationals Senator Sue McMahon introduced the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill. While there was some progress on the second reading debate, that bill did not come to a vote. The one bill that did make it to a division, Senator Leyonhjelm's bill, was negatived by a margin of only two votes.
So while we've been grappling with the issue of the rights of the territories to legislate for voluntary assisted dying, we have had extensive debates on the issue in all state parliaments. In fact, I think Senator O'Sullivan comes from Western Australia. Western Australia has voluntary assisted dying laws. So it's alright for the state that he lives in to have it. We didn't get a say in this chamber whether or not Western Australia got to do that but when it comes to the territories, we have to treat them differently. Every state parliament has now passed laws to provide some regulatory framework for suffering terminally-ill people to seek assistance to end their lives. As I said, this chamber did not get a vote to determine what every state did, so why do we have to do that for the territories? These laws take effect on various states and are already in effect in two of the six states.
In my home state of Tasmania, the legislation which passed was developed by Legislative Council member, Mike Gaffney, after a very long and very extensive community consultation process. This consultation process allowed the legislation to be very thoroughly scrutinised to ensure the language was consistent and correct, and that the checks and balances against misuse were watertight. The End-of-Life Choices (Voluntary Assisted Dying) Act 2021passed the Tasmanian parliament last year and commences operation on 23 October this year.
You will notice from the titles of the various repeal bills put forward in federal parliament that there have been a lot of terms used, a lot of terms bandied about and, as I said, some of these are inappropriate. It's really important that we get the terminology correct. We're talking here about voluntary assisted dying. We're not talking about euthanasia or suicide, as I've mentioned. Those against it use that language to run the emotive argument, and I find that not tolerable. You have to understand the bill. You have to understand what the word 'voluntary' means. We're not forcing anyone to do it. You hear all these horror stories, but I don't understand why it's alright for all the states to be able to do it and not the territories. If anyone can explain to me why that's alright and give me a logical argument, I'm happy to listen, but I haven't heard a logical argument about it yet.
Ending one's own life by suicide is usually the result of mental ill health such as psychosis or severe depression. Suicide is a tragedy—don't get me wrong—and every possible measure should be taken to reduce the incidence of suicide until we eliminate it entirely. By contrast, voluntary assisted dying is a rational act made by someone whose life-limiting illness is causing them intolerable pain or physical discomfort, and as a result they have no prospects for quality of life. Suicide tends to be preceded by isolation and loneliness—not always, but usually—whereas voluntary assisted dying usually brings patients closer to family and loved ones. As for euthanasia, this is a procedure used to kill someone painlessly to end their suffering. With voluntary assisted dying, the doctor provides the patient the means to end their life and thereby end their suffering, so ultimately the power to make the decision remains in the patient's hands. It's important we make these distinctions clear when we talk about voluntary assisted dying.
Years ago I was actually opposed to voluntary assisted dying, but my views is changed. Some recent experiences, of course, have had a profound effect on my thinking about the topic of death and dying—how I die, how much dignity I have when I die, and how I may want the choice to be mine. I mean, I might get run over by a bus tomorrow! Heck, wouldn't there be a whole lot of people interested in my position? But if I've got the choice, and I'm in such severe pain, with no quality of life, then I want to be able to make that choice.
Only a few years ago I stayed for two weeks by the bedside of a very close personal friend who was dying in a palliative care suite. I'd known my friend for over three decades. We were partners in crime together for over three decades. I'd witnessed her cognitive decline over several years resulting from early onset dementia. At the beginning of those two weeks she lost the ability to swallow, and the doctors expected her to only live for one other day. She held on for two weeks, receiving regular pain medication. It was a great relief to her loved ones when the suffering finally ended. I'd changed my view on voluntary assisted dying before this incident, but it still had a profound effect on me nonetheless, and probably just served to reinforce my views.
Seeing people die or dying changes your perspective on death. I used to be a nurse. I've seen people die. I've laid out the dead. I've seen people have to hang on, being kept alive with no quality of life, and I cannot accept that that has to be the way for the people in the territories if it doesn't have to be the way for the people in the states. But we've got a bit of a culture in Australia where we treat death like a taboo subject. We don't talk about it nearly enough, whereas in other cultures they're much more open about the subject. We even seek to substitute straightforward words like 'death' and 'dying' with euphemisms like 'passing away' or 'passing'. I'm committed to turning this around, as a lot of people in this chamber know. As co-convenor of Parliamentary Friends of Palliative Care for a number of years, I've spoken extensively about the need to plan for and discuss our end-of-life wishes in order to have a good death. We do it when we're having a baby. We have plans to have babies. People want women to have a good birth and a good experience. When it comes to dying, we should have the same respect.
Part of our discomfort with the idea of assisted dying is probably brought about by our discomfort with the idea of death generally and our reluctance to discuss it openly. I'm sure more people would be open to the idea of voluntary assisted dying if they openly discussed the topic of death as well as what their dying wishes are. That's why I love the idea of death cafes, an initiative that's gaining popularity, in which people get together over tea or coffee and have a frank, open discussion about death.
More discussion about death would also help to overcome the pervasive misunderstandings about palliative care. I am disappointed to hear people voice suggestions that arguing for investment in quality palliative care is somehow an excuse for not rendering assistance to terminally ill patients to end their own lives. As I said, they're not mutually exclusive. It frustrates me because I'm both a supporter of voluntary assisted dying and a strong advocate for quality palliative care. I speak to palliative care people regularly, so I know they understand that palliative care can assist with voluntary assisted dying. As I said, it's not an either-or proposition. I do suggest, as I have earlier in my contribution, that these views are put forward by people who quite often have a very narrow understanding of what palliative care is. So, while I'm here, let me bust some of the myths.
Palliative care is not just pain management and other care at the very end. It's not just for dying people in a hospital bed, and it's not just for old people. Palliative care is for anyone of any age, including children, who has a life-limiting illness. It can be provided to people in the final days or the final years of life. It can be provided in any setting: a hospital, an aged-care facility, a home or even out in the community. It addresses the physical, social, emotional, psychological, cultural and even spiritual needs of the patient. For example, if you've got a life-limiting illness and your dying wish is to go bungee jumping, having someone to take you bungee jumping could be a form of palliative care. For anyone listening, I hope this example helps to broaden your perspective on palliative care.
Having conversations about our dying wishes and investing in quality palliative care in Australia are two ways we can ensure that people with life-limiting illnesses have the best end-of-life experience possible. Isn't that what we want for them? Shouldn't we all want that for anyone with a life-limiting illness? Regardless of how good palliative care is, we know it will not end all the pain, all the suffering and all the discomfort. There is a need for other options for people whose quality of life cannot be assured. For many patients advocating for voluntary assisted dying, just the knowledge that this option is available gives them comfort and lessens their fear, even if they may never exercise that option.
While in this contribution I've spoken at length about voluntary assisted dying, let's be clear that here we are debating not whether to legislate for assisted dying here but whether to allow the territories to do so, just as we allow the states to. This is not fundamentally a debate about voluntary assisted dying but a debate about territory rights. That much is made clear by the title of the bill. Going back to Senator Leyonhjelm's bill, I spoke in the debate on the second reading of that bill four years ago. I want to quote a paragraph from that speech. I said then:
I do not believe it's for me as a senator elected to this place to determine whether the Northern Territory or the ACT should legislate for voluntary assisted dying, just as it's not for me to determine whether Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales or Queensland should. It's not for me to decide whether the safeguards of the Northern Territory's or the ACT's assisted dying legislation are sufficient. I support this bill because I do not see it as fair to treat territorians as second-class citizens and to say to them: 'The states are mature enough to govern themselves, but you need federal oversight.' That is essentially what this parliament did when it passed the Euthanasia Laws Act in 1997.
Going back to my speech, my fundamental objection to the Euthanasia Laws Act is that it created two classes of citizens in Australia: those who are governed on state matters by their state parliaments, and those who have federal oversight on matters that would normally be dealt with by their territory parliaments. I understand that the Constitution gives this parliament the power to deny territorians certain powers that are afforded to the states, but I see no compelling reason whatsoever for asserting those powers. As far as I'm concerned, doing so treats territorians as second-class citizens and it smacks of paternalism.
Our Constitution was adopted over 100 years ago. It's imperfect, but improving it is a difficult and expensive process. One way we can improve the operation of our Constitution without the expense of a referendum is through the conventions we choose to follow. I believe that giving the territories the same legislative powers as the states is a convention that we should agree to adopt and uphold, even if our Constitution allows us to do otherwise. It's worth noting that other speakers during the debate on Senator Leyonhjelm's bill supported the bill despite their personal opposition to voluntary assisted dying.
I would urge anyone in this place who opposes voluntary assisted dying to consider upholding the principle that territorians should have their own right to decide. After all, imagine if the tables were turned.
Senator NAMPIJINPA P RICE (Northern Territory) (16:45): This bill has challenged my thinking very deeply. I've come to this parliament to consider every piece of legislation that comes before us, and it is my obligation to the people of this country to pursue a deeper level of understanding of argument for and against each piece of legislation, never taking anything for granted, especially on an issue as serious as permitting society the ability to end human life.
I've heard very shallow arguments from my fellow federal Labor colleagues from the Northern Territory and our very own Northern Territory Labor Attorney-General, who claimed: 'This is purely about giving Territorians rights, and anyone who opposes this is effectively denying our rights as Territorians to make our own decisions.' In my opinion, taking a human life is far more serious an issue, deserving profound consideration, as opposed to political pointscoring or gaslighting to elicit a supporting vote.
Given our Northern Territory Attorney-General, Chansey Paech, our Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, and the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, are of Aboriginal heritage, I would have hoped that they would consider the possible consequences for, and the current deeply held concerns of, the Territory's Aboriginal population, who are some of our most marginalised Australians. The Northern Territory has the highest proportion of Aboriginal Australians in the country, at 30 per cent of our population. The majority of this population consists of those whose first language is not English and who experience the lowest levels of education, the highest levels of unemployment and welfare dependency, the lowest life expectancy, the highest rates of domestic and family violence and the greatest health challenges in the nation. Voluntary assisted dying is incompatible with the Closing the Gap health and wellbeing targets of closing the gap in life expectancy within a generation by 2031, and significant and sustained reduction in suicide of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people towards zero.
The Northern Territory government are also charged with the responsibility of protecting the lives of Territorians, but have recently acted contrary to this duty, instead using human rights as the basis for their argument to allow alcohol to be consumed again in remote communities. They've argued that an alcoholic should have the right to drink themselves to death. And if that alcoholic is also a violent perpetrator, their potential to commit violence has been prioritised by this Territory government over the rights of the perpetrator's victims to live a life free from all forms of violence. It is a human right for every man, woman and child to live a life free from any form of violence, including alcohol related violence.
Despite desperate pleas from vulnerable community members and leading Aboriginal health and legal services, this Northern Territory Labor government, who now seek the right to debate voluntary assisted dying, completely ignored these pleas. I now field distressing calls on a regular basis from people who are experiencing the immediate consequences of the Northern Territory government's actions. These individuals and their communities are retraumatised by the alcohol fuelled violence that has returned to their communities. In two communities in central Australia, families have fled due to feuds. Children's lives are disrupted, as are the lives of those now being displaced. This is contributing to the gangs of children now back on the streets of my hometown, who are not attending school and who have no adult supervision. So you can forgive me for having no faith or confidence that this current Northern Territory Labor government is capable of determining legislation that lends itself to ending the lives of human beings.
My other concern speaks to cases I have come to learn of in other countries like Canada, where laws allowing assisted dying have seen individuals who have been misdiagnosed with a terminal illness end their lives wrongfully; or cases where a prognosis has been delivered to a patient estimating they only have months to live, when, in fact, they have had years left, but the consequences of the initial prognosis has brought their lives to an end prematurely. There is the mental capacity of individuals seeking assisted dying to be considered. There have been cases of individuals who have ended their lives without involvement of family members, who sadly learned only after their loved ones had passed away that they had sought assisted dying. The mental capacity of these individuals was not known or considered by treating doctors, yet if family had known they still would not have been able to challenge their loved ones' request due to the legislation's determinations.
I have a niece in her early 30s whose kidneys collapsed some years ago. She has two children in their early teens. She decided recently that she no longer wanted to live, and ceased attending her dialysis appointments. It was deeply concerning to us as a family that she had come to this conclusion. It was very likely the fact that the increased level of toxins in her blood due to avoiding dialysis was contributing to her inability to make sound decisions about her health. As her family, we did everything in our power to keep her alive. We had her committed to care and arranged counselling for her to better understand the need for her to keep fighting for her life and continue to be dialysed. Her children needed their mother. This is why I fight for better life outcomes and a better quality of life for all Australians, especially our most marginalised—to respect the sanctity of life by fighting to save lives.
While I acknowledge that the other 70 per cent of the Northern Territory is not Aboriginal, I have a responsibility to all of our Territorians. The proposed repeal of Kevin Andrews's bill does not create equality between states and territories, as the following points show. First, territories and states are fundamentally different. The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, or NTA, is an act of the Commonwealth parliament and can be changed as parliament sees fit. State constitutions subsist under section 106 of the Constitution and are protected by it—they cannot be changed by the Commonwealth parliament. Second, the Commonwealth parliament has plenary power over the territories under section 122 of the Constitution. That can't be changed, save by referendum. By contrast, the Commonwealth parliament may legislate in matters affecting states only within the powers granted to it by section 51 of the Constitution or exclusive powers like defence. Third, the administrator of the Northern Territory is appointed by the Governor-General; state governors are appointed by the Queen. Fourth, by virtue of subsection 53(5) of the NTA, the Northern Territory parliament does not have power to confer on courts or tribunals powers to resolve employment disputes. That restriction remains. Finally, and importantly, under section 72 of the NTA the Commonwealth indemnifies the Territory in relation to any claim for damages which, but for the NTA, could have been brought against the Commonwealth. That means that the Northern Territory does not stand on its own two feet but is supported by the Commonwealth.
Therefore, the Constitution demands that every one of us, the elected members of federal parliament, take greater responsibility for the territories within our nation than for our states—whether we like it or not. But if this bill is to pass, because of my very grave concerns I would urge any Northern Territory government that wishes to debate legislation for voluntary assisted dying to undergo thorough consultation with Territorians of all backgrounds—especially our most vulnerable constituents. I would also especially urge those who argue this bill is about supporting only the rights of Territorians that once you've determined the legislation you put it to the vote of the people of the Northern Territory so that it may truly reflect their wishes and rights.
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:54): I have thought more deeply about this issue than any other issue I have thought about in this place. I have changed my view from a past time, when I may have taken a more classically liberal approach with respect to matters such as this, to one where I reflect deeply on the threat to the most vulnerable in our community in relation to the passage of this legislation.
If this bill, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, was only about the rights of territorians, it would not be a conscience vote. Recognition of this as a conscience vote includes a recognition that it is about something more than just the rights of territorians. I do not believe that the ends justify the means, nor do I believe that you should focus entirely on the means and disregard the ends, or the results of what happens. Hence, when I come into this place and consider an issue such as this, I consider it in terms of protecting the vulnerable. I consider the consultations with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, our First Nations people. I consider the unintended consequences of this legislation. I consider all of those issues. And in terms of those safeguards, in terms of consideration given to those issues, I see there is barely a page of consideration to those matters.
The reality is that the Constitution of Australia places an obligation on us to consider whether or not the legislation that was introduced by a previous parliament should be repealed. We have the power therefore we have the responsibility, and it's up to each and every one of us to determine how we discharge that responsibility. And I pay tribute to Senator Nampijinpa Price with regard to her position, her ethical position. It would not have been an easy thing to do that, being a senator from the Northern Territory, and it has echoes of the great Edmund Burke who, when he had to speak to his constituents in Bristol in that famous speech, he said: 'When I come to parliament I'm not just here as your cypher, I bring with me my own conscience. I have to apply my own wisdom to that which is before me.' I really do congratulate Senator Nampijinpa Price on that speech. I have material concerns in respect of voluntary assisted dying, and the more I look into it—and I have looked deeply—the more concerned I am across a number of bases. I think Senator Nampijinpa Price, her comments in respect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are very, very important to consider, and I'll be making some comments in that respect as well.
The first point I want to make is that voluntary assisted dying is not entirely a private act. This is not like freedom of speech or freedom of religion because, by its very nature, in terms of the processes initiated through voluntary assisted dying, if you choose to go down that path you are involving others. You're involving the medical profession. You're involving the state, which has to have checks and balances to try to assess whether or not a person's consent is valid or invalid. You're placing obligations on a whole range of people. It is not just a single private act; this is broader than that. I will seek to bring that into stark relief shortly.
It also has national significance. We have international human rights obligations, which we have entered into, including in respect of the disabled that have been entered into by our country on a national level. We are the provider of the NDIS, which we hope provides services to our disabled such that they never get into a position where, because they haven't received adequate services, they are forced to choose—a Hobson's choice that the only way they can end the suffering because they haven't been provided adequate services is to go down the voluntary assisted dying route.
We're the provider of health services. Palliative Care Australia, after the most recent election, wrote to the new government and said, 'Congratulations'—as they should do, as each association would do—'we hope you look at the shortage of palliative care services in this country.' So we are all put on put on notice. Everyone in this place is put on notice that there are inadequate palliative care services in this country at this point in time. What if a person is in that invidious position of trying to get access to palliative care services, concerned, scared of the pain, scared of the suffering when they haven't got access to that service? I say to you: we should make sure they've got access to those palliative care services first. That should be our primary responsibility.
I'm going to read to you from a very disturbing article from Canada, a First World country that in many ways is very similar to Australia. I make this point first. In Canada's annual report on medical assistance in dying, they give the statistics for the rates of medically assisted dying in Canada between its introduction in 2016 and 2021. The number of people accessing voluntary assisted dying in Canada has increased from 1,018 in 2016 to 10,064 in 2021, a tenfold increase. So let's have a look to see what is actually happening Canada. I quote from a very recent article by Maria Cheng, a medical writer with Associated Press:
TORONTO (AP)—Alan Nichols had a history of depression and other medical issues, but none were life-threatening. When the 61-year-old Canadian was hospitalized in June 2019 over fears he might be suicidal, he asked his brother to "bust him out" as soon as possible.
Within a month, Nichols submitted a request to be euthanized and he was killed, despite concerns raised by his family and a nurse practitioner.
They've got all the safeguards in Canada. We can have pages and pages of safeguards in legislation, but we have to ask ourselves: what is the practical reality? The article continues:
Nichols' family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably—among the requirements for euthanasia. They say he was not taking needed medication, wasn't using the cochlear implant that helped him hear, and that hospital staffers improperly helped him request euthanasia.
"Alan was basically put to death," his brother Gary Nichols said.
This is happening in Canada, a First World country, at this point in time. I'll give you another example from this article on what is actually happening on the ground in Canada:
Before being euthanized in August 2019 at age 41, Sean Tagert struggled to get the 24-hour-a-day care he needed.
Sound familiar? Is that happening in Australia? Of course it is.
The government provided Tagert, who had Lou Gehrig's disease, with 16 hours of daily care at his home in Powell River, British Columbia. He spent about 264 Canadian dollars … a day to pay coverage during the other eight hours.
Health authorities proposed that Tagert move to an institution, but he refused, saying he would be too far from his young son. He called the suggestion "a death sentence" … Before his death—
through voluntary euthanasia—
Tagert had raised more than CA$16,000 … to buy specialized medical equipment he needed to live at home with caretakers. But it still wasn't enough.
"I know I'm asking for change," Tagert wrote in a Facebook post before his death. "I just didn't realize that was an unacceptable thing to do."
In light of what is happening on the ground, the United Nations has written to the Canadian government raising concerns that its law breaches the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is in Canada. Here's another example, perhaps even more horrifying, from the same article:
Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.
This is someone suffering from a deeply difficult disease, in hospital, being so disturbed by the conversations that health professionals in a First World country were having with him that he started recording them. This is what we found:
In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital's director of ethics—
of all things—
told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost "north of $1,500 a day." Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.
"Roger, this is not my show," the ethicist responded. "My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying."
That's what's happening in Canada. It's an article from August—just last month.
In relation to the position in the Northern Territory and our First Nations People—I'm not a member of our First Nations people, but when the concerns were raised in that regard I felt a moral obligation to do what research I could in relation to what the experience was in the Northern Territory and I came across this article. It's entitled 'Euthanasia: Right legislation: wrong jurisdiction?'
It contains an extract from a written statement by Chips Mackinolty to the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs' inquiry into euthanasia. Chips Mackinolty was charged by the Northern Territory with the obligation to go around to different Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and consult with them in relation to the legislation which had been imposed or brought into effect in the Northern Territory. Following that consultation, even though personally he supported euthanasia, he was desperately concerned that voluntary assisted dying was inappropriate in the Northern Territory context. He was desperately concerned.
He found that out of the 900 First Nations people he consulted with only two gave any support to voluntary assisted dying. What was most troubling was the fact that he believed it could be totally counterproductive and that Aboriginal people may not attend at health clinics because they'd be concerned with respect to what was associated with the health clinics. It could actually lead to that sort of additional dysfunction in that context. I'll quote:
However, for reasons I will explain, I am not convinced that acquiring objective knowledge of the contents of the… legislation had any significant impact on Aboriginal knowledge and perceptions of sickness and health, life and death. For this reason, it is my personal view that the existence of the… legislation presents—
Listen to this very, very, very carefully—
The… legislation presents a continuing threat to the health and wellbeing of many Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
This is someone who believed in the philosophy of voluntary assisted dying, but, after he travelled across all those communities, came to that view.
Here's another quote I'd like to give from that article:
It is worth noting, in this context, that private Aboriginal owned clinics have demanded, and received, written undertakings from staff that they will not participate in euthanasia so as to reassure patients that these clinics are 'safe' to attend. Legal and other reasons preclude this occurring in government clinics, and an attempt to amend the… legislation to exempt Aboriginal community clinics from participating in euthanasia failed to pass the NT Legislative Assembly.
Again, another quote:
I personally support my having access to euthanasia—but not in the Northern Territory. It is arguably the right legislation—but certainly the wrong jurisdiction. My reasons for this are both simple and complex.
I suggest to everyone that they read that article, and if this legislation goes through—it's likely to—that, in particular, the Northern Territory legislatures pay close regard to the words of Chips Mackinolty in that respect. It's very, very important.
This is a very, very difficult issue, an extraordinarily difficult issue, but having read extensively into the most recent experiences of what is occurring in first world jurisdictions, countries like our own—in Canada—and seeing how those experiences could translate into an Australian context, I simply cannot support legislation where the only safeguards we're given are no safeguards. There's just a page of legislation. In good conscience I simply cannot support this legislation.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (17:08): Four years ago, in August 2018, I stood in this place and spoke against a private senator's bill, the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation Bill) 2015. That legislation failed, and not just because I voted against it. Now we have the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 to consider. This bill will remove constraints on the legislative powers of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory—constraints that were enacted in 1997 in order that the Commonwealth overturn Northern Territory legislation which was the first in the world to legislate euthanasia.
Four years ago—that is, more than two decades after the NT legislation was cancelled—euthanasia was legislated elsewhere across Australia. The Victorian parliament passed voluntary assisted dying legislation in November 2017, but it would not come into effect until June 2019. My home state of Western Australia was next. Legislation was enacted in December 2019, and I protested about that. Today every state in Australia has voluntary assisted dying legislation, although in some places the laws are yet to come into effect, so the landscape now is markedly different from that of four years ago. Euthanasia will soon be able to be practised in all parts of Australia—apart from the ACT and the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory legislation, back in the mid-nineties, was called the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act—ROTI was the acronym—and four people took advantage of it before the Commonwealth intervened. I recognise that the legislation before us now, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, does not automatically revive the Northern Territory ROTI Act, but, as the explanatory memorandum spells out, it will ensure that the ACT and the Northern Territory parliaments will be able to allow their citizens the same rights as people living in the six states now hold. If the two territories want to follow suit, they will have the benefit of lessons from the legislation that the states have already worked upon.
Personally, I still hold the same reservations that I held four years ago about laws which license euthanasia or assisted dying, especially as they may affect First Nations peoples. But in the end I see euthanasia legislation as whitefella law, to be used by the non-Indigenous population. It's worth recording the research that was quoted previously by Senator Scarr. The research was into Aboriginal views on euthanasia, which was commissioned by the Northern Territory government when its ROTI Act was passed. The research team conducted 21 meetings across the Territory, involving 900 Aboriginal people from around 100 communities. They found that at least 90 per cent of those Aboriginal people opposed the legislation, as distinct from the 70 per cent support nationally for euthanasia. Palliative care was universally supported by Aboriginal people as the way people were traditionally cared for under their law, and that's still our way. We nurse our elderly into their death in our own communities, sometimes at great personal sacrifice. And remember this: in remote communities, as has already been alluded to, there aren't the palliative care services available that are supported elsewhere.
As I said in this place four years ago, any proposal by the Northern Territory to reintroduce assisted suicide legislation must occur in consultation with First Nations health services and communities because First Nations peoples are at a higher risk of being in a situation where assisted dying might take place. I said that four years ago.
I have pondered deeply how to approach the legislation before us now and, in spite of my fundamental spiritual opposition to euthanasia, I have never held to the slippery slope argument. I accept that adequate safeguards have been written into the laws that now prevail in the six states. They may not be adequate, but they're better than what was proposed. For that reason, and in recognition of the widespread non-Indigenous support for voluntary euthanasia, I intend this time to abstain from voting. I would not want to be the one person whose no vote sank this legislation.
I want to talk about other factors that have come in to weigh upon my deliberation. Many of you here would have been lobbied by faith based organisations to oppose this legislation. Some of those lobbyists have invoked my advocacy—in particular, about the anathema of euthanasia in First Nations people—to support their cause. The Australian Christian Lobby, for example, has campaigned against this legislation under the headline 'Protect Indigenous lives'. Yet this very same organisation, which purports to be concerned about First Nations peoples, has been peddling offensive propaganda which scoffs at the Aboriginal spiritual beliefs and belittles arguments for a First Nations Voice to this parliament.
Mr Martyn Iles, the managing director of the Australian Christian lobby, harangues his followers with video clips called 'The truth of it'. In an 18-minute rant back in June he railed against the Uluru Statement from the Heart as a 'pagan document', which he screwed up and tossed at the camera. A Voice to parliament, Iles asserts, is 'the agenda of critical race theorists' who want to divide people on the basis of their skin colour and to implant, in his words, 'some kind of trouble, some kind of cancer' into an otherwise good system. Iles compounded his offense in another video only a couple of weeks ago when he said he eschews the welcome to country because it 'affirms paganism and entangles one in false spirituality'.
I've been distressed by these scornful, hateful diatribes from so-called Christians, who are prepared to recruit First Nations peoples to support a campaign against euthanasia yet won't allow them a seat at the table. Those sorts of diatribes are injurious to respectful discussion. They have no place in our national discourse as we progress towards a referendum to entrench a Voice in the Constitution. Those opponents of the Voice to the parliament say that it will be divisive. Those same opponents fail to recognise that their argument is in itself divisive. I say that rather than dividing us a Voice will be an instrument of healing and reconciliation, a first step in the journey to resettle our relationship.
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (17:17): I want to start by acknowledging the respect and consideration that has, in large part, been shown by others during this debate. As in all conscience debates, these are decisions and thoughts that weigh heavily upon us all, I'm sure.
I rise to discuss greater rights for the Norther Territory, but I have sincere reservations surrounding the possibility that euthanasia legislation will be a consequence. And while, as a north Queenslander and a northern Australian, I do have enormous sympathy for the cause of Territorians having greater autonomy without needing approval from the Commonwealth for the decisions they make, this is of course a result of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978.
The Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 asks for more decision power on land acquisitions and employment disputes. I would normally think that this is an excellent move that would streamline the administration of the Territory and encourage productivity gains and development. But, as I said, I have sincere concerns with the other aspect of the bill, which will repeal the Commonwealth's rejection of the Territory's ability to legalise euthanasia. In all good conscience I cannot agree to figuratively hand a gun to someone knowing it would be used to end a human life, no matter the watertight legality of that person's being able to hold it.
I have reservations about assenting to this bill in its entirety until there is a much more serious discussion about the options to improve the range and availability of palliative care in the Northern Territory. Just this year, famed Aboriginal actor David Gulpilil was forced to undergo palliative care in South Australia, far from his Arnhem Land home, due to a lack of services. His family has described how distraught he was at not being able to die on country. It has been reported that this is a wide-ranging problem throughout the Northern Territory.
In January this year, the ABC reported that the then federal government had pledged to improve care options across remote Australia but had stopped short of outlining any specific future plans. The Northern Territory government is also reluctant to promise any new facilities for palliative care in the Territory bush, but said they've recently improved the end-of-life care services in Alice Springs and Darwin. The spokesman also said that the Northern Territory government would support patients who wish to die at home on country, including with transport back to country if that is the request from patient and family, but a study into remote area palliative care by research body BMC Palliative Care found that Aboriginal people have a growing need for palliative care but struggle to have convenient access to it or even information about it.
We also have to wonder exactly how much consultation euthanasia advocates have done with the Territory's population broadly and the Aboriginal population specifically. In the 1996 study by Territory government researcher Chips Mackinolty, referred to earlier by Senator Scarr, revealed that while so-called right-to-die advocates, of which he admits he was one, believed they could just travel around Indigenous communities educating people and be hailed as heroes, the results were the exact opposite. Twenty-one teams of researchers were tasked by the government with canvassing 900 Aboriginal people in the Territory. Of those 900 people, just two responded favourably to adopting the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. The main reason given was superstition based on tribal belief that killing someone, even via a medical procedure sanctioned by somebody wanting to die, was abhorrent. Furthermore, they feared that if killing someone with doctor administered drugs was made legal by the government, those drugs could be used by others, either by sinister people with evil motives or kadaitja men and sorcerers to commit murder. I appreciate that this is not a view held right across the Northern Territory, but I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that we are protecting everyone—most importantly, the most vulnerable in our community.
The findings also stated that allowing medical professionals, usually the most trusted in Aboriginal communities, to end life would erode that trust and lead to people delaying treatment or seeking alternative remedies. Indeed, once the concept of euthanasia was explained to them, many Aboriginal people stated they would not feel safe going to the doctor anymore, even for minor ailments. The report author, Mr Mackinolty—again, a staunch advocate of euthanasia—made the sobering conclusion that the Northern Territory was certainly the wrong jurisdiction to legalise assisted dying. He did not say 'arguably' or 'possibly'. He was unequivocal: 'The Territory was certainly the wrong jurisdiction.'
What price do we pay for people delaying treatment, and ultimately becoming terminally ill, when early intervention could have saved their lives? How can we celebrate the Northern Territory having more of a say over its own destiny by knowing its most vulnerable people would be adversely affected by this aspect of the change?
The other grave concern I have is that we are simply offering a solution that is easy compared to the much more difficult task of ensuring terminally ill Territorians can access all treatment options. The Northern Territory has the lowest life expectancy in the country—an average of 74 years, compared to 80.5 years right here in the ACT—and its population is spread out far and wide from main population centres. It should be a matter of human decency and responsible government to ensure that seriously ill people have the choice of a full suite of treatments, not influenced simply by where they live or their personal finances.
I point the house to a recent development in Canada where reports have surfaced of people being encouraged to undergo euthanasia because they couldn't afford expensive treatment. In one case reported in the media, a war veteran with PTSD and an acquired brain injury was offered the following choices: undertake long-term and expensive treatment or euthanasia. How has the situation gone from 'we just want people to die with dignity' to 'maybe you should agree to be euthanased instead of paying all these nasty medical bills'? His conditions were serious but not considered terminal, and yet medical staff reportedly offered medically assisted dying as a money-saving option. I've heard from people concerned their loved ones can be convinced to end their lives by unscrupulous family members or spouses. So-called elder abuse isn't just limited to financial scams; it can manifest as physical harm and mental degradation, to the point that sufferers make major decisions that make no sense to their families. It is a great worry to people that greedy people will take advantage of sick, elderly relatives' fragile mental states to get them to agree to end their own lives.
A big part of improving medical care and treatment options is improving the Territory's economy, and one way to do this is to open up the vast gas reserves in the Beetaloo Basin. A major reason for the Northern Territory's status as a nonstate is its reliance on Commonwealth funding to administer itself. Its population is small and extremely spread out, and many people live in the most remote part parts of Australia, which increases the cost to government to provide services. The obvious answer to the Northern Territory winning full statehood is for it to reduce its reliance on federal funding and to become more self-sufficient. The quickest way to do this is, as I've said, is to unlock its vast gas and mineral deposits in areas such as the Beetaloo Basin.
The Northern Territory Labor government is in financial dire straits. Its net debt as a percentage of GDP is the highest in the country, and, even with its impressive tourism offerings, a handful of operating mines, vast cattle stations and busy live export port, there are just not enough people and not enough money coming in. As long as the Northern Territory needs the federal government to pay the bills, the federal government will continue to have a say over its affairs. Meanwhile, right under its feet are some of Australia's largest deposits of oil and gas, namely in the Beetaloo and Georgina basins, worth billions of dollars. There is opposition to that from cattle producers, environmentalists and Indigenous groups, but, if a comprise can be found, the Territory could drastically improve its chances of self-determination as a state.
I would call on this federal government to continue the momentum gained by the previous government to revitalise the Northern Australia Agenda. The Territory is in dire need of more people, more industry and more development, and it beggars belief that, while the Labor Party thought floods in Sydney and Brisbane deserved instant action, large parts of the Northern Territory are cut off during every wet season, leaving people isolated and without access to fresh food. The Territory cannot grow and cannot determine its own destiny without federal attention and real, practical help.
The Northern Territory is truly special to Australia. It deserves to be granted more autonomy, but we must be mindful of unintended consequences. Specifically, I would ask that, before there be any further consideration given to allowing for euthanasia to be granted in the Territory, the people of the Territory ask themselves: Do they have suitable alternative care? Do they have end-of-life provision for palliative care? And is this something that they would truly want to contemplate, or are we just exposing the most vulnerable parts of our community to another risk?
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health) (17:28): Senators, one of the most powerful moments, I think, as an elected member in this country is being able to stand up and represent the people who put you in the place to represent them, whether it be at a local government level, whether it be at a state or territory level, or whether it be here, in the House of Representatives or the Senate. How incredibly precious is that opportunity to represent? And one of the most wonderful things about our country is our democracy—uplifting, a shared space where we can debate, agree, disagree and have the opportunity to make laws on behalf of the people who put us in these places.
I stood for the people of the Northern Territory in 2005 and represented the people of Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory parliament for a number of terms—an incredible honour: First Nations people of all different dialects, over 100 Aboriginal languages still maintained and still strong. Yet, when we come to an issue about whether the people—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
Torres Strait: Masig Island
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (17:30): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Torres Strait Islander Council Conference Anniversary
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (17:30): A few weeks ago, on 23 August, Torres Strait Islander regional leaders came together on Masig Island to mark an important milestone, the 85th anniversary of the first ever Torres Strait Islander Council Conference. As a senator for Queensland, I feel lucky to serve such a culturally rich community. The Torres Strait is made up of hundreds of islands in the strait between Cape York and Papua New Guinea. There are 15 unique communities represented by the Torres Strait Regional Council, led by my friend, Mayor Phillemon Mosby.
While I have spent a lot of time in the Torres Strait, this was my first time visiting Masig Island. Masig is a community of only 250 people. Its history is one of fishing, activism, religion, song and dance. Masig is represented by Councillor Hilda Mosby. Hilda has made the progress of her community her life's work. During the time I spent with her touring the island, she communicated the issues of her community through profound story and frank feedback. Hilda was hosting hundreds of visitors on Masig Island but took the time to take me to the quiet corners in need of repair and the proud monuments of her community's history. Like her peers on the regional council, Hilda is hands-on and extremely passionate about her community and region.
The Torres Strait Islands comprise of 15 communities, each with their own custom, law, culture and, most importantly, delicacy. It takes real work, thoughtful leadership and generous compromise to build consensus amongst the islands and that's exactly what was achieved on this historic occasion. The Masig conference drew a through-line between the past of the Torres Strait, its present and its future. Community leaders shared insight from the very first council conference held on 23 August 1937. It would be remiss of me to not acknowledge this is a historical date for more than one reason. Not 30 years later, on 23 August 1956, Vincent Lingiari led the Gurindji strike, or the Wave Hill walk-off, on the exact same date in the calendar.
Fast forward to 2022, and 23 August was the date of the Torres Strait Islander community leaders signing and reciting what they refer to as the Masig Statement, or the Voice from the Deep. The Masig Statement outlines a path to self-determination and regional autonomy for the Torres Strait. In my first few hours on the island, I heard Deputy Mayor Bani say, 'This is the beginning of a new beginning for the Torres Strait.' This refrain was repeated throughout the celebrations.
In the context of a looming referendum, a community striving for new beginnings feels full of promise. We spoke at length about what this statement means in the context of a voice to parliament. As my good friend Thomas Mayor said, 'On this occasion, this statement gives strength to the campaign for a voice to parliament. It complements the Uluru Statement rather than competes with it, because the statement is about a community clearly articulating their ambitions for their kids, their grandkids and future generations.'
Torres Strait Islanders are a people renowned for their clever, patient campaigning. Through my time visiting the Torres Strait as a senator for Queensland I have observed that an important part of building consensus is sharing story. After years of spending time with community, I took the time during my address to share with elders where I had come from and how that translated into my strong commitment for collectivism and justice. I spoke about education and collectivism, learnt from the trade union movement, and reflected on the ways in which our histories interweave through shared activism and cooperation. I was grateful to deepen my knowledge of the history of the Torres Strait and the many ways it is communicated. It is hard to put into words just how much can be communicated with story, dance and song. Pages of beautiful words brought to life through movement and sound.
I want to talk about Councillor Uncle John Abednego. Deep in the hot afternoon, just after a lunch of sandwiches and fruit, he stood up in front of a crowded room and, through his words and his story, invited the rest of the Torres Strait Islander leadership to culturally adopt me as their daughter and sister. I'm very honoured that they collectively said yes. I realise that this is symbolic in nature, but I was very deeply moved. I take this generous welcome in the spirit in which it was offered, with thoughtful consideration to how I can contribute to the community and profound respect for the history that I have been invited into.
That contribution starts here today, using my voice to build awareness, consensus and enthusiasm, not only for the Masig Statement, but for a Voice to Parliament, that is so deeply needed to restore self-determination to the people of the Torres Strait.
With the remaining time I want to read the Masig Statement into the Hansard tonight, and I do so wearing this necklace that Phillemon Mosby was wearing when he read this Masig Statement for the first time in front of the crowd. He gifted it to me before I left the island. The statement says:
PURPOSE
To establish principles and parameters on behalf of the peoples of the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Area to act together in unity, in order to pursue and achieve self-determination and regional autonomy and, in so doing, preserve our distinctive and diverse spiritual, material and economic relationship with the lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources with which we have connection under Ailan Kastom and Aboriginal tradition.
AIMS
1. In accordance with Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13th September 2007 and supported by the Australian government on 3rd April 2009 and the Preamble of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), we seek to achieve our right to self-determination as the peoples of the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula area.
2. By virtue of our sovereign right, we have the right to freely determine our political status and to freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development.
3. In keeping with Article 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in exercising our right to self-determination, we have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to our internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
4. Therefore, we will create partnerships with key regional stakeholders, the Queensland and Australian governments together with other relevant organisations to better equip us to work together to achieve our regional goals and aspirations; and in working together as representatives of the peoples of the Torres Strait and the Northern Peninsula Area obtain and safeguard our human rights enshrined in international, national and Queensland law.
PAST: 23 August 1937 was the beginning of regional economy …
PRESENT: 23 August 2022 is the beginning of a new beginning … the MASIG Statement.
FUTURE: 23 August 2037 will be the beginning of regional sovereignty.
I want to thank all of the people of the Torres Strait who welcomed me to Masig Island. Through this statement we see enormous grace. It's a hard-fought consensus on the future of a truly unique region. It is the beginning of a new beginning of the Torres Strait. It is the beginning of a pathway to a Voice to Parliament.
I implore other senators in this place to hear these words, to work with us and to take up the generous offer that the Uluru Statement delivers, that the Masig Statement delivers and that a Voice to Parliament promises.
Israel
Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (17:39): As the clouds of war enveloped the world in 1939, a long-forgotten Irish truism was that democracy, freedom and liberty must always be defended and that Southern Ireland, as it was, should support Britain against Nazi Germany. Most of the Irish political class shamefully backed neutrality. James Dillon was an Irish nationalist of the old school. He and his family had for years through democratic means fought the British for Irish independence. Notwithstanding that historical hinterland, James understood that liberal democracies must always back other liberal democracies. While Australia and Israel do not have the historical dislike of Ireland and Britain, Australian support for Israel should be no less surprising, nor less forthright, than the words uttered by Mr Dillon.
Israel is a beacon of liberal democracy in a sea of democratic darkness. Since 1948, Israel has long fought not just to exist as an independent state but to fight for the survival of all her people. Israel exists in a permanent state of war, not because it is an aggressor. But it is a victim: a victim of history, a victim of hatred, a victim of historical anti-Semitism. Yet, Israel is anything but a victim. Its citizens—all her people, Jewish, Christian, Orthodox, Druze, Muslim, nonbeliever—are free. It is the birthplace of innovation and the startup. It is turning its deserts into a food bowl. Most importantly, it is a democracy. It's a vibrant, boisterous, carnival of elections, so much so that, as I speak, Israel is undergoing its fifth election in three years.
None of the enemies of Israel have ever held a free election. None of the enemies of Israel are free liberal democracies. None of the people of the Middle East have the freedom of all the people of Israel. To the north, the terrorist army Hezbollah has turned Lebanon and southern Syria into client states of Iran. Iran is an evil, despicable regime, intent on using nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and all Jewish peoples. While, to the south, the bloodthirsty terrorist group Hamas have turned Gaza into a giant launching pad for rockets into Israel. On the West Bank, the corrupt Palestinian Authority rules with Western donor financial support, yet it is a regime that uses the ugly politics of hate to remain in power. It is a regime that honours suicide bombers with both money and monuments.
The miracle is not just that Israel has survived, but it has thrived. For that we in Australia are grateful, and we can only wish that the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Israelis would be shared by all the peoples across the Middle East. Perhaps the haters of Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas should read the words that you read as you leave the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial:
Remember only that I was innocent and, just like you, mortal on that day. I, too, had had a face marked by rage, by pity and joy, quite simply, a human face.
Freedom conquers all.
Indigenous Australian: Free Trade Agreements
Senator COX (Western Australia) (17:43): This evening I rise to speak on Australia's processes regarding free trade agreements and the importance of Australia pushing for Indigenous inclusion chapters. Australia's free trade agreement processes are like any transparency or the ability for communities to actually comment on the potential impacts before they are agreed upon. Report 193 of Joint Standing Committee on Treaties highlighted that civil society groups, unions, community members, traditional owners and environmental advocates are not provided with the same level of access to these negotiation processes as are business and industry. The report also stated that Australia's free trade agreement consultation process is inadequate and indeed very tokenistic. This is because corporations get a seat at the table over environmentalists, unionists, traditional owners and community members. These deals often benefit large corporations and compromise human rights, labour laws, cultural heritage and environmental protections. This process is so secretive, we only see the agreement once it's been agreed to, so there's no scope for any actual amendments without serious concessions.
The government claims this secrecy is an issue of national security, which, frankly, is a bit of a cop out. I'm not convinced that this is the only option. In fact, we know it's not. New Zealand has a much broader and even more transparent consultation process that starts before negotiations even begin and actually continue until the free trade agreement is ratified. There are public consultation meetings and an opportunity for everyone to make a submission and participate in the parliamentary examination processes. Another feature of New Zealand's treaty negotiation process is the dedicated Maori engagement to provide active partnership and respond to the range of needs, aspirations, rights and interests of Maori as a crown treaty partner. Again, this is yet another reason why we need to be pushing for a First Nations federal treaty in this country.
Australia's treaty agreement framework falls short in transparency and accountability and in upholding human rights and environmental standards. This needs to change. The Australian Labor Party, when they were in opposition, and the Australian Greens have argued that Australia's free trade agreement-making process should be better and more transparent. For years, the two major parties have written trade policy in favour of big corporations at the expense of community, workers, human rights, traditional owners and the environment.
Another major flaw in this process is that this government and previous governments have not pushed for an Indigenous inclusion chapter in our free trade agreements. The Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement, which was signed last year in December, does not include a chapter on Indigenous trade, but in the recent trade agreement between New Zealand and the UK there was a chapter that contained provisions for cooperative activities to strengthen the trade relationship between the UK, New Zealand and Maori enterprises. The aim of this chapter is to help Maori enterprises maximise the opportunities that arise during a free trade agreement, alongside New Zealand and UK enterprises, and recognises the importance and value of Maori to New Zealand's economy and society. This means that the UK government is open to the inclusion of these chapters, and if they are pushed to include them this government could do that. The previous government clearly did not care enough to push this, and it seems unlikely that the current government will actually care to try to do this and amend the agreements to provide the inclusion of such a chapter. The parliament has not cared enough to set up an inquiry into the potential benefits of Indigenous inclusion chapters, so don't even know what we're missing out on, because we haven't even asked the question.
We've had our land stolen and our cultural heritage destroyed, and now there has been a recent rise in companies using native ingredients and First Nations botanicals and marketing them and themselves as First Nations companies. They are making huge profits, but the profits are not going back to the communities; these profits are sitting with a select few. Often they are run by white fellas. They are stealing and capitalising on our knowledge. We need an Indigenous inclusion chapter that is going to place First Nations businesses at the heart of it.
Jobs And Skills Summit
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (17:48): On Monday last week I was pleased to attend the Australian government's building community forum in Hobart, followed later in the day by the Hobart Jobs and Skills Summit. I was joined at the jobs and skills summit by my colleague Senator Brown and the member for Lyons, Brian Mitchell. The Assistant Treasurer as well as the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, attended both meetings.
Unlike the previous government, the Albanese Labor government has been listening to and consulting with a broad range of stakeholders on the issues confronting Australians. The Hobart Jobs and skills Summit was one of over 100 across Australia, including three in Tasmania, that fed in from local representatives of workers, businesses, training providers and other stakeholders to the national summit in Canberra. Tasmanian summits have also been held in Launceston and Devonport.
The Hobart building community forum was the sixth across Australia to hear from Australian charities and not-for-profits about the challenges they are facing, as well as where they are finding success. It's refreshing to have a federal Labor government that is ready and willing to work with Australian charities, rather than trying to gag them, restrain them and bury them in red tape. This government is a friend of charities, and the decade-long Liberal war on charities is finally over. The 100 representatives at the forum came from charities of all sizes and across a range of causes, including religion; environment; education; health, including mental health; poverty; homelessness; disability; public interest journalism; and even animal rescue. Many had suffered through the pandemic, with donation revenue having fallen, and they had struggled to re-engage disengaged volunteers while demand for their services went through the roof.
We heard from charities that regulation or red tape was a big issue for them, as was funding certainty. While the previous government dragged its feet on fixing Australia's outdated charity fundraising laws—and you might remember that I worked with Dr Leigh on pressuring them to adopt the recommendations of the Senate inquiry I chaired to relieve charities of this $15-million-a-year red tape burden—I was pleased to hear Dr Leigh say that the government will be looking at reporting requirements for grants and will provide longer funding agreements so organisations can focus more of their resources on service delivery. We also heard from charities that they would like more support to engage and recognise volunteers and to achieve deductible gift recipient status.
I would like to thank everyone who attended and contributed to the forum, and I thank Dr Leigh for his consistent work over many years consulting with and acting on the needs of charities.
Later in the same day, the jobs and skills round table, hosted by Dr Leigh, Mr Mitchell, Senator Brown and me, heard from more than 70 business, union, civil society and education leaders from across Tasmania. Among the feedback we heard were calls for incentives for businesses to host apprentices and the need to address the discrepancy between Tasmanian and mainland wages, a phenomenon known informally as the Tassie leisure tax. The lower average wages paid to Tasmanians provide an incentive for Tasmanian workers to leave for mainland jobs but they provide little incentive for in-demand workers to move to Tasmania. Attendees expressed fear over the risks the gig economy and labour hire currently pose to secure, safe and well-paying work.
There were strong expressions of disappointment over the previous government's gutting of vocational education and training, particularly TAFE, and there was broad agreement that TAFE needs to provide the skills that Tasmanians need in a changing economy. We also heard that there is a need to rethink how our education system delivers career education to young people. We were told that migrants need a simplified system for their overseas qualifications to be recognised in Australia. Sometimes skilled migrants are caught up in red tape, and this causes them to end up employed in a sector unrelated to their qualification. Also discussed was the need for housing and infrastructure supply close to where there is demand for work. All in all, it was a collegial and productive discussion, and the outcomes of the discussion, along with many others throughout the country, were fed into the national summit in Canberra.
Once again, I'd like to thank all the participants for coming together for such a wideranging conversation, and I thank Dr Leigh for being there for both forums and facilitating the building community forum. These events show how the Albanese Labor government seek to listen to and consult with the Australian community. It shows that we will bring people together, not divide them. This is in stark contrast to the politics of division which were practised by those opposite when they were in government and which they continue to practise to this day.
Vietnam Veterans' Day
Australian Army Training Team Vietnam
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (17:53): We mark Vietnam Veterans' Day on 18 August, a solemn occasion on the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan that honours the service and sacrifice of the many thousands of Australians who fought in Vietnam. One of them was my father, who served with the 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. I was proud to observe the occasion by attending a wreath-laying ceremony at the RSL Wanneroo, near my electoral office in Perth's northern suburbs.
This year's commemorations also coincided with the 60th anniversary of the deployment of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam. This was the first Australian contingent to set foot in South Vietnam and the last to leave. Today I wish to share some of their history and honour the service of this most highly decorated Australian unit, one of the most highly decorated units to serve in any conflict.
The unit first arrived on 3 August 1962, originally numbering 30 men, made up of a mixture of officers, sergeants and warrant officers under the command of Colonel FP 'Ted' Serong. It was informally known as 'the team', and 1,009 men served with the unit over its decade of operation, 998 of them Australians and 11 New Zealanders. The team provided training and leadership to South Vietnam forces, giving instruction in jungle warfare techniques and technical areas such as signals and engineering.
For its first two years the team's personnel were deployed on operations as observers only, providing advisory support in the field without the authorisation to engage with the enemy. This was, unsurprisingly, impractical, as they were often caught in ambushes without the right to defend themselves. In 1964, these restrictions were lifted, thrusting the team into some of the fiercest fighting of the war. The first member to be killed in action was Warrant Officer Class II Kevin Conway at the Battle of Nam Dong on 6 July 1964. Thirty-three men in the unit were eventually to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and another 122 were wounded.
For many in the team, service in Vietnam was an isolating experience. They often worked alone or in pairs in small advisory teams which served with Vietnamese units. Their dispersal meant Australia had a countrywide presence and, with it, the ability to assess the situation well beyond the borders of provinces in which most Australians served. The difficulty of their task formed part of their identity, with the unit motto being, 'Persevere.' In the foreword to the book The Men who Persevered, an account of the team's role in Vietnam, team veteran Major General John Hartley provided this description of their experience and their service:
A unique quality of the Team was its varied and frequently changing function. Certainly there was a training element, but members also led units, advised all manner of Vietnamese officers and officials, served on headquarters and determined policy. They were closely involved with regular and irregular forces, with Special Forces, Montagnards and Cambodians, with combat, combat support and service support units. At one time or another, they were deployed—individually or in small teams—to almost every province of South Viet Nam. Despite their small numbers, they remain the Australian face in the memories of many Americans and Vietnamese—
who also served in that conflict.
When Australian and American forces began to withdraw from Vietnam, the team's operations reverted to their original task of training, providing South Vietnamese forces with vital preparation. The last members of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam withdrew on 8 December 1972—the last Australians to leave the conflict.
It's appropriate to end this contribution by noting and recognising that four Victoria Crosses were awarded to the team's members, with numerous other awards and decorations conferred, including those conferred by the United States and the Republic of Vietnam. Tonight I acknowledge with great pride the service of all Australians who served in the Vietnam conflict. Your service is remembered, and today it's honoured.
Senate adjourned at 17:58