The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
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
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Joint Committee
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Education and Employment References Committee
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Migration Joint Committee
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—Joint Standing Committee—public meeting on Thursday, 9 February 2023, from 9 am.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—public meeting on Wednesday, 8 February 2023, from 11.45 am.
Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 12.05 pm.
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 3 pm.
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Wednesday, 8 February 2023, from 10 am.
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. The question is that committees be authorised to meet during the sitting of the Senate today.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Thorpe, Senator Lidia
Senator THORPE (Victoria) (12:02): President, I seek leave to make a one-minute statement about my new status as an Independent.
Leave granted.
Senator THORPE: I inform the Senate that yesterday I resigned as a member of the Australian Greens and will sit as an Independent senator for Victoria. I also inform the Senate that I should be designated as a whip for the purpose of standing order 24A relating to the selection of bills committee.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (12:03): My remarks are going to be somewhat less climactic! I rise this afternoon to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022. Of course, the opposition will be supporting this bill. It is largely procedural in nature and it's the well-established custom and tradition of this parliament that applications for deductible gift recipient status that are agreed by the House are also agreed by the Senate.
This bill implements decisions taken by the previous coalition government to grant or extend deductible gift recipient status to a number of organisations, including the Melbourne Business School, the Leaders Institute of South Australia, St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund, the Jewish Education Foundation, the Australian Education Research Organisation, Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition and the Sydney Chevra Kadisha. The bill also grants the status to Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, limited, as I previously noted, as set out in the government's 2022-23 October budget. I also note that the Mt Eliza Graduate School of Business and Government has ceased its operations and activities, therefore its DGR status has been removed in this bill.
The opposition's support for the provisions in this bill should not be confused with support for the way this bill has been progressed. Indeed, the existence of this bill stands as a monument to the new Labor government's inability to manage its legislative agenda so early in its term and despite having, or perhaps never having, a particularly wide or deep or ambitious agenda to drive down cost-of-living pressures or improve productivity across the economy. Put simply, this bill should actually not have existed.
Those who have watched the passage of this bill closely will note that the inclusion of just a single schedule in this bill looks exactly the same as the schedule included in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022. The Treasury laws No. 4 bill is currently before a Senate economic legislation committee. The bill before the Senate today amplifies a significant legislative failure by the government. This particular schedule had originally been incorporated into the government's Treasury laws bill No. 4, which meant the progress of these DGR matters would have been delayed as a result of the parliament's consideration through the Senate economics committee legislation of the Treasury laws amendment bill No. 4, which are due to report on 3 March. So, instead, in order to progress the DGR status for these worthy organisations, the government was forced to create a new Treasury bill. The new government's new economics team is clearly operating on training wheels. In the last parliamentary sitting week of last year, we got a valuable insight into how the new government seeks to treat the crossbench in the form of Senator McKim's interactions with the Minister for Financial Services, the Hon. Stephen Jones. But I'm sure my colleagues on this side can further illuminate on that experience and those observations.
The most important matter in the first few moments of the new parliament, the first sitting day of this new parliament, is that we are going from concern to crisis in the Australian economy. Just last week we heard that the Reserve Bank of Australia, the independent bank, in response to a question from a senator, said that 800,000 loans would shift from fixed rates to variable rates in this calendar year of 2023. Just think about that. In addition to that, the Parliamentary Library has suggested that in some months of this year the number of fixed loan rates shifting to variable rates could be as large as 55,000.
We heard last week that the Australian Energy Regulator predicts—expects—there to be 75,000 households currently on energy hardship programs. The Australian Energy Council said it expected there to be an extra 10,000 households on energy hardship programs. But, more than that, the inflationary pressure, the cost-of-living pressure, being felt across the Australian economy and being felt across Australian households is also starting to impact the charity and not-for-profit sector. Late in December last year, just before Christmas, the Australian Council of Social Services was forced to release a report which talked about growing pressures on Australian charities as a result of inflationary pressures in the economy and because of the surge in demand that the charity and not-for-profit sector is now starting to experience as people try, and unfortunately fail, to meet those cost-of-living pressures. The Australian Council of Social Services says that there is a surge in demand for services, that wait lists are now getting larger and, in fact, some people in need are not being able to be serviced by community sector providers at all.
If that weren't bad enough, last week at the cost-of-living Senate inquiry we heard from the charities and not-for-profit sector themselves about how their sector is suffering from fatigue and exhaustion. That's a very fair comment, when you think about the fact that the Australian charities and not-for-profit sector has been at the forefront of dealing with natural disasters in our country—not one, but many—and stepped up and supported Australian households and local communities during the pandemic. Without any reprieve they're now being forced to respond, as they always do, to the cost-of-living challenges being experienced by Australian households—from concern to crisis.
At 2.30 pm today the RBA will make its latest rate decision. I hope that that rate decision is going to be no change. Of course, I'm not and no-one in the Senate chamber is privy to what that rate change will be, and we'll have to wait until 2.30 to find out. I'm not a betting person, but those of you who are betting people would probably want to bet on the fact that there will be a rate rise and it will either be 25 basis points or 50 basis points, the ninth consecutive interest rate rise. Let's think about that: it's the ninth consecutive interest rate rise, and that is going to hurt Australian households who are already struggling with inflationary pressures and who are already struggling with energy cost increases.
What is the government's plan? Day 1, a new parliamentary year, what is the government's plan to provide energy relief, to provide relief to Australian households and to put downward pressure on those inflation rates and on interest-rate rises? What is the plan? Silence. Again, what is the plan? Again, silence. This new Labor government is imperilling the prosperity, the hard work, the effort of Australian households, and Australians will start to ask themselves: 'Why does this new Labor government make my family poorer? Why is Anthony Albanese making my family poorer? Why is the Treasurer, Mr Jim Chalmers, making my family poorer? Why is the new Labor government making it harder for the charities and not-for-profit sector in our country to meet this surge in demand for services? Why? Where is the plan?'
The government will say it's got a plan, but you have to wait until May. I can't tell you how many further interest rate increases there will be from today until May. I can't tell you how many of those 800,000 fixed-rate loans transferring to variable-rate loans in 2023 will be transferring in February, in March, in April and in May. That change in mortgage repayments represents real hurt and a real crisis for Australian households, no matter where they live across this country—crickets from the government. Some in the government might say, 'The Treasurer has written a 6,000-word essay.' I don't know whether Senator Pratt has had the time to read it and I don't know whether Senator McAllister has had the time to read it. I don't know what their view is. None of us in this place would argue against the importance of ideas, but we all know how time-poor we are and how important it is to keep ourselves focused on the real challenges of doing our job in the here and now. I suspect that many Australians, when they hear that there is no plan from Mr Chalmers for cost-of-living relief, when there is no plan from the Labor government on how to better to support charities and not-for-profits, I think the conclusion that they might come to is that 6,000-word essay was a luxury, was largesse, was indulgent.
The economy has gone from concern to crisis. Australian households will be starting this year with trepidation, taking their kids to school with trepidation. I'll be very interested to see what happens in May, where the government chooses to put that much-needed relief. I'm someone who says, 'I would like to see that plan sooner rather than later.'
Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:15): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022. The Australian Greens will be supporting this bill. It extends deductible gift recipient status to a number of organisations. I want to place on record our position. We think requiring an act of parliament for each organisation to receive DGR status shows that the system is not working as it should be. Many organisations would seek DGR status but they don't have the lobbying power to get themselves placed on this bill or on the ones before it. We need to have a transparent, fair, independent process for enabling DGR status that doesn't leave organisations focusing on a difficult bureaucratic process and doing lots of lobbying to get themselves on this list rather than on the important work that they're doing for the community. That's not to say that we don't support the organisations that are getting DGR status. In fact, we think that a lot more organisations should. We just need to have a better process. The current process is not working, it is arbitrary and it is open to being politicised.
However, I do want to thank the assistant minister and his office for the positive approach that they've taken to the charities portfolio, including the appointment of the new ACNC commissioner. It's an important sector, and we really value the fact that the minister and his office are working to consult with the sector to begin to address some of the really important issues that the sector is facing. We particularly welcome the appointment of Sue Woodward AM following a merit based process to the appointment as commissioner. Her appointment has been widely welcomed by the sector, and we are very glad to see someone of her calibre in this role.
But sadly, when it comes to the Treasury portfolio more broadly, there is a gaping hole that hasn't been addressed. This bill is a Treasury laws amendment bill. If you're thinking about what the priority should be in Treasury laws amendment, it is, of course, the previous government's—the Morrison government—inflationary tax cuts, which will mean that the benefits of those stage 3 tax cuts go to the ultra-wealthy, they go to the billionaires, they go to the people who have already have so much in our society and that is the at the cost of the people that really need to be having money spent on them. I mean, every time the Treasurer gives an update, it seems that the budget impact of the Morrison government's tax cuts has grown. A recent figure was $243 billion, and no doubt the final impact is going to be worse than that. They were the previous government's tax cuts. For the life of me, I do not know why the current government that professes to be a progressive government is just rolling on with these incredibly regressive tax cuts. That is the priority amendment that needs to be made to our Treasury laws—to scrap the stage 3 tax cuts—because that $243 billion, rather than providing a tax cut to the people who do need it, who do value it, will be used for investments to enable people who don't need it to have their next overseas holiday, to perhaps do some lovely renovations on one of their seven houses that they already have. Those tax cuts, that $243 billion, could go to all sorts of things which would benefit ordinary Australians, in particular, to raise the rate of JobSeeker and other income support above the poverty line. That is what would make a real difference to people's lives. That is the No. 1 amendment that we should be making to our Treasury laws. And this really matters, because it is clear that this government is making a choice to amend our laws in one way but not in another way. It is making a political choice. The poverty that people are living in is a political choice, and that's particularly clear when we're debating this tax legislation.
The other element of this tax—yes, we're talking about charities. The impact of people living in poverty has a massive impact on the charity sector. I'm currently chairing a Senate inquiry into poverty in Australia, and we are hearing heartbreaking and absolutely awful stories of what people are going through living in poverty. There are all sorts of people living in poverty in Australia, but the ones who are suffering the most are those who are living on income support, who cannot afford to put a roof over their heads, to put food on the table, to pay for the medicines that they need to address their health issues. They are having to choose to go hungry or to pay for their medication. They end up having to choose between how long they can cope with having their rent in arrears and when they are going to have to decide, no, they can't live in that house. They are having to cope with landlords putting up the rent, with being made homeless because they just can't afford the rent on a house anywhere in our capital cities.
When you're in the position of living in poverty and you're homeless and it's impossible to get your life back on track, it's the charities that are left picking up the pieces. Every charity that has appeared before our inquiry so far—including Anglicare, ACOSS, UnitingCare—every one of them has implored us to increase the rate of income support. So rather than spending $243 billion on tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, spend that money on increasing income support. The decisions of the former Morrison government made it really clear that poverty is a political choice and it matters to people's lives.
Given we are talking about tax legislation today, given we are talking about support for charities, given that we know that it is the charities who are picking up the pieces and given that we know that poverty is a political choice, I do want to take the opportunity to share some of the experiences of people who have spoken with me. One constituent told me about their experience on income support: 'As a young person on JobSeeker, I consistently struggled to find secure accommodation or healthy food, and was never able to save for essential big expenses like shoes or a licence. I wasn't having daily coffees. I wasn't eating at restaurants. Yes, I feel fortunate to have been born in Australia and to be eligible for social security at all. However, it shouldn't be such a degrading, time- and energy-consuming process to get the very bare minimum for survival. Everything from claiming support to keeping it for any period is a stressful and dehumanising ordeal. It's worse for those trying to claim disability.' That person goes on to say: 'We're one of wealthiest countries in the world and our government has chosen to roll back support for students, the homeless, the disabled, the elderly, the inexperienced about to enter or return to the workforce, single parents. All of these groups have substantial obstacles put in their way by our current welfare system and its draconian limitations.'
Poverty is a political choice. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Rent's skyrocketing; food prices are soaring; it's more expensive than ever to see a doctor. So when we're talking about tax reform, it's very clear where our priorities should lie. We should be increasing income support rather than giving handouts to the ultra wealthy. We should be spending that money on putting dental and mental care into Medicare. We should be building more affordable housing—a million affordable homes to get people off the public housing waiting list. We could make child care free! We could make a real difference in people's lives, rather than contributing to people like Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer and enabling them to pay for their third private jet.
In 2019, when the Morrison government was ramming these changes through, I remember Labor senators in this place made points about how dangerous these changes were. They acknowledged the importance of the political decisions that were being made in this very chamber. Senator Gallagher said at the time: 'The job of the government is to say where that money is coming from, how those tax cuts will be paid for and whether there's a commitment from the government not to slash essential services to the Australian community in order to pay for them.' Senator Wong said at the time:
These are massive numbers with far-reaching consequences for health and for education, and actually for the sort of society we want for Australia, and we have absolutely no way, and the government has no way, of forecasting in 2019 how it can pay for $95 billion worth of tax cuts in 2024-25. The reality is that the government is actually locking in tax cuts without identifying the spending cuts which are required to fund them. That's the hard reality: it's locking in tax cuts without identifying the spending cuts which it will have to identify in order to pay for them.
I couldn't have said it better, Senator Wong. We agree with those points—except that that $95 billion is now $234 billion. We think that, fundamentally, if we're talking about Treasury law amendments, there is one amendment that needs to be made which would make a huge difference in people's lives.
I'll finish by moving my second reading amendment to this bill, because this should be the priority. I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to abandon the inflationary Morrison Government stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires and the ultrawealthy, and instead raise income support payments above the poverty line".
This is a treasury laws amendment bill. That is the most important amendment that we should be making to our treasury laws. That should be the government's priority. It is a choice of government, because poverty is a political choice.
Senator Henderson interjecting—
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:26): Thank you, Senator Henderson, for that prompt. I hope those in the gallery admire the ability of senators in this place to draw upon all sorts of issues in relation to pieces of legislation. This piece of legislation, in fact, deals with a very, very discrete issue—that is, whether or not the relevant schedule of the act providing for gift deductibility for charities should be enlarged to include six additional organisations: the Australian Education Research Organisation Ltd; the Jewish Education Foundation (Vic) Ltd, and I'll have something more to say in that respect; the Melbourne Business School Ltd; the Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Ltd; the Leader's Institute of South Australia Inc.; St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund. This legislation also seeks to extend the deductible gift status of the Sydney Chevra Kadisha and the Australian Women Donors Network.
That's what this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 202, actually deals with. Having said that, I do associate myself entirely, absolutely and completely with the remarks of my good friend Senator Dean Smith. And I do associate myself with one of Senator Rice's remarks—only one, I'm afraid, but one!—that is, one does wonder why it is that this sort of process has to be done through legislation, when so much in this place is done through regulation. And one wonders why this can't be done by way of a disallowable instrument. So, if anyone had particular concerns with respect to deductibility with respect to gifts made to a charity, why couldn't that be raised during a disallowance procedure as opposed to having to consider each and every one of these, no doubt worthy, organisations?
I want to make some comments with respect to what I believe is an important issue arising from the inclusion of the Jewish Education Foundation (Vic) Ltd. When I was reflecting on this and I saw that they had been included, I did some research with respect to that foundation. I congratulate all members of that foundation on the important work they do to make a Jewish education more accessible to members of the Jewish community. I think that should be applauded. From my perspective, it underlines the important place of religious schools in our community and the fact that those schools, that community of faith, need to be respected and supported in every way. I do commend all those associated with the Jewish Education Foundation (Vic) Ltd. I am so impressed by what they're doing in that space to make Jewish education more affordable for members of the Jewish community—in particular, children.
Also, this is my first opportunity to rise in this house to speak following the release by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry of its Report on antisemitism in Australia 2022. We need to deeply, deeply reflect upon the outcomes of this report, including with respect to the education sector. I've referred to the Jewish Education Foundation (Vic) Ltd and its efforts to provide Jewish children with an opportunity to have a Jewish education. In that context, the results of this report—which covers the period 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022 and which was researched, written and compiled by Julie Nathan, Research Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry—makes extraordinarily disturbing reading; it makes very, very disturbing reading. I've quoted from previous annual reports by the council in this place, and I want to take this opportunity to quote from this report. The executive summary states:
During the twelve-month period, from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022, there were 478 antisemitic incidents logged by volunteer Community Security Groups (CSGs), official Jewish state roof bodies, and the ECAJ. In the previous 12-month period, ending 30 September 2021, these same bodies logged 447 incidents.
So, in 12 months, there was an increase in the number of what are horrific antisemitic incidents. I will give some examples, which I shouldn't have to give in this day and age. There were 478 incidents this year and 447 last year. The executive summary continues:
Accordingly, there was an increase of 6.9% in the overall number of reported antisemitic incidents compared to the previous year (2021), which had a 35% increase over the number of recorded incidents in 2020.
So, year to year, from 2020 to 2021, there was an increase of 35 per cent, and then in the subsequent year there was an increase of 6.9 per cent. Why is this happening? Why is this happening in our country?
I want to give some examples in the education space. I spoke about the Victorian foundation providing assistance to Jewish children to go to Jewish schools. This is what is happening in our community in this regard. I will quote some of the examples. There are pages and pages and pages of them. The report states:
Two males verbally abused security guards outside a Jewish school, Perth (7 Oct. 2021).
… … …
A student at a high school was the victim of ongoing antisemitic abuse, both verbally in-person and online, and was physically assaulted, regional NSW (4 Nov. 2021).
… … …
Verbal abuse by three teenagers on electric scooters who yelled "Heil Hitler!" at two identifiably Jewish teenagers near a Jewish school, Melbourne (22 April 2022).
… … …
The passenger of a passing vehicle yelled "Jew! Jew! Jew!" towards a congregant outside a synagogue, Sydney (Fri. 11 March 2022).
And so it goes on. Further:
The occupant of a passing vehicle yelled—
expletive 'Jews'—
multiple times towards an identifiably Jewish male and female as they crossed the pedestrian crossing outside a Jewish school, the female in the car then made a Nazi salute, Sydney (14 May 2022).
… … …
The passenger of a passing vehicle yelled—
expletive 'you Jews'—
towards identifiably Jewish individuals and security personnel outside the front of a Jewish school, Sydney (6 June 2022).
… … …
Jewish student on a public bus was harassed by students from another school; the perpetrators sat behind the victim on the bus, breathing down his neck and making antisemitic comments about the victim being Jewish and attending a Jewish school, Dover Heights, Sydney (9 June 2022).
And so it goes on. Further:
A male exited from a tram near a Jewish school and approached a female teacher waiting outside the school, asking her if she believed paedophiles were criminals, the teacher said yes, the man then asked her how she could believe that as "90% of Jews are paedophiles", when the teacher walked away, he began yelling "the Rabbis in the school just wanted to—
Expletive, expletive, expletive. That was in St Kilda, Melbourne on 1 December 2021.
I think we need to know about this. I think we need to reflect on it. I don't enjoy reading these examples, but I think our Jewish community and students going to Jewish schools need to know that we in this place are horrified that this is happening in our community. On page 45, there are further examples in the context of what is happening in schools and the manifestation of anti-Semitism against students. I want to read one particular example:
a Jewish boy was forced into a locker and sprayed with deodorant to simulate a Nazi gas chamber, while other students laughed and filmed the incident (at a Sydney private school, early 2022).
And so it goes on.
Earlier last month, I attended the building of a new mosque in the wonderful Queensland city of Toowoomba. The previous mosque had been the subject of two arson attempts. The first caused serious damage; the second burnt the mosque to the ground. The people of Toowoomba rallied around their Muslim community, their Muslim brothers and sisters, and have helped in the rebuilding of that mosque, demonstrating the very best of Australian values.
Whether it is our Jewish community or our Muslim community, we in this place as well as those in civic society and all Australians need to support our religious communities, including our Jewish community and our Muslim community, when they are subject to hatred and vitriol, which goes against every single thing we stand for in this place. I, for one, will be making a contribution in what I consider to be an appropriate way to show my solidarity with the people of the Jewish education community and to say to them: you have the support of the senators in this place, and these manifestations of vile, anti-Semitic conduct do not represent the Australia that we believe in; they are not reflective of the views of the vast majority of Australians. When these incidents occur, whether they are vile, anti-Semitic incidents directed at our Jewish community or the burning down of a mosque in Toowoomba, in my home state of Queensland, which is being rebuilt with the support of the vast majority of the community, we need to call out this behaviour and say that we stand with communities that are subject to this persecution and these awful, vile acts of racial hatred. With that, I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (12:38): The reason we are having this debate today in the Senate about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022 is that the government has mismanaged the parliament and has had to spin a schedule from the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 into this bill in order to pass it through parliament—this week, I imagine. The TLAB 4 bill was quite an ambitious bill with lots of different component. Not many of the components were related to one other, but that is how these bills roll; I understand that. The digital currency taxation component of that bill has been cherry-picked by the government as part of its hotchpotch approach to regulating digital assets. The government doesn't think that regulating the industries of today—not even of tomorrow—is a priority. It's more important to work through the list of grievances from your favourite vested interests at the class-action law firms, the unions, the super funds et cetera. As a result of that, the government for vested interests has put Australia into the slow lane when it comes to key industry and economic policy.
This in relation to digital assets is one example. People will recall in the last calendar year there was a major collapse of a cryptocurrency organisation called FTX. Of course, the solution to a lot of these issues is having strong gatekeepers and having a decent licensing framework and a system of consumer protections in place so that, if a consumer decides to invest in a cryptocurrency market, there are capital requirements and key personnel tests—a set of regulations designed to protect consumers if things go wrong. Progressing the agenda would protect consumers but also advance investment into Australia, because, of course, this is a race for regulation. I believe that the countries that put the most regulation in place on digital assets, perversely, will be able to capture the most investment because there is a need for certainty here in relation to digital assets.
But what we see from this government, the government for vested interests, is an agenda with a hotchpotch tax approach on digital assets, trying to define bitcoin as a property asset, and a token mapping exercise released by Minister Jones last week. You see nothing on regulating the gatekeepers and nothing to protect consumers. As I've said before in this place, there will be more collapses in this area. There will be more cryptocurrencies and more digital asset businesses that cause consumers harm when they go under, and all of these failures will be on the head of the government, because the government only reacts to its favourite vested interests.
There aren't many strong organisations that are recommending these changes; therefore, they fall on deaf ears. It is a bit like the point Senator Rice made about how difficult it can be to get a DGR listing. You shouldn't have to be a rich and famous person to get a DGR claim assessed. You shouldn't have to have an individual listing. The average person—of course, no-one's average, but the typical person—does not have access to ministers, ministerial offices or departments to make their case.
As this TLAB No. 5, which was cut out of TLAB No. 4, continues on, TLAB No. 4 sits on the books waiting to be considered again by the parliament. The other thing that's in TLAB No. 4 is the proposed financial reporting changes for super funds. This takes us back to another favourite issue from the last calendar year. One of the first acts of the government was to strip transparency from members of super funds so they couldn't see when their money was being sent off to unions. When you are the government for vested interests over on that side of the Senate and you're only interested in the small rent-seeking issues put forward by small-minded people and you don't take the national interest into account, of course it makes sense that the first issue that you take on will be removing transparency from punters so they can't see if their money has been sent off to finance a campaign at the CFMMEU or some other union.
Helpfully—very helpfully, I have to say—we have to thank the Electoral Commission for releasing new information, new data, last week which shows that there are tens of millions of dollars each year being sent from super funds to unions, and the unions have to declare this on the AEC's website because they are captured under the reporting obligations in the electoral laws. We now know that in the case of one fund, a tiny fund called First Super, it paid 2.5 million bucks to the CFMEU out of members' money. They decided it was okay to take $2.5 million of their members' retirement savings and give it to the CFMEU as a gift or something. We know that because of the AEC disclosures, but we don't know whether members are able to access that information. We know that information is being cut out of the disclosures that go to the punters because, of course, Minister Jones made it his first order to cut out that level of transparency.
I note that this week—again very helpfully—the Senate will have an opportunity to consider whether it will disallow this regulation that was made by Minister Jones to prevent the people of Australia from seeing whether their super funds are taking their retirement savings and sending them to related parties for political and other purposes. I believe the Senate made a mistake last year in not knocking out that regulation. I hope that we will see a different result this week, so that the regulation made by Minister Jones will be knocked out and we will revert to the regulations made by the coalition government in the last parliament. If that regulation had been in place now then members would have been able to see everything that the AEC told us last week. That would have made a difference because, as this chamber knows well, most people don't have time to wade through AEC disclosures to find these pieces of information. Many members do look at their annual member statements because they are interested in their super balances—after all, it is their money—so stripping out that information was very detrimental, and we look forward to the Senate reconsidering this matter later this week.
I agree with Senator Scarr and Senator Rice that it is too hard to get a DGR listing. For the sake of transparency, I believe that it is good that we are listing the Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, although that should have been made in the last parliament. I made some attempts to get that to happen, but I wasn't successful, so I'm pleased that it is happening now. It's also fair and reasonable that a no case should be listed. Some very good people are associated with AICR, including Rachel Perkins who is continuing a now multigenerational effort by her family to address some of the issues on the position of Indigenous people in this country, which concerns many Australians. Those of us who took the opportunity to watch her recent program on the Australian wars were reminded that just half a generation ago people in our schools were not taught a balanced version of Australian history. When I was taught the history of Australia in Victoria, where I lived back then, it was more about the history of Victoria and there was no emphasis on the dreadful policies of the 'Black Line' in Tasmania and the grotesque policies that should be known to all Australians. I take this opportunity to commend Rachel Perkins on her work, and look forward to the efforts of the AICR, which is due to receive deductible gift recipient status.
I restate my point from before that it is only fair that the no case should be put forward. I would say it is premature for most people to flag whether they will be voting for or against this proposal because, at this stage, we don't have a final proposal from the government. I won't take up any more time in the Senate, and I thank you for the opportunity to make a few random comments about things that I think are important but not necessarily connected, just as a TLA bill has random things that are not necessarily connected.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland) (12:49): I don't seek to add too much to the Senate's time. I want to highlight that this Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022 provides tax deductible status to a group called Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition. A media release last week said: 'Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition is a key fundraising and organising vehicle in the campaign for a constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament.' So, effectively, this bill provides tax deductible status for the group campaigning for the yes side of the voice debate. I am not against that. I welcome supporting groups that are contributing to our political debate but I do want to highlight a glaring inconsistency here, that there is no equivalent tax deductible status being given to a group to advocate for the no side of this campaign.
If you are listening to this you might be getting the very stark feeling that somehow the government, our betters in society, are stacking the dice against the no campaign. There's a lot of people who are desperate to see this yes vote. Our Constitution will be changed along race based lines. This is another example of the playing field being tilted in favour of the yes case in a way that is completely inconsistent with our past democratic practices and is seeking to influence and change our Constitution in a non-democratic way. I realise a lot of people don't know what the voice is yet; most still think it is a reality TV show. If you don't know what it is, just remember that your betters, the politicians, are really, really keen to have it. In my experience, if a politician is really, really keen to get something, it's probably not good for you. It's probably not going to be best for our society and our community, because my experience down here in Canberra is they often don't put your interests first.
While this bill does not provide an equal playing field for the yes and no case, I have great faith in the common sense and appropriate cynicism about authority that Australians represent. They will not have the wool pulled over their eyes; they will see this what it is for. It is a blatant attempt to support one side of a political debate and not another. It should not stand in our democracy, and I am hopeful the Australian people will make sure it doesn't later this year.
Senator M cALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:52): As Senator Bragg observed about his own contribution, it has been a wide-ranging debate which has canvassed a range of issues, few of which are directly connected to the substance of the bill before us. To that extent, it's not my intention to range quite as widely as all of my Senate colleagues but I did want to make just one comment. Senator Scarr, of course, today took the opportunity to elevate some of the recently published research about an increase in reported incidents of anti-Semitism and racism. He sought to make some comments here about our shared obligation and responsibility to combat these behaviours and to combat the beliefs that enable them and support them. Because words matter. Words, as Senator Scarr's earlier contribution demonstrate for us, can lead to action, to give permission to people who believe it's okay to bully, intimidate, harass and vilify people on the basis of their faith or on the basis of their race. It is completely unacceptable. Racism and anti-Semitism are completely unacceptable. I hope that everyone in this chamber would share that view and understand our mutual responsibility to combat it.
To return to the matters before the Senate, the bill before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022, amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to include the Australian Education Research Organisation Limited, the Jewish Education Foundation, Melbourne Business School Limited, Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, the Leaders Institute of South Australia and St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund on the list of deductible gift recipients. It extends the current listing for Sydney Chevra Kadisha and Australian Women Donors Network, and it removes the listing for Mount Eliza Graduate School of Business and Government Limited.
People here and people listening understand that deductible gift recipient status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations that they make to these organisations. In contemplating this legislation, and I hope providing support for it, the parliament and the Australian government are supporting these organisations in their provision of valuable community services by granting them deductible gift status. I commend the bill to the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Senator McAllister: My apologies, Acting Deputy President. I misheard the question. I thought that we were voting on the substance of the bill, not on the amendment. I wish to indicate that Labor will be opposing this.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is a division still required?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I still have an indication from senators that a division is still required, so we will continue the division, but thank you for indicating that, Senator McAllister.
The Senate divided. [12:59]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ) (13:04): No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage on this bill? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (13:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:05): It is a pleasure as always to rise to make a contribution to the debate, on this occasion, on the Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. At the outset I want to commend the work that my colleague the Hon. Alan Tudge put in, in the other place, to the coalition's response to this bill. To begin with, the purpose of this bill is to give effect, broadly speaking, to two legislative changes which were introduced before the last election by the coalition government and lapsed at the dissolution of the parliament. They were the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 and Higher Education Support Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021.
The bill before us today gives effect to the HELP for Rural Doctors and Nurse Practitioners measure announced, as I've already said, by the coalition in the 2021-22 MYEFO. The measures contained herein provide a partial or full higher education loan program, or HELP, debt reduction for rural doctors and nurse practitioners who reside and practise in regional, rural or remote Australia. This measure was previously included in the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. The bill also changes the definition of a grandfathered student to clarify grandfathering arrangements under the Job-ready Graduate package of reforms to higher education, and we've referred to them as the HELP grandfathering measures. These changes correct an unintended consequence of grandfathering provisions to ensure that honours students remain eligible for grandfathering where their course commenced before the year 2021, and the changes were previously included in the other bill I referenced earlier, the Higher Education Support Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021.
With regard to some of the specific elements, I'd like to turn first to the HELP for Rural Doctors and Nurse Practitioners measure. The measure was announced by the coalition, as I've already said, in the MYEFO 2021-22. This measure was aimed to encourage the relocation or retention of eligible doctors and nurse practitioners by reducing their outstanding HELP HECS debt. The measure allowed for the waiver of indexation on outstanding HELP debts for eligible doctors and nurse practitioners while they were residing in and completing eligible work in a rural, remote or very remote area. HELP HECS debts for doctors can be up to the value of $100,000, which is no small sum. The value of the debt reduction will be guided by the location eligible doctors and nurses locate to, using the Modified Monash Model.
The Modified Monash Model depicts the remoteness of the location, with the MM1 representing a major city through to MM7 representing a very remote location. The eligible locations for this measure will be in areas for MM3 to MM7. For example, doctors and nurse practitioners who choose to work in a remote area will need to provide a minimum of 24 hours a week of MBS billed services for a period equivalent to half the duration of their degree to have their full HELP HECS debt waived. For doctors and nurse practitioners who choose to work in rural or regional areas, they'll need to provide a minimum of 24 hours a week of MBS billed services for a period equivalent to the duration of their whole degree. The measures will be backdated as per the coalition's announcement in MYEFO, and eligibility will be retrospectively applied with commencement from 1 January 2022.
The program is expected to encourage up to 850 eligible doctors or nurses to relocate to a rural, regional or remote area each year, and this bill establishes the program eligibility requirements for the target health practitioners and the nature of the work to be undertaken to achieve the benefits of the program. It also provides for secondary legislation, which is the HELP debtor guidelines for health practitioners, to articulate the specifics of eligible participants, eligible locations and eligible work, and to support the administration of the program. The legislation to enact this measure was previously included in the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. It was introduced by the coalition in February of last year and lapsed at the dissolution of the parliament.
Why is there a focus on doctors and nurse practitioners? It's because individuals living in regional Australia, as we know, experience poorer health outcomes than their city counterparts, and this is attributed to less access to preventative health services, such as the services of a GP. According to the General PracticeHealth of the nation2022 report, GPs living and working in regional Australia experience greater job satisfaction than those living in urban areas. Yet there's still a chronic shortage of GPs, particularly those in country communities. With only one in seven graduates in medicine choosing the path of general practice, securing doctors in rural and remote Australia is becoming increasingly difficult.
According to Richard Colbran, the CEO of the New South Wales Rural Doctors Network, there isn't a town in rural New South Wales that isn't at risk when it comes to being able to sustain primary care in their communities. Without general practice, patients will turn to the already overstretched emergency departments and won't seek medical treatment at all, leading to poorer health outcomes.
As I've already said, this is coalition legislation, in essence. It was introduced before the last election; we, therefore, support the bill. There will be an amendment during the committee stage and I look forward to speaking to it at that point.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (13:11): I wish to speak to the Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. I will come to the Greens' position on this bill in a few minutes. I want to start by saying that this bill is a massive, missed opportunity, both with respect to student debt and changes and with changes to the terrible, punitive and cruel Job-ready Graduates bill that was pushed through by the Liberals and that hiked fees and cut university funding.
The entire Job-ready Graduates package was a complete disaster. It's not sufficient to just fix the grandfathering error; nor is it sufficient to pretend that nothing can be done to fix that disaster until after the university accord process, which is only due to deliver its final report at the end of this year—with recommendations years away from being implemented. When current policy is causing problems for so many people and is deeply flawed, like this Job-ready Graduates, urgent action is warranted.
Job-ready Graduates raised student fees and cut billions from Commonwealth contributions to teaching and learning. It failed in its attempt to encourage more enrolments in priority courses—such as science, engineering and mathematics—and burdened hundreds of thousands of students with billions in additional collective debt, shifting the overall cost of university education away from the Commonwealth and on to the students. Job-ready Graduates, as designed, had an unfair and disproportionate impact on students who may already be marginalised, subject to structural discrimination or at greater risk of dropping out, including women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, low-SES students, first-in-family students and students who live in regional areas. It entrenched pre-existing inequalities.
As the CEO of the Grattan Institute, Danielle Wood, stated in relation to the Job-ready Graduates bill, back in 2020:
I honestly think it's one of the worst-designed policies that I have ever seen … Even if you accept its stated rationale, it doesn't go anywhere near achieving it.
The current bill that we are debating is a missed opportunity with regard to this particular grandfathering requirement and also with regard to the student debt.
Education is a right, not a privilege reserved for those who can afford to pay for it. It should be universal and it should be free at all levels. It is a travesty that student debt exists in the first place. It should be completely wiped. Tinkering around the edges and reducing student debt for certain cohorts is totally insufficient. The need to address ballooning student debt in this country has never been greater. Again, it's not a problem that should be palmed off until after the Accord process has wrapped up. If inflation continues to rise, as is expected, student debt is likely to be indexed by around seven per cent on 1 June this year. This means that a person with an average HELP debt of around $24,770 will face an increase of over $1,700 to that debt. This is pretty staggering, particularly in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, which is hitting young people the hardest.
The increase in debt will be much higher for those who are shackled with a bigger study debt burden. For the close to 600,000 people who have a HELP debt of $40,000, debts could rise by almost $3,000. These debts are holding people back from being able to get a car loan or a loan to purchase their first home and are severely limiting the amount that people are able to borrow.
Ballooning student debt is already causing harm. Last year, I heard from so many people about how rising student debt was holding them back. I want to put on the record what some of them said. One said: 'I'm literally 20 and I already owe more than $20,000. That's more than $1,000 for every year of my life.' Another one said: 'My HECS and student loan comes to $80,000. Indexation will mean all I have paid in the last 12 months comes to nothing.' Then there's this: 'I've just finished my degree—mum of two who staggered through it during lockdowns—and about to enter the full-time working world, feeling I'm behind before I even begin.' Another person told me: 'I'm going to pay about $3,500 in HECS this year, and at the end of the year my HECS debt will increase by $4,760—absolute nightmare.' This is the last one I'm going to read out today, although there are plenty more: 'This year, my debt went up by more than the compulsory payments reduced it by. Paying thousands to still have my HECS debt growing is so disheartening.'
That is why I say that this bill is just tinkering around the edges and not sufficient. At the very least, we need to freeze indexation now to stop pouring fuel on the student debt crisis. We also need to raise the minimum repayment threshold to the median wage so we can ease the cost-of-living pressures for millions. That's why I have introduced a bill to do just that.
The bill we are debating amends the grandfathering provisions in the Higher Education Support Act to make them fairer and introduces a scheme for eligible doctors and nurses to have their HELP debts reduced or wiped if they live and work in rural and remote areas for a period based on the length of their degree. The bill also allows for the waiver of indexation in relation to eligible health practitioners' HELP debts while they're working in rural or remote areas. The Greens will support this bill because it does fix at least one broken element of the Liberals' Job-ready Graduates Package: the current unfair grandfathering of fee increases, which saw students who enrolled in honours courses hit by such high fees. It does also at least introduce measures to lower and wipe student debt for one cohort of students, so that's a step forward. But what we really need to work towards is the complete wiping of all student debt in this country and making education free for all.
I'm proud to be a member of the first and only party in Australia to commit to this vision. That's why I will be moving a second reading amendment to this effect—to make sure that student debt is wiped and to recognise that tertiary education, like all education, is an essential service, and it should be universal and free.
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (13:19): I'm also rising today to make a few brief remarks on measures within the Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. Particularly, I want to acknowledge the measures within this bill that work to encourage doctors and nurse practitioners to live and work in rural, remote and very remote areas in Australia. This bill will allow for eligible doctors and nurse practitioners to have their HELP debts reduced or wiped if they live and work in those areas for a period based on the length of their degree.
I rise today to welcome these initiatives as part of the bill because we know that bringing healthcare professionals to our regions is urgent business. As a senator for South Australia, as I travel around our state, I have heard countless times about the difficulties South Australians living in our regions and our remote and rural areas have in accessing adequate healthcare services, quality healthcare services and, importantly, continuity of care in the services that they do access.
We know that the provision of healthcare services in our regions is simply not up to scratch. Over the past few years, since I've been elected, we've seen things like the repeated cancellation of obstetric services in Ceduna. It's happening over and over again, leaving women and their families with huge distances to travel to give birth. They are travelling far away from their families and their support networks at an already stressful period in their lives. We see it in the provision of completely substandard health facilities in rural and regional South Australia in towns like Ceduna, where, thankfully, this government, the Labor government, in partnership with our state Labor government, is finally rebuilding the local health clinic, Yadu Health, something I have been campaigning on for years in this place. The situation that we had in Ceduna was completely substandard, and the previous government refused to act.
We know that in communities there are people who are travelling incredibly long distances to see their GPs and who have suffered from a lack of timely access to quality health care and, of course, from a lack of continuity of care from their healthcare providers. We know that, especially when it comes to managing chronic disease and complex conditions, a trusted relationship matters. Continuity of care matters. In towns like Murray Bridge, a town that can be disadvantaged at times by its proximity to Adelaide—you can be close enough to miss out on some good services because it's assumed that it's easy enough to get to Adelaide—these types of measures will really matter.
Our healthcare systems have been under strain. They need help, and I'm proud to be a part of a government that is not afraid of doing the hard work to tackle these challenges. Whilst I appreciate that this bill is primarily relating to higher education, I wanted to note and draw out the measures within this bill which go to having an impact on the workforce of doctors and nurses in our regions. This is a critical issue in which I think we have, over many, many years, seen repeated failures which have left people in my state very disadvantaged. Any measure that we can take as a government and as a parliament which will mean we have access to better services and continuity of care—with more professionals out in our regions and our rural and remote areas, making a difference to their local communities and providing that continuity of care and those services locally in a way which is accessible and which allows people to stay closer to their families, closer to their support networks and, of course, closer to their employment—is a really positive thing.
So I commend those measures in the bill and look forward to continuing to work amidst this government's broader work and efforts on strengthening Medicare and strengthening our healthcare system, because we know that, after nine years of the previous government, it has never been in worse shape. So there is a lot of work to do, and I commend the measures in this bill which will, hopefully, make a difference in regional South Australia.
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:23): At the outset, we should note that the purpose of the Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 is to give effect to two legislative changes that were introduced by the previous coalition government, which Senator Smith heavily criticised in her contribution in this place. The first change to which the bill gives effect is the Higher Education Loan Program debt reduction scheme for rural doctors and nurse practitioners who reside and practise in regional, rural or remote Australia. The second change is to fix an anomaly so that students who are undertaking honours programs also qualify for the assistance. The basic proposition is that, if those people who are studying medicine or nursing choose to work and live in a regional or remote community, the quid pro quo is that they're given relief on their university fees. That is entirely appropriate and, hopefully—and I share this ambition with Senator Smith—will go some way towards alleviating the crisis that is currently occurring, especially in remote and regional communities, in relation to health care.
Research from the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association provides some really startling facts about the health of people living in rural and remote communities as opposed to the health of those who have the benefit of living in larger major cities. I quote from an information statement which they released, which lists a number of the differences. Firstly:
People in rural and remote areas on average have shorter lives, higher levels of illness and more disease risk factors than those in major cities.
The next point is quite startling:
Mortality rates for males in very remote areas are 1.4 times higher than those living in major cities and 1.8 times higher for females.
Mortality rates are that much higher for our fellow Australians who are living in remote communities.
Age standardised suicide rates increase with remoteness and the total burden of disease rate in remote and very remote areas is 1.4 times higher than in major cities.
People living in rural and remote areas are more likely to have long-term health conditions including arthritis, asthma … diabetes, heart disease, stroke and mental health conditions.
A higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, with worse health outcomes than other Australians, live in rural and remote areas.
The need is there but the supply of health professionals is wanting, and that's one of the things which this bill seeks to address.
In the limited time available before the time for senators' two-minute statements, I want to make some reflections on the current state of the health system in my home state of Queensland. What is happening in Queensland, especially in regional Queensland, is an absolute disgrace. This is from an ABC article dated 15 January 2023:
Gladstone Hospital in Central Queensland—
this is a city of 60,000 people—
has been on maternity bypass for more than six months.
This is a city where, typically, 600 babies are born each year—it has a population of 60,000—but the Queensland public health system, under the Palaszczuk Labor government, is incapable of providing obstetric services.
Don't just believe me in relation to this. Let me quote from the President of the National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Dr Gino Pecoraro. He said:
Gladstone had the specialist staff, but their ill treatment by the health department led to them fleeing.
We had the obstetricians in Gladstone but they were treated so appallingly by the Queensland health department, under the Annastacia Palaszczuk Labor government, that they actually left the system. They couldn't bear working in the system. The article quoting Dr Pecoraro continues:
"This cannot be stressed enough," Dr Pecoraro said.
"Doctors—myself included—have been warning the health department of the imminent collapse of maternity services for two years.
"The root cause of this collapse was the closure of the private maternity unit in Gladstone. This led to the private specialists previously living and working in Gladstone moving out.
Dr Pecoraro said following the closure specialists were prevented from delivering private patients in the public hospital …
So that's the issue. It's an ideological issue that the Labor Party state government in Queensland won't permit private patients of obstetricians to be delivered in a public hospital.
Why? Why have this ideological blind spot in terms of the cooperation between the public health system and the private health system? When we look around the world—when we look at the health system of the United States—surely we all observe, or we should all observe, that one of the strengths of Australia is a strong public health system and a strong private health system. The two should be working together to provide the best health services to all people, including Queenslanders living and working in our remote and regional communities, who do so much for this country and produce so much in terms of revenue to pay for health services and education services, which, under the Queensland Labor government, they simply aren't getting. It's a travesty. There's a city of 60,000 people without an obstetrician to deliver babies. It's extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary, and I think the people of Queensland should carefully reflect on the situation of our health department and our health system in the lead-up to the next election.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): It is now 1.30, so we shall proceed to two-minute statements.
STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
Western Australia Justice Association
Senator PAYMAN (Western Australia) (13:30): Over the break I had the pleasure of meeting with Aisha and Steven from the Western Australia Justice Association. WAJA are university students studying across a range of academic fields with a shared passion for social justice. They're currently focusing on exploring ways to prevent young people coming into contact with the criminal justice system through early intervention and community based support programs. To see West Aussies taking the initiative to meaningfully collaborate with community groups, not-for-profit organisations and the legal sector in such a professional way, all whilst balancing their studies and work, gives me so much hope for the future of leadership in this country. The reports their work generate can make a significant contribution to shaping a system where promoting rehabilitation is a priority and imprisonment is a last resort. Groups like WAJA deserve a seat at the table when these issues are being discussed, and under this government they will get one.
As someone who has decided to get involved in politics at a young age, I know the struggle of questioning if your opinion matters when talking about such important issues, especially with people who may seem more experienced or knowledgeable. But once I started working on local campaigns and meeting Labor MPs, I quickly realised that they wanted to hear what I had to say. By campaigning with young people, I found a way to raise my voice and make a difference. It gave me the confidence to keep talking and to keep being heard, and now, as senator for WA, I have the privilege of being able to highlight the incredible work being done by other young Australians. Young people's voices are important, so I encourage any young person out there with passion to follow the lead of WAJA students, get involved and create a better Australia for all.
Western Australia: Floods
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (13:32): Not just a chance to rebuild, but a chance to improve. Last month, WA's west Kimberley region, an area of my state I know particularly well, experienced what has been described as a once-in-100-years flood. This disaster is unprecedented in its scale, with meteorologist James Ashley outlining, 'The amount of water moving down the Fitzroy River in a day is about what Perth uses water-wise in 20 years.' Water levels at Fitzroy Crossing eventually peaked at 15.8 metres—1.8 metres above the previous record.
With homes and supermarkets and streets inundated, the pain and upheaval that this has brought communities across the west Kimberley already living with isolation and other challenges is difficult to imagine. From remote Indigenous communities to major towns such as Derby, there was the risk and in many cases the reality of being cut off due to road closures, including of a 700-kilometre section of the Great Northern Highway. At this early point in the recovery and repair, I pay tribute to those communities affected for the remarkable courage, determination and endurance that they have shown. They have been an inspiration to many across our country.
Thankfully, our Australian Defence Force has again demonstrated its outstanding professionalism, operating throughout the region to assist locals in every way possible. The delivery of essential food and medical supplies as well as emergency services personnel through fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft has provided a critical lifeline.
But the issues for those in the west Kimberley are far from over. Among them are food supply issues and power outages across many towns and communities. The WA McGowan government must now do more to plan and to catalogue the weaknesses revealed by these floods and ensure that when the next seasonal flooding occurs these communities are better prepared. (Time expired)
Human Rights: Iran
Senator BARBARA POCOCK (South Australia) (13:34): Today I rise to speak in solidarity with the brave people of Iran, whose lives are on the line as they fight for their human rights. I was deeply saddened to hear of the death of 22-year-old Kurdish woman Jina Amini after she was arrested by and died, it seems, at the hands of the Iranian so-called morality police. I'm deeply concerned about Iran's execution of civilians who have joined protests in response to Jina Amini's death. Every day, we wake to news of more Iranian protesters sentenced to death, and this must end.
In January I was approached by the Iranian community in South Australia, concerned for two young men: Arshia Takdastan, only 18, and Javad Rouhi, 35. In response, I wrote to the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to declare my political sponsorship of Arshia and Javad. Arshia was arrested for allegedly throwing a bottle at a police kiosk and lending someone a cigarette lighter. Javad's crime was dancing in the street. Javad has a mental illness and his family have questioned whether he was even aware a protest was taking place. Both men were imprisoned and tortured by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and sentenced to death on confessions exacted under torture. Javad's torture was particularly severe, causing him to suffer paralysis. For a time, he lost the ability to speak. At one point his interrogation had to be paused so that a doctor could determine if he was still alive.
Through political sponsorship, we share these prisoners' names and stories. We say their names. We voice our concern for their physical and mental health. We monitor and condemn the cruelty and injustice of their persecution and that of so many other Iranians. I was pleased to see the government's decision last week to expand sanctions against the Islamic republic. However, I stand with the Iranian community when I say: more action is needed. It's time for the government to listen to the Iranian community and do more to end this appalling violence.
Poussard, Mr Horrie, OAM
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (13:36): I rise on behalf of my colleague Senator Raff Ciccone and myself as co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Landcare. We remember the life of Horrie Poussard, an environmentalist who dedicated his life to promoting sustainable land use practices around the world. Horrie is widely credited with developing the first Landcare programs in Victoria in 1986, which have grown to become a national success in Australia, helping communities adopt sustainable practices that deliver both productivity and environmental outcomes. Landcare is now an international success, with Horrie becoming head of the Global Landcare organisation, a nongovernment organisation that works with local communities, providing technical assistance and training as well as supporting research and development of new technologies and sustainable practices for land use.
In June 2021 Horrie was recognised for his contributions to conversation and environment with an Order of the Australia Medal. He remained an active and interested member of the Global Landcare organisation until his sad passing on Christmas Day 2022. Horrie Poussard was a true champion of the environment. He will be deeply missed by all who knew him and by the countless individuals and community organisations around the world who benefited from his work. Vale, Horrie Poussard.
Starlight Children's Foundation
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health) (13:38): Did you know that every minute of every day across Australia a child is going into hospital? Our children in Australia sometimes find that not to be the best of experiences. Sometimes it can be okay, thanks to organisations like the Starlight Children's Foundation Australia, which has given opportunities to families in hospitals across the country. This month they're holding the Super Swim Challenge to raise funds to assist the work that they do to make life that little bit better for children in hospital, wherever they may be.
In the Northern Territory, over 60 communities in some of the most remote places, from the Central Desert all the way up to the Top End, are visited by the Starlight Children's Foundation. Starlight captains trek to remote communities with doctors and nurses, and join them in local clinics to help engage with and interact with the local children. They learn about cultural practices in some of the areas, and some of the languages as well. I know it's really good for some of the Starlight captains. Kids are often keen to come to community clinics knowing that the Starlight captains are around. I bring it to the attention of the Senate that this month in particular is a fundraising month for the Starlight Children's Foundation across Australia. If you're keen—as I have been; I've put my hand up to swim for the Starlight Children's Foundation—you're very welcome to go to my webpage and see if you can donate to them. It's about caring for all kids across Australia, to make their experiences in hospital a little bit better—especially for the children themselves but also for their families. Please, sponsor me in my swim.
Manufacturing Industry: Cadbury
Senator TYRRELL (Tasmania—Jacqui Lambie Network Whip) (13:40): If you eat Cadbury chocolate—let's be honest; I reckon most of you do—odds are that a Tassie family farmed the dairy to make that chocolate. I think that's pretty cool. Did you know that local dairy farmers in north-west Tasmania supply almost a billion litres of milk to Cadbury a year, which makes about 60,000 tonnes of chocolate? I was lucky to visit the Burnie Cadbury factory a few weeks ago. The Burnie factory is where the fresh local milk is collected. I love getting to do on-site visits and meet the amazing Tassie people who are working so hard and learn about how the fabulous technology they're using results in product. After the milk is processed in Burnie, it's transported to Cadbury's factory in Claremont, just outside Hobart. I'm looking forward to doing Cadbury's paddock to plate and sampling the finished product at the Claremont factory soon.
Cadbury has been operating in Tasmania for over 100 years. Today they employ 700 direct and indirect full-time workers, and the company contributes a huge amount to the Tasmanian economy. We've talked a lot about local manufacturing in the past few years. We don't make cars here anymore, but, in the pandemic, we realised we were completely reliant on China for critical health equipment, and we need to do more stuff here. Cadbury shows that making stuff in Australia is possible. You can have success doing it. They've proven that local manufacturing can be competitive globally.
Investing in making things here is investing in Australian jobs. Doesn't that just make sense? It did to Cadbury, and you can see the benefits to Tasmania. Next time you're enjoying a little piece of chocolate, think about the amazing Tassie dairy farmers and the hundreds of Tassie workers who made it possible. What an amazing story. I can't wait to see what they do in the next 100 years.
Crime
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland) (13:42): Many Australians had what should otherwise have been a blissful summer ruined by the scourge of violent crime. On Boxing Day, Emma Lovell, a mum of two, was fatally stabbed by violent criminals at her home just north of Brisbane. I've had a stream of incidents reported to me through my office over summer.
Australians deserve to live safely in their homes, but their governments are failing to deliver that human right. The tragic stories are backed up by the statistics. There has been a staggering 53 per cent increase in juveniles breaking into people's homes and businesses in Queensland since mid-2019. What happened in mid-2019? Well, in August 2019 the Queensland government changed the Youth Justice Act. In the words of the government's explanatory note about these changes, they had the objective of 'removing legislative barriers to enable young people to be granted bail'. The changes told judges that the principle should be detention as a last resort and that the bail decision-making framework incorporated an explicit presumption in favour of release.
The Queensland Premier has cowardly blamed judges for the rise in violent crime, when judges have just been clearly implementing her own laws to put violent criminals back onto our streets. The local police know the offenders, but their hands are tied by Queensland's lax youth crime laws. The Queensland government has finally, after much pressure, woken up to the problem, and they say they're going to prioritise changes to the youth justice laws when the parliament meets next week. What they need to do is to eat some humble pie and admit that their 2019 changes have been an absolute disaster. If there is credible evidence that a juvenile has committed a crime, they deserve a fair trial but they should not have the presumption in favour of release. The Australian people deserve the presumption in favour of their safety, and it's high time the Queensland government puts the interests of law-abiding citizens first.
I particularly give credit to Julie West. She has established a petition, which has attracted almost 150,000 signatures, asking for the Queensland government to act to protect Queenslanders and guarantee their safety.
Papua New Guinea
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (13:44): As a senator for Queensland, particularly one from the Far North, I am incredibly proud of the unique and special relationship our state shares with Papua New Guinea. Often in my travels to PNG, or when meeting with visiting delegations, I'm reminded that my electorate office is actually closer to Port Moresby than it is to Brisbane.
During January, I was very privileged to join the Prime Minister on his first official visit to Papua New Guinea. I joined a delegation including our Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Pat Conroy, and the High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea and key Australian officials. Over three days, we were honoured to tour their national parliament, see the length and breadth of their beautiful country and of course travel to Wewak to pay our respects to the former Prime Minister, the father of Papua New Guinea, Michael Somare, and meet with his family.
It was a historic event, not just for our government but for Papua New Guinea's parliamentary history. Our Prime Minister was the first foreign leader ever to make an address to the PNG parliament. I was proud to listen to the speech that he delivered as he affirmed the importance of our relationship and the strength of the connection that our two countries have.
As a Queenslander, especially, I know how much we have in common with our friends across the way: a border we share; a climate we share; hopes and anxieties we share as well. And of course, we share our love for rugby league—the true religion, I think, of both Queenslanders and Papua New Guineans!
As a representative of communities with deep links to PNG, it was an honour to represent our country and learn more about the closeness of our dearest relationship. So many Australians have commented on the pride that they feel that our country is finally restoring its relationships and reputation on the world stage. And I thank our host, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, for his—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): Thank you, Senator Green. Senator McKim.
Boochani, Mr Behrouz
Asylum Seekers
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (13:46): I want to acknowledge someone very special in the chamber with us today: Mr Behrouz Boochani. Behrouz is an author who lives in New Zealand, but his journey here from Iran has been long and it's been dangerous. He's here in Australia to promote his new book, Freedom, Only Freedom. Earlier today, he made a really important address to the Australian people from right here in Parliament House, the home of Australia's democracy.
Many people, including opposition leader Peter Dutton, said that Behrouz would never set foot in Australia. But here he is—not only in Australia, but in our Parliament House, and, today, in this Senate chamber. So let's be clear about this: Peter Dutton lost and Behrouz Boochani won. And that is a triumph. It is triumph, over 10 years where Behrouz and many others have faced dehumanisation—have faced being brutalised. They've witnessed rapes, murders, armed assaults, child sex abuse; they've seen people die—many people, multiple people, die—under a bipartisan policy of cruelty. It is an absolute triumph that Behrouz Boochani is here in this chamber today.
But, while Behrouz is free, there are others who are not. There are still people on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea, after 10 long years in exile, who are still suffering, and it is time to end their suffering. They must immediately be offered transfer to Australia so they can be looked after here. Ultimately, that is the responsibility of this parliament, and that is what the Greens are calling on all senators from all parties to support.
Steffen, Emeritus Professor William Lee (Will)
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (13:48): I rise to pay tribute to a great scientist, a great communicator and a great Canberran, the late Emeritus Professor Will Steffen. William Lee Steffen was a gifted scientist and a powerful communicator. He was kind and generous and loved by many in the science community and at the ANU. Will Steffen was an intellectual giant—a leader in climate change and earth-system science. He dedicated his career to advancing the science on climate change, and, importantly, sharing those findings with Australians and the global community. He was a world-renowned scientist, and, I believe, one of the most influential thinkers of our time. He was a contributing author and reviewer on five IPCC assessments and special reports, as well as scores of other critical scientific publications. Professor Steffen helped to advance our knowledge on the Anthropocene, planetary boundaries and tipping points.
He was a powerful leader and a cherished mentor to so many within and outside the scientific community, known for his clear, crisp communication style. His voice has been heard in classrooms and within this very building; in courts; at the United Nations; and in our homes, through the TV and the radio and on countless podcasts.
Professor Steffen has left an incredible legacy, a wealth of advice that our parliament would do well to heed. I'm pleased to echo his advice in this chamber in his honour. The climate has tipping points beyond which lies an irreversible path to a new state. Our next actions will shape the future of the earth and its inhabitants for centuries, potentially millennia. Vale, Professor Steffen.
National Injury Insurance Scheme
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (13:50): I rise, as the former minister for the NDIS, to discuss a piece of what I see as unfinished business, and that is the introduction of the NIIS, the National Injury Insurance Scheme. In 2011, the Productivity Commission recommended two schemes, not only the NDIS but also the NIIS, which is for people who have acquired catastrophic injuries—for example, in motor vehicle accidents, from falling off ladders et cetera—who don't qualify for the NDIS.
As minister, I wrote to the then Treasurer, but unfortunately the election occurred. So, in September I wrote to the new Treasurer and to the ministers for health and for the NDIS. I haven't yet had a response, but I hope that's because they are actioning this.
Not only is this scheme the right thing; it's economically sound, as it would take significant pressure off the NDIS. It would also provide people who have had catastrophic accidents and who are currently not covered by the NDIS with all the acute care, the rehabilitation and the disability supports they need to live the best life that they can after the accident they have had.
I'd also like to pay special tribute to Kerri-Anne Kennerley, who has campaigned tirelessly, after the experience she had with her husband's accident. She noted that, while they had the financial resources to look after him, many others do not.
So I commend the NIIS to this chamber, and I'd ask that, in due course, members support the private member's bill that I'll be bring forward to introduce this scheme. Hopefully it won't be necessary and the new government will act on this with the other states and territories.
Rural and Regional Health Services
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (13:52): I rise to express dismay at the abysmal state of health services available to Australians living in remote areas. I refer to an article in the Courier Mail newspaper this week which referred to the Best for the Bush, a report complied by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. This report, which should be compulsory reading for all senators, revealed Australian women living in very remote areas had life expectancies 19 years lower than women living in major cities. The report revealed Australian men living in very remote areas had life expectancies almost 14 years lower than men living in major cities. According to this alarming report, Australians living in the bush are 2.8 times more likely to be hospitalised, 2.3 times more likely to die by suicide and 3.8 times more likely to die from diabetes.
These are appalling statistics. They reflect not only a general lack of competence by successive Labor and coalition governments, failing to address rural health issues, but the overemphasis placed on Indigenous health care at the expense of non-Indigenous Australians in the bush. The gaps in Indigenous health outcomes are very real, and it's usually all that we hear about, but this RFDS report makes it clear poor health in remote Australia is not just an Indigenous problem. Isn't it time we do away with racially exclusive health programs and address people's health based on need not race? Race should not be a factor in any government policy ever. Either we are all Australians, fairly and equally, or we are not.
Australia Day: First Nations Australians
Senator COX (Western Australia) (13:54): Today I want to talk about truth-telling. Australia has a dark past, and as a nation we need to acknowledge our shared history and the hurt and trauma that this history continues to cause. Only then can we move forward together. The impacts of colonisation, dispossession and forced removal are still felt by First Nations peoples, families and communities every single day. On 25 January, the last day of freedom, I, along with many other prominent Western Australians, called for the establishment of an independent truth-telling commission for Western Australia. The truth can be painful, which is why we shy away from it, we ignore it and we pretend it didn't happen. That only maintains the oppressive structures that have led us here in the first place.
Having an independent truth-telling commission will cut through the misinformation of intergenerational trauma experienced by First Nations people and highlight our enduring resilience and active resistance always. It will provide an opportunity for First Nations people to document and protect their stories, their truth, and uncover the untold and unrecognised parts of our history, something that will enrich the lives of all Australians.
Truth-telling allows First Nations people to share cultural heritage and the truth on their terms. It acknowledges sovereignty and self-determination and is an opportunity for healing and justice. I'm encourage by the comments by the former WA Governor Kim Beazley, who said truth-telling on the frontier wars at the Australian War Memorial will give Aboriginal people 'the dignity of resistance'.
Truth-telling can and must take many forms. First Nations people face injustices that go unanswered, and we need a mechanism to hold governments to account for their inaction on these injustices. Truth-telling and treaty-making are essential parts of a reconciled society, and as a senator for Western Australia I call on the WA government to establish a truth-telling commission and on the federal government to take action on advancing the work of the makarrata commission.
Andrews, Mr Fred
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (14:56): Show societies the length and breadth of this country are a vital part of their communities and the people that make up the largest volunteer network in the land. On behalf of the RNA, I would express our great sadness at the passing of Mr Fred Andrews, a 2019 Ekka Legend. Our thoughts are with his family at this very sad time.
Fred began his association with the show as a harness racing competitor in the early seventies, moving to RNA trotting, swabbing and steward roles, which he fulfilled until 2018, when he retired at the age of 92. A mainstay of the Ekka horse stables for nearly half a century, Fred was highly regarded, admired and greatly respected by all. His passion for horseracing and the show's horse competition was inspiring, and his contribution to the show was remarkable. In 2019 he was awarded the RNA's highest honour: the Ekka Legend award. The Ekka Legend award is bestowed on those who made an extraordinary contribution to the show. The award was introduced in 2004, and just 15 people have been awarded this prestigious honour. It is the selfless dedication of people like Fred which has made the people's show what it is today. For 50 years he gave so generously of his time to help make the Ekka a wonderful event for competitors and patrons. We join with all the Ekka family in mourning the loss of a remarkable man whose Ekka legacy we greatly revere and appreciate. It was with the support of volunteers and people like Fred Andrews that make us all the richer.
Natural Disasters
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (13:58): On in day in 2009 in Victoria, Australia's deadliest bushfire disaster began. There were 173 lives lost in the Black Saturday bushfires along with more than 2,000 homes destroyed and $1 billion in recovery costs. That was bad enough. Through the lens of time, we know natural hazards will keep climbing in frequently and intensity. In just a couple of weeks, we it will mark a year since the beginning of one of our most catastrophic flooding disasters. The eastern Australian floods were estimated by the Insurance Council of Australia to have cost $5.65 billion. They had a particularly devastating impact on the New South Wales Northern Rivers region, when five died in a rolling crisis on 28 February.
You'd think a bipartisan approach would have been the best approach as the months of flooding went on, and yet, when the former Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, looked at what needed to be done, he was having none of it. In the Northern Rivers and elsewhere, he decided some residents were more deserving than others and allocated relief funding accordingly. It was favouritism. That is disgusting. Now it turns out that his approach mirrored the way the New South Wales coalition government approached its own Black Summer bushfires disaster of 2019-20. A New South Wales Auditor-General's report found that former deputy premier John Barilaro rorted a $541.8 million bushfire grants scheme so that some Labor electorates would miss out, despite being in dire need.
There is a much better way to deal with disaster. The Albanese government will treat and tread the better path, not just for ones who vote for us but for all Australians, on behalf—
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Sheldon, the time for two-minute statements has expired.
MINISTRY
Ministry List
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): For the information of senators I table a revised ministry list, as tabled yesterday by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives. It reflects a small alteration to ministerial representation in the House and some typographical changes. I seek leave to have the revised list incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Commonwealth Government |
ALBANESE MINISTRY |
1 June 2022 |
||
TITLE |
MINISTER |
OTHER CHAMBER |
||
Prime Minister |
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
||
Minister for the Public Service |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
The Hon Linda Burney MP |
||
Minister for Women
|
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
The Hon Catherine King MP |
||
Minister for Indigenous A ustralian s |
The Hon Linda Burney MP |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
||
Cabinet Secretary |
The Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
||
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister |
The Hon Patrick Gorman MP |
|
||
Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians |
Senator the Hon Malarndirri McCarthy |
|
||
Minister for Defence
|
The Hon Richard Marles MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
||
Minister for Veterans' Affairs |
The Hon Matt Keogh MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
||
Minister for Defence Personnel |
The Hon Matt Keogh MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
||
Minister for Defence Industry |
The Hon Pat Conroy MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
||
Assistant Minister for Defence |
The Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
|
||
Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs |
The Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
|
||
Minister for Foreign Affairs
|
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
The Hon Richard Marles MP |
||
Minister for Trade and Tourism
|
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
The Hon Madeleine King MP |
||
Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
The Hon Pat Conroy MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
||
Assistant Minister for Trade |
Senator the Hon Tim Ayres |
|
||
Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs |
The Hon Tim Watts MP |
|
||
Treasurer |
The Hon Dr Jim Chalmers MP |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
||
Minister for Small Business |
The Hon Julie Collins MP |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
||
Assistant Treasurer |
The Hon Stephen Jones MP |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
||
Minister for Financial Services |
The Hon Stephen Jones MP |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
||
Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury |
The Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
|
||
Minister for Finance |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
The Hon Dr Jim Chalmers MP |
||
Special Minister of State |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP |
||
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
|
The Hon Tony Burke MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for Skills and Training |
The Hon Brendan O'Connor MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for Education |
The Hon Jason Clare MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for Early Childhood Education |
The Hon Dr Anne Aly MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for Youth |
The Hon Dr Anne Aly MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Assistant Minister for Education |
Senator the Hon Anthony Chisholm |
|
||
Minister for Health and Aged Care
|
The Hon Mark Butler MP |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
||
Minister for Aged Care |
The Hon Anika Wells MP |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
||
Minister for Sport |
The Hon Anika Wells MP |
Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher |
||
Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care |
The Hon Ged Kearney MP |
|
||
Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention |
The Hon Emma McBride MP |
|
||
Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health |
The Hon Emma McBride MP |
|
||
Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health |
Senator the Hon Malarndirri McCarthy |
|
||
Minister for Climate Change and Energy |
The Hon Chris Bowen MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
||
Minister for the Environment and Water |
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
||
Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy |
Senator the Hon Jenny McAllister |
|
||
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government |
The Hon Catherine King MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for Communications |
The Hon Michelle Rowland MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for the Arts |
The Hon Tony Burke MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for Northern Australia |
The Hon Madeleine King MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories |
The Hon Kristy McBain MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport |
Senator the Hon Carol Brown |
|
||
Assistant Minister for Regional Development |
Senator the Hon Anthony Chisholm |
|
||
Minister for Social Services |
The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
||
Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme |
The Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
||
Minister for Government Services |
The Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
||
Minister for Housing |
The Hon Julie Collins MP |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
||
Minister for Homelessness |
The Hon Julie Collins MP |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
||
Assistant Minister for Social Services |
The Hon Justine Elliot MP |
|
||
Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence |
The Hon Justine Elliot MP |
|
||
Attorney-General |
The Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Assistant Minister for the Republic |
The Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
|
||
Minister for Resources |
The Hon Madeleine King MP |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
||
Minister for Industry and Science |
The Hon Ed Husic MP |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
||
Assistant Minister for Manufacturing |
Senator the Hon Tim Ayres |
|
||
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
The Hon Catherine King MP |
||
Minister for Home Affairs |
The Hon Clare O'Neil MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for Cyber Security |
The Hon Clare O'Neil MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Minister for Emergency Management |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
The Hon Clare O'Neil MP |
||
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon Andrew Giles MP |
Senator the Hon Murray Watt |
||
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet M inisters are shown in bold type . As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a M inister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the ' Minister ' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant M inisters in italics are designated as P arliamentary S ecretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952 .
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Northern Territory: Crime
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and other remote towns across the Northern Territory have endured the failures of this government's policy agenda, with child sexual abuse, assaults and property damage a daily occurrence in many remote communities. In response to growing community concern, and considerable pressure from the general public, the Prime Minister finally visited Alice Springs recently, with less than four hours on the ground. Can the minister advise why the Prime Minister thought it was acceptable to be a FIFO PM in Alice?
Senat or WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:01): I'm disappointed that Senator McKenzie, on an issue such as we are seeing in Alice Springs, would choose to make such a light-hearted quip in that way. We all know—
Senator Henderson: Why didn't you listen to Indigenous voices in the parliament?
Senator Farrell: Where was Morrison last year?
The PRESIDENT: Senators! Please continue, Senator Wong.
Senator WONG: Just on the visit, first, before I go to the more substantive issue, which is the intergenerational disadvantage, the violence and what we are seeing on the ground in Alice Springs. I am advised that the Prime Minister had planned to visit Alice Springs in December, but—
Senator Henderson: We were calling on him for weeks!
Senator Davey: Eight months after requested—
Senator WONG: He contracted COVID, and so that was delayed. Obviously, the next opportunity he was able to visit was 24 January. Minister Burney has visited Alice Springs on a number of occasions and, of course, we are quite blessed in the Labor Party to have Senator McCarthy, the member for Lingiari and many others who engage very closely on these issues.
It is the case that yesterday, the Prime Minister, as you know, announced additional support for the Northern Territory. And it is the case that the Stronger Futures program ended under you with no plan. So it is interesting that in this place you wish to come in here and play partisan politics on an issue where you dropped the ball at the end of the Stronger Futures program—
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong, your time has expired. I'm going to call Senator McKenzie for her first supplementary question.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:03): Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
If I'm Prime Minister, I won't go missing when the going gets tough—or pose for photos and then disappear when there's a job to be done.
Can the minister advise the Senate why the Prime Minister spent three nights at the Australian Open, posing for photos, and not a single night in Alice Springs?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): It's interesting that Senator McKenzie chooses to remind everyone of what Mr Morrison was like! But what I would say is this—first, on the tennis. I hope that you are very careful about who on your side has gone to major sporting events, because I can say to you that I remember a lot of Liberal Party ministers with a lot of good hats at the Melbourne Cup and other things!
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator McKenzie: A point of order on relevance, Madam President: the minister was asked about time in Alice Springs talking to local communities and addressing the crisis that's unfolding there, not—
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, and I would ask for silence.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I had difficulty hearing Senator Wong because of all of the interjections. Senator Wong—and I will listen closely.
Senator WONG: Were that you did ask me that question, Senator McKenzie, because I would have treated that question with some respect. But, no, you want to make a partisan point. You want to make a partisan point about the tennis. Let me say this: stronger futures ended in July 2022. There was no plan on the part of the previous government to manage the transition. We have listened to community and we have provided additional resources to— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:05): Community leaders have warned that the serious crime wave affecting the Northern Territory communities has the potential to spread to other remote communities across Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia with the government's abolition of the cashless debit card. When will the Prime Minister visit those other communities where the CDC has been abolished?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:06): I'm asked now about the CDC. I would make a few points. First, in relation to what we are seeing in the Northern Territory, it is distressing, it is deeply worrying and it is devastating for communities, and that's why we're acting. That is why we're acting. That is why the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Northern Territory government and after consultation with Ms Dorrelle Anderson, has made a decision with the support of the cabinet to provide $250 million worth of additional funding for support. It is a reminder of how much all governments need to do to address the intergenerational disadvantage which we are seeing. (Time expired)
Turkiye: Earthquake
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:07): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. In recent days, the world's been confronted with devastating scenes following earthquakes in Turkiye and Syria. Can the minister update the Senate on the situation on the ground, please?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:07): I thank Senator Pratt for her question, and certainly, particularly overnight, what we have seen in Turkiye and Syria has been devastating. I know this is an issue that many colleagues in the chamber are concerned about, and they share Senator Pratt's interest and concern about this issue. I want to acknowledge that so many from the parliament and across the community have reached out to my office to express concern and to ask what they can do and what our country can do.
The true extent of this devastation is still emerging. What we do know is that at 4.13 am local time on Monday a magnitude 7.8 earthquake stuck Nurdagi, Turkiye, in the far east of the country near the border with Syria. Then, at 1.24 pm that afternoon, a second earthquake, of magnitude 7.7, struck Elbistan, which is 80 kilometres to the south. The affected provinces have been devastated by a series of 100 aftershocks. The devastation of the earthquakes span both Turkiye and Syria, and we know that these are extraordinarily vulnerable parts of the world—parts of the world which are already devastated by conflict and by disruption.
I'm not in a position to advise the Senate of verified numbers. What I can say is that media reports just before I came into question time put the number of those who have perished in these earthquakes at at least 3,800. This will almost certainly rise. Rescuers are still searching through collapsed buildings. Access to the affected areas is being hampered by damage to roads, collapsed buildings, severe weather, and traffic from those trying to flee. The extent of the impact in Syria is still emerging, and the affected areas are in non-government held territories, which makes information very difficult to verify. The government is monitoring the situation closely, and in subsequent answers I'll respond to what the government is seeking to do.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Pratt, first supplementary?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:09): What do we know, please, about Australians in affected areas?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): I know some MPs and senators have had Australians contact them about family in affected areas. Our diplomatic missions in Ankara, Beirut and Istanbul are working closely with local authorities to ascertain the welfare of our citizens. The Ankara post is following up on a small number of Australian citizens who may be in the affected areas. I'm not in a position at this stage to provide any further details.
Australians in need of emergency consular assistance should contact our 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre—that is, on 61262613305 and 1300555135. The latter number is for if calling within Australia.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Pratt, a second supplementary?
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:10): What is the Australian government doing to support all those affected?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:10): Thank you, Senator Pratt. Prime Minister Albanese announced in the press conference held just over an hour and a half ago an initial commitment of $10 million in humanitarian aid to support the people of Turkiye and Syria—$7 million will be disbursed immediately, and $4 million of that will be delivered to support those affected in Turkiye, through the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent appeal. These funds will support the delivery of food, shelter and basic aid items. We've also allocated $3 million to north-west Syria, to be delivered through UNICEF, to assist with immediate needs, with a particular focus on women and girls. An additional $3 million will be allocated as we work to understand needs on the ground.
This is obviously a crisis. It is a crisis that is affecting so many of our fellow human beings. We will continue to monitor the unfolding situation on the ground.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:11): by leave—I associate the opposition coalition parties with the remarks made by Senator Wong and the government in sending our most sincere condolences to the people of Turkiye and Syria following yesterday's major earthquake and the events that have unfolded since. When we go to bed at night and tuck our children into bed none of us imagine that the homes we are living in will collapse upon us in the midst of the night. When I spoke with Turkiye's ambassador to Australia earlier today he recounted stories that he is seeing of those in the zone saying they now feel ashamed to go to sleep. There are difficulties: there's not just the human toll with the immediate loss of life—the many thousands who have lost loved ones, to whom we send our love, prayers and best wishes—and the thousands more injured but of course the ongoing humanitarian crisis that follows from a tragedy and disaster like this.
It is of course in these events that we see the best of humanity—rescuers working heroically, the international community responding comprehensively, and disaster and aid workers coming to provide assistance. Even Ukraine, which is fighting for its freedom, is offering to provide support. We acknowledge and thank the government for the support that they have announced and provided. We stand with the government in supporting that and in supporting the Australian Turkish and Australian Syrian communities in this time of concern for all of them.
Pensions and Benefits
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:13): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. As reported by the West Australian newspaper today, in the WA Goldfields town of Laverton, formerly a place where the cashless debit card was in operation, last week the Desert Inn Hotel, after discussions with local police, voluntarily imposed liquor restrictions to combat alcohol fuelled violence. What role has the withdrawal of the cashless debit card played in increasing crime, domestic violence and dysfunction in Laverton?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:14): I thank Senator Cash for her question. The cashless debit card was obviously a controversial issue going into the last election. We as an opposition took to the Australian people the proposition that we should remove the cashless debit card. One of the first things that the new Minister for Social Services, Minister Rishworth, did was to introduce legislation into this place—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Cash?
Senator Cash: President, I think it's pretty obvious that my point of order is on relevance. Senator Farrell, could you at least direct your comments to the alcohol fuelled violence in Laverton.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cash, the minister is being relevant. You have asked about the CDC. He is entitled to put the government's reasons for its abolition. Minister, please continue.
Senator FARRELL: We took the proposition to the Australian people, and that included people in Western Australia and—
Senator Cash: Don't insult us. The people in Laverton said no.
Senator FARRELL: The people in Western Australia voted overwhelmingly for an Anthony Albanese Labor government. Senator Cash, you know as well as I do the number of seats that your government lost in Western Australia. So all I'm saying is—
Senato r Ruston interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ruston! Minister, please continue.
Senator FARRELL: We took our policy to the last election. Senator Cash, you would be appalled if we didn't do what we said we were going to do. (Time expired)
T he PRESIDENT: Senator Cash, a supplementary question?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:16): The Shire of Laverton president, Patrick Hill, was today reported as saying:
The kids are not getting fed, the women get bashed up and it's just going back to the way it was.
Minister, what are you going to do to protect the women and children in Laverton and other towns around Australia where you've withdrawn the cashless debit card?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:17): Regrettably, Senator Cash, the issues that you raise as significant in Laverton are not unique to that town. Let's take one of the issues that you're talking about.
Senator Cash interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator FARRELL: Senator Cash, when I'm deliberately answering or doing my best to answer your questions—
Senator Cash interjecting—
Senator FARRELL: That may be so, but the people of Australia have made a decision. One of the reasons they voted for us at the last election was our policies on domestic violence. I don't say that we are going to solve all of the problems overnight— (Time expired)
Senator Ruston interjecting—
Senator Cash interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Senator Cash. I will wait until there is silence on your side.
Senator Ruston interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, I just called for silence. Senator Cash, a second supplementary question?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:18): Minister, will you commit to restoring the cashless debit card as a matter of urgency in Laverton and in other communities being ravaged by alcohol fuelled crime, violence and dysfunction because your government abolished it last year, and will you apologise to the people of Laverton?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:18): I can only reiterate the comments that Senator Wong made a few moments ago—that politicising these sorts of issues in this way, in this Senate, does you no credit, Senator Cash. It does you no credit. It does you no credit to take advantage of the issues that are going on in this town and other towns to try to get some sort of political advantage out of the—
Senator Cash interjecting—
Senator Ruston interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. I'm going to ask for silence to allow the minister to finish the question. Please continue, Minister Farrell.
Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Madam President. I reiterate my point. It doesn't do you any good, Senator Cash, to be seeking to use the disadvantage of— (Time expired)
Donations to Political Parties
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:20): My question is to Senator Wong, representing the Prime Minister. Last week's annual donations data release revealed around $2 million in donations from fossil fuel companies and lobbyists to both big parties, including $960,000 of that to the Labor Party, and in that financial year four big donors were some of the highest-polluting facilities covered by the proposed safeguard mechanism: Woodside, BlueScope, Chevron and INPEX. Collectively, they donated over $200,000 to the Labor Party in 2021-22. How much access to the table did that buy when Labor was designing its weak safeguard mechanism legislation, and are those dirty donations why your safeguard mechanism backs new coal and gas?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:20): I really reject the imputation of some form of corruption which is in that question. I'm reminded of when I was a minister many years ago, with much less grey hair, and Senator Payne—sorry, what was her name?
Senator Ciccone: Senator Milne.
Senator WONG: Senator Milne! Senator Milne was—
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator WONG: Senator Payne did vote with Senator Milne, in fact. They voted together to get the cashless debit card—sorry; I'm very tired. It was the CPRS. They voted against that. She would ask question after question to me about fossil fuel companies, and I remember saying to her at one point: 'You know, it is possible that we take a different position not because we are corrupt, as is the implication, but because we just don't agree. We don't agree with the policy proposition.' And that is the case.
Now, I accept that there will be a contest over the safeguard mechanism. I have faith that Mr Bowen will ensure that what is presented to this parliament will have a cogent policy basis. You may not agree with it, and that is your right, but he will do so, as the cabinet will do so, on the basis of our judgement about what the best economic policy for the nation is. So I do reject—
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator WONG: It's very easy, isn't it, as a campaigning tool? But I do reject this proposition that somehow a Labor government which has taken a very ambitious position on climate, and which has—let's be frank—paid a political price for many years as a consequence of holding the position on climate, would simply do what you're suggesting. That is not the case. We are always guided by what is best for the country. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, first supplementary?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:23): I note that the fossil fuel sector receives over $11 billion in public subsidies every year. I also note that the mineral resources council donated $103,800 in donations to the Labor Party and they recently promised to unleash an ad campaign against Labor unless it ruled out a windfall profits tax. We haven't seen a windfall profits tax, which could fund cost-of-living relief measures to actually help people. Has that donation bought your compliance on that issue? (Time expired)
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): The answer is no. You are talking to a party that has been honest with the Australian people for over a decade; that lost government—let's be clear—about our position on climate. It has been honest with people, and in the previous term of government obviously paid a political price for holding a very clear and consistent position on climate. We have. And we went to the Australian people with a clear position about what we would do, and we will deliver it. We had a clear position on taxation, we had a clear position on climate policy, we had a clear position about utilising the safeguards mechanism, and we were up-front with the Australian people about why we wanted to do it and what we would do. So the implication that you want to make for political purposes in here—that somehow that is all untrue—is wrong. It is wrong, and it does not do you— (Time expired)
The PRESIDEN T: Senator Waters, second supplementary?
Senator WATERS ( Queensland — Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate ) ( 14:24 ): Around half the donations given to political parties is dark money. It's not required to be disclosed, because of in-built loopholes. That means cash for access meetings or donations through business forums as membership are not required to be disclosed. When will you shine a light on the masses of undisclosed money washing through this system and fix the system so that big money isn't buying access and outcomes?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:25): I make this point: we continue to lead on political donation reform. I understand JSCEM is looking at this issue, and I also understand and am told that donations were taken by the Greens political party from a professional gambler and a pastoral company backed by one of South Africa's richest men. But you want to lecture us about this and make imputations that the Labor Party, which went to the Australian people with a very clear policy position and which is now implementing that policy position—you now want to say for political purposes that that's corrupt. Well, you know what? I actually think that all of the Australians who voted for climate action and all of the Australians who voted for the ambitious position that we went to the election with deserve a Greens political party that might actually back in legislation that delivers on that ambition, rather than taking pot shots from that corner yet again.
Cost of Living
Senator STEWART (Victoria) (14:26): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister please update the Senate on the work the Albanese government is doing to ease the cost-of-living pressures for all Australians?
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) (14:26): I welcome Senator Stewart back and congratulate her on beautiful Ari, whose company we've had the pleasure of since her return. Welcome back.
The Albanese government understands that cost-of-living pressures are a major concern for all Australians. We understand that it's not easy for households right now. When I look at how other countries are faring, I think Australia is positioned well to ride out this economic uncertainty and some of the shocks that we're seeing. I'm a member of the government's economic team, and we are working hard every day to make sure that Australian challenges with inflation do not become worse. We are cleaning up after the wasted decade of the previous government, which had a record of inaction or—worse—failure, including with more than 20 failed energy policies. We saw a decade of wasted opportunities and wrong priorities that left Australia with falling real wages, cost-of-living pressures and $1 trillion of debt, without an economic dividend to show for it.
We have an economic plan that is a direct and deliberate response to the challenges facing the economy right now, including cost of living. One of the very first acts of this government was to successfully argue for the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, an outcome which has helped around 2.7 million Australians see their incomes increase. Our first budget focused on responsible cost-of-living relief that didn't put extra pressure on inflation, which is an important thing, and we're working hand in hand with the RBA as they undertake their tightening cycle on interest rates. We've got cheaper child care, we're expanding paid parental leave and we've had cheaper medicines since 1 January. We're putting resources into affordable housing and getting wages moving again. These are the concrete steps that we have put in place in just the first few months.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stewart, first supplementary?
Senator STEWART (Victoria) (14:28): Can the minister update the Senate on the practical measures that the government has been taking to support households?
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) (14:28): I thank Senator Stewart for the supplementary question. There are some things that we are experiencing in this economic environment that are out of the government's control, such as the ongoing war in Europe and the ripple effects of the pandemic, but there are also things that are within our control, and the government is focused on those. As I said in the previous answer, we're making medicines and child care cheaper and, of course, providing relief to householders facing those rising energy costs, which the Senate dealt with in December last year. Let's not forget, because we won't ever forget, that those opposite voted against it. The money that will flow to households to help with their energy bills, you voted against. It was how the Senate stood up and provided that support to households, and the opposition tried to block it. We have focused on growing the economy the right way so that Australians can benefit from good skills, get good jobs and have good wages. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stewart, second supplementary?
Senator STEWART (Victoria) (14:29): Can the minister update the Senate on initiatives that have already started to have a direct impact on households and easing cost-of-living pressures?
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) (14:30): Wages are beginning to move again thanks to the government putting bargaining back in the hands of workers, which, again, those opposite opposed. You opposed the energy price relief and you also opposed sensible changes to improve the bargaining framework so that workers could get pay rises. It is no surprise after a decade of wage stagnation, a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture—let us never forget that—that wage increases were stuck at two per cent or worse. We're already seeing wages starting to move, nudging just above three per cent.
But we get that households are still doing it tough. We understand that, and the government's job is to look at where we can provide sensible cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation. That is the defining challenge as we put this budget together. The May budget will continue our focus on the cost of living, including providing that household assistance for energy bills by working with the states and territories, which you opposed. (Time expired)
Environment
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (14:31): I have a question to the Minister representing Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Watt. Australia is a world leader in many things that we celebrate, but one international title we have is a source of global shame, and that is our status as a world leader in species extinction. Over the past 200 years our actions have sent one in 10 of our native mammals extinct. By comparison, the US, which has a similar landmass, has lost just one species. If we don't act now, current and future generations of Australian children may never have an opportunity to see a numbat or a regent honeyeater or a northern quoll. In October last year the government committed to ending extinctions. Will the government commit to backing up this commitment with enough investment to ensure that this actually happens?
The PRESIDENT: I believe Senator Wong is the correct repping minister, so I've given her the call.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:32): Thank you to Senator Pocock. He is correct that we are a country, a nation, that has one of the worst extinction records in the world. We have one of the worst mammal extinction records in the world. Obviously, we have seen land and water degradation which has an effect not just on humans but on our many animal and plant species. I know that the Minister for the Environment and Water has been very clear about the importance of working towards zero extinctions. This has been endorsed by every state and territory.
As part of that we are investing in excess of $200 million in the Saving Native Species program. We have put in place a new threatened species action plan which sets ambitious targets, seeking to protect 30 per cent of our land and seas by 2030. Critically, we are looking at reform of the environmental legal framework. Senator Pocock would be familiar with the Samuels review into the EPBC Act. Ms Plibersek is taking forward the process to reform those to protect, restore and manage native habitats. The Australian Conservation Foundation, ACF, has welcomed the government's new threatened species objective and made the very important point that extinction is a choice, and we need to choose a better path. We need to change the trajectory for the range of threatened species and their habitats, and certainly the government, particularly Ms Plibersek, is focused on doing so
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pocock, first supplementary?
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (14:34): I welcome the government's commitment and would point out that this will require significant investment. In fact, in 2019, 13 of Australia's most eminent environmental scientists looked at the question of how much it would take to do exactly that, to halt extinctions. The figure then was about $1.7 billion per year. Does the government accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that we need significantly more investment in this area?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:34): I would make a point, if I may, about funding, and one of the things that I certainly learnt as finance minister, and I'm sure Senator Gallagher is managing, is that there are very few requests for spending which are not worthy. There are some—we saw some under the previous government.
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator WONG: Maybe a few of the sports rorts might have been a bit of a problem. But anyway. We have completely legitimate requests for expenditure in environment, in climate, in energy and in social security—in whole range of areas, including First Nations policies, health, Medicare, PBS, National Disability Insurance Scheme. All of these are matters—
Senator Hume: This is the longest way of avoiding the question!
Senator WONG: I'm making a point about—I'm surprised that the shadow minister for finance wouldn't like me to talk about opportunity costs, given that is the heart of the job you have to do, the heart of the job you're supposed to be doing. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pocock, a second supplementary?
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (14:35): My question really is about funding, though. Will the government match ambition with action, and with a shortfall of some $1.6 billion, at the moment, does the government have a plan for which species you're going to select to not go extinct and which we should just let go extinct?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:36): I understood, very well, what you were asking. I was making the point that there are many areas of investment, particularly after 10 long years of those opposite investing in so many of the wrong things and so few of the right things. The process of considering not just this area but the many areas that demand funding, as well as the structural deficit that the finance minister has spoken about, obviously will be something the government will consider in the course of the budget.
You would well understand—I appreciate that as an independent senator your job is to represent your constituents, and I'm sure that includes pushing the government to do more. But what I would say to you is we recognise this is a very important area; we are committed to getting this into a much better shape than it was, and Ms Plibersek has done an extraordinary job in the last months to do so, but there is much— (Time expired)
Cost of Living
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:37): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In April last year, the now Treasurer said:
This is a full-blown cost of living crisis … a triple whammy of skyrocketing costs of living, falling real wages and rising interest rates.
Since the election, the cost of living has truly skyrocketed. Inflation is at its highest point in 30 years, real wages can't keep up and interest rates are at their highest point in a decade. Minister, does the Treasurer acknowledge that under this Labor government there is truly a full-blown cost-of-living crisis?
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 thank Senator Hume for the question. I think the government has been very clear that cost-of-living pressures and addressing them in a responsible and reasonable way is a priority for this government. In fact, when Minister Bowen started to deal with the fact that we were going to have blackouts, from day one we've been dealing with the decade of delay, dysfunction and refusal to tackle the challenges that are now impacting households right across the country. So we accept that cost of living is the No. 1 issue for probably every household in this country.
As a government we have to look at the ways that we can ease that cost-of-living pressure in a way that doesn't add to inflation. I think the major difference—there are a couple of differences. The largest quarter of inflation was in the March quarter last year, which was actually under you when you were in government. That was the largest quarter, in terms of inflation growth.
The other difference is that you have a government that's actually dealing with the issues, rather than putting their head in the sand and pretending that everything was just fine. That is a major difference, in energy, in health, in child care, in energy prices, in the cost of medicines, all of these areas that we're dealing with, and that's whilst we've got a budget that's heaving with a trillion dollars of debt, while we're going through all of the terminating measures, the things that weren't funded properly—remember all that?—the zombie measures, that were never going to get through the Senate, that you had there bolstering your bottom line. We're fixing all of that. We're investing in those areas where we can make a difference to households without adding to inflation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a supplementary question?
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:39): The cost-of-living committee last week heard that Woolworths' charity partners have already told them that they will need increased food donations in 2024, and that there has been a 12 per cent increase in the number of Australians struggling to pay their power bills. Minister, why hasn't the government delivered the $275 price cut or other cost-of-living relief that it promised last year to help Australians with their energy bills?
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) (14:40): That question is just wrong. We are doing what we said we would do in terms of implementing our cost-of-living measures that we took to the election: cheaper child care, cheaper medicines. We have been dealing with the energy crisis that you opposed. The gall of you—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hume, a point of order?
Senator Hume: On the issue of relevance: I specifically asked about energy bills.
The PRESIDENT: Yes, and you started with a couple of sentences around charity and increases, so I think the minister—
Senator O'Neill int erjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator O'Neill, a point of order has been called, I'm responding to it, and all I can hear is you. I ask all senators to be respectful and to listen and be quiet. I believe the minister is being relevant, but I will continue to listen and I will direct her to the body of the question if she doesn't go there.
Senator GALLAGHER: On energy—the gall, frankly, of being asked that question, when you opposed the cost-of-living relief in the bill that this Senate passed in December last year. It was over $1 billion to go to help with the cost of energy increases that occurred under your watch—that Minister Taylor hid before the election. The increases people are feeling now actually occurred under your government. We are dealing with it, and you opposed the money going in to get to households this year to help them to lower their energy bills by hundreds of dollars. You sat there and said no. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a supplementary question?
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:42): Last week the Senate's cost-of-living committee also heard that 800,000 Australian households are going to be coming off their fixed rate mortgages and going onto variable rate mortgages throughout 2023. We heard that the cash rate rises this cycle have increased the typical Australian variable mortgage holder's repayments by around $10,000 per year. Minister, with the RBA increasing the cash rate again today, how much more will the average Australians with variable mortgages be worse off under this Labor government?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:43): Dealing with the inflation challenge is the defining economic challenge facing the country. We've been very clear about that. The RBA has increased the cash rate by a further 25 basis points today. They are, of course, independent and make those decisions based on the economic data that they are seeing. We have been saying for some time that we understand that these increases—particularly for those households that have mortgages, and often large mortgages—are significantly impacting household budgets. There is no doubt about that.
To specifically answer your question, it depends on what your mortgage is, and the terms with which—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hume?
Senator Hume: If the minister doesn't know the answer to this question, I would be very happy if she took it on notice—
The PRESIDENT: What's the point of order?
Senator Hume: Sorry, the point of order was relevance. She clearly didn't know the answer. If she doesn't know I'm quite happy to have it taken on notice because it was a very specific question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, please resume your seat. The minister is being directly relevant.
Senator GALLAGHER: It's very patronising of you, Senator Hume. I have the answers. It depends on how much you owe and the rates for which your mortgage is. But it is hundreds of dollars, and we understand that. (Time expired)
Childhood Cancer
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:44): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Before I start, I want to thank former Senator Griff for the work he did on cancer in the time he was here.
In Australia, brain cancer is one of the most common and deadliest diseases in children. Approximately 120 children are diagnosed each year with brain cancer and, for 45 per cent of those, their disease is fatal. My question for the government is this: What new initiatives has the government introduced to address paediatric brain cancers? Is there anything it has introduced that is new? Are you still funding the previous programs that were introduced by the previous government?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:45): I thank Senator Lambie for her advice that she would be asking a question on childhood cancer. I acknowledge that the Senate has a meeting with the Minister for Health next week to discuss a range of health issues. Many of us across the chamber went to the ovarian cancer breakfast this morning. Cancer is something that has touched probably everybody's lives in this place.
Some of the statistics around childhood cancer and children diagnosed with brain cancer are very confronting. As Senator Lambie said, an estimated 102 children aged up to 14 are diagnosed with brain cancer and 36 children are estimated to die from this disease. Cancers in children are often different from those observed in adults in appearance, site of origin and response to treatment. They are also often quite difficult to diagnose, which does require specialisation in paediatric cancer responses.
To just run through a couple of things under way, over the last 10 years, there has been $260 million for childhood cancer research through the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and Cancer Australia. We have also allocated $452 million to build new comprehensive cancer centres in Queensland and South Australia. We're also implementing $100 million to establish the nation's first children's comprehensive cancer centre in Sydney. This initiative is being led by the Children's Cancer Institute with delivery partners and it will play an important role in Australia's health system. The network of comprehensive cancer centres going forward will combine research, cutting-edge treatment options, clinical trials and other multidisciplinary resources for children. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a first supplementary?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:47): How does federal funding for paediatric brain cancers compare with that under the previous government? And are you content to continue funding arrangements that were introduced by the previous government?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:47): I would probably take the detail of that on notice, only to say that $100 million to establish the nation's first comprehensive children's cancer centre in Sydney is new, I understand, but I will check the record on that. In terms of health and how we fund many of those services, obviously they're funded through the hospital agreement. That is coming up for renegotiation with the states and territories. There is no doubt there's a lot of need, not just in childhood cancer, for hospital services in general, and we will engage with the states and territories on that. We understand the health system is critically important. Funding the hospitals, getting that right, is critically important, as is trying to fix primary care, Medicare and aged care, because it is all interconnected. But probably the detail, I will come back to the senator with, if there is anything I need to update.
Th e PRESIDENT: Senator Lambie, a second supplementary?
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:48): Statistically, brain cancer kills more children than any other disease. I'm wondering, should this not be a higher priority than any other childhood health initiative this government is funding at this point in time?
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) (14:49): Of course, making sure that we are doing all the research we can and providing all treatment options possible for children suffering from cancer, including brain cancer, is, I think, something that every parent in this country would expect. It is funded through the hospital agreement, primarily. I think the research is critically important because, again, the nature of childhood cancer means you do need subspecialisation in it, so that research which feeds treatment options is part of that along with working internationally with other countries on their research, with clinical trials and with comprehensive cancer centres. We established one here in Canberra not for paediatrics but for people with cancer, and it does make a world of difference when you pool all those services into one centre rather than making people go around dealing with different treatments. So I think there is a lot underway. If there's anything more I can update the chamber about, I will do so on notice.
Iran: Human Rights
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Could the minister please provide an update to the Senate on the actions Australia has taken to increase pressure on the Iranian regime?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:50): I thank Senator Ciccone not only for the question but for his consistent championing of human rights issues at home and abroad and for his leadership as chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to work with him.
I know I speak for all senators, regardless of our political differences, when I say we stand in solidarity with the people of Iran, who have demonstrated immense bravery in the face of a brutal regime. The arrest and death of Mahsa Amini, whose Kurdish name was Jina, sparked months of protests and demonstrations across Iran, and I've spoken about this on a number of occasions previously. These brave protesters have been met by brutal oppression. Hundreds are now dead at the hands of the Iranian regime, and thousands more jailed.
From the beginning of this new crackdown, Australia worked strategically to build pressure internationally on Iran. This government has taken stronger action against Iran on human rights than any previous Australian government. We are at the forefront of efforts to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women. We co-sponsored and advocated for the successful Human Rights Council resolution establishing the independent investigation into human rights violations in Iran. Last year we imposed Magnitsky-style human rights sanctions on six individuals and two entities, including Iran's morality police, over their involvement in the Iranian regime's abhorrent, flagrant and continuing human rights violations. Just last week I announced additional Magnitsky-style sanctions against 16 Iranian individuals and one Iranian entity. In addition, we have joined partners to impose targeted sanctions on multiple Iranian individuals and entities involved in supplying and producing drones to Russia that are being used in the illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine.
The PRESIDENT: The time for answering the question has expired. Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:52): Can the minister please explain what actions the government has taken to put pressure on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commonly known as the IRGC? I thank you for your earlier answer to my question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:52): The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a malignant actor and has long been a threat to international security and to its own people. The Gillard government understood this and put in place broad based sanctions on the IRGC last decade. The Albanese government has also recognised the threat they represent. That is why we are using the tools available to take action, including sanctioning of 12 IRGC-linked officials and 7 IRGC-linked entities.
I do understand those who are calling for the IRGC to be listed under the Criminal Code. I understand they want the IRCG to face consequences for its actions. I would make this point: that the purpose of listings under the code is to make it easier to prosecute individuals in Australia for supporting terrorist organisations. Listing under the Criminal Code applies to non-state actors and not state actors. The IRGC is, regrettably, a fully formed part of the Iranian state. I would note that none of our—
The PRESIDENT: The time for answering this question has expired. Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:54): Again I thank the minister for the response to my earlier question. Minister, how is the Australian government acting to prevent foreign interference here at home?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:54): I appreciate Senator Ciccone asking me this question, because it gives me the opportunity to yet again speak to the Iranian Australian community. The government is deeply concerned by reports of families and protestors being harassed and intimidated. We have put our views about foreign interference directly to the Iranian regime in no uncertain terms. The Department of Home Affairs's Counter Foreign Interference Coordination Centre is working with the community to conduct targeted engagement of foreign interference.
I say this: Australia's foreign interference laws are unequivocal. Allegations of foreign interference are investigated and, if substantiated, will be prosecuted. I say to the Iranian community here in Australia: you have a right to protest. You have a right to fully participate in our democracy. We stand with you, and we will defend our democracy and people's right to protest and express their views within Australia, just as we stand up for the rights of those who do so around the world.
Rural and Regional Australia: Workforce Shortages
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:55): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Workforce shortages are currently putting serious pressure on Australia's healthcare system, particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia. Considering this critical issue, why did your government not put 887 regional visas on the priority list, instead putting international workers who want to live and work in regional Australia to the bottom of the visa pile?
Senator McKenzie: Because you're such a friend of the regions!
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:55): Thank you, Senator Ruston, and thank you, Senator McKenzie, for recognising that I am such a friend of the regions. I'm glad you recognise this.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKenzie: Senator Watt has misrepresented me to the Senate.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, what is your point? There's no point of order, thank you.
Government senator s interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! Minister, please continue.
Senator WATT: Sometimes Senator McKenzie says things before she thinks them through, and that was—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston has asked a serious question, and she's entitled to a response, so please direct your answers to her question.
Senator WATT: Senator Ruston does ask a serious question, because we know—and anyone in this chamber who spends any time in regional Australia, whether it be me, Senator Ruston, Senator McKenzie or many others, knows—that, for many years, there has been a serious problem for regional Australians accessing health care. I've experienced it myself—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston.
Senator Ruston: It's on a matter of relevance. I was actually asking the minister about 887 visas and why your government has not prioritised 887 visas, which directly impact rural and regional Australia. I'd ask you to draw his attention to my question.
The PRESIDENT: You also talked about the crisis of health in regional and rural areas, and I believe the minister is being relevant. If he's not, I will direct him to the question.
Senator WATT: As I was saying, there has been a serious shortage of health care in rural and regional Australia for at least 10 years. One of the reasons for that has been severe workforce shortages—workforce shortages that this government is working on and acting on. In the short time that we've been in office, the Albanese government has increased regional visas from 11,200 to 34,000 this financial year. Those who attended the Jobs and Skills Summit, which of course doesn't include any member of the Liberal Party but does include the Leader of the National Party, Mr Littleproud, would have seen that this government is committed to increasing the regional migration intake to 34,000 just for this financial year. It is our full intention to deliver these visas, which will go some way to assisting with the regional workforce shortages that Senator Ruston asks about. But, indeed, the regional workforce shortages that we see across every industry in regional Australia are yet another legacy of the poor planning and mismanagement of the former government. If there's one example in this space that really exemplifies those failures, let's not forget that the former government left a visa backlog of one million visas. That's one million people waiting for visas to be processed. We've got it down to 600,000, and we're going to go further. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, your first supplementary?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:58): In my electorate, a local GP living and working in the community is currently waiting for his 887 regional visa to be processed, but, like other applicants for this visa, he's been knocked down to the bottom of the pile by your government. The constituent is providing essential primary care, and his wife is a nurse, who is equally providing critical care in our community. Why has your government neglected my regional community and others across Australia when they need to have doctors and nurses in their local area?
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have the minister on his feet.
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:59): Senator Ruston, the answer to your question is very simple, and it's a seven-digit number—one million. One million visas—that was the backlog that we inherited from your government in visa applications. One million people, who had applied for visas to work in health care and a range of other industries—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston?
Senator Ruston: The minister is obviously choosing not to answer my question.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right and left. Senator Ruston, I believe it's a point of order.
Senator Ruston: It's a point of order on relevance. This is a very serious issue for regional communities. I'm talking about 887 visas and why your government has chosen not to prioritise them.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, I believe the minister has been answering your question. I'll continue to listen closely. Minister.
Senator WATT: I do know Senator Ruston's electorate. In fact, I had the pleasure of joining her to meet with people who had experienced floods in the Renmark region just before Christmas. I'm not surprised that Renmark and that wider region are suffering from extreme workforce shortages in the health area.
The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?
Senator Ruston: Your gratuitous response is not very becoming.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, what is it?
Senator Ruston: But on relevance—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, what is it?
Senator Ruston: I asked you specifically about 887 visas—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston!
Senator Ruston: Do you know what an 887 visa is?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, please resume your seat! When I give you the call don't be disrespectful. If you're calling a point of order, stand and make that clear—don't just launch into an attack on a minister because you don't like the answer to your question. Minister, please continue.
Senator WATT: I'm very familiar with the issue. It was obviously in the various newspapers today. The point I'm making is that, unlike the former government, this government is actually dealing with the extreme visa processing backlog that it inherited. As I said, in the short time we've been in office we have got the backlog of visa applications down to 600,000 from the one million we inherited. How did we do that? By actually putting more staff in the system to process those visas. Staff to support the visa system decreased by 20 per cent from 2015-16 until we came to government. That's the answer to the question. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, second supplementary?
Senator RUSTO N (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:01): Minister, will you please advise this chamber whether your government will commit to adding 887 visas to the priority list for processing, as you have done for the same workforce in city areas?
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:02): I am absolutely happy to commit to the statement that our government will always run our migration program in the national interest. Of course it's in the national interest to ensure that regional and rural people can get health care.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?
Senator Ruston: I have a point of order on relevance. I was very tight in my question. I just asked the minister whether he would commit to the adding of 887 visas to the priority list in the same way as they have in the cities.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ruston. I direct the minister to the question. Minister.
Senator WATT: Again, this government will always run our migration program in the national interest and part of that obviously is about ensuring that rural and regional Australians have access to the health care they deserve and the health care that they did not get for the 10 years of the Liberal and National Party government. It is the Albanese government that is in the process of rebuilding our health system, whether it be in the cities or our regions.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator WATT: I have been out there in regional Australia doorknocking people who couldn't get GP appointments for three or four weeks.
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Minister Wong?
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: He hasn't finished. I was calling order. Thank you. But we got there. Minister.
Senator WATT: Sadly for rural and regional Australians, difficulty in accessing health care is not a new problem. This is something that goes back—
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?
Senator Ruston: I've a point of order—one last attempt at asking the minister whether he'll confirm whether 887 visas will be included.
The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant. Minister.
Senator WATT: Again, the evidence is already in that this government is taking action to clear the backlog of visas that was left by the former government that will benefit rural and regional Australians for health care and will benefit employers right across rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)
Senator Wong: President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Pensions and Benefits
Cost of Living
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (15:04): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked today.
An opposition senator: And not answered.
Senator HUGHES: And not answered. It's almost like Voldemort—the 'number that cannot be named': $275. Remember that amount that was going to come off everyone's energy bill and those cost-of-living pressures that were going to be 'easy street' for all Australians under the Albanese government? We did warn them. We did warn Australians that it won't be easy under Albanese. Well, let me tell you, it's getter tougher and tougher every day. It's tougher today with another 0.25 basis point rise in interest rates. Remember when you told us that there was going to be a reduction in interest rates under Labor? Instead, they're going in the other direction, putting more and more stress on everyday Australians and their families.
Remember it was mentioned 97 times that $275 was going to be saved from energy bills? We now know—and it's being acknowledged through gritted teeth—that energy bills are going to continue to rise this year, by over 50 per cent in some instances. And what are those opposite looking to do? Now they're in government they actually don't know what to do, because they are pulling switches and rolling out policies that are making a bad situation worse. A bad situation is constantly being made worse by those opposite and their inability to make a policy decision that will actually benefit Australians and reduce cost-of-living pressures on family household budgets. Instead, those opposite are so fixated on policies that are actually creating more and more problems for Australian households.
We know that a raft of projects in our resources sector are being shelved. The market intervention that is being done by those opposite has ensured that investment in the resources sector is going elsewhere. And now they want to talk about a safety mechanism. We know what's going to happen there. We're going to see more and more pressures on everyday Australians and their household budgets as the cost of everything goes up. But what they don't understand is that, as they put these pressures onto Australian businesses, they will then have to pass those on to Australian consumers, adding to the inflationary pressure. For those of you that need an 'Economics 101' book, just let me know; I'll pop up to the library for you and send it over. When you've got these inflationary pressures being added to, and then you start charging a carbon tax—because we know you're completely wedded to that—let me tell you what's going to happen to a whole lot of industries and what's already happening in a number of industries as they look at the government and know they have no clue about what they're doing but are going to impose more and more costs onto business. Investment is going elsewhere. Companies, and manufacturers in particular, are starting to go offshore. So, under your guise of, 'This is better for emissions,' and, 'We're going to lower emissions,' all you're doing is sending them overseas to countries who have less regulation. You're killing off Australian jobs, all the while putting increased inflationary pressures on Australian families, who are currently struggling under the weight of mortgages, 800,000 of which are about to move onto the new variable rate, which is going to see so much pressure go onto these households.
But don't worry; we'll just listen to Mr Albanese talk about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, or we'll spend, or waste, an afternoon reading 6,000 words from Mr Chalmers, the Treasurer, who is looking to take Australia back to a form of socialism that is just unbelievable. I thought he was in the Labor right. I didn't know you guys let them in when they were full-blown communists. But here we are, reading something in the Monthly—because let's speak to Northcote and Newtown, those who read the Monthly, as I think Joe Hildebrand referred to this morning—which was a faux intellectual episode, rather than being focused on how to help Australian families. The Treasurer spent his summer penning an essay for the Monthly, which is, quite frankly, an absolute waste of an academic exercise and has just proven that 'Chalmernomics' is going to take this country backwards and destroy manufacturing. We know that you want more government intervention, but this is now getting to the point of the ridiculous. This is absolutely unbelievable—6,000 words. It's a pity he didn't write 6,000 words on what he was going to do to help everyday Australians.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (15:09): I thank the opposition senators for their questions because their questions enable me to talk about the approach that the Albanese government is taking on addressing the No. 1 challenge that Australians face today. That, of course, is the inflation challenge, which is our top priority. If I get time, Senator Cash's question will also enable me to talk a little bit about the Albanese government's approach to First Nations issues and particularly to the question of family violence, which is a question that is of huge significance to us as a government and one for which we have already put considerable plans in place, including legislating for 10 days paid domestic family violence leave, which has already started and will benefit millions of Australians.
On the questions raised about inflation and the cost of living: these are the questions that we came into government to address. These are the questions that we are working to solve for the Australian people because our guiding principle as a government, as you all know in this place, is that we want to ensure that no-one is left behind and that no-one is held back. We know that Australians are doing it tough right now with the rising cost of living. There are a number of things that we can do and that we are doing to put practical solutions in place to help Australians with the challenges that they're facing.
We need to strengthen Medicare and we need to make medicines cheaper. That is exactly what we have done by cutting the maximum co-payment under the PBS by up to $12.50. I'm proud to say that that has already started this year, and an average person who's relying on PBS medications could save hundreds of dollars a year because we have taken this cost-of-living measure.
We're delivering cheaper child care to 1.26 million families. Of course, under the watch of the previous government, childcare prices, which are such a huge impost on the family budget, rose by 41 per cent. We are committed to delivering cheaper child care, and that will start in July. We're very proud to be able to bring down that cost for Australian families while also providing quality early childhood education.
We're building more affordable housing and we'll have legislation come to this place. We hope the opposition will agree with it, given the concerns that they've raised about the cost-of-living crisis that Australians face today. We will build more affordable housing, we will increase supply and we will do that in a way that brings people together to make sure that we have solutions for Australian people.
The opposition raised questions about energy prices. It is quite an extraordinary thing for them to come into this place and talk to us about the challenges of bringing down power bills. That is a challenge that we take absolutely seriously, but it is a challenge that is borne by Australian households because of a decade of absolute denial and delay from those opposite when it comes to the energy transition. The legacy of those opposite is an energy disaster that has really left the country ill-prepared for the challenges that we face today. Does anybody remember how many different energy policies the opposition had when they were in government? Was it 22, Senator O'Neill?
Senator O'Neill: Twenty-two's the magic number.
Senator WALSH: I think it was 22.
Senator O'Neill: Twenty-three was going to be the one!
Senator WALSH: They couldn't land one of them. All they did was let capacity exit the energy system. They didn't invest in renewable energy, because they don't believe in it. They didn't invest in new transmission, because they didn't want renewables in the grid. They failed to set a net zero target. They knew energy prices would go up in July, and they lied to the Australian people about that by omission. So we won't be taking advice from you about energy prices.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (15:14): I too rise to take note of these two very important issues: the cost of living and the impact of the repeal of the cashless debit card on my home state of WA. Sadly, what we see—and we've just seen it again—is that this is a government that, at every opportunity, puts symbolism over substance. We saw it last year when parliament was recalled in an emergency session to pass emergency legislation on gas prices and flow-on impacts to state regimes regarding coal. We've seen a complete failure of that policy because the government only cares about symbolism.
That's also what we saw with the cashless debit card. We saw an unseemly hasty repeal of the cashless debit card with nothing to put in its place. What has been the impact on the communities in my home state of WA? We saw, as was shown by the question from Senator Cash to Minister Farrell, the huge negative impact of this decision of the government to scrap the cashless debit card on communities like Laverton.
Laverton is a community that's probably not at the forefront of most people's minds. It's a long way off the beaten track, as it were. I know Patrick Hill well, and he has spoken. I know how much he loves his community. I know how much he has put into his community. He has advocated on behalf of the Outback Way. He's advocated for his community, so it can get ahead and thrive, and to get people who are at risk of social harm back into that community. Now we are seeing all that hard work over the last few years thrown away with nothing to replace it.
The Desert Inn Hotel was forced to close the doors on its liquor store on Thursday because of the public unrest, and it introduced a one-item-per-customer rule on Friday. This is subsequent to the repeal of the cashless debit card, which was making a very real difference in that local community. Patrick Hill, the president of the shire, said: 'They're drinking bottles of spirits. That brings violence.' He said: 'The kids are not getting fed. The women get bashed up. It's just going back to the way it was.'
The cashless debit card made a real impact on that community. It wasn't a silver bullet. I got up and said this when in government, and I say it again in opposition. Nobody on this side pretended it was a silver bullet, but it enabled some people to take greater control of their lives. It enabled some people to break the cycle of dependency and violence that had been present in those communities. This government, when it came into power, scrapped it with nothing to put in its place.
We've seen the problems in Alice Springs as well. We're also seeing problems in places like Carnarvon in my home state of WA. After the Prime Minister visited Alice Springs and then came to Western Australia, the people of Carnarvon were desperate to have him come to Carnarvon to see the problems they face in their local community. Of course, their pleas were ignored. We have a situation where local communities just aren't being listened to. They're not being listened to because this government is just obsessed by the symbolism of the changes it makes and not the practical outcomes on the ground, not the substance of what the changes it makes mean to people's lives. Sadly, for a small community like Laverton, which is off the beaten track and which is not in the forefront of most people's minds—except occasionally by those around a boardroom table when talking about a new mineral deposit that's been discovered out that way—in the paper we see reported some of the social dysfunction that is currently running rife in that community. It's a very sad day for that community.
Senator STEWART (Victoria) (15:19): I really enjoy hearing a sense of urgency from the other side, which they never acted on in the 10 years that they were actually in government, when they could have done something about some of the challenges that are experienced by First Nations communities, especially in remote and regional areas in our country. I'm really interested to know where Senator Brockman and Senator Cash were in 2017 when there was $245 million cut from Indigenous housing, despite chronic overcrowding in your home state, which, standing over there right now, you're claiming to care so much about.
Don't even get me started on the almost $1 billion of cuts that happened on the former government's watch when they first came to power. And they have got the cheek, sitting over on the other side of the chamber now, to try to lecture us about what we are doing in First Nations communities. Can you imagine what that $1 billion worth of investment could have done in First Nations communities if it was sustained until today? Can you imagine what that $1 billion might have done? Instead, you chose to cut it. So it's a bit rich for you to sit over there and lecture us about the work that's happening in First Nations communities.
It's particularly rich to hear it as someone who has worked on the front line with lots of Aboriginal children and families, in out-of-home care, in child protection, doing the clinical work in the room with families. Looking in the eyes of families, I've seen the impact of the challenges that you talk about. So I absolutely understand how critically important it is that we get these things right.
But one of the things that we know weren't right was the cashless debit card. I find it interesting that you can talk about the difficulties experienced since the abolishing of the CDC, but nobody can actually find any evidence that it was working in the first place. It's really incredible. This was in briefs to your minister, who apparently said—it's interesting; what did she say?—'How disappointing it was that there was no evidence that it worked.' She wrote that on her briefs. But you wasted more than $170 million on that anyway, even though it didn't work. There was more than a billion dollars of cuts, and money was spent on things that don't actually work. But, sure, blame us for everything—and we've been in power for eight months.
What we do know represents the very best opportunity for change is supporting a voice to parliament, because the very communities that you claim to care about will have a direct voice into this place. What a difference that might make to the communities that you, sitting over there, claim to care about. We know, and I've certainly seen from the work that I've done, what can happen to the lives of Aboriginal children, families and people when they are given a seat at the table and when they are part of the decisions and the conversations that affect their lives.
I've worked in Aboriginal organisations in Victoria. I've spoken with many workers on the ground and CEOs of Aboriginal organisations who can give me many examples of where they have been put in the driver's seat and have gotten real outcomes for their families on the ground. The Voice is an opportunity to amplify that across the country, across the nation. Why would you not want to do that, when you sit over there and pretend to care about First Nations communities? Why would you not support a voice to parliament? Your voice for the last decade certainly hasn't worked for them. Aside from the real and practical changes that it would deliver for First Nations people on the ground, it is also an incredible opportunity to unify our country. It talks to the special place that First Nations people should and do have in our nation's history.
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (15:24): I listened to the previous contributions and all the way through question time, and I'm reminded of the suggestion that it's very simple to say that everything that's happening now is the result of what happened five years ago, one year ago, 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is much more stark for the government. I looked up the definition of the term 'buyer's remorse' and, if you will indulge me for a moment, I can tell you that buyer's remorse is defined as a feeling of regret or anxiety after making a purchase. It is also known as buyer's regret or buyer's disappointment. It stems from the feeling that the purchaser's decision was the wrong one either because it was the wrong one or there was a better one to be made.
The Australian people are in the early stages of buyer's remorse with this government. This is the kind of buyer's remorse that you'd get if you went onto Apple Music and downloaded a Vengaboys album. You would listen to it, and you would feel buyer's remorse, which I can assure you is real. I'm telling you right now it is real, and thank you to Senator Waters for that chuckle. I note it, and I hope that Hansard picked it up! The reality is that this is a cost-of-living crisis, and Australian people are not interested in the diversionary tactics of this government. These tactics include things like the Voice, the constant attempts by the Prime Minister to simply turn up at a sporting event and appear to be relatable by downing free beers and the PM flying off to Kyiv in order to mingle with the global glitterati, the bloke in the green T-shirt that's gracing our TV screens at every possible opportunity—I'm talking about President Zelenskyy.
This bread-and-circuses approach to politics is simply not cutting it with the Australian people. They're not that silly, and this afternoon we've seen yet another 25 basis points increase to the cash rate announced by the RBA, which brings these increases to nine in a row. We now have the highest interest rate in this country for 10 years, which is no laughing matter. No amount of diversion, no amount of trying to divide Australians with initiatives like the Voice, and, as Senator Brockman rightly pointed out, no initiatives like removing the cashless debit, which has had a counter effect, is going to cover up the fact that Australians aren't buying what the government is selling. In fact, we are seeing a government that is actively going back on promises. There was a promise to cut the $3.2 billion in spending on consultants, yet the government is already $1.2 billion down the tube after just nine months.
The spending bill is real, and the cost-of-living issue is real. It's the issue that Australians are focused on, and yet we have a Treasurer who graced us with 6,000 words of intolerable diatribe. I started reading it, and it was like a murder mystery, an Agatha Christie novel. I'll give you the spoiler alert: who done it? It was the Treasurer with the chequebook in the finance department. This position has not come as a result of the government of Christmas past. This position has come about because of decisions that have been made by this government today. The Treasurer, Jim 'you will own nothing and be happy' Chalmers, wants to tell us otherwise, but this is the case. These aren't uniquely Australian economic challenges, and we haven't spoken about high inflation. We're seeing the highest inflation we've seen in decades, and this year about 800,000 Australian mortgage holders are going to switch from fixed-term to variable-term interest rates. With today's news that those interest rates are going up, we are looking at repayments of something in the order of $1,800 extra per month for many mortgage holders.
Let's not beat around the bush and try to blame this on things done by the Fraser government the 1980s, say. These things are happening as a result of policy levers that are being pulled by this government, and don't take just my word for it. In the past week, the Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia and Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry pre-budget submissions have all echoed the coalition opposition's calls since the October budget to restore fiscal guard rails, to rein in spending and to drive productivity reforms to support businesses, invest and grow our economy.
Question agreed to.
Donations to Political Parties
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:30): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to donations to political parties.
Just once a year we get to see who is donating to political parties, and every year it's awash with big corporates and big polluters donating big money to the big parties, and usually getting big access and big influence over policy-making. Last week we got the donations disclosure data for 2021-22 and, tragically, coal and gas projects, energy companies, and mineral and resources industry bodies all featured heavily. With around $2 million gifted to both of the big parties by the fossil fuel companies and their cheerleaders, it's little wonder that, no matter who is in government, the fossil fuel sector continues to get almost $11 billion in public subsidies every year in things like cheap fuel and accelerated depreciation—plus direct grants to open up new polluting projects.
These industries are not donating millions of dollars because they believe in the institution of a strong democracy; they are donating because it gets results for them. The fingerprints of the coal and gas donors are, tragically, all over Labor's safeguard legislation. Labor is taking money from the coal and gas corporations causing the climate crisis, and then proposing laws that allow new coal and gas projects to go ahead. Four big donors represent five of the highest-polluting facilities covered by the safeguard mechanism: Woodside, BlueScope, Chevron and INPEX. Collectively, they have donated $200,000 to the Labor Party just in the last financial year. You have to wonder how much access to the table that bought them when Labor was designing its weak safeguard mechanism, which allows new coal and gas.
Woodside and Santos donated more to the ALP than to the Liberals and Nationals combined, and they now have free rein to open new projects and trash the climate—projects which damage land and water, which turbo-charge the climate crisis, and which do not respect—and, in fact, ignore—the wishes of First Nations communities. INPEX gave $157,300 to the Liberals, the Nationals and the Labor Party. They're a major polluter covered by the safeguard mechanism and they're currently seeking support for a carbon capture and storage project that will benefit from the publicly funded Middle Arm hub. I wonder what legislative concessions and public support their donation will get for them.
The Mineral Resources Council, who recently threatened to unleash an ad campaign against Labor unless it ruled out a windfall profits tax, declared nearly a quarter of a million dollars in donations to the big parties in 2021-22—and still there is no windfall profits tax on the horizon. Santos, which is pushing to frack the Beetaloo basin and the Narrabri gas fields, received $16 million in public money for its Moomba carbon caption and storage project. It gave $154,000 to the major parties, so that's a pretty solid return on investment for Santos there. Tamboran donated $200,000 to the big political parties—the first time they've declared a donation—and they also received $7½ million of public money from the coalition for natural gas exploration in the Beetaloo basin. The Greens attempted to disallow that grant in the Senate, but the Labor Party decided to support the grant of that money—no idea what could have influenced that decision!
These are only the donations that Australians are told about. More than a third of all donations either fall below the disclosure threshold or rely on weak categorisation and loopholes to stay hidden from public view. That is why the Greens want real reform to get the influence of big money out of politics. My private members bill to end dirty donations would cap political donations at $1,000 a year no matter who you are and ban donations from industries with a track record of seeking to buy policy outcomes, including the fossil fuel sector. We want to close that loophole that allows exorbitant membership fees and cash-for-access events for the big parties to completely ignore the disclosure obligations. We want real-time disclosure of all donations over $1,000 so that when voters go to the ballot box they know who is pulling the strings of the people that they're voting for. The Greens have been campaigning for years to clean up democracy, and we are hopeful—we are eternal optimists—that we might now have a chance for the government of the day to come to the table and work with us to ensure that politicians—all of us—work in the public interest and not in the interests of donor polluters.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:35): I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) to uphold the protection of the Australian community by allowing aggregate sentences to be considered a sentence for all relevant purposes within the Act. It ensures that the law applies no differently in relation to a single sentence imposed in respect of a single offence, or a single sentence imposed in respect of two or more offences.
These changes have particular relevance to the operation of the character test at section 501 of the Act and will put it beyond all doubt that aggregate sentences will also be able to be considered for the purposes of the refusal of visa applications and discretionary cancellations on character grounds.
This Bill responds to the Full Federal Court decision, Pearson v Ministerfor Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 203, in which the Court held that aggregate sentences are not able to be taken into account to determine if someone has a 'substantial criminal record' and therefore, does not enliven the mandatory cancellation provisions. The measures in the Bill will ensure that aggregate sentences of 12 months or more in respect of one or more offences are able to be taken into account for the purposes of mandatory cancellation, discretionary cancellations and refusals of visas on character grounds under section 501 of the Act, or any other relevant purpose in the Act. This includes in relation to other character provisions allowing the refusal or discretionary cancellation of a visa and the collection and disclosure of information permitted under the Act relating to a person of 'character concern'.
In addition to these amendments, the Bill proposes to validate past decisions, conduct and other things done taking into account an aggregate sentence been imposed on them. For individuals whose mandatory cancellations are validated following commencement of the legislation, the Bill provides re-enlivened grounds to seek merits or judicial review.
Reasons for Urgency
The Bill requires urgent passage in the 2023 Autumn sittings to enable the Australian Government to continue to mandatorily cancel the visas held by non-citizens currently serving a term of imprisonment who have received an aggregate sentence of 12 months or more in respect of multiple offences, and who have had their visas reinstated since the Pearson decision.
This will allow the Government to address community safety concerns by detaining non- citizens with a history of serious offending upon their release from prison rather than allowing them to return to the community. The Bill will also include retrospective measures to revalidate the mandatory cancellation of non-citizens' visas which were deemed invalid as a consequence of the Pearson judgement. This will allow the Government to return these non-citizens to immigration detention and progress their removal from the country.
Senator WHITE (Victoria) (15:35): On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2, 3 and 4 standing in my name for one sitting day after today, proposing the disallowance of the Australian Capital Territory National Land (Lakes) Ordinance 2022; the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Amendment (Franchise Disclosure Register) Regulations 2022; and the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Regulations 2021.
Presentation
Senator Rennick to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:
The current extent of bank closures in regional Australia, with reference to:
(a) the branch closure process, including the reasons given for closures;
(b) the economic and welfare impacts of branch closures on customers and regional communities;
(c) the effect of bank closures or the removal of face-to-face cash services on access to cash;
(d) the effectiveness of government banking statistics capturing and reporting regional service levels, including the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's authorised deposit-taking institutions points of presence data;
(e) consideration of solutions; and
(f) any other related matters.
Senator Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than midday on 13 February 2023, all independent observer reports relating to voyages of livestock export ships in 2022 which were not published on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's website as of 6 February 2023.
Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, and for related purposes. Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023.
Senator Duniam to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 8 March 2023:
(a) a list of formal meetings attended personally by the Minister for the Environment and Water since 29 October 2022 inclusive, in relation to the Government's Samuel Review response and the proposed establishment of an Environment Protection Authority; and
(b) a list of formal meetings attended by staff of the Minister for the Environment and Water since 29 October 2022 inclusive, in relation to the Government's Samuel Review response and the proposed establishment of an Environment Protection Authority.
Senator Dun iam to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 8 March 2023:
(a) any briefing materials provided by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) to the Minister for the Environment and
Water and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 inclusive, in relation to:
(i) the provision of government funding in the October 2022 Federal Budget to the Environmental Defenders Office, and
(ii) the provision of government funding in the October 2022 Federal Budget to Environmental Justice Australia;
(b) any emails, file notes or other records of interactions between DCCEEW and the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 inclusive, in relation to:
(i) the provision of government funding in the October 2022 Federal Budget to the Environmental Defenders Office; and
(ii) the provision of government funding in the October 2022 Federal Budget to Environmental Justice Australia.
Senator Duniam to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water by no later than midday on Wednesday, 8 March 2023:
(a) any briefing materials provided by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) to the Minister for the Environment and
Water and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 inclusive in relation to the potential World Heritage listing of areas of the Burrup Peninsula; and
(b) any emails, file notes or other records of interactions between DCCEEW and the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or the Minister's office since 23 May 2022 inclusive in relation to the potential World Heritage listing of areas of the Burrup Peninsula.
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges and congratulates 29 Tasmanians who were recipients of Australia Day honours for their outstanding achievement and services to Tasmania; and
(b) further acknowledges and congratulates:
(i) Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) recipient, the Honourable Margaret Reynolds,
(ii) Member of the Order of Australia (AM) recipients: Dr Sally Bryant, Ms Geraldine Harwood, Mr Timothy Hess, Mrs Sarah Merridew and Mr Michael Walsh,
(iii) Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) recipient, Dr Anthony Press,
(iv) Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM) recipients: Ms Christine Bailey, Mr Gerald Harwood, Mrs Joyce Mackey, Mrs Susan Rae, Mr Roger Self, Dr Graeme Stevenson, the late Mr Lyndsay Suhr and Mrs Judith Travers,
(v) Australian Corrections Medal (ACM) recipient, Ms Erin Hunn,
(vi) Australian Fire Service Medal (AFSM) recipients: Mr Neil Brooksbank, Mr Richard Cosstick and Mr Wade Stewart,
(vii) Australian Police Medal (APM) recipients: Senior Constable Kelly Cordwell, Inspector John Toohey and Commander Stuart Wilkinson,
(viii) Emergency Services Medal (ESM) recipients: Mr Brett Robins, Mr Leon Smith and Mr Neil Wright, and
(ix) Public Service Medal (PSM) recipients: Commissioner Donna Adams, Ms Mandy Denby, Mr Craig Limkin and Mr Dale Webster.
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness month, and it is a time where we recognise and support women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and their families,
(ii) one woman will die from ovarian cancer in Australia every eight hours, making it the deadliest gynaecological cancer in Australia,
(iii) in 2022, more than 1,800 Australian women received an ovarian cancer diagnosis,
(iv) over 70% of cases are not diagnosed until the disease has progressed to stage III or IV and only 29% of these women will survive for more than 5 years past diagnosis,
(v) symptoms of ovarian cancer are often dismissed as symptoms of menstrual cycles or gastrointestinal issues, delaying diagnosis, and
(vi) despite common misconceptions, there is no early detection or screening test—the best way of improving the survival rate is recognising the signs and symptoms early and obtaining a diagnosis;
(b) recognises that, although there have been developments in ovarian cancer research, ovarian cancer drugs have not changed since 1992; and
(c) urges a commitment from all governments globally to continue investment and funding to improve treatment, early detection and support for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June 2023:
(a) the National Cultural Policy released on 30 January 2023; and
(b) any other related matters.
Senator McKenzie to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than 2 pm on 22 February 2023, the following:
(a) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;
(b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office with the Treasurer regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;
(c) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office with the Assistant Treasurer regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;
(d) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office with the Minister for Health and Aged Care regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;
(e) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/ or their office with the Minister for Trade and Tourism regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia since 1 June 2022;
(f) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister and/or their office with the Prime Minister regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia;
(g) any briefing notes, file notes and emails regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia for meetings with the industry; and
(h) any correspondence to and from industry organisations regarding a domestic organic standard or regulation for Australia.
Senator Antic to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes. Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023.
Senators Canavan, Antic And Rennick to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023.
Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
(a) at 5 pm on Wednesday, 8 February 2023, the notices of motion proposing the disallowance of the following instruments be called on together:
(i) Schedules 3 and 4 to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative-Plantation Forestry) Methodology Determination 2022,
(ii) Australian Capital Territory National Land (Lakes) Ordinance 2022,
(iii) Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Franchising) Amendment (Franchise Disclosure Register) Regulations 2022,
(iv) Competition and Consumer Amendment (Consumer Data Right)
Regulations 2021, and
(v) Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage Projects) Rule 2021, Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Carbon Capture and Storage) Methodology Determination 2021, and Industry Research and Development (Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Hubs and Technologies Program) Instrument 2021;
(b) the motions be considered for not longer than 30 minutes, after which the question be put; and
(c) senators may speak for not more than 5 minutes each.
Senator Dean Smith to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 20 February 2023, the following documents relating to the Building Community forums:
(a) any briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction since 23 May 2022 between:
(i) the Department of the Treasury and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office, or
(ii) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office,
in relation to:
(iii) the invitations sent to all invitees to the forums, and
(iv) the criteria used to determine which stakeholders would be considered as 'charity leaders' to be invited to the forums (as described in a social media post made by the Assistant Minister on 15 August 2022);
(b) a copy of all of the invitations sent to all invitees to the forums;
(c) a copy of all visual presentations used and/or materials distributed at the forums;
(d) any follow up briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction from the forums; and
(e) the cost breakdown for each forum, including but not limited to:
(i) venue hire,
(ii) transport,
(iii) catering, and
(iv) travel costs.
Senator Chisholm to move on the next day of sitting:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
BUSINESS
Parliamentary Standards
Rearrangement
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:36): by leave—I move:
That on Wednesday 8 February 2023, at 9 am:
a minister may move a motion relating to the draft behaviour standards and codes, as presented in the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards; and
after the motion referred to in paragraph (a) has been determined, senators may make statements of not more than five minutes each relating to the implementation of the Set the standard report for up to one hour.
Question agreed to.
Rearrangement
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:37): by leave—I move:
That government business notice of motion no. 3 be called on after formal motions today, and debated for not more than 60 minutes, after which the question be put.
Question agreed to.
Leave of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:38): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:
(a) Senator Brown for 6 February 2023; and
(b) Senator Sterle for 6 to 8 February 2023.
Question agreed to.
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:
(a) Senator Brockman for 6 February 2023; and
(b) Senator Nampijinpa Price for 8 and 9 February 2023.
Question agreed to.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (15:38): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Malcolm Roberts for the period from 6 to 9 February for personal reasons:
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. 1 standing in the name of Senator Lambie for today, proposing the disallowance of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022, postponed till 8 February 2023.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the names of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee (Senator Colbeck) and Senators Liddle, Nampijinpa Price and McGrath for today, proposing a reference to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, postponed till 6 March 2023.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 7 standing in the name of Senator McKim for 8 February 2023, proposing the disallowance of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022, postponed till 8 March 2023.
General business notices of motion nos 124 and 125 standing in the name of Senator Roberts for today, proposing orders for the production of documents, postponed till 6 March 2023.
COMMITTEES
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Economics Legislation Committee—
National Energy Transition Authority Bill 2022—from 14 to 24 March 2023.
National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 [Provisions]—from 28 February to 10 March 2023.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 [Provisions]—from 25 January to 3 March 2023.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2022 [Provisions]—from 25 January to 3 March 2023.
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2]—from 28 February to 29 March 2023.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021—from 8 February to 29 March 2023.
The PRESIDENT (15:40): Thank you, Clerk. I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
Public Works Joint Committee
Reference
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:41): At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:
Australian Taxation Office fit-out—Proposed fit-out of existing leased premises at 200 Collins Street, Hobart, Tasmania.
Question agreed to.
Senator CHISHOLM: I table a statement in relation to the works.
BILLS
Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023
First Reading
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:42): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide for the treatment of aggregate sentences, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator WATT: I present the bill and 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 WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:42): I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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 Australian community has a reasonable expectation that non-citizens who seek to enter or remain in Australia are of good character and are law abiding. Similarly, they expect any non-citizens who are not of good character to be refused a visa, or have any visa they hold cancelled.
The character test of the Migration Act 1958 is one of the mechanisms by which Government gives effect to this expectation.
The character test serves as an important pillar within Australia's migration framework to protect the Australian community from the risks posed by non-citizens with serious criminal histories or criminal intent.
The Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023 will provide a clear basis for aggregate sentences to be taken into account for all relevant purposes under the Migration Act, including the character test at section 501 of the Migration Act. This will make it clear that, for the purpose of determining if a person has a substantial criminal record, it is irrelevant whether a sentence of imprisonment was imposed on that person for one or for more offences.
Importantly, the Bill does not change or expand the circumstances in which aggregate sentences are considered for all relevant purposes of the Migration Act. This Bill simply confirms the long-held bipartisan understanding that aggregate sentences can be taken into account for all relevant purposes under the Migration Act.
In this respect, the decisions made under the powers of the Migration Act will not change as a consequence of this Bill. In fact, the decisions undertaken will be in a manner consistent with the Government's long-held understanding and practice.
The Bill responds to the recent Full Federal Court ruling in Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs, handed down in late December of last year. The Full Federal Court ruled that an aggregate sentence may not be counted for the purpose of working out if a person has a substantial criminal record under the character test framework, and subsequently, that their visa cannot be subject to mandatory cancellation on this basis.
This judgment has created an inconsistency in Australia's visa cancellation regime, where some non-citizen offenders who, for multiple offences, receive an aggregate sentence of 12 months or more do not meet the definition of having a "substantial criminal record" under section 501 of the Migration Act. Such individuals would therefore not be liable for mandatory cancellation of their visa—regardless of the seriousness of their offending.
For example, a person who is sentenced for a term of imprisonment of 10 years for committing a violent offence, would be found to have a substantial criminal record and would be liable for mandatory cancellation of their visa, whereas if they were convicted for 15 years on the basis of 2 offences, they would not—simply because that sentence was in respect of more than one offence.
Aggregate sentences are only imposed in five jurisdictions—leading to grave inconsistencies in how the character cancellation framework is applied upon offenders from different states.
It would be nonsensical for two people, found guilty of the same offences and sentenced to the same period of imprisonment, to be treated differently under the Migration Act, simply because their offences were committed in different places.
This Government is urgently addressing this situation through this Bill, by restoring the meaning of "sentence" in the Migration Act to the meaning that was understood prior to the Federal Court's decision in Pearson.
This Bill will also retrospectively amend the Migration Act to validate past decisions and actions that have been rendered invalid on the basis of the judgment in Pearson. This is important to enable those decisions, which were taken to protect the Australian community, to stand.
It provides the most appropriate mechanism for the Government to detain those individuals whose visas were previously cancelled on the basis of sentences for more than one offence, and proceed with their removal from Australia.
Where previous cancellation decisions were rendered invalid because of Pearson, they will be re-validated. This means the original cancellation decision remains.
Following commencement and validation of decisions made, individuals with a validly cancelled visa will be afforded fresh review periods to seek appropriate review avenues for these decisions, if they originally had time remaining to do this prior to the Pearson decision being handed down.
Prior to the Pearson judgment, the Department of Home Affairs acted consistently with an understanding that aggregate sentences should count as a sentence for all decisions under the Migration Act, wherever the term 'sentence' appears.
The amendments in this Bill do not change the framework within which the character test operates. They allow for the continued effective administration of the powers in the Migration Act by ensuring aggregate sentences are considered sentences—thereby restoring the ability to rely on substantial criminal record as an objective measure for the purpose of the character test.
This Government is taking urgent, common sense action in order to keep our community safe.
I commend this Bill to the Chamber.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to 6 March 2023, in accordance with standing order 111.
MOTIONS
Department Of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development And Local Government
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:44): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) order for production of documents no. 50 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 25 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table documents in relation to the Hahndorf Township Improvements and Access Upgrade Project, has not been complied with,
(ii) the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in her response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, citing concerns that disclosure of the information would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with a state government on this and future infrastructure arrangements,
(iii) on 23 November 2022, the Senate rejected the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government,
(iv) on 28 November 2022, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government maintained the same public interest immunity claim which was rejected by the Senate,
(v) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and
(vi) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from the South Australian Government;
(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to attend the chamber at 3.30 pm on Wednesday, 8 February 2023, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and explain why the agreement of the South Australian Government to disclose the information has not been sought;
(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and
(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.
Question agreed to.
Budget
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:44): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) order for production of documents no. 55 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 26 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table correspondence requests for, or approval of, Australian Government funding for projects or programs in the 2022 23 Federal Budget, has not been complied with,
(ii) the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, citing concerns that disclosure of the information would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with a state government on this and future infrastructure arrangements,
(iii) on 23 November 2022, the Senate rejected the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government,
(iv) on 28 November 2022, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government maintained the same public interest immunity claim that was rejected by the Senate,
(v) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and
(vi) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from a state or territory government;
(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to attend the chamber at
12.15 pm on Thursday, 9 February 2023, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order and explain why the agreement of relevant state and territory governments to disclose the information has not been sought;
(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and
(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than
30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Work and Care Select Committee
Reporting Date
Senator BARBARA POCOCK (South Australia) (15:45): I move:
That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Select Committee on Work and Care be extended to Thursday, 9 March 2023.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:45): On behalf of Senator Hume, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 8 February 2023:
(a) a copy of the current Budget Process Operational Rules (BPORs) used on the formation of the 2023-24 Budget;
(b) any briefings, minutes or advice provided to the Minister for Finance by the Department of Finance relating to the BPORs and amendments to the BPORs since 18 June 2022; and
(c) any letter, email, communique or other document that accompanied the BPORs when they were issued after 17 June 2022 as advice to agencies.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:46): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: Labor will be opposing this motion. We have commenced the 2023-24 budget process, and it is the Budget Process Operational Rules that govern the consideration of policies that are being brought forward. Given these are cabinet deliberations, it would be inappropriate for these to be released at this time. I note that we released the previous Budget Process Operational Rules after the budget process was completed, in the interests of transparency and accountability. Once the 2023-24 budget is delivered, we will consider further requests for these rules, given the obvious interest in them.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 123, standing in the name of Senator Hume, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Queensland: Infrastructure
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (15:54): I move:
That the Senate
(a) notes that:
(i) order for production of documents no. 69 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 27 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table documents in relation to The Gabba Stadium project and impacts on East Brisbane State School has not been complied with,
(ii) the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in their response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, citing concerns that disclosure of the information would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with a state government on this and future infrastructure arrangements;
(iii) on 24 November 2022, the Senate rejected the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government,
(iv) on 29 November 2022, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government maintained the same public interest immunity claim which was rejected by the Senate,
(v) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and
(vi) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from the Queensland Government;
(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to attend the chamber immediately prior to proposals being considered under standing order 75 on 8 February 2023, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and why the Government has not complied with the motion (no. 92) concerning compliance with the order, which states 'the public has a right to know the details of, and deliberations on, infrastructure projects such as the Gabba Stadium project and impacts on surrounding infrastructure';
(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and
(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than
30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 120 standing in the name of Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Australian Defence Force
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:58): I move general business notices of motion Nos 127 and 128 together:
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 127
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than Thursday, 9 of February 2023:
(a) advice provided to the Governor-General in relation to Australia's decision to deploy members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) into Iraq in March 2003;
(b) advice provided to the Prime Minister in relation to Australia's decision to
deploy members of the ADF into Iraq in March 2003;
(c) correspondence with the United States Embassy, the United States Department of State and the United States Department of Defence in relation to decision making to enter Iraq in 2003; and
(d) all instructions given by the Minister for Defence to senior Department of Defence officials and heads of service in relation to general control and administration of the ADF in 2003.
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 128
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than Thursday, 9 February 2023:
(a) advice provided to the Governor-General in relation to Australia's decision to deploy members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) into Iraq in March 2003; and
(b) advice provided to the Federal Executive Council in relation to Australia's
decision to deploy members of the ADF into Iraq in March 2003.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:58): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: The government will not be supporting this motion. It is the longstanding practice of governments not to disclose advice that has been provided to the Governor-General out of respect for that office. Furthermore, the disclosure of advice of this nature would be contrary to Australia's national interests, not least of all because it may prejudice our international relations. A parliamentary committee is currently reviewing how Australia makes decisions to send service personnel into international armed conflict with the terms of reference referred by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, the Hon. Richard Marles. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade will soon be reporting on its inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion 127 and 128, standing in the name of Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Commonwealth of Australia Credit Rating
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:04): At the request of Senator Hume, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 9 February 2022:
(a) a copy of all reports by Moody's Corporation, Fitch Ratings Inc., and S&P Global (or an affiliate or subsidiary of any of the aforementioned) received by the Treasury or the Treasurer's office relating to the Commonwealth of Australia's credit rating since 22 May 2022; and
(b) a copy of all associated briefing materials, minutes, memorandums and other related documents produced by the Treasury for the Treasurer or his office relating to the Commonwealth of Australia's credit rating.
Question agreed to.
Australian Public Service Employee Census 2022—Highlights Report
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:05): I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Public Service, by no later than 2 pm on Thursday, 9 February 2023, the Australian Public Service employee census 2022 highlights report for the following national collecting and cultural institutions:
(a) National Gallery of Australia;
(b) National Portrait Gallery;
(c) Australian National Maritime Museum;
(d) Bundanon Trust;
(e) Australian War Memorial; and
(f) the Questacon division of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources.
Question agree to.
Answers to Questions on Notice
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:06): At the request of Senator Cash, I move:
That—
(a) the Senate notes that, as at 9 am on Monday, 6 February 2023, 567 questions on notice from the October and November 2022-23 Budget estimates remain unanswered and are overdue:
(i) Prime Minister and Cabinet, 143 questions,
(ii) Social Services, 118 questions,
(iii) Employment and Workplace Relations, 108 questions,
(iv) Treasury, 52 questions,
(v) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, 38 questions,
(vi) Finance, 32 questions,
(vii) Health and Aged Care, 26 questions,
(viii) Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 questions,
(ix) Attorney-General's, 19 questions,
(x) Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 8 questions,
(xi) Industry, Science and Resources, 2 questions, and
(xii) Defence, 1 question;
(b) there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by no later than 9 am on Friday, 10 February 2023, the answers to all 567 unanswered questions on notice from the October and November 2022-23 Budget estimates; and
(c) if the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023
First Reading
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (16:06): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes—Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023.
Question agreed to.
Senator McKIM: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read for the first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (16:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator McKIM: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023 will compel the Government to offer transfer to Australia to all persons subject to offshore processing still in PNG or Nauru who have not had an adverse security assessment made against them by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
This will provide for people who are transferred under the provisions of this Bill to be supported in community detention in Australia until a durable solution is found for them, being resettlement in a third country which is a state party to the United Nations' 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Refugee Convention) or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1967 Refugee Protocol).
Since 19 July 2013, when the Rudd Government announced its Regional Resettlement Arrangement between Australia and Papua New Guinea (the so-called PNG solution), with a Memorandum of Understanding containing similar terms with Nauru on 3 August 2013, all who arrived in Australia by boat to seek asylum without valid visas have had their claims for asylum processed in a regional processing country—either PNG or Nauru.
Under this offshore processing regime, almost all people seeking asylum arriving by boat were detained in Australia to undergo health, security, and identity checks before being forcibly transferred to either PNG or Nauru to undergo a refugee status determination (RSD), where they would remain in either held or community detention without the option of ever being provided a durable solution of permanent resettlement in Australia.
In all, over 4,000 people who arrived in Australia by boat seeking asylum—most of whom have been found to be genuine refugees—were sent to PNG or Nauru for offshore processing. These people are commonly referred to as the offshore cohort.
Other than roughly 1,000 of these people that the Australian Government forced back to their countries of origin, and the 14 people who have died in the offshore processing system, most of that cohort are now in Australia for medical reasons. This includes 192 people who were brought to Australia under the so-called medevac law that was enacted on 1 March 2019 and repealed on 8 December 2019, and 135 people that were brought to Australia in 2018 as a result of the #KidsOffNauru campaign.
There is overwhelming documentation of people within Australia's offshore processing system being subject to serious abuses, including rape, murder, child sexual abuse, medical negligence, which has led to significant and in some cases catastrophic physical and mental medical trauma in the cohort.
Of those in the offshore cohort that have already been brought to Australia, many have been resettled in third countries including the United States of America and New Zealand, both of which the Australian Government has entered into formal resettlement agreements with.
However, once these resettlement arrangements have completed, it is estimated that around 500 of the offshore cohort will be left without a durable solution. This will include many of the 159 people who, as at 1 January 2023, still remained in PNG (92) or Nauru (67).
The Bill will provide those people from the offshore cohort who are still in PNG or Nauru, many of whom are medically unwell, with an offer from the Minister to be evacuated to Australia until they are provided with a durable third-country solution with a state party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Refugee Protocol.
The provisions within the Bill will only apply to persons who are in an offshore processing country when the Bill commences, and will not cover persons who are taken to an offshore processing country after the Bill commences. Nor will the Bill change any existing requirements for new arrivals to be taken to regional processing countries for offshore processing.
Furthermore, under the provisions of the Bill, the Minister cannot make an offer to a person who is the subject of an adverse security assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).
Once an offer has been made, a person accepting the offer will be evacuated to Australia as soon as practicable, to be placed in community detention under a residence determination until they are provided with a durable solution for their displacement.
Any person provided an offer is free to reject that offer at any time. This is to ensure that, unlike their initial transfer to PNG or Nauru, any transfers under this Act are undertaken on a voluntary basis only.
The Minister will be required to report to the Parliament if a person is not eligible for an offer due to an adverse security assessment, and to report detail regarding any potential delay to the 'as soon as is practicable' evacuation of people who have successfully accepted an offer.
While in Australia, a person evacuated under the Bill will reside in the Australian community, and be provided with medical, including psychiatric, assessment and treatment, and be able to access legal, and social support they need from community groups and non-government organisations.
Offshore detention on Manus Island and Nauru has been a humanitarian calamity. It has been one of the darkest and bloodiest chapters in our country's story. It is time we wrote the ending, and this Bill will help us to do that.
People in the offshore cohort who currently remain in PNG or Nauru have been deliberately harmed for nearly a decade, for the purpose of sending a message to other desperate people that they should not travel to Australia by boat to claim asylum. We should call it what it is, which is nothing other than torture. They have been subject to rape, murder, armed assault, child sex abuse, medical neglect, fear, danger, and uncertainty. For many of them, that uncertainty has no end in sight.
But the fear and danger need not persist. The Bill is designed to evacuate those people to safety here in Australia. It will restore their human rights and dignity while improving their access and capacity to secure long-overdue durable solutions to their displacements due to war, violence, conflict, or persecution faced in their countries of origin.
Australia can no-longer ignore its duty of care for the health and welfare of the refugees and people seeking asylum who have been left to languish in regional processing countries.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Se nator McKIM: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Goods and Services Tax
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (16:08): I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 20 February 2023, any briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction since 23 May 2022 between:
(a) the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Treasurer and/or the
Treasurer's office;
(b) the Department of the Treasury and the Treasurer and/or the Treasurer's
office;
(c) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Treasurer and/or
the Treasurer's office; or
(d) the Treasurer and/or the Treasurer's office and state or territory treasurers
and/or the offices of state or territory treasurers; in relation to:
(e) the distribution of GST revenue;
(f) the GST formula;
(g) the statutory review of the operation of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Act 2018, required by section 4 of that Act; or
(h) Western Australia's 70 cent GST floor.
Question agreed to.
Goods and Services Tax
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (16:08): I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than midday on Monday, 20 February 2023, any briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction since 23 May 2022 between:
(a) the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Minister for Finance and/or
the Minister's office;
(b) the Department of the Treasury and the Minister for Finance and/or the
Minister's office;
(c) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Minister for Finance and/or the Minister's office; or
(d) the Minister for Finance and/or the Minister's office and state or territory ministers for Finance and/or the offices of state or territory ministers for finance;
in relation to:
(e) the distribution of GST revenue;
(f) the GST formula;
(g) the statutory review of the operation of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Act 2018, required by section 4 of that Act; or
(h) Western Australia's 70 cent GST floor.
Question agreed to.
Goods and Services Tax
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (16:08): I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on Monday, 20 February 2023, any briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction since 23 May 2022 between:
(a) the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Prime Minister and/or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;
(b) the Department of the Treasury and the Prime Minister and/or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;
(c) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Minister for
Finance and/or the Minister's office, or
(d) the Prime Minister and/or the Prime Minister's office and state or territory premiers or chief ministers for Finance and/or the offices of state or territory premiers or chief ministers;
in relation to:
(e) the distribution of GST revenue;
(f) the GST formula;
(g) the statutory review of the operation of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Act 2018, required by section 4 of that Act; or
(h) Western Australia's 70 cent GST floor.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023
First Reading
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (16:08): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to reduce alcohol-related harm to vulnerable communities in the Northern Territory, and for related purposes—Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023.
Question agreed to.
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE: I present the bill and 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 NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (16:09): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023, being introduced into the Senate, is a Bill that aims to keep all people in the Northern Territory safe in relation to the consumption of alcohol and exposure to alcohol-related harm and violence.
The Bill will introduce elements specific to reducing alcohol consumption and related harm, applied in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 (the Northern Territory Stronger Futures Act) that ceased in 2022.
The Bill will put in place alcohol restrictions that will include declaration of alcohol protected areas, and the development of alcohol management plans, which will provide that supply of alcohol is regulated, mitigating illegal alcohol supply and providing a legal framework for prosecution.
When dealing with addiction, the first step to management and recovery is acknowledging there is a problem and those that are subject to the effects of addiction in the Northern Territory, the whole community, have been crying out that we have a problem since the cessation of the measure and lifting of alcohol restrictions in the Northern Territory Stronger Futures Act.
The Bill makes provision for equitable consultation to take place in relation to alcohol protection measures to ensure that men, women, consumers of alcohol, non-consumers of alcohol, addiction experts and the Northern Territory Liquor Commission are all involved.
The introduction of a requirement for an expert committee to support the development of each alcohol management plan will provide that measures designed to reduce alcohol-related harm and to improve quality of life are realised, such as monitoring school attendance and rates of alcohol-related assaults.
The need for the introduction of the Bill has been demonstrated through increased rates of crime, alcohol-related domestic violence and alcohol related assaults.
Alcohol-related assaults in Alice Springs alone have risen from December 2021 to December 2022 by 54.6%, and property damage has increased by 59.6%.
The removal of income management measures of the Cashless Debit Card has increased availability of obtaining alcohol for those that are vulnerable to alcoholism and there has not been sufficient analysis of the impact of the removal of this important measure.
The Australian Government has a responsibility to ensure that the Northern Territory has consistency in law and order, and that punitive approaches are not taken by the Northern Territory Government that do not address the broader context of addiction and alcohol-related harm.
For a decade the Australian Government has intensely invested in the Northern Territory to address significant levels of need, specifically to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal Territorians. The management of alcohol consumption, reduction of alcohol-related harm was not realised within this period of time.
This Bill will set a framework of accountability for alcohol management plans to be developed, with alcohol restrictions in place to protect our vulnerable communities.
I have developed this Bill over several months in conjunction with community consultation with relevant stakeholders that include drug and alcohol services, Aboriginal health services, legal services, education institutions, business people, community members both remote and in major towns and town camp residents.
The Bill seeks to establish a federal and Territory government partnership in addressing alcohol-related harm. The Territory government, which is predominantly dependent on federal funding, will have a role in overseeing the process of developing alcohol management plans, while the federal government will be responsible for approving alcohol management plans, reviewing the measures through the Senate committee process and will have the power to revoke approvals of alcohol management plans should they demonstrate not to be ensuring the safety of Territorians.
It is not good enough that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory requires the Prime Minister to step in for them to realise they got it wrong, at the cost of lives lost and the devastation that addiction has unleashed on our communities. We are hurting, and it is disingenuous to provide ad-hoc approaches and not take full responsibility for the sake of every Territorian.
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
National Reconstruction Fund
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator ASKEW ( Tasmania — Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate ) ( 16:10 ): At the request of Senator Cash, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, by no later than 2 pm on 8 February 2023, all submissions received by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources as part of the National Reconstruction Fund consultation process.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Instrument of Designation of the Republic of Nauru as a Regional Processing Country
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (16:11): At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:
That, for the purposes of section 198AB of the Migration Act 1958, the Senate approves the designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country.
At the last election, the Prime Minister spoke of the need to be strong on borders without being weak on humanity. Regional processing is about both. It is about being strong on borders because we know that regional processing breaks the business model of people smugglers, who seek to market an outcome. In doing so, it ultimately saves the lives of vulnerable persons who would otherwise be exploited onto leaky boats to attempt a dangerous voyage at sea. That's something which also risks the lives of defence and Border Force officers, who have to deal with the often tragic consequences of those ventures. I appreciate that some in this place may think differently about this issue, but regional processing has been settled policy by both sides of politics for over a decade for precisely the reasons I've described.
Regional processing was recommended in a report led by the former Chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, along with Professor Michael L'Estrange, the then director of the National Security College at ANU, and refugee expert Paris Aristotle. The panel was charged with making recommendations on how best to prevent asylum seekers from travelling to Australia by boat. Its principal recommendation was the introduction of legislation to 'support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements as a matter of urgency, including Nauru'. In discussing the declaration of Nauru under the Migration Act in 2012, my colleague the then minister Chris Bowen said at the time:
We are determined to expose the people smugglers' business model for what is: a ruthless con. There is no visa awaiting boat arrivals, no speedy outcome and no special treatment.
Those words were true then, and they are true now.
The government has been transparent in its position on regional processing. We implemented it when in government previously, we remained committed to it in opposition and we went to the election on it. That's because, fundamentally, regional processing breaks the operating model for people smugglers. It takes away the product they are trying to sell. In doing so, it stops vulnerable people risking their lives on dangerous voyages on leaky boats. It stops deaths at sea. It's as simple as that.
It is tough. It sends a message that persons will not settle in Australia. It is part of a wider framework in Operation Sovereign Borders that means persons trying to enter Australia without a valid visa will be returned to their port, country of origin or another country where they have a right of entry. Every person who has attempted to enter Australia this way from mid-2014 onwards has been either returned or turned back.
The government has been both determined and focused in its conduct and support of Operation Sovereign Borders. We have not politicised this issue or allowed others to do so. We have viewed it as an important undertaking to be pursued with the seriousness that the issue demands. That is the approach that we are taking today by seeking the parliament's support for a resolution to redesignate Nauru.
In doing so, it is important to note the legal framework under which this declaration is made, and I'll take a few minutes to set that out. The power conferred on me by section 198AB(1) to designate that a country is a regional processing country is contained in part 2.8B of the act—and of course that power is conferred on the minister rather than on me personally. Section 198AB(2) provides that the only condition for the exercise of the power conferred on the minister by section 198AB(1) is that I think it is in the national interest to designate the country to be a regional processing country. Section 198AB(3) provides that, in considering the national interest for the purposes of section 198AB(2), the minister must have regard to whether or not the country has given Australia any assurances to the effect that the country would not return a person to another country where they would be at risk and that the regional processing country allows assessment of that person to be a refugee.
There are three key documents that have facilitated the minister's consideration regarding Nauru as a regional processing country. These are, firstly, the memorandum of understanding between the Republic of Nauru and Australia on the enduring regional processing capability in the Republic of Nauru signed by the former minister on 24 September 2021; secondly, a statement of arrangements that are in place or are to be put in place for the management of persons; and, thirdly, advice received from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has been consulted regarding the designation.
In determining that it is in the national interest that Nauru be redesignated as a regional processing country, the minister has considered the following factors. Firstly, the ongoing operation of regional processing arrangements will deter people smugglers from exploiting and encouraging vulnerable persons to risk their lives that sea. I note the need to prevent loss of life at sea was a primary object of the subdivision at section 198AA. As I've stated above, regional processing breaks the people smuggling model.
Secondly, regional processing also supports the broader objectives of Operation Sovereign Borders, which further deters such ventures by ensuring that persons will not settle permanently in Australia. I note that another primary objective of the subdivision is that persons should be able to be taken to any country where their claims can be properly assessed.
Thirdly, regional cooperation is the only matter in which the challenges of irregular migration can be addressed. I note the work through the Bali process that continues to acknowledge the transnational challenges of people smuggling and irregular movement.
Fourthly, Nauru has been designated as a regional processing country for a decade and has, for a number of years, accepted transfers under the sovereign borders framework with significant infrastructure and administrative processes in place. I note in the past, however, that there have been real issues and concerns with the provision of services on Nauru but that there have also been uplift in these services, particularly those relating to the health and wellbeing of persons on Nauru. In particular, the efforts that this parliament has made to ensure medical evacuation, clinical service provision and as-appropriate escalation arrangements mean that service provision is very different now than in the past. In addition, it is also important that persons on Nauru are not in detention. Where there have been individual circumstances requiring examination and assistance, the minister has also made it clear that we have the highest expectations of care and that there are appropriate channels for advocates and others to engage in if there are concerns.
Fifthly and finally, the permanent resettlement of many persons from Nauru to the United States, Canada and New Zealand demonstrates the ability of regional processing arrangements to ensure durable, permanent pathways for resettlement while ensuring that people smugglers are denied their objective of marketing Australia as an outcome of their evil trade. I might say that this government has made good progress in resettling those persons who remain on Nauru, and we intend to keep doing that.
These considerations are in addition to the requirement under section 198AB(3) that Nauru has provided assurances that it will not return people to a country where their life or freedom are at risk and an additional assurance in the memorandum of understanding with Nauru.
In conclusion, when the Prime Minister spoke of the need to be strong on borders without being weak on humanity, he also spoke of the need to respond pragmatically to policy that works. This issue, like so many issues, of the past two decades, has been subject to ruthless politicisation. These issues are not best dealt with in an environment of partisanship and posturing. They are serious issues that require difficult choices, and their solutions are ones that carry immense responsibility and gravity. Ultimately, there is a higher purpose in stopping people dying at sea. The preservation of life while ensuring persons are resettled appropriately is at the very core of regional processing and Operation Sovereign Borders. The minister is determined every day—as is the rest of the government—to pursue that objective where required in turning back boats and returning persons. The continuance of regional processing is essential to fighting the people-smuggling trade, and its deterrence value means we don't enable people smugglers to exploit persons in undertaking dangerous ventures. We need to separate the politics of the past on this issue from clouding our minds to what needs to be done to prevent the re-occurrence of these issues.
Saving lives through difficult choices may be tough, but it is also humane and it has been shown to work. I hope that this resolution proceed without the rancour that has been associated with these debates in the past. I acknowledge there may be some who disagree, and to them I say: consider the alternative—an alternative this country knows only too well, measured in the lives of those lost forever at sea. For that reason alone, I commend the resolution to the chamber.
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:21): I listened very, very carefully to the minister, and I know the minister, through his professional background, is a person who has an eye for detail and who would not have missed this point which I am about to speak to. That is—if you can believe this, and it was never discussed in the minister's comments which you just heard—that the legislative instrument which made Nauru a regional processing centre actually lapsed on 1 October 2022. I didn't hear the minister refer to that. Did you hear that? Did you hear the date had actually lapsed, and that the relevant minister had their eye off the ball? Can you believe such a thing? There are 14,000 people in the Department of Home Affairs, and they missed that. If you went into the register of legislation this morning or yesterday and looked up the instrument making Nauru a regional processing centre, it would have said 'not in effect'. Why? Because it lapsed. Why? Because the relevant minister—not his representative here in this chamber, but the relevant minister—dropped the ball.
From May 2021, the government was given the information that this instrument needed to be renewed. It would no doubt have been in the incoming minister's brief after the last election. They dropped the ball. That instrument ceased to be in effect in October 2022. And here we are now, in February 2023, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has to come in here and do the tidy up for the minister in the other place who dropped the ball. It's absolutely appalling.
The minister could at least provide that transparency to this chamber instead of giving me the political opportunity, to be frank, to come up and surprise everyone listening with the fact that you didn't choose to tell this chamber. Someone very, very bright told me early in my business career: if you're going to eat crow, eat it fresh. But we didn't get that from the minister today. He had absolutely no reference to the fact that that instrument ceased to have effect in October 2022. The concern that raises in my mind is: what exposure did that lead to? The relevant officers, members of the department, were diligently undertaking their duties, discharging their duties under the Migration Act. Did it expose any of them to legal claims, to liability? Did they have all the protections they should have had after the instrument lapsed? It's absolutely appalling!
It's not as if we've got a hundred regional processing centres—there's Nauru. They couldn't even get their homework right in that regard. What is the minister doing? How many times was the minister reminded? How many times did the minister fail to act? If the minister is missing something this obvious, what else is the minister missing? How can we have any confidence in the minister? This is appalling. It's absolutely extraordinary. Who's advising the minister? Who picked it up? Who said: 'Minister, we've got to fix this quickly. This is expiring in October'?
Remember, Mr Acting Deputy President, the election was in May. It wasn't as if this was happening the following week. If you go to the Federal Register of Legislation in relation to this instrument it's there for everyone to see. Obviously, the minister doesn't visit the Register of Legislation and check out his own instruments and legislation. It says it's no longer in effect, and the contribution we just heard from the minister made absolutely no reference to that. Those in the gallery listening to this debate and those listening through the broadcast would have had no idea that those opposite had actually dropped the ball on this. They would have had no idea, because those opposite weren't transparent and up-front about this terrible, terrible error.
I'm a lawyer by profession. I don't really know what it means, in terms of liability and the rights and obligations of people, that we've had this gap in the law between October and today. I don't know the ramifications. What I do know is that there are going to be all sorts of people looking at this very carefully now—looking at what it means for the people they represent, their various stakeholders—and we don't know the answers. The minister didn't even refer to it. It was as if it didn't exist. Did those opposite really think they were going to get away with that, that we wouldn't pick it up? It's absolutely extraordinary, Mr Acting Deputy President.
There were elements of the minister's speech that I absolutely agree with—in terms of the need for regional processing; I absolutely support that—but it always strikes me as somewhat disingenuous when those on the other side get up and say anyone criticising their policy is engaging in rank politicisation but they never engage in rank politicisation. It's only when they're criticised that it amounts to rank politicisation. There will be senators in this chamber who get up and make contributions to this debate and speak from the heart, and I respect their views in that regard. I will not say that they're engaging in rank politicisation. They're simply saying what they believe, and they have every right to do that. But, in the context of this debate, how could you come into this place and miss out the fundamental issue, which is that this instrument has failed to be in effect since October 2022? He didn't even mention it, let alone the ramifications of it. What we've seen from the minister is absolutely extraordinary.
I realise it's not his portfolio. He has the job—and it's a very, very hard job—of representing the minister in the other place. It's a very difficult job. I wouldn't wish it on my own worst enemy. He's got the job, so I guess he has diligently fulfilled his task, but maybe he should go back to the people who wrote the speech and say: 'You know what? I would have preferred'—and I think it reflects his character, to be frank—'that we'd owned up to the mistake; that we'd been transparent, open and honest with everyone. That's the way I roll.' It's a shame that the major issue this motion is dealing with wasn't canvassed by the minister in moving it. It's a real shame. I suggest to all of my colleagues in this place that we should seriously reflect on that state of affairs. I've often in this place spoken about the importance of delegated legislation instruments and their impact on the powers and liberties of people. It's something I take incredibly seriously. If you're going to come into this place and present a motion, give us all the facts, give us all the context and let's have a reasonable debate about it. Don't even try to hide that which can't be hidden, because it's there for everyone to see on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (16:30): The more things change, the more they stay the same sometimes in this place. It is beyond doubt that many people in the recent election voted for the Australian Labor Party in the hope that they would be more compassionate towards refugees. Here we are, less than a year after the election, and what are we getting? The same rubbish in a different bin. We're getting the same old lame excuses, the same old spin, the same old toxic politics that we got for year after year after year from Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton. We're getting it now from the Australian Labor Party. That speech from Senator Watt could have been given by Mr Morrison or Mr Dutton. Yes, the tone is different, but the words, the excuses and the spin are identical to what we heard for years from Mr Morrison and from Mr Dutton.
Here's a tip for Mr Morrison, Mr Dutton and Senator Watt: there are no excuses for torture. There are no excuses for torturing innocent people. There never have been and there never will be. You can roll out all the excuses you like for deliberately harming innocent people in order to send a message to other desperate people that they should not try to come to Australia to seek asylum by boat. You can roll out all the excuses you like, but that's all they will ever be: excuses for torture. You can never, ever excuse torture and you never, ever should try to excuse torture.
And it's not just the Greens that say this is torture. Amnesty International conducted a rigorous assessment of Australia's offshore detention regime and they found categorically that it is akin to torture. Let me explain why that is. On senator Watt's own account today and on the excuses given by Mr Dutton and Mr Morrison, offshore detention is designed to send a message to other people that they should not attempt to enter Australia. It is designed to coerce people into taking an action or not taking an action by the infliction of harm. That is categorically, comfortably within the definition of torture. The people who are caught up in Australia's offshore detention regime—and it's been going, let us not forget, for nearly 10 long years now—are like the corpses that used to get impaled on the walls of medieval cities to dissuade other desperate folk from attempting to enter those cities.
We have learned nothing in this country since the days of Port Arthur, where deliberate harm, including psychological harm, was inflicted on people as a punishment. In offshore detention in Australia for 10 years we've seen murder, we've seen rape, we've seen deliberate medical neglect, we've seen child abuse, we've seen child sex abuse, we've seen mass armed assault, we've seen death, we've seen disease and we've seen lives destroyed. Do you know why we've seen those things in Australia in offshore detention in the last 10 years? Because that system was deliberately designed to brutalise and dehumanise people. It was deliberately designed to make people's lives so unbearable that they would prefer to return to the dangers and persecutions that caused them to flee their homelands in the first place than to stay in the prison camps on Manus Island and Nauru. That is why those things happened. Those deaths, those murders, that brutality and that dehumanisation were not bugs of the system; they were features of the system. It was a system designed either intentionally to cause those things to happen or in the knowledge that those things would be likely to happen if the system were designed in that way. That's what offshore detention is in Australia.
Right now around 150 people are about to clock up a decade in offshore detention. What has Senator Watt been doing for the last decade? I hope he has been doing a lot of great things with his life. What have Mr Dutton and Mr Morrison been doing for the last decade? I hope they've had some good things in their lives too. I've had some great things happen in my life in the last decade, but there is a group of people who have lived a decade now in those systems are deliberately designed to dehumanise them and to brutalise them. They've lived without hope for nearly a decade—10 long years.
What did the Labor Party do when it came into government? It stitched up a $420 million contract for three years—to purportedly look after and provide services to well under 100 people on Nauru—with a company that stands accused of human rights abuses in the US prison system. That company is under investigation by the government in the US for fraud and human rights abuses. Somehow the Labor Party thinks that this is a company that is worthy of having responsibility for people who've been in the offshore detention system for nearly a decade now in Australia. It is a disgrace that the Labor Party have stitched up a deal with MTC. They are a disgrace of a company. They should not be given responsibility for even one person's life, let alone the lives of people who are about to clock up a decade in offshore prisons in Nauru.
I was on Manus Island in 2017 when the Australian government ordered that the food, drinking water, electricity and medical support be cut off from hundreds of men. I was there. I was in that prison camp inside the Lombrum Naval Base on Papua New Guinea. I saw the desperation in the eyes of those men, but I also saw their bravery. I want to contrast their bravery—the reclamation of agency that they engaged in there when they actually said, 'No, we're no longer going to do as we're told and as we're ordered to do; we're going to actually stand up and reclaim our lives,' which is exactly what they did—with the cowardice we're going to see in this chamber today when the overwhelming majority of this chamber vote for this obnoxious instrument that is currently before us. That contrast is immense and it does no favours to the majority of senators who are about to vote for this instrument.
But, no matter how bad things seem, there is always hope. I want the chamber to know that today Behrouz Boochani came into this parliament, into this building that we stand in as we debate this motion today, and made a speech—effectively, a speech to the Australian parliament. One of the things he did in that speech was urge the Labor Party to actually, finally, do something for the relatively very small number of people who are still stranded in Papua New Guinea and Nauru—fewer than 150 people who are, as I've said, about to clock up a decade in offshore detention. And he asked the Labor Party a question in his speech. He said, 'What are you scared of?' I think that's a question the Labor Party needs to answer. What is the Labor Party scared of? Any moral person who looks at the last 10 years of the lives of the fewer than 150 people still in exile in either Papua New Guinea or Nauru is going to say, 'Enough is enough.' They are going to say, 'At least bring them to Australia temporarily while you find a third country to take them.'
There is simply no benefit to them staying and there is no need for them to stay in offshore detention. For 10 years they've been there. There is no benefit to them staying there, except for the lame old excuses—the lame old spin—that get rolled out by the Labor and Liberal parties to try to justify torture. That is what we've heard in this chamber today and for the last decade, and in the other place in this parliament: excuses for torture. Well, enough is enough. There is never any excuse for torture.
The Greens have got a bill; it's been introduced today. That bill, if it's successful, would compel the government to offer a transfer to everyone still in Papua New Guinea or Nauru who was exiled there because they made the mistake of stretching out a hand to our country, asking for our help, and they arrived here by boat to claim asylum. That bill should be passed. There is no doubt that that bill should be passed.
I remind the Labor Party that they supported the Greens' medevac amendment when the Labor Party were in opposition. They supported that and they told Australia that they were supporting it because it was the right thing to do because we had a moral obligation to the people who were in offshore detention to make sure they got the medical treatment they needed. That's why the Labor Party said they supported the medevac legislation. Well, this Greens legislation is absolutely in the spirit of the medevac legislation that Labor previously supported.
So here's the test for the Labor Party. They can support our legislation and show that the reasons they gave to the Australian people for supporting the Greens medevac amendment were real and fair dinkum. But, if Labor don't support the Greens evacuate-to-safety legislation, it'll make one thing abundantly clear, and that is that their support for the medevac amendment when they were in opposition was just rank politics. It didn't owe anything to doing the right thing. It didn't owe anything to the concept of respect, the concept of human rights and the concept of human dignity. That's the test for the Labor Party. I urge them to support our bill and help us to finally write an end to one of the darkest, bloodiest and foulest chapters in Australia's story: the chapter of offshore detention.
Finally, I'll just say this: we need a royal commission in this country into immigration detention: a royal commission into offshore immigration detention and a royal commission into onshore immigration detention—into the corruption, into the human rights abuses and into a system that is the extension of the carceral state that was actually one of the founding element of European settlement in Australia. There are some things that we have just never, never learned. It's time to bring an end to this dark chapter and write a new beginning.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (16:45): I rise to make a contribution on the debate here in the chamber about this very important matter. The resolution that's before us deserves the support of the chamber. I want to acknowledge, before I move to my prepared remarks, Senator McKim's authentic care embedded in the speech he made. But I also want to note some alarmist language. This is the problem I often find as a member of the Labor Party, which finds itself, happily, in government; it's a contrast with the rhetoric of the Greens party, who seem to fight against the way the world is, and seek to describe it in the way they would seek it to be.
When you're in government, you have to make tough decisions—with compassion, with humanity—and protecting our borders is a core task for any government that is worthy of governing the nation of Australia. Senator McKim speaks very passionately, and uses the words 'human rights' and 'human dignity'. But we also have the protection of human life. There's little dignity and there are few human rights for the people who foundered in a vessel off the coast of Western Australia, at Christmas Island. For those of us who were here in parliament at the time, and for Australians right around this country who saw those images, that was the moment that meant things had to change. So, while I acknowledge Senator McKim's contribution, I think it's fanciful to believe that without the policy that has been implemented and maintained for 10 years, there would not have been incredible loss of life.
I also want to speak about the contribution made by my good colleague in this place Senator Paul Scarr, with whom I enjoy sharing work on committees in the interests of Australia—particularly in the area of financial services. But Senator Scarr today has made a number of assertions about attempts to hide the facts about what's happening here and why this resolution is before us. Indeed he declared, in a somewhat accusatory tone which harks back to the division that we don't need along political lines on this issue, that the minister would no doubt have had all this information in the incoming brief. Well, for the record, let's be clear that that was not the case. So Senator Scarr's arguments cannot stand.
I would have hoped that we might have had this debate without harking back to the divisions of previous debates on this particular issue. In fact, I am of the belief that we need to separate the politics of the past on this issue from clouding our minds as to what needs to be done to prevent a recurrence of the very issues that ended up leading Australia to establish this policy. The reality is that while what we're debating today is a routine designation, there's nothing routine about four different ministers failing to get this matter right in the last government—or perhaps that is actually the reveal of what they used to do; there was so much they got wrong, so often. Sadly, this was an issue that they failed to deal with in government before they left.
This is the sequence, and I just want to put it on the record—I'm sure Senator Scarr will review this and be interested in the facts.
Minister Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs at the time, in January 2021, when his department was first warned about the lapsing instrument. That was the first signal. The second flare that went up was when then Minister Andrews was the Minister for Home Affairs under the Liberal National parties as the government of Australia in May 2021. Her department was warned a second time about the lapsing instrument with which we're dealing today. There was a third occasion, when then Attorney-General Senator Cash tabled a report in parliament herself in May 2021 warning the instrument had lapsed. But what did any of those three ministers—the now Leader of the Opposition, Minister Dutton, former Minister Andrews and the former Attorney-General—do to sort out this issue about which they now pretend to be so outraged? They did nothing.
But there was a fourth minister who was involved in this. It was a bit of a secret minister, and that was the self-appointed Minister for Home Affairs, who was also the Prime Minister, Minister Scott Morrison. So the reason we are here and in this position is really the consequence of failed governance by the former government.
I want to make it clear to all Australians that regional processing is settled policy. It was initially recommended, as I said, in the moment after Australians witnessed that incredible loss of life and things had to change. Three people were gathered together to deliver a report to guide the development of a policy to prevent the loss of life at sea and to protect Australia's borders. The first one of those was not only somebody who I'm sure Senator McKim would know but somebody who was very celebrated by the refugee community, and that was the refugee expert Mr Paris Aristotle. His voice was very, very important. His perspective and his advocacy were very important in designing the program. He was also working in concert with Professor Michael L'Estrange, who was then the Director of National Security. This is a vital consideration for such a complex and important policy for national security and the protection of life. They were working alongside the Chief of the Defence Force at the time, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. Those three inputs were vital to the development of the policy.
I want to put it on the record, so it's clear for people who are just picking up the threads of this now—who weren't paying attention at that time; who might have been 10 but are now 20—that that panel was charged with responsibility by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to make those recommendations about how best to prevent asylum seekers from travelling to Australia by boat. That was who set this plan in train as a response to our national security and the international call to protect life.
The principal recommendation was the introduction of legislation to support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements, including Nauru, as a matter of urgency. In discussing the declaration of Nauru under the Migration Act 1958 in 2012, the minister at the time, Chris Bowen, said these words, and I think they still ring true for Australians today:
We are determined to expose the people smugglers' business model for what is: a ruthless con. There is no visa awaiting boat arrivals, no speedy outcome and no special treatment.
That was widely known and it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 3 October 2012. That was the establishment of regional processing, and it is the bedrock of Australia's fight against people smuggling and unauthorised arrivals.
This is a policy that above all is about protecting human lives and ending the business model of cynical criminals. The last thing any Australian wants to see is masses of people drowning at sea just to sate the greed of people smugglers.
The policy of regional processing is about effective and sensible processing in safe locations in allied countries. Not everyone will agree with that perspective, and it's right that in a democracy a range of voices speak on this issue. But we on the government benches have a duty and responsibility to govern wisely and carefully, in ways that do not endanger lives.
Our policy in 2023 remains unchanged. We, in opposition, supported regional processing under Prime Minister Abbott; it's a matter of fact. We, in opposition, also supported regional processing under Prime Minister Turnbull. Labor, in opposition, supported regional processing under Prime Minister Morrison. And I stand to affirm that we continue to support regional processing while we are in government for the reasons that I have outlined. We support it because it breaks the back of the people-smuggling operation. We support it because it ensures orderly and efficient processing of persons arriving by sea. We support it because, fundamentally, it stops criminals putting vulnerable people on dangerous boats and it saves those lives. We support regional processing because it stops deaths at sea.
I'm not saying it's not a tough policy, but it is a fair policy. That's why Australians endorse this policy. Under Operation Sovereign Borders, those who attempt to enter Australia in a dangerous manner will be turned back. The government's been both determined and focused on its conduct and support of Operation Sovereign Borders because no country should allow those without a valid visa inside their borders without valid processing. I think this speaks to Australians' sense of fairness—the fact that we are a nation of immigrants and that many people are drawn to our shores for the opportunities that we have here and the rich democracy that we get to participate in. They will welcome more people to come, but, the reality is, they want that to be done in a very orderly way.
I want to be clear about the instrument to which my colleague Minister Watt spoke in some detail, including what it does and the considerations that the minister undertook in her production of this resolution and its arrival here before the Senate. The lapsing of the current designation of Nauru as a regional processing country has had, to be clear, no impact on the resolution of actions under Operation Sovereign Borders. How did it occur? The lapse occurred due to multiple failures in the Department of Home Affairs, many of which occurred prior to this government taking office, and I've outlined four interactions with four former ministers under the previous government.
The reality is that the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs has written to the minister confirming that the department had been asked by this incoming government to confirm that all legal authorities and permissions were in place to underpin Operation Sovereign Borders and that the department incorrectly assured the minister that all legal authorities and permissions were in place. The reality is that the government, despite that failure from the department, was able to continue operations relating to Nauru using other powers, including the Maritime Powers Act in the event of a transfer of a person to Nauru being required, and for ongoing funding arrangements under other powers. These facts are vital to make it clear that the contribution of Senator Scarr was, in fact, in error.
I want to conclude my contribution this evening by indicating that offshore processing in Nauru ensures that those who make the dangerous and illegal journey to Australia are free in the community and they have access to health care and other essential services. If the health care in Nauru is insufficient to deal with the complex needs of a patient, then we will support evacuation off Nauru for required treatment. People in Nauru are not in detention, they're free to walk about in the community until they are resettled in third countries. And 1,150 individuals have so far taken up that opportunity, and have resettled in countries as far away as the US, Canada and New Zealand—among other nations.
Labor, in government, is very committed to continuing a sensible and non-partisan approach. And, of course, today we seek the Senate's support by resolution to redesignate Nauru. As a nation, we have a settled policy; it's working, and it has been working for 10 years, to dissuade those who would ply an evil trade in people smuggling. As the Prime Minister said clearly in the course of the last election, we need to be strong on borders, but we can do it without being weak on humanity. I urge senators to support this resolution.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (17:00): I rise to speak in support of this motion. I've been speaking about illegal refugees coming to the Australian border since the late 1990s—since my first time in parliament. So I'm not new to the topic at all, and I have been speaking strongly about it. It's absolutely critical that criminal people smugglers and their customers are sent a very strong message: if you attempt to break our laws and breach our borders then you will never be allowed to settle in Australia. This message can only be backed by maintaining offshore processing of those who do the wrong thing and engage criminal people smugglers to get them to Australia in a leaky boat.
While One Nation strongly supports this motion, we know that Labor's terrible record in deterring people smugglers means it cannot be trusted to keep our borders secure: 50,000 people arriving on more than 800 boats during the Rudd-Gillard governments stand as an appalling testament to this fact. So do the attempts at breaching our borders which occurred last year after Labor won the election. And so does the fact that Labor didn't move to address this matter in October last year. To listen to Senator O'Neill make reference to the previous government and their three ministers making their comments in this parliament—that it was their fault! I'm sorry, didn't Labor win the election in May? This was pointed out in October; it expired in October, this is now February 2023 and you've had how many months to deal with this? That is why you are actually scrambling to get this through today, because you knew that you had lost sight of it. That's the problem with all this: you haven't owned up to it and you're attempting now to still blame the coalition for something you have failed to do. So I totally agree with what Senator Scarr has said.
The fact is that this was a matter in October last year, leaving Australia without a clear legal avenue to send people-smuggling victims offshore. That was the whole point. If the boats had come here and people had arrived on our shores, you would have had no place, legally, to send them. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe you would have had a right to send them to the detention centre in Nauru. You would have had to take them into Australia, which would have caused more legal problems. Only by committing to offshore processing in places like Nauru can we arrest the tide of smuggled people that would override our borders. This requires unwavering commitment and, unfortunately, a great deal of Australian taxpayers' money.
According to the Australian National Audit Office in 2016, four years worth of garrison and welfare support at Nauru and Manus Island cost more than $3 billion. So it is in our interests to stop the people smugglers sending people here as refugees—not genuine refugees, but economic refugees. That's because it costs us that amount of money. More than $2.5 billion of this alone went to Transfield Services Australia. This was originally an Australian and New Zealand company; however, it was taken over by a Spanish company. It's important we don't use foreign companies to provide these services, and ensure that Australian taxpayers are only paying local companies for these services.
To listen to Senator McKim and his comments about compassion towards refugees: I think it is being compassionate to give a clear message that there is a detention centre and that if you get on the boat and you want to come to Australia then, I'm sorry, you will go into a detention centre. Those 1,200 people who lost their lives didn't expect to die on the water when coming out here. That is being compassionate—stopping people who could otherwise, unfortunately, lose their lives.
Senator McKim also talked about the torture on the island and the lack of attention and hospitals. It's been brought to my attention by security guards and others that have worked on the island that the hospitals on Nauru are actually a lot better than our own hospitals in Australia. The services they provide are No. 1. The amount of money that's poured into that country—it's unbelievable what it has cost the Australian taxpayers.
He talks about what's happened over there. He talks about child abuse, sex abuse, murder and many other issues. That is the exact reason why we don't want those people here. Why would we want sex offenders, murderers and child abusers? A lot of this has been self-inflicted. We had briefings on this, and we were told that these people, in their desperation to get to Australia and settle here—because it's all about welfare; we're an economic country with economic means, and that's why they want to come here—actually harmed their own children, pouring boiling water over them. They ate pebbles and rocks to get here to Australia for the services they required. There actually was rape, and this is the type of people that they are. We couldn't find out their backgrounds. They destroyed their identification. That tells you something about their character and who they are. If they were upfront and if they were genuine refugees, they would have told us. These people have had the opportunity to be taken off Nauru. They've been given the option to move to other countries. Guess what? They don't want to go. They have been given choices. Their choice is that they want to stay on Nauru.
The Greens are jumping up and down about torture and these poor people and all the rest of it. I wish they would care as much about the people here in Australia: the people that are homeless; the people living on the streets; the people living in their cars with their children; and the people that are couch surfing with friends or wherever they can find a place to sleep that night. I don't hear any of that from the Greens. They are supposed to be representatives of the Australian people, but all they're worried about is refugees that have passed through many countries to get out here to Australia. They could have found a safe haven wherever they wanted to.
I'm sick and tired of hearing from bleeding bloody hearts. Tell me about the real people out there in Australia who are struggling and doing it hard. Tell me about the poverty of the children in our own country. That's what we need to be talking about. Nauru sends a clear message to those people smugglers and everyone else: don't think because we're going to shut it down that you can get on your boats and come out here to this country as illegal refugees. And they are illegal. There are ways you can come here legally. Just ask the many migrants that now call this place home and are proud of it. You put in an application in other countries, and you make your way through the legal channels. Don't think that paying people smugglers thousands of dollars to come out here is the way to do it and gain the sympathy of some bleeding hearts in this place. Because that's not the way and that's not what the people of Australia want. Those people who have been genuine refugees who came out here to Australia and who actually migrated here back me up in what I say because they know that they had to go through the hard channels to get here. They hate these people who want to come through the back door, and they can't stand members in this place who can't see that.
Even though the arrangement with Nauru has lapsed, the fact is that Labor is trying to do something about it and keep it open. The cost is horrendous, but I think it would be more costly to Australia if we didn't keep it open. What I would like to see is downsizing and ensuring that the money is well spent. Two hundred and forty million dollars is a hell of a lot of money as far as I'm concerned. It just needs to be ticking over to ensure that we send a clear message out there: if you want to come out here illegally, you'll end up in a detention centre offshore, and it doesn't mean that you will get citizenship in Australia or permanent residency.
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (17:09): For me, the things we have heard from colleagues in here really just show how polarising this debate is. It's very hard to have a nuanced debate about something like this which is clearly such an important issue for Australia. It touches on so many things, as we heard: human rights, national security and how we be a good neighbour and a good part of the international community.
The thing I am hearing from Canberrans and other people I talk to is that they want us to be able to have that debate. If you say that you want a kinder refugee policy, people say, 'You just want to open the floodgates and let everyone in.' We have to move past that. We are a resourceful, smart country. We have to look at dealing with refugees in a way that is going to ensure that people aren't dying on boats trying to get here and we also have to be looking after people and affording them some dignity. These are people who are desperate and seeking a better life, given what they are facing in their home countries.
The other thing which really makes this debate so important is, if we look to the future with climate change, there are clearly going to be a lot more refugees around the world. Australia is going to have to deal with that. So I welcome debate about our refugee policy, and I really hope to move to a more humane policy—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Se nator Dean Smith ): Thank you, Senator Pocock. I'm afraid the time for the debate has now expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Watt in relation to the designation of the Republic of Nauru be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:15]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Dean Smith)
MATTERS OF URGENCY
Alice Springs: Crime
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dean Smith ) ( 17:20 ): Senator Nampijinpa Price has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today, as shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The failure of the Prime Minister to address with sufficient urgency the serious alcohol related crime across Northern Territory communities, including child sexual abuse, family violence, assault, property damage and theft, and calls on the Prime Minister to live up to his pre-election promise that he won't 'pose for photos and then disappear when there's a job to be done'."
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each speaker in the debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (17:20): I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The failure of the Prime Minister to address with sufficient urgency the serious alcohol related crime across Northern Territory communities, including child sexual abuse, family violence, assault, property damage and theft, and calls on the Prime Minister to live up to his pre-election promise that he won't 'pose for photos and then disappear when there's a job to be done'.
My motion today is to highlight the ineffective actions of our Prime Minister. My community—my home town of Alice Springs—has been experiencing a crisis, not just of late but for some months now. My home town has been suffering. The rates of crime have skyrocketed through the roof. The community members in my home town find it difficult to sleep at night with the threat of home invasions. They can't even walk down their street to go shopping on a daily basis because of the threat that looms before them. There are children on the streets of my community all night until the early morning. But this isn't an issue that has come up in recent times. This is an issue that I have been talking about in this chamber since the very day I gave my first speech. These are issues that not only I've been bringing up in this chamber but certainly the member for Lingiari in the lower house has been bringing up ever since her first speech as well.
Isn't it ironic? Here I am, an Indigenous voice in parliament, and yet what I've been trying to say has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to our Prime Minister. I'd like to remind the chamber and I'd like to remind everyone in this parliament of a tweet from the Prime Minister before he was Prime Minister, stating:
If I'm Prime Minister, I won't go missing when the going gets tough—or pose for photos and then disappear when there's a job to be done.
I'll show up, I'll step up—and I'll work every day to bring our country together.
What an absolute shame on the Prime Minister given the fact that he turned up in my home town after the calls that had been happening for months and spent less than four hours on the ground in my home community. He didn't even stay the night to see what was going on in my community. He didn't even stay to see the children on our streets late at night—the children who have largely been neglected and not taken care of by their own families. They are children who are supposed to be under the care of Territory families but have been victims of child sexual abuse, violence and alcohol-driven abuse within their homes and within the town camps of my community.
The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, in October visited my home community because he understood there were serious issues that needed to be understood on the ground. He came, he listened to community members and he listened to vulnerable women and children in my community, which then spurred him to reach out to the Prime Minister to offer a bipartisan approach to effectively manage the problems on the ground. He also called for a royal commission into the sexual abuse of Indigenous children. What have we heard from our Prime Minister on this issue? We have heard nothing, even after his four-hour, fly-in fly-out trip to my home town of Alice Springs, where the residents are beside themselves over the fact that they still feel neglected by our Prime Minister. They are furious that he came in and spent such a short amount of time on the ground and did not speak to a community member and did not speak to vulnerable people from town camps but to those he'd hand-picked himself. It might as well have been a videoconference over Teams between the Labor Territory government and the Prime Minister. This is not good enough.
In the Northern Territory, 30 per cent of our community is Indigenous. This proposed Voice to Parliament is not going to represent those voices because our votes in the Territory won't even count in this referendum anyway. How ironic is that? Here I am, a voice in parliament. I would ask that our Prime Minister work better to grow some ears and listen so that he may actually hear those voices on the ground who called out for him for so long for help within the Northern Territory and take action.
Senator STEWART (Victoria) (17:25): What we are seeing in Alice Springs is absolutely devastating and heartbreaking. I don't think anybody is suggesting otherwise. The impact that it will have on some of those people's lives for the longer term will be significant. Sadly, the challenges faced by communities in Central Australia are not new, and more needs to be done to improve community safety and to support community members to thrive. What we know is that when you work with and listen to local communities you achieve better outcomes. I was interested to hear Senator Nampijinpa Price talk about listening because I feel like some of the pleas of the community for the last 10 years have fallen on deaf ears.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a quarter of a billion dollars in a plan for a better, safer future for Central Australia. This is in addition to the $48 million investment in community safety announced on 24 January this year. Next week, the Northern Territory government will be introducing urgent legislation to strengthen alcohol restrictions so that town camps and communities will revert to dry zones. These responses will improve community safety, invest in health services, invest in families, tackle alcohol related harm, focus on culture and on-country learning and provide more opportunities for young people. Critically, this work will be delivered in partnership with and by listening to these communities, not by grandstanding in this place. Listening is absolutely critical. We can agree on that.
Senator Nampijinpa Price's motion is redundant. She's been talking about it for months. Those on the opposite side would do well to stop playing politics with people's lives. She should be rallying around the Australian and Northern Territory government package and backing it in. She should be working to ensure this package helps the community in the best way possible. There is an obligation on both sides of parliament to make it work, to support the community now and in the future. I'm hearing nothing from the opposite side about the good work that has been done by First Nations leaders, community members and advocates in Central Australia. I'm hearing nothing from the senator regarding the resilience of Central Australian communities and people. We are still here, despite the statistics. The Closing the gap report continues to publish statistics which show that the current policies and initiatives are not leading to successful outcomes for First Nations communities. They're not leading to improvements in areas like social welfare, education, health, social justice and more. That's just putting it politely.
I'm proud to be part of a government who are fully committed to delivering a successful referendum and the Voice to Parliament in 2023. The voice to parliament is about giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a say in matters that affect their communities. It's about creating practical and lasting change that will lead to better policies and improve the lives of First Nations people in areas like health, education and housing. As Aunty Pat Anderson from the referendum committee has said, everyday First Nations people don't have the megaphone of politicians, and so we need to give all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities a voice.
Whilst the opposition has sought to distract attention from the core purpose of the voice, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Minister Linda Burney continue to share information about what the voice is about—recognition and consultation. Polling shows the vast majority of First Nations people support the government's proposed voice referendum—an estimated 80 per cent. A voice is what we want and what we need to begin to move forward as a nation to address the gaps for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across our nation. First Nations communities across Australia have been working towards the establishment of a voice for many years.
The referendum taking place later on this year is an invitation from First Nations people to each and every Australian. This invitation has been longstanding and is directly from First Nations leaders across the country to you, the Australian people—not to politicians. Let's create a better future for all Australians.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:31): I rise to speak to the emergency motion moved by Senator Nampijinpa Price. There is no doubt that what is happening and has been happening for some time in Mparntwe—Alice Springs—is a crisis. It's a crisis that stems from a lack of access to basic human rights: housing, employment, education, health care, land and self-determination. It's a crisis that will not be solved by an intervention 2.0 approach—a top-down approach that ignores the dispossession at the heart of the crisis and perpetuates colonial oppression. The solutions must be holistic, self-determined, and community led.
First Nations communities know what is needed; the government just hasn't been listening. Communities need funding for housing to address homelessness and overcrowding. Community-led health services are best placed to deliver effective prevention and health-promotion programs, mental health services, and healing places. Communities need a significant investment in growing the First Nations health and wellbeing workforce that will build capacity within communities for effective prevention and health promotion programs, mental health services, and healing places.
Communities need access to culturally appropriate child care, education and employment opportunities. Governments must address the human rights crisis of imprisoning children in this country by raising the age of criminal responsibility. Labor must implement the outstanding recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Bringing them home reports, which have shamefully sat on the shelf for decades.
We welcome the funding commitment to the Tangentyere Women's Council for education work, but communities need long-term, ample funding for frontline women's safety services, and urgent progress on a standalone First Nations plan to end violence against women and children that is designed and implemented by First Nations women. And, of course, we must progress truth-telling and Treaty to start to heal this country, and a voice to ensure that First Nations people are driving the solutions.
Senator LIDDLE (South Australia) (17:33): I rise to speak to the emergency motion moved by Senator Nampijinpa Price. I speak on this from the following informed context: I was born and raised in Alice Springs, and many immediate family members still live in and around the township. Both my parents are traditional owners of Central Australia. As a South Australian senator for Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara people who live remotely on the APY lands—which are in South Australia—I can say that Alice Springs is the closest major regional town. Visiting Alice Springs affects them.
As a member of the Joint Standing Committee late last year I heard the harrowing evidence given in Darwin and Alice Springs. I have been directly responsible for successfully transitioning more than 1,000 Indigenous people into the private sector for work—many directly from welfare. You can't get a job, run a business or function with any confidence amongst that chaos, and the chaos has been piled on in the last seven months. It's from that perspective that I highlight the failure of the Prime Minister to address the serious alcohol-related crime across the Northern Territory, and that I outline the real, devastating and lifechanging impact of allowing the Stronger Futures legislation to lapse and failing to act earlier when the disaster unfolding became even clearer.
When the sad images, the evidence and the voices became impossible to ignore because the national media turned its attention to Alice Springs, the Prime Minister had already wasted seven months blaming and waiting for others to act when he could have acted. The mistake of ending stronger futures did this. He could have used his powers under the Constitution, and we know it's not shy about fast tracking legislation when it wants to. The Northern Territory government refused to act, and this government didn't want to until the tide of evidence and public opinion were against them.
There was a 54 per cent jump in alcohol related assaults in the past year in Alice Springs and a 34 per cent rise in the same period in Katherine. In Alice Springs, house break-ins rose 22.56 per cent, commercial break-ins were up 55 per cent, motor vehicle theft was up 31 per cent and property damage jumped by 59 per cent. There was a road toll spike of 50 per cent, in the year, across the Northern Territory.
At a time when this Labor government tells us the cost of living is the most important issue for Australians, they continually fail to act as Central Australians repair broken windows and smashed property over and over and over again. Let's talk about the smashed lives. As this escalated, insurance premiums skyrocketed. They rose 50 per cent over that same time. Businesses closed, long-term locals left, tourists stopped coming and businesses closed their doors—all this, while grappling with the cost of living.
Although the Prime Minister took his own plane for that four-hour trip, commercial flights to the nation's centre had many, many cheap and empty seats. Go and have a look. There's a massive economic toll as a consequence of inaction. There are people affected because they have alcohol addiction and binge issues. There are those whose lives are tragically shattered and disrupted by antisocial and unlawful actions, and there are those who are impacted by alcohol. They are not all Aboriginal people. But those who drink to excess commonly have blood-alcohol levels of 0.4.
In fact, the doctor at the local hospital told us that in his entire life he has never seen a hospital where the police drop off more people than the ambulance does. Innocent people—women, children and the elderly, who bear the brunt of antisocial behaviour, violence and intimidation—are affected the most. And you had plenty of warning. The immediate and cumulative individual, family and community impact is devastating.
This week we hear there's a reset so that a proper transition plan can be put in place to allow communities, and an orderly decision-making process, to determine if they remain dry communities or not. You were told that. There's $250 million allocated now for programs. But—as I said in my first speech in this chamber, in July this year—money is not the only answer. The pretenders, controllers and rescuers need to be nowhere near this new money, and the public servants need to be more accountable for the programs they deliver, and politicians—all of us—need to be more accountable for the money that's spent. This is not about voice; this is about listening to those voices that told you this was going to happen.
Senator BABET (Victoria—United Australia Party Whip) (17:38): A few hours in Alice Springs—just enough time for a photo op and a hastily arranged press conference! But a few days at the tennis—plenty of time to watch the men's semi-final and the women's final, and don't forget the men's final after that. Tell me, again, how committed the Prime Minister is to helping Indigenous Australians. Probably not that much. A crime wave in Alice Springs—whatever. Children roaming the streets at 2 am because they're too scared to go home—whatever. But how good was Novak, Djokovic, Prime Minister? How good was he?
A few hours in Alice Springs but a few days at the tennis. That tells you everything you need to know about how committed this Labor government is to helping Indigenous Australians. 'Give us a wave!' the Melbourne Park crowd yelled as the Prime Minister happily obliged. He waved to the crowd, laughter all around, a bit of a hoot. That's all that this Prime Minister is good for, a wave. Give us a solution to the crime wave in Alice Springs. How about that, Mr Albanese? Give us a solution to the wave of suffering, Mr Albanese. Give us a solution to the wave of school truancy in Indigenous communities, Mr Albanese. There's nothing, nil, nada. Signalling to the crowd is where the Prime Minister excels. He is good for a wave, a gesture and a sleight of hand, but with no substance behind it. He ignores the voices of Indigenous leaders like Senator Jacinta Price, all the while claiming that we need to listen to Indigenous people. He spent a few hours in Alice Springs and a few days at the tennis. Indigenous people in this country deserve much, much better.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health) (17:40): I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for bringing on the matter of urgency in regard to Alice Spring and Central Australia. This is certainly an issue that does hit at the heart very personally, and I do understand, deeply, the concerns of the senators opposite. But I'm also concerned about the families in Central Australia and the businesses in Alice Springs. There is no doubt that there has been, and continues to be, deep trauma in terms of what people see as their future and the kind of future they can have in Alice Springs and in Central Australia.
There is no doubt that there is a lot of anger and a lot of hurt. But we have moved to ensure that there is a circuit breaker and that there is change. And this is really critical. It's critical because people cannot take it, if we do not do more. That is why we're working with congress, with Tangentyere, with SNAICC, with the hospitals, with the police, with the family and children's services and with the Northern Territory government. Yes, there is no doubt that there are decisions that the Northern Territory government need to rethink and redo, but we are enormously pleased that those bans in the communities across the Northern Territory and in Alice Springs itself will be back in force as of Wednesday next week, once the Northern Territory assembly does sit and pass the amendments that are required under the Northern Territory legislation.
People like Marion Scrymgour, the member for Lingiari, and, of course, Senator Nampijinpa Price, raised it in their opening speeches here. We know in the Northern Territory, from the intervention in 2007, that there is also a concern within Aboriginal communities right across the Territory, not just in Central Australia. This has been something that I've also struggled deeply with and continue to do so. But we'll no doubt ensure the $250 million that we've said must go into the areas that hit at the deep cause of the problem, not just alcohol—to the health system, looking at foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and the hospital system that requires assistance to protect our women and children. And we know that, for the youth, the programs that we put together through the funding have to work. For those businesses in Alice Springs, there is no doubt that the pain you have suffered and continue to, in terms of your own economic future, has resonated greatly not just here across the parliament but across the country.
But this is the turning point, and I say this to the residents and families of Alice Springs and Central Australia: this is the turning point of this parliament. No more do we want to see the pain and suffering that we have witnessed at extreme levels in the past month and, even more personally, amongst those families in the town camps around Alice Springs. No more. Enough.
We do accept that we have the responsibility here to make things better, and we take that responsibility on board very seriously. I'm enormously grateful to be able to stand beside Marion Scrymgour, Linda Burney and Patrick Dodson and know that we are doing everything we possibly can, in terms of the federal jurisdiction, not to intervene as they did in 2007 but to ensure the accountability and governance that should occur by a Territory parliament to do what it needs to do. I look forward to the Northern Territory parliament doing that next week, but, in the meantime, we are going to ensure that those families on the ground do feel safe, do feel that we care, do feel that things will turn around for the better and that, instead of despair and trauma, they have hope for the future.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (17:45): I support Senator Nampijinpa Price's motion before the Senate today and note that, if this had been a natural disaster, the Prime Minister would have been on the first VIP plane out of Canberra to get his feet on the ground to assess the damage and offer comfort, solution and a big bucket of cash to affected communities. But because it was a national shame; a national disgrace; a crisis occurring far away from capital cities, far away from the tennis and cricket, far away from his summer break; he had to be shamed—shamed by the senators I am proud to stand with.
I acknowledge both of the strong female voices here from Central Australia—Senator Nampijinpa Price, a former deputy mayor of Alice Springs, and Senator Kerrynne Liddle, whose country and family roots go back to Central Australia and Alice Springs in particular—telling their lived experience and the lived experience of their families and their communities. They have been doing it from the day they both got here.
Let's count that back. It is for in excess of eight months that you've heard this and you did nothing. You knew the Stronger Futures legislation was lapsing and you knew the NT government had nothing in place, because you guys, like with your decisions on the cashless debit card, thought they were racist policies. That's why you did nothing until you were shamed into it. I think it is an absolute indictment on this Labor government, which purports to support Indigenous Australians.
I'm very proud to have been the minister responsible—one of the best things that happened in my career was to be appointed regional development minister under Malcolm Turnbull—for negotiating Barkly Regional Deal with then chief minister Gunner and the Barkly Regional Council. A two-year-old's rape in Tennant Creek made our government say: 'You know what? The record funding into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs in this country at the state, territory, federal and community levels is not working when we live in a country like ours and there are children getting raped every night.' It was one of my proudest days. There was $78.4 million across 28 separate cultural, social and economic measures.
In one of the great indictments, again it was the NT Labor government's failure. When I spoke to my department and stakeholders on the ground, what was actually going to be the game changer? Was it another skate park or this other thing? No. It was actually going to be to map the services from different levels of government, the private sector and charities going into that community and find the gaps so the kids stopped falling through those gaps. I'm standing here be the report card of the Barkly Regional Deal implementation plan. Of the 28 measures, most of them are implemented. In fact, all of them are implemented except the government investment and service system reform, where we work in partnership between federal and Territory government so we focus on the actual people. Five years later, we haven't got it together, and that lies at the feet of the Gunner government.
I call on the Labor party to support an election commitment we made in Alice at the Ypirinya School. It has a fantastic young principal in Gavin Morris, a proud Indigenous man, a great NRL guy. He teaches sport. They all love him. This school teaches in four local languages, including Walpiri and Arrernte. We promised $8.3 million to build a student accommodation facility there because these kids come in from town camps. It's a two-day one-way trip, and even back then this principal was telling us he needed to provide secure accommodation for his kids so that they can stay safe and continue to learn during learning week, if they so chose to.
The Labor Party didn't support that election commitment. We knew what was going on. You knew and you did nothing about it. You had to be shamed into making the NT government come to the table.
Question agreed to.
Global Biodiversity Framework
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dean Smith ) (17:50): The Senate will also consider the proposal from Senator McKim.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
That in order to meet the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework agreed to at COP15 in December 2022, including conserving 30 per cent of land and sea and halting extinction by 2030, the Government must put an immediate end to native forest logging and the destruction of habitat for new coal and gas projects".
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:51): I rise today to speak in favour of the motion we have before us. The Australian government has taken a big step to agree, alongside other nations, to halt extinction right around the world, to protect our environment and to look after our oceans. At the end of last year, at the Montreal biodiversity framework COP15 meeting, Australia participated, in goodwill, alongside all the other nations. Australia signed up to these agreements. We had diplomats there. People spent time debating proposals and clauses line after line after line. The meticulous detail and effort that was put into these agreements was extraordinary—and I'd like to say thank you to all those public servants who put in so much effort. But none of this will mean dot until we start actually protecting the environment we have back here in Australia.
You can't say one thing in Montreal and come home and do another thing here in Australia. If we really are genuinely serious about halting the crisis that faces biodiversity globally and here in Australia, we have to stop destroying our forests, we have to stop destroying our critical habitat and we have to start protecting those very precious places that make our country one of the most beautiful places on earth.
It is madness that we live in a country in 2023 that allows the destruction of our ancient native forests. It's not just madness; it's criminal that it is subsidised by the taxes of Australian taxpayers. It is heartbreaking to see these ancient forests destroyed simply because, year after year after year, election after election after election, no government has been willing to stand up and say: 'No. Our forests need to be protected. Our ancient forests need to be protected.' When we're facing this huge crisis of global warming and biodiversity, we actually need to protect the little that we have left.
The commitments that Australia signed up to at COP15, the world's largest global biodiversity pact to protect nature, were that we would protect 30 per cent of land and 30 per cent of ocean and that we would make sure there are no more extinctions past 2030. Frankly, I think we should be able to say there should be no more extinctions of species from today. We have already lost too many of our native animals. We've already lost too many of our native species here in Australia. We should be doing everything we can to protect them. It is just shameful that we are facing a situation where our iconic koala is about to become extinct because we continue to destroy their homes. The Tassie devil, the Leadbeater's possum and the Australian sea lion in my home state of South Australia—these animals need protection. You can only stop their extinction if you stop destroying their homes.
It costs money to destroy their homes. Australian taxpayers are forking out money to allow logging to continue in our native forests. It is shameful, it is economically reckless and it is environmentally criminal. It would save Australian taxpayers money if we banned native forest logging today—it would save them money. While the government talks about environmental reforms and changes to environmental laws down the track—'They're coming soon'—there is one key thing missing, and that is a ban on native forest logging in this country, and that is shameful.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Dean Smith ): Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. Could you move the motion? It's not necessary to make the speech again.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: At the request of Senator McKim, I move:
That in order to meet the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework agreed to at COP15 in December 2022, including conserving 30% of land and sea and halting extinction by 2030, the Government must put an immediate end to native forest logging and the destruction of habitat for new coal and gas projects.
And I look forward to other members in this place supporting the motion.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I meant that good naturedly.
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (17:56): I'm so pleased to be given this opportunity today to rise to speak to this urgency motion because if there is one thing that I'm incredibly passionate about it is the environment and biodiversity. I just don't talk the talk; I walk the walk. When I was a young lad I quit my job at 23, got on a plane and went overseas. I had six months in Africa. I went to see the gorillas in the mist, I climbed Kilimanjaro and I went to see the Serengeti. Likewise, I spent another seven years overseas where I climbed Mont Blanc and Annapurna. I went to those places and saw lots of wildlife across the world.
I am very passionate about protecting our biodiversity, especially here in Australia where we do have a lot of marginal country. I grew up on a property in western Queensland. Ironically I have actually seen the mulga wipe out the mitchell grass. I know what feral pests do to this country. I know that you can have too many wild cats and pigs, for example. I don't have a gun licence anymore, but when I was a young lad we used to go and shoot the pigs because they used to create wallows. Feral cats are a real problem in this country. I can assure you that it's very difficult to keep control of that if you let the mulga run wild in western Queensland.
There are photos of our property back in the early 1950s and 1960s, and it was all open grassland. Today, because we're not allowed to push, the mulga has taken off. One of these days they will drop a match in there and the place will just burn. If you're worried about protecting koalas and things like that, you don't want bushfires going on out there. It won't take off like the gum trees and the eucalyptus will, because it's acacia, but fires have happened out there in the past.
I'm glad Senator Hanson-Young raised the issue of koalas. To sit here and talk about the impact that coalmines and logging will have and not talk about the destruction of renewables is completely one-sided and hypocritical. Our koalas will be under threat from the construction of up to 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines that have to be built to connect the power from all of these isolated remote renewable energy projects. I should say that that property in western Queensland had solar panels in the late 1980s, so I'm not anti using solar panels or whatever at the end of the grid, but I can assure you that it will never work on an industrial scale.
Then we should talk about the sea lions. We have just seen seismic testing in the ocean off New Jersey and a lot of beached whales as a result of that seismic testing. Only the Greens and Labor could come up with some sort of mechanical energy instrument that will kill above the water bats and birds, especially bats, which are one of our key pollinators, and will be a threat to sea life in the water. And it's not just the actual wind turbines that are going to cause problems, these wind turbines are coated in bisphenol A. One litre of that will pollute up to 50 million litres of water. So we don't know what the impact of this stuff is going to be. They're going to have to make sure that there are proper regulations when they put these wind turbines out in the ocean, that this bisphenol doesn't melt or decay away and end up polluting our oceans. So in terms of renewables, they're a serious threat to our biodiversity.
Then of course we come back to the batteries. These are built from rare earth metals. Technically speaking, they're not that rare in the earth's crust but they are very, very fine in the sense that you've got to actually mine so many tonnes of ore just to get one tonne of metal. With lithium, for example, on average that grades between one to two per cent of ore. So you've got to mine 100 tonnes of ore just to get one or two tonnes of lithium. Then, on top of that, you've then got the stripping ratio, where you have to go around and around and around to get to the ore; you don't just drive those big trucks down at a very steep angle. So the footprint of solar panels and rare earth mining on our biodiversity is going to have a massive impact on potential animals going forward. That's not to mention the actual CO2 emissions that are going to come in actually getting this stuff out of the ground.
So I think that before we start turning off our coal-fired power stations—and, by the way, the CO2 that comes from those is actually plant food. What better way to recycle energy than through the natural process of photosynthesis? That's something that I would have thought most of you would have understood because it was taught in grade 8 science. So I say, let's back coal—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Rennick. Senator Grogan.
Senator GROGAN (South Australia) (18:01): That was quite a fascinating contribution—I'm not sure where to start with it! I rise to address the urgency motion put forward by Senator McKim regarding the need to end native forest logging. I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is committed to strong action on the climate—to address some of the degradation that we've seen over the last decade and more, and to work towards Australia being the country that shows the rest of the world how to build a balanced energy system, to protect the environment and to actually plan for the future: a future that is a net zero future.
We had in December 2022, as was referenced by Senator Hanson-Young, an agreement to some targets at the biodiversity COP15. We also had a very significant agenda to protect the environment, known as the Nature Positive Plan, which will halt environmental decline and repair the damage that has already been done by the former government over the last long, painful 10 years. Do we remember the damning 2020 State of the environment report? It was hidden, probably on top of the firehose and underneath the pile of ministerial appointments. The way that the environment has been ignored and the way that the emissions challenge that we have in front of us has been just swept to the side is awful. But in eight short months, this Albanese Labor government has made significant inroads into trying to turn that around. We have seen so many changes that really are going to get us on the track to put ourselves in a position to be the renewable energy country of the future, which is what we want to be. We must protect our environment along the way and we must put it as a priority, which is what we believe that we have done here.
After that wasted decade, what we're doing in terms of the environment includes our plan for rewiring the nation so that renewable energy is able to be dispatched appropriately across the grid. We will have cheaper and cleaner power. We are looking at a nature-positive plan to rewrite our national environmental laws, which many of us are well aware have been broken for so long. We have a plan for zero new extinctions for this continent. We have a new nature repair market. We are: legislating to protect the ozone layer; doubling the number of Indigenous rangers; protecting Indigenous cultural heritage, in true partnership with First Nations groups; reducing waste; building a more circular economy; and campaigning on the world stage to protect our oceans, support biodiversity and fight for a plastic-free ocean.
We've already, in those eight months, passed legislation targeting 43 per cent emissions cuts by 2030, and we're committed to reaching 82 per cent renewables by 2030. We've had the Chubb review, which found that land clearing accounted for a significant share of our national emissions and recommended that no new project registrations be allocated under that avoided deforestation method. It also recommended that we look at developing new methods that actually incentivise the maintenance of native vegetation that has the potential to be a forest and maintain those existing forests. We've accepted this recommendation, and our safeguard mechanism will reduce the emissions of our largest emitters.
New projects will need to meet specific requirements, including rigorous environmental checks and adherence to the reforms to the safeguard mechanism that we're in the process of making. These reforms are important to limit Australia's carbon emissions. The reforms have received significant support from business, industry and environmental groups. This is going to make a fundamental difference.
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (18:06): At COP15 last year, we saw on the global stage the urgent need to halt and reverse environmental decline. It was made clear at the conference, and it was agreed to. We saw the government reaffirm their commitment to halting extinction. What we need now is action. We don't need more plans to make plans. The thing that we have to get on with is stopping destroying the areas of the environment with the highest biological value.
Continuing to log native forests doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make environmental sense, and it certainly doesn't make economic sense. VicForests lost $54 million last year—that's on top of losses over many years—and has just taken out a loan from Victorian taxpayers for $80 million. The East Gippsland forest management area, the largest in Victoria, is uneconomic for logging and has been classified as noncommercial for more than a decade. But taxpayers are still subsidising logging in these areas, areas that contain these threatened and endangered species that we're supposedly trying to save.
So let's act. We've had scientists tell us for decades what we need to do. When you're in a hole, you stop digging. That's the first step. We have to stop native forest logging in this country. It's no longer good for our communities or for our future. Yes, the timber industry is needed to provide the materials we need for buildings, but that can and should come from plantation forestry. Frontier Economics analysis shows that in south-east New South Wales the plantation industry is worth 160 times the native forest sector and employs far more people. The economic benefit that was from native forests is now in other industries. We have to start moving on. We have to have more imagination for these communities that have been logging towns for many years. Going to the Central Highlands: the value of water and tourism to regional GDP is 25.5 times and 20 times the value of timber and woodchips.
The best way to meet and go beyond 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050 is to stop cutting down one of the best carbon storage technologies we have. We need to stop cutting down native forests. We can have better outcomes for jobs and income generation, and avoidance of lossmaking that's eventually paid by the taxpayer, by exiting native forest logging as soon as possible. We can invest in logging towns to set them up for the future. It's possible; it's been done elsewhere. The longer we go down this road, the worse it is for these towns, who could potentially be entering into the carbon market and tourism, and the worse it is for all these threatened species, like Leadbeater's possum and the greater gliders, that are threatened not just by loss of habitat but by a warming climate. Many of them are very heat sensitive, and we need to ensure that there are areas of land as big as possible for them to move to and be able to deal with the changing climate.
I implore the government. I thank them for their commitment, but it has to be backed up with investment. We know that this is going to cost money, but it's worth it. We're investing in nature. We're investing in our future. And we're part of nature. If nature goes down, we go down with it. There's no standing outside of it. So I really implore the government, with the upcoming budget, to invest in nature, make good on your promise, because Australians and future generations of Australians are relying on you. And, when it comes to native forest logging, have the courage and have the imagination to bring forward the exit from native forest logging. Bring forward the exit to a new economy, with good jobs in other industries for these towns in regional areas.
Senator GREEN (Queensland) (18:11): Thank you for the contributions on this motion. I appreciate everyone comes to this debate with a love for our beautiful country and our beautiful environment, and I am certainly one of those people—not only because I live in one of the most beautiful parts of our country but because I am very privileged to be the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef and I get to experience all of the really important work that is going on there, not just in the water but also in the catchments.
I want to touch on a few of the issues that have been raised, particularly around commitments that have been made to the international community and through COP15 in particular. I share the sentiments of many of the public who are incredibly proud of the work that our government and our ministers have been doing on the international stage to return this country to the negotiating table. We were in a position where, certainly, our reputation under the former government had been destroyed and our credibility on climate and on the environment was in complete tatters. What our ministers have been able to do in various conferences of the parties across the last few months is restore Australia's reputation, and we did that by making sure that Australia was leading from the front, campaigning for strong targets and clear measurements of progress. In doing so we have managed to ensure that, for the first time ever, we have a global agreement to protect 30 per cent of the world's land and 30 per cent of the world's oceans by 2030. That is an incredible achievement and something that our minister for the environment in particular should be incredibly proud of—to restore Australia, in such a short time, to that level of respect and ambition.
These targets are something for us to strive for, and we are doing the work to make sure that we have policies to achieve a nature-positive planet. We have ensured that our nature-positive plan to rewrite our national environmental laws is front and centre of our environmental policy in this early part of our government. I know that, after 10 years, people in this sector and people who care about the environment are really eager to get on with the job. I know, as many people in this chamber understand, that the Samuel review, under the former government, sat there gathering dust. So I know that there is an urgency felt by many people in this place, but can I assure you that this work is happening. It is happening and we are moving forward to make sure that we have national environment laws that protect our forests, protect our threatened species, protect our Great Barrier Reef and protect the jobs that rely on many of these places. We are delivering a plan for zero new extinctions on this continent. We are legislating to protect the ozone layer. We are delivering a commitment to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and oceans by 2030.
We're also backing this up with funding. There is $1.2 billion for the reef in the last budget alone. We are funding to save native species, to employ Landcare rangers, to expand Indigenous protected areas and to protect against invasive species. To say that we are not funding this important work couldn't be further from the truth.
This debate, obviously, gives me an opportunity to talk about where we've come from and what we're up against in this country. We know that there is a clear difference between this government and what we're doing on climate and the environment compared to those on the other side of the chamber. It is very important that people in this place understand that the Liberal-National government, when it came to energy and climate, destroyed and delayed 22 failed energy policies. They didn't land a single one. They vetoed renewable energy projects that would have created regional jobs, they hid energy prices until after the election, they joked about Pacific Island neighbours going underwater and they sat on the Samuel review.
They haven't changed now that they're in opposition. In opposition, our friends on the other side of the chamber, the LNP, have voted against emissions reductions targets, against the electric vehicle legislation and against cost-of-living relief for working families on energy, and they will vote against safeguard mechanisms. They continue to ignore the science. It is 2023 out there, but when it comes to the opposition it's still 2003.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (18:17): I really welcome Minister Plibersek's commitment at the Biodiversity COP 15 to zero extinctions by 2030, but the government now needs to act to make this commitment real. Critically, the government needs to act to end native forest logging immediately.
I only have five minutes, so I'm just going to focus on one species that we must protect from going extinct. That's the Leadbeater's possum, or wollert. Wollert live in the tall mountain ash forests in Victoria, just east of Melbourne. They are critically endangered, and the mountain ash ecosystem they live in is critically endangered. They are the most carbon dense forests in the world. The threats to wollert and mountain ash are logging, fires and increased fires due to climate change.
In this speech, I want to quote the experts—the scientists who know these Leadbeater's possums and have been studying them for 30 years. They are the scientists from the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University. They did a review of Leadbeater's possum in 2017. It summarised that the retention and recruitment of hollow-bearing trees as the single most important issue for managing the Leadbeater's possum—and many other threatened species. They found that the key habitat resource for Leadbeater's possums, populations of hollow-bearing trees, are in rapid decline. With them, Leadbeater's possum is also declining.
The wollert had a recovery plan between 1998 and 2002 that laid out the actions that needed to happen to stop them going extinct. It hasn't had one since. Why? Because of pressure from the logging industry to keep logging the forests that they live in. At every estimates since I've been in the Senate, and that's now eight and a half years, I've been asking about when we are going to see a recovery plan for Leadbeater's possums. A draft recovery plan was released in 2017. It has yet to be finalised. At estimates last October, I asked again and got the same, lame response: 'The Leadbeater's possum remains a priority species. Minister Plibersek has asked the department to give it urgent focus, and we are looking to finalise the recovery plan as soon as possible.' Minister Plibersek, if you are listening: if you are serious about zero extinctions, there's one action that needs to be taken, which basically is what the recovery plan should summarise—that is, we need to end native forest logging. We need to end the logging of their habitat. We need to end that logging immediately.
The ANU review that was done six years ago noted that the current prescriptions are 'insufficient for the long-term conservation of the species', that the 'majority of hollow-bearing trees are not covered by these prescriptions' and that 'current logging and regeneration prescriptions do not provide adequate protection for existing hollow-bearing trees'. We don't have a recovery plan, because what's been happening has been guided by VicForests and the Victorian government. The review noted:
For the first time, the recovery of a threatened species was tied directly to the maintenance of an extractive industry. The recommendations advised pursuing a range of actions based on unproven recovery measures, while prescriptions likely to be effective in protecting hollow-bearing trees were ignored.
It also noted:
The majority of science conducted by State Government departments and on Leadbeater's Possum, and the resulting reports, generally lacks peer review.
Yet here we've got mountain ash forests. We've got so much to offer in terms of tourism, abundant clean water, carbon storage, recreational activities and biodiversity. But the logging is ongoing—except, however, over the last summer. Because of successful court action by community groups, showing that VicForests has been logging illegally, the logging has stopped. The logging which has been driven by the Maryvale pulp and paper mill for the production of paper pulp has stopped. In fact, it looks like it might stop forever. Media reports in the last days have said:
State government and union sources expect Nippon Paper Group to permanently discontinue production of office paper …
The time is now to be protecting our native forest, to be shifting our timber industry to a hundred per cent plantations, rather than the existing 90 per cent, and to be protecting our precious native forests for everyone.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question before the Chair is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:26]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
PETITIONS
Iran: Human Rights
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (18:28): by leave—I table a non-conforming petition in relation to the circumstances of Majid Kazemi under execution in Iran.
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (18:30): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I rise to speak on the Annual Climate Change Statement 2022. This morning, as we always do, we acknowledged the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament meets—the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. First Nations people have lived on and cared for this country for over 60,000 years. Their knowledge and leadership will play an important role in our nation's response to climate change.
In May last year Labor was elected by the Australian people to lead this country. In September we passed the climate change bill through the parliament. In December the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, delivered our government's first annual climate change statement to parliament. Let there be no doubt; this government is committed to taking action on climate change, and in the last nine months this government has done more than those opposite in their wasted decade of denial and delay.
Despite what some in this chamber might believe and advocate, climate change is no longer an issue for debate or discussion. The science is settled and, increasingly, communities are living it. Last year the floods across New South Wales and Victoria, and the recent floods in Western Australia, were an ongoing and sobering reminder of climate change and the impact it can and is likely to have on our community. The State of the climate 2022 report showed an increase in extreme heat events, an increase in intense, heavy rainfall, longer fire seasons and sea level rises. Yet, in the face of clear evidence, the former government refused and failed to act for a decade. During the Black Summer bushfires, as Australians were fleeing their homes, the former Prime Minister made his position clear with the now infamous words, 'I don't hold a hose.' That lack of accountability saw communities across the nation speak out. Emergency services leaders raised the alarm for an urgent government response. Student leaders took to the streets. The communities at the front of this crisis told their stories.
Labor consistently stood up for those who were worst impacted, so that they had a choice when it came to selecting the members in this parliament. Last May, after 10 long years of climate chaos, Australians took to the ballot box and said, 'This is enough,' and they gave our government a mandate to make significant change. After a decade of inaction, we know this change must be clear and strong and directional. As Minister Bowen said in his speech, not acting would be an unforgiveable act of intergenerational negligence.
All Australians care about preserving our planet for future generations. They want to play their part in creating a cleaner, more sustainable world. Our government wants to make it accessible and affordable for Australians to reduce their emissions. We want to give them the certainty to invest in a greener future, and that's why we're building a national electric-vehicle charging network and cutting taxes on electric vehicles so that you can buy an electric vehicle and have a place to charge it. We've committed $224.3 million for community batteries so that up to 100,000 Australian households can access clean, reliable energy when they need it. You shouldn't need to own a house to make use of solar panels, so we've committed to community solar banks for 25,000 Australians living in apartments, rentals and low-income households. We want families and small businesses to have a choice when it comes to the ways that that they reduce their power bills, and energy performance will be key to this. We want to empower community members and businesses to consider their use of energy through our national energy performance strategy.
This is an important issue. It's one I know that this chamber will have the opportunity to debate through legislation, through debates, through questions, throughout the rest of this year. But I want to say this very clearly to people listening: the climate wars were very, very bad for Australians, their businesses, their communities. We cannot afford to go back to a situation where some people seek to make perfect the enemy of the good and others seek no action whatsoever.
It is time for us to take a step forward, confidently understanding the opportunities that will arise for Australian communities and for Australians themselves as we move into a lower carbon economy. It's time to cut our emissions. It's time to embrace the opportunities of the future. And this government is determined to do so.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you seek leave to continue your remarks at all?
Senator McALLISTER: I do.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted.
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 10 of 2022-23—Performance audit—Expansion of telehealth services: Department of Health and Aged Care. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Steele-John. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Climate Change Act 2022—Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water—Annual climate change statement 2022. Motion to take note of document moved by the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator McAllister). Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Productivity Commission—Report no. 99—Lifting productivity at Australia's container ports: between water, wharf and warehouse. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Askew. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
COMMITTEES
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Additional Information
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:36): On behalf of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee as listed at item 40 on today's Order of Business.
BUDGET
Consideration By Estimates Committees
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:37): On behalf of the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Nita Green, I present the report of the committee on the 2022-23 budget estimates.
COMMITTEES
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Report
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (18:37): by leave—I take note of item 67 on page 10, the FADT committee's report of the human rights implications of recent violence in Iran. I'm speaking to the report—from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee about the human rights implication to end the violence occurring in Iran—with a heavy heart in the full knowledge that this violence continues and also filled with pride, having heard so convincingly and in such great numbers from the many community members of the Iranian diaspora and many other communities who gave evidence to the committee.
The Greens support all recommendations of the report; however, we do think that the report did not speak loudly enough about the incredibly slow response of the Australian government, particularly in regard to sanctions. I am here this evening as the proud political sponsor of one Majid Kasimi. Majid will continue his call for freedom and justice for all of the peoples of Iran, and he does so alongside many other members of the community who are, right now, imprisoned by the regime—because they dared to speak out.
Every day, we wake up to more news that Iranian freedom protesters have been sentenced to death or wrongly jailed after unfair trials. I want to make it really clear to the Senate this evening: Majid and so many other of his fellow protesters are facing death at the hands of a regime that is imprisoning its community members on mass because they are daring to speak out and to push back. This must end. The international community must keep building the pressure on Iranian authorities to free those innocent civilians who are subject to fatal penalties because they are crying out for freedom in their country. The Greens, along with the community, have been campaigning for Magnitsky-style sanctions to be used against Iran for a very long time. It was a welcome piece of news to hear the foreign minister expand these sanctions last week. Targeted sanctions are exactly what the Magnitsky act was put in place to do.
In giving this statement on the report, I must acknowledge the role of women in boldly and courageously raising their voices against the regime that is so desperate to silence them in Iran, and in taking the lead in giving evidence to the Senate committee. They have been the drivers of activism, lobbying and protests, despite the Iranian regime acting egregiously to minimise their impact. The system of law and order which the Iranian regime implements is one of authoritarianism, violence, terror, fear and the silencing of the community.
This is intensely felt by women and by minority groups, particularly those who can identify themselves as members of the Kurdish Iranian community, such as Jina Amini. The Greens have been advocating for direct actions against the regime since the week of Jina Amini's death. We have done this because the community has been active in providing us with the key demands and requests that they have of their Australian government. We know that their understanding of the Iranian regime, its tactics and its practices is strong. They need the Australian government to listen to them and they need swift and appropriate response.
Jina Amini died on 16 September 2022. To place the Australian response into context, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Canada's intention to sanction Iranian officials just 10 days later. In comparison, Australia waited more than three months to apply narrow sanctions—narrow sanctions, it must be clearly understood by the Senate, because they were limited in scope and in no way went as far as was needed in an attempt to defer and deter the regime. The delayed nature of this response was and remains an unacceptable failure on the part of the Australian government and of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Further, the European parliament has called on its council to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as a terrorist organisation. The United States and Canada have made this designation. Yet, we are yet to see this from the Australian government.
Yesterday speculation began that Ayatollah Khamenei would give pardons to thousands of political prisoners involved in protests. This must happen and must include all those who have already been given death sentences and are awaiting execution. The Greens will continue to work with the Iranian diaspora community to call on the Australian government to extend its targeted sanctions list and to put heavier financial sanctions and travel restrictions upon the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp.
In concluding my contribution, I want to offer my profound thanks and acknowledgement on behalf of the Australian Greens to the Iranian diaspora communities and to all individuals who took the time and demonstrated the courage to give evidence to the committee and its inquiry. I acknowledge that to do so for many was to risk harm to themselves and their family members, to say nothing of the emotional burden they felt themselves. I appreciate, as a committee member—and our movement appreciates collectively—the effort that they demonstrated and commit ourselves to solidarity with them in their struggle for women, for life and for freedom.
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (18:44): I also rise to speak on item 67 on page 10. As Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on that committee's report, Human rights implications of recent violence in Iran. I'd like to start with some words from an Iranian Australian that I have been asked to read out to the Senate, explaining why it is so important to that community to have the support of our parliament and our government: 'For over 44 years,' this person says, 'Iranians have suffered this criminality through systematic oppression and a continuing degradation of their human rights. Soon after the 1979 revolution, I had my first taste of it as I witnessed the execution of four of my classmates by the IRGC for aligning with the wrong party in the revolution. Today's uprising is not the first attempt of Iranians to free themselves from the oppressive regime of the Islamic republic. Just as today, nations around the world watched on quietly as the paramilitary IRGC successfully defended the dictatorship against unarmed citizens, killing children and adults, men and women. We cannot allow today to become like the previous times.'
The horror of the IRI's actions detailed in these words and experienced by so many is why it is so important to our diaspora community that Australia's government takes decisive action. I'd like to thank all of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee and the more than 1,000 people and organisations who provided submissions to the inquiry. We have all read the reports and seen the vision of the brutal and violent way the Islamic republic regime responds to critics within its own borders. But what became apparent during the course of the inquiry was that the IRI regime also goes to significant lengths to ensure that its critics around the world are intimidated, threatened and, in some cases, subjected to violence. Just as it is incredibly brave of the people of Iran to be protesting against the regime, knowing that they face violence, arrest and torture, so too is it incredibly courageous of Iranian Australians to turn up to give evidence to a Senate committee when they know that the IRI regime is watching, monitoring and targeting those who do.
While Iran is a long way from Australia, human rights abuses, the oppression of women and girls, state sponsored terrorism and cybercrime are matters that Australia can and should take a strong stance on. If nations like Australia don't use the tools at our disposal to take a stand when another country is responsible for such behaviour, then the message is sent to that regime that they can get away with it. Other authoritarian regimes will also be watching and realising that they too can commit major human rights violations without facing consequences from the international community. The committee's inquiry revealed that a strong response to hold the IRI accountable is not only a question of sending the right message and acting in accordance with our principles but that the Iranian regime has been identified consistently as being a state sponsor of terrorism. Overseas intelligence services have confirmed the Iranian regime's attempts to kill or kidnap residents of those countries. We know from recent questions I asked of the Australian Signals Directorate that operatives affiliated with the IRI are responsible for malicious cyber and ransomware attacks against Australia.
Two key themes constantly emerged during this inquiry. The first was that there is significant fear of the regime here in Australia. Iranian Australians do not feel safe and protected from the IRI and the IRGC, even in this country, and that is a huge concern. The second was that there is an overwhelming feeling of frustration at Australia lagging behind other Western nations in taking action. Many of us in the Senate were raising this concern from the community back in September and October last year. It is very disappointing, having had four months to take action, that the community still feels so let down. It was evident in the final 24 hours before the release of the report that the government recognised it is lagging behind where it should be in terms of taking action. We had the announcement of some additional Iranians sanctioned by the government made overnight on the eve of the report tabling, in what was widely seen by the community and media as an attempt to head off criticism about how far Australia was behind other nations, like the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, in applying sanctions. I note that, despite the addition of this second round of sanctions, we are still a long way behind our allies. Most of these nations were applying their second round of sanctions in October last year. Our government just announced its second round of sanctions a handful of hours before our committee report was tabled on 31 January—last week.
Even stranger was the sudden arrival of a late submission from the Attorney-General's Department in relation to listing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation on the afternoon of 31 January, again just hours before the committee's report was due to be tabled. This inquiry has been running since 27 October last year. The listing of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation has been the subject of major global discussion throughout that entire period. At the public hearing on 21 December last year committee members asked government agencies a number of times whether a terrorist listing was being considered, but the government refused to engage on this question. In a written answer to a question on notice received in mid-January we were told that the government does not and will not comment on those considerations. But then, 12 hours before the report was due to be tabled, the government suddenly had the advice that it can't be done, which begs the question—one which conveniently Labor's submission didn't answer—of how long the government have had this advice and what have they done to prepare legislative options to correct the situation since becoming aware of it.
On the issue of listing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation and many other issues the community wanted and expected more answers from the government than they were willing or able to provide, and that's why the committee has made a number of recommendations calling for greater transparency from the government and for responsible ministers to provide updates on its assessment of the intimidation and foreign interference tactics of the IRI in Australia. The community members who are most concerned and at risk of intimidation tactics by the IRI are feeling left out of the loop when it comes to being informed by the government about its assessment of the threat and what the government is doing to counter it.
I want to acknowledge and thank all senators who supported this inquiry, particularly all members of the committee for their work on the committee inquiry. We saw how important it was to the many community groups who gave evidence to have the opportunity to present to the committee and have their voices heard. I really appreciate the willingness of all committee members to be available to hold those public hearings and to make sure all of our witnesses had that opportunity.
I'd like to acknowledge as well that we received well over 1,000 submissions. We could have filled the programs for our public hearings many times over, but I know that the community understands the importance of the committee acting with urgency to hear the evidence and produce the report and recommendations, because it is an emergency situation and a humanitarian crisis that is occurring.
In that light I conclude by urging the government to act on the recommendations as swiftly as possible. By doing so, Australia can take a leadership role on this important global issue and ensure that Australians are protected from the dangerous regime. I commend the report to the Senate.
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:53): I also rise today in the Senate to speak on the report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee entitled Human rights implications of recent violence in Iran. I was pleased to participate in this inquiry as the deputy chair.
I certainly echo the report's and indeed the government's condemnation of the violent measures that are being employed by the Iranian government against those who have been protesting its oppression of its own citizens, particularly against women and children. The Iranian security forces have been brutal in their attempted suppression of these protests. Hundreds upon hundreds have lost their lives and some have been executed without any access to a fair trial.
I acknowledge the extraordinary courage of those in Iran and abroad who continue to express their fierce opposition to the oppressive practices of the Iranian government, often at great risk not just to themselves but to their families, whether they are over in Iran or elsewhere around the world. I particularly thank those who made submissions and gave evidence to the inquiry. Many chose to do so on a confidential basis. Indeed, it's a credit to the Senate's committee processes that these witnesses felt comfortable enough to contribute to this inquiry, safe in the knowledge that their identities would not be made public. Of course, most of all, credit is owed to these witnesses, whose deep knowledge, lived experience and courage to speak out contributed so much to the inquiry's work.
Since the death of Mahsa Amini—whose Kurdish name was Jina—in September of last year, the Australian government, along with many other like-minded states, has led international efforts to hold the Iranian government to account for its use of violence to deny basic human rights to its very own citizens—things that we take for granted every single day, like being able to protest and being able to speak your mind freely without the actions of a government. Australia co-sponsored and advocated the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution to establish an independent fact-finding mission to investigate human rights violations in Iran. Australian officials also engaged in the campaign to remove Iran as a member of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. I do note with regret that this appointment was made at all. It occurred back in April 2021, with the endorsement of the Asia-Pacific grouping that Australia was part of.
The Australian government has imposed Magnitsky-style sanctions on individuals and entities in Iran that are connected to the violence perpetrated by the Iranian government against its citizens, and also on individuals and entities involved in the production and supply of drones to the Russian Federation. Of course, the Australian government has also put its condemnation of the actions of the Iranian government directly to Iran's diplomatic representatives, both to the Iranian embassy here in Canberra and through Australia's ambassador in Iran.
With all these actions in mind, the political narrative that is at times pervasive throughout the committee's report is somewhat disappointing. All members of the committee—and indeed, I would think, all members of this chamber—are of the same view in their condemnation of the Iranian government and its recent behaviour. The past practice of the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee has been to ensure that, as much as possible, reports on such matters have been agreeable to members of both the government and the opposition. This is because Australians expect that, wherever possible, foreign policy is developed and executed in a bipartisan manner. As members of the Senate can see, government senators provided additional comments, and it is with regret that the practice that has been followed in the past was not followed in this case with respect to this report. The hope is that, in the future, the business of the committee when dealing with such matters will be conducted in a similar fashion as in previous committees.
With that in mind, I'll turn back to the matter that has—and rightly so—been the focus of this place, as was the case earlier today in question time: the concerning conduct of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. I want to make a few comments with specific regard to the recommendation from the report to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. The actions of the IRGC are unacceptable. They must be held to account, and so I understand why people, rightly, are seeking every possible option to take action against the IRGC. But, within the context of Australian law, the purpose of listings under the Criminal Code is to make it easier to prosecute individuals in Australia for supporting terrorist organisations. Australian law does not regard listing as a foreign policy tool to increase pressure on foreign governments.
That being said, the Australian government is very much focused on taking meaningful steps to increase pressure on the IRGC and to hold them to account. That is why the government has sanctioned 29 Iranians and eight entities under the Magnitsky-style and autonomous sanction regimes. These include designations on nine IRGC officials and five IRGC linked entities.
Federal Labor's concern about the conduct of the IRGC predates the ongoing protests, which is why the former Labor government sanctioned the IRGC as a whole in 2012. So let me be very clear: the only party in government that has so far put sanctions on the IRGC has been federal Labor. But unlike the previous government, who spent a whole decade talking about action, federal Labor is the one who has actually taken the decisive action whilst only having been in government in the last six months. Those opposite sat on their hands for a decade, and, unfortunately, it was this government that had to come in to clean up that mess and to correct the wrong. But we are very keen to see further meaningful action in the future against these types of organisations.
Again, I want to share and echo the remarks by the chair in her statement earlier about thanking those individuals and organisations who made a contribution to the inquiry. It is something that can be quite confronting. It does take a lot of courage, especially when you travel to Canberra and make very emotional public statements on the record. We did see quite a number of witnesses who found the whole process somewhat overwhelming, but it was really good to see their contribution. If they do watch over, or even read, our remarks tonight, I want to say thank you to each and every one of them for making the time to come to Canberra to make a contribution, because every part of their story has actually made a difference. It's made a difference in terms of how we've presented our report and how we've drafted the report but also the attention that this issue deservedly warrants across not just the Australian media but the international media cycle. The more focus and the more pressure we place on the Iranian government, the more there will be outcomes that are much more satisfactory for both individuals and their families.
I want to place my solidarity with the Iranian people on the record here in the Senate. Your cause is just, and your persistence is certainly something that we are all very much supportive of. This violent oppression is a disgrace, but remain focused on the course, because together we will be able to deliver good outcomes.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Report
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (19:02): In relation to the Fisheries quota system report dated December 2022, I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I'm very proud of this report that's before the Senate today. It's the first federal parliamentary inquiry into fisheries management in this country, and it's one of only two inquiries in this whole country, including by state governments who've had ITQ, or individual tradeable quota, systems in place for 40 years. It's quite mind-boggling when we think that the Commonwealth manages fisheries right around this country through an ITQ based system and a number of other overlays, like harvest strategies, and yet the parliament hasn't reviewed this before. So I'm very proud of this report.
The Greens felt very strongly that this inquiry was long overdue and certainly very timely, given the economic and social evolution of fisheries management in Australia over recent decades and given recent recognised environmental and ecological changes to the habitat of Australian fisheries because of, in short, changes we've seen in our oceans in recent decades. These changes have been caused by the warming of our oceans from the burning of fossil fuels, by pollution in our oceans, by overfishing, by microplastic pollution in our oceans and by a whole range of cumulative pressures and sources.
I initiated this inquiry following consultation with commercial fishers in my home state of Tasmania who felt the government needed to tackle significant market concentration problems and issues around foreign ownership of Australian fisheries quota in their respective fisheries. I then talked to a number of experts—scientists, academics and commercial fishers themselves—and realised there were a whole range of other problems that needed to be addressed. I'm pleased to say I believe they have been addressed through this inquiry, especially through the main body of this report and through many of the additional comments made by the Australian Greens at the end of that report.
I do apologise to stakeholders that the inquiry took so long: It went on for nearly two and a half years. That was primarily due to COVID and the restrictions of senators not being available for a number of hearings. And, of course, we had a change of parliament and a change of government.
There was a good and a bad to that. The good bit was that, over that time period, two significant developments occurred in Australian fisheries management that were able to be captured by the inquiry. The first one was that the ANAO, the Australian National Audit Office, did an audit—the first in many years—of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. To quote their answer to my question in the inquiry, 'If you gave them an A to an E like a kid's scorecard, what would you have given AFMA?' and they said, 'Maybe a D.' In fact, they only found them to be partially compliant on most of the key measures they were measured against. Of course, that gave us an opportunity to examine the ANAO's recommendations and what that meant for fisheries management.
The second thing that occurred was, in the last term of the last parliament, in the last budget, we found a $23 million rescue package for the most significant fishery in Australia, certainly in terms of size: the South East Trawl. It stretches down to southern New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. When I inquired, during estimates, at AFMA, 'What was this $23 million that the Liberal government was planning to spend on fisheries?' they said, 'Senator, it's a buy-out of fisheries capacity in this key fishery.' I said, 'Well, why are you buying it out?' and they said, 'Because of climate change'. Now, a couple of things on that: this was the first time ever that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority had labelled climate change or named climate change as having had a significant impact essentially on the collapse of a major fishery. But, the more we investigated and interrogated that, absolutely climate change was an issue, but it was also that the fishery wasn't being managed for climate change, so there were fisheries management issues. So, by delaying this inquiry, we actually got a case study of a collapse in a major fishery here in Australia.
Interestingly, one of the approaches that AFMA have taken to try to rebuild this fishery is that they have put in place significant spatial closures. They've essentially shut off entire areas in this fishery in perpetuity. In other words, they're not letting fishing boats in there. So, for all intents and purposes, they've created marine protected areas within a fishery. Although of course no-one's calling them that, that's essentially what they've done. And that is also a precedent in Australian fisheries management. If I had any doubts about initiating this inquiry and getting support to make sure the hearings were attended by senators and that this was taken seriously, that dispelled any doubts that I might have had.
When we look at this inquiry, something else unique happens. The CSIRO did an academic research paper on the Senate inquiry. They actually wrote a research paper that they then submitted to the Senate inquiry on our Senate inquiry. I've never seen that before. What they wanted was to quantify the differences in the submissions across all of Australia's managed fisheries. What they discovered was something I already knew: there were significant differences of opinion between fishers right across our fisheries as to whether fisheries management is working for them. They found the big majority of submitters did not feel Australia's fishing management was working for them.
Now, of course, there are a lot of reasons for that, and they're all detailed in this report, but it certainly suggested that this report was timely and we need to tweak, at a minimum, how fisheries are managed in the Commonwealth of Australia.
I would like to thank all the hundreds of submitters, including many fishers in my home state of Tasmania who have been doing it really tough. We've heard harrowing stories about fishers taking their own lives and the disruption that has occurred to their livelihoods over many years now—mostly because of things that are out of their control. They've been very concerned that they haven't been able to access quota in this, and to buy that quota.
Essentially, if you're a quota-holder in Australia's commercial fisheries, or in many state fisheries, you're like a landlord of the sea. You own access to that fishery and you can trade it and sell it, and, like a house, you can lease it out. Of course, with rising diesel prices and the collapse in markets, like we saw with rock lobster in China, a lot of these fishers were literally getting squeezed. They were not only not making any money but they were losing money and going to the wall. They appreciated the Senate looking into this.
I would like to finish my contribution by saying there are 10 recommendations in the Greens' additional comments. We didn't put a dissenting report in, because there's some very good recommendations in the main committee report. The disadvantage, of course, of having extended the inquiry into a new government was that LNP senators got to write the majority report in the inquiry. While I acknowledge that there's some good recommendations in here, unfortunately I don't believe that the final chapter, the conclusions, reflect the big body of data and knowledge in this report. That's essentially because Senator Colbeck got to write the report. And guess what? He was the fisheries minister for a number of the last 10 years, and so got to reflect on his own fishery performance. I believe that was a conflict of interest, and I've put that in this report. However, I do thank LNP senators who put some key recommendations in here around the ACCC investigating competition issues, improving transparency issues in the fisheries and a couple of other key recommendations.
The Greens give our promise to fishers around this country that this is just the beginning for us. At both the state and federal level, we will continue to build on this inquiry. I will ask AFMA, the FRDC, the CSIRO and other key federal stakeholders questions at every estimates. We will not back off on trying to get reform in the Australian fisheries management system. And that's simply because of this: it is not delivering economic and social benefits like it should be to fishing communities and to the Australian people, who own this resource. And it is failing on an ecological, biological and environmental level. Our oceans are under a lot of pressure and we have to do a lot better.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
DOCUMENTS
Bracknell Community Hall Grant Award
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (19:13): I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the Bracknell Community Hall grant award.
COMMITTEES
Australia's Disaster Resilience Select Committee
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Walsh ) (19:13): The President has received letters nominating senators to be members of the Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience.
Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (19:13): by leave—I move:
That Senator Lambie be appointed a member of the Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience and that Senator Tyrell be appointed as a participating member.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2022
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (19:14): 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 AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (19:15): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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—
This Bill contains measures designed to maintain and improve Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure it remains current and fit-for-purpose.
This Bill reflects the Government's commitment to regulatory stewardship through regular maintenance and improvement of portfolio legislation. This program of work is ongoing, and the Government intends to pursue regular improvement and maintenance opportunities, where possible, in conjunction with its wider reform agenda.
Schedule 1 to the Bill will modernise several Treasury portfolio laws to improve their technology neutrality and address unnecessary barriers to the use of digital communications.
These amendments build on temporary changes introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to allow businesses greater flexibility in how they conduct operations and engage with consumers.
Schedule 1 to the Bill will ensure that all documents required or permitted to be signed under the Corporations Act 2001 can be signed in a technology-neutral way.
It will replace outdated requirements to publish notices in newspapers. Notices will need to be published in a way that ensures they are reasonably prominent and accessible to the intended audience.
The amendments in Schedule 1 to the Bill make it clear that Treasury portfolio regulators can hold hearings and examinations virtually, and also allows more payments to be made electronically.
Together, these reforms will facilitate the use of digital technologies and provide greater choice to individuals and business in how they communicate and operate.
The Government will continue to ensure that legislative frameworks remain fit-for-purpose as technology continues to evolve.
The amendments in Schedule 2 address complexity in the design of definitions in the corporations and financial services law, including by removing redundant definitions and using consistent headings for definition sections.
The amendments in Schedule 3 to the Bill transfer longstanding and accepted matters currently contained in ASIC legislative instruments to the Corporations Act 2001 and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. This will improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty, and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.
Schedule 4 to the Bill makes a number of amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure that Treasury laws operate as intended. The amendments variously clarify the law to ensure it operates in accordance with the policy intent, make minor policy changes to improve administrative outcomes or remedy unintended consequences, and correct technical or drafting defects.
These amendments will make it easier for Australians to comply with current laws.
The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to the Bill as required under the Business Names Agreement 2009, the Corporations Agreement 2002 and the National Credit Law Agreement 2009.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022
Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022
Returned from the House of Representatives
Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Joint Committee
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of Ms Lawrence and Ms Stanley to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023
Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022
Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022
Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022
Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022
Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022
Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2022
High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022
Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2022
Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022
Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022
Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022
Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022
Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022
National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022
National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022
Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2022
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022
Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022
Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the Senate that he had assented to the bills.
Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that this bill:
(i) only provides limited student debt relief to certain cohorts for the purpose of fixing skill shortages, and
(ii) fails to deliver desperately needed student debt relief for the millions of people struggling to pay off their debts; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) recognise that tertiary education, like all education, is an essential service,
(ii) make tertiary education universal and free, and
(iii) wipe all student debt"
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (19:17): I'm very pleased to speak on this bill tonight, because this bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, gives legislative effect to a policy that was key for the Nationals before the last election. I particularly refer to the part of the bill that gives effect to the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, measure for rural doctors and nurse practitioners, which was announced by the coalition in the 2021-22 MYEFO.
This measure provides a partial or full HELP debt reduction for rural doctors and nurse practitioners who reside and practise in regional, rural or remote Australia. It was a key pillar of the Nationals in the last government to try to take constructive and practical measures to address our regional health work shortages for the long term. We all understand that it's not a silver bullet and it will not flood the regions with doctors and nurses tomorrow, but certainly over the long term it will attract to the regions more health graduates who will, hopefully, stay—as I have. Once you move to a regions, you know how wonderful it is to live in the regions and you stay in the regions.
This measure was previously included in the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, but unfortunately the bill lapsed at the dissolution of the 46th Parliament. The Nationals supported the introduction of this to encourage the relocation and retention of eligible doctors and nurse practitioners by reducing their outstanding HELP or HECS debts. It allowed for the waiver of indexation on outstanding HELP debts for eligible doctors and nurse practitioners while they reside and complete eligible work in our rural, remote or very remote areas. These debts for doctors can be up to the value of $100,000. It's no wonder, with debts like that hanging over their heads, that our graduates were seeking quantity over quality in how many patients they could see and how much reimbursement they could get.
This measure is backdated under this bill to the time of the previous government's announcement in the 2021-22 MYEFO. I do thank the government for doing that. I truly welcome that because it provides the certainty that some graduates that were considering this measure needed.
This program is expected to encourage up to 850 eligible doctors or nurses to relocate to a rural, regional or remote area each year. Those of us who live in rural Australia know only too well the difficulties we have in finding and keeping good doctors. These difficulties are exacerbated by the fact that at the moment, as we read today, skilled migrants in nursing, pharmacy and health care are waiting more than two years for visas. As was highlighted by my colleague Senator Anne Ruston today in question time, this is despite those people being in occupations designated for priority processing by the federal government. Yet, for some reason, the subclass 887 skilled regional visa does not fall into a priority area. This means migrants in the same occupations who apply to fill different types of skills shortages, including those who want to work in the cities, are getting fast-tracked, with applications processed in as little as 25 days, but we've got doctors and nurses waiting two years or more. This stark difference has been fuelled by a ministerial direction issued by immigration minister Andrew Giles in November to prioritise some teacher and healthcare worker applications over and above other occupations, including applicants in regional areas.
We in the regions know that there are never enough doctors or nurses. Sometimes this is because of an overload of work or we lose them. Other times, it's because of changes to government policy, such as another key initiative that was implemented to attract overseas trained doctors and bonded graduates to rural areas: the Distribution Priority Area classification system. Yes, admittedly, in government, we extended the DPA classification system to include regional centres such as Dubbo, Shepparton and the like. But, when they got into government, the new government expanded the classification to identify peri-urban areas. How is that helping our regional health workforce shortage? The current DPA classification system and changes brought in by this government have seen the shift of overseas trained doctors from areas like Maitland to Newcastle, where, as I said before, they can get quantity of patient numbers but at the expense of the quality of our health workforce in regional areas.
This government, as part of its 2022 election commitment to ease city health pressures, included fringe suburbs across Australia like Fairfield, Hornsby, Penrith, Warringah, Rouse Hill, Richmond and Windsor—and that's just in New South Wales. So they are now eligible under the DPA classification system. When overseas trained doctors are looking for a cohort, of course they are going to look at where there is quantity.
This one change has seen serious shortages starting to develop in country towns. It's a short-sighted policy no doubt made to appease some Labor seats, but it's having devastating impacts in the regions. We see, on a daily basis, overcrowding in city hospitals and enormous pressure on emergency departments. Penrith gets DPA doctors, yet our regional areas, which get crowding in emergency departments—because it's the only place you can go to see a doctor because our GP clinics are crying out. We have cases where local governments are footing up to $700,000, as in one example in South Australia, to try and attract a GP to their region, because they can't entice anyone and they're now competing against the peri-urban areas of Adelaide to attract an overseas trained doctor.
I know, because I live in the regions, the lifestyle and the wellbeing benefits of living outside the big cities. I know the benefits my children have had being able to live in a smaller community where they're free to walk to work, go swimming in the rivers and ride their bikes without fear. But those wonderful rural settings needs services, and they will only attract services if they have the infrastructure and health services to support them. I've written an op-ed that was published in the Land earlier this year about the need to attract a health workforce to the regions. It is a vicious cycle: if you don't have a doctor, you can't attract the other professionals you want into regional areas, but you will not attract a doctor to a regional area unless you've got those other important services and professional people living in the region.
Why this government would bring in policies or make policy changes that effectively undermine the ability of regions to attract doctors is inconceivable. That's why today's bill is so important. It's important that we all get behind it and we all pass it. Waiving these debts to attract graduates into our regions will attract them for the long term. It will get them into our regions to live there, to hopefully start families there, to help support and nurture the next generation of medical professionals in our regions.
I acknowledge and thank the government for bringing forward this bill today. The Nationals absolutely support it, because it was our policy, and I congratulate the government for picking up good policy when they see it. I commend the bill to the chamber.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (19:28): I thank senators for their contributions to this debate. The bill will support students through fairer grandfathering provisions and the Job-Ready Graduate scheme and will support our rural, remote and very remote communities by encouraging our doctors and nurse practitioners to provide services in those areas. The bill will also put in place a scheme for eligible doctors and nurse practitioners to have their HELP debts reduced or wiped if they live and work in rural, remote and very remote areas of Australia. This is a policy which we have continued from the former government. We want to make sure in rural and remote communities they have access to health services, and it makes sense to continue this important measure. We expect to support around 850 medical practitioners a year in those areas. Again, I thank senators for their contribution, and I commend this bill to the chamber.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senato r Walsh ): The question before the chamber is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Senator Faruqi: by leave—Madam Acting Deputy President, because we can't have a division at this time, maybe you could note the position of the Greens, supporting this amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Walsh ) (19:30): I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Molan, Senator Andrew James (Jim), AO, DSC
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) (19:30): On 14 February 2018, Senator Jim Molan made his first speech in this place. It's far too soon, only five years almost to the week, to have honoured him in the condolence motion on Monday. As the service of Major General Jim Molan in the Australian Army was of distinction and merit, so too was the service of Senator Jim Molan in this place. I know he was rightly proud of both, and I know that pride was keenly shared by his wife, Anne; his children, Sarah, Felicity, Erin and Michael; his grandchildren; and his siblings. Those of us who were honoured to attend his moving funeral service at Anzac Memorial Chapel of St Paul at Duntroon were also honoured to see that pride and love writ large. To the lovely Anne and to Jim's whole beautiful family, I extend my sincere condolences.
As well as being a valued New South Wales colleague, I had known Jim long before his arrival here. I recall well our first introduction in Dili, Timor-Leste, in 1999, at the time of the holding of the Popular Consultation for autonomy or independence for East Timor. Then Brigadier Molan was with Australian's distinguished ambassador to Jakarta John McCarthy, supporting Australia's presence in Dili for the ballot. I was a member of the Australian parliamentary delegation led by former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer, which included another senator, Democrat Vicki Bourne. Vicki wanted me to convey her sympathies to Jim's family. She recalls Jim from that delegation fondly too.
Jim was head of Australia's defence staff in Jakarta at that time, a critical period in Australia-Indonesia relations and a critical time for the newly independent fledgling nation of Timor-Leste. Jim's skills—military, diplomatic and linguistic—were all brought to bear on that tumultuous period before the arrival of INTERFET. Through parliamentary committee work, including on RAMSI, I saw quite a bit of Jim as a senior officer over the ensuing years. Much has been written and much said in this chamber and in the other place of his distinguished military service. His record and his honours speak volumes, and Australia is a better place for Senator Molan's long Army service.
In my role as defence minister, Jim always ensured that I was in no doubt about both his passionate commitment to Australia's national security and his priorities in that regard. Every colour he nailed to the mast on those issues in that first speech five years ago he prosecuted the case for in his strong policy advocacy. Similarly, in his own writings, that commitment and passion is clear.
At his funeral service, speaking to both serving and former members of the ADF about their shared service with Jim at multiple levels, I was not surprised to hear about the respect and gratitude many of them described. He honoured them in his first speech, in dedicating his Senate service to those same people.
Across New South Wales in recent years, Senator Molan and I had a great working relationship, culminating in sharing positions on the 2022 coalition Senate ticket. He strongly represented regional New South Wales, and I particularly enjoyed being on the ground with him across regional New South Wales and working with his excellent and professional team, led by Jackie Cummins. To Jackie and to Jim's team, I also convey my sympathies. I know this is a very difficult time.
I was unable to participate in the condolence motion on Monday because of another funeral—for my dear friend and sometimes horticultural adviser Danny Mallard in Sydney, and I apologise to the Molan family and to the Senate chamber for that—too many funerals right now. I salute Jim Molan—a leader; a thinker; an author; a wonderful husband, father, grandfather and brother; a friend and a colleague; and an absolute gentleman. I add my grateful thanks for his lifetime of service.
Gas Industry
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (19:35): Last month I joined the fearless and staunch Gamilaraay people in Coonabarabran in their ongoing fight against Santos's Pilliga Narrabri gas project. The Gamilaraay people had gathered alongside activists, farmers, locals and the community on 14 January in response to the National Native Title Tribunal's decision to green-light this destructive project. Every time I travel to Gamilaraay country in central west New South Wales, I am in awe of the strength of the community in defiantly resisting the ruthless, predatory fossil fuel giants.
Santos's Pilliga Narrabri project fails on every single count. It is a giant climate bomb waiting to detonate. The project will open up floodgates of decades of climate damage and terrifying disasters like the fires and floods that we have seen in recent years. The project will extend the life span of a greedy, dying industry that has lost its social licence. It will have disastrous and irreversible impacts on the forest, threatened species, farmland and groundwater. There will be mass deforestation of the mighty Pilliga and the destruction of cultural and spiritual places of First Nations people.
Mining and burning coal and gas is the leading cause of the climate crisis. To avoid climate collapse, we must keep coal and gas in the ground. Right now, there are 118 coal and gas projects in the pipeline, and 27 of these are in New South Wales. The Pilliga Narrabri project alone will produce 120 million tonnes of climate pollution across its lifetime, pushing us ever closer to critical climate tipping points. This toxic project will further delay the shift to renewables.
There is no justification for this unconscionable and widely opposed project. The traditional owners have made it clear that they don't want the project. They have clearly said that 'gamil' means 'no'. Yet, despite these risks and rejections, despite the clear evidence of the destruction this project will cause, state and federal governments and now the National Native Title Tribunal have only seen dollar signs and given it the tick of approval. It is because of the tenacity of the mighty Gamilaraay people, joined by so many others in the community, that this dirty project has been kept at bay so far. They have bravely stood their ground for more than a decade for country they have cared for for centuries. All of us, as well as future generations, owe a great deal to the Gamilaraay people for their resistance.
The gathering I joined on 14 January issued the Coonabarabran statement, which, amongst other matters, called on Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and environment minister Tanya Plibersek to immediately declare the Gamilaraay native title determination invalid and cancel the licences of the Pilliga Narrabri gas project. And I urge the government to listen to the community. Unfortunately, while we have a new government, we still have the same old fight with a government whose pockets get filled with dirty donations by the same old fossil fuel industry.
The Albanese government loves to make a big song and dance about caring about climate but has not taken the strong actions needed for change. They have refused to rule out an end to new coal and gas. Resources minister Madeleine King voiced approval of the Pilliga Narrabri gas project just a month after the election. Worryingly, the New South Wales Premier, Dominic Perrottet, has recently committed to this gas project being up and running in his next term of government, should New South Wales suffer the blow of yet another term of scandal-ridden and corrupt Liberals. Disgracefully, the Perrottet government has signed off on survey work starting on the Hunter gas pipeline. That pipeline threatens the rich, black soils of the Liverpool Plains, as well as several of the most significant koala habitats in New South Wales. The people of New South Wales have an opportunity on 25 March this year to kick out the Liberals and to put the Greens in the balance of power so that this fossil fuelled project can be rejected, and coal and gas phased out once and for all. Santos has no business in the Pilliga or in the Liverpool Plains. The National Native Title Tribunal's decision was a setback, a significant setback, but people will keep fighting. The Gumeroi people have lodged an appeal against the decision, and we are with them. We will not back down until justice is done. Let's not forget there can be no environmental justice without First Nations justice.
Delaney, Ms Nessa
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (19:40): I rise to make a contribution in the chamber on the life of the wonderful Nessa Delaney, who tragically passed away on 30 October 2022, aged 58, in Ireland. I want to acknowledge in the gallery with us this evening the presence of His Excellency the Irish ambassador, Tim Moore, and his charming wife, Patricia. I note in Ireland there are people who will be watching this, including the Australian ambassador Gary Gray, and Nessa's family and friends. Nessa was introduced to me as the wife of the Irish Ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Noel White. Irish born herself, she charmed me immediately. I knew at once that I had met a remarkable Irish woman. Nessa soon made herself known to everyone, everywhere, in Canberra and she was very, very active in our local community in culture, in charity, and in the arts. She was everywhere from sausage sizzles at schools to more formal settings such as the Governor-General's residence and of course everything in between. Wherever she was, she was a welcome presence, a wonderful addition to everything that was happening. I certainly enjoyed her wonderful generosity as a hostess on many occasions. She was a truly remarkable ambassador for Ireland and for great women who serve their nation with distinction. In 2013 working here in Canberra with the National Film and Sound Archive, Nessa Delaney conceived and delivered Canberra's participation in a world-wide reading of Ulysses. She delighted visiting groups with her guided tours of the embassy during the annual heritage days in Canberra.
I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Parliamentary Friendship Group of Ireland, led at that time by the Honourable Brendan O'Connor, and one of our great former colleagues here in the Senate John 'Wacka' Williams, who was very proud of his long-distant Irish heritage.
Nessa Delaney and His Excellency Noel White presided over a vibrant and thriving embassy and home, one that stretched out warm hands of welcome to all who wished to share in the light and joy of Ireland and its steady stream of Irish representatives. Many senators and members and Australian thought leaders enjoyed a meal at the table at the Irish embassy.
Nessa was an enormously impressive person, an accomplished published writer—polyglot. She had, in her own right, a brilliant career. Serving as a senior official in the Department of Foreign Affairs, indeed, Nessa Delaney served in Dublin, Paris and Ottawa and in senior capacity in the EU Council of Foreign Ministers in Brussels.
Nessa's light touched hearts across the globe, and her funeral in Carlow was attended by friends and admirers from as far away as the US and Australia. At that funeral her husband Noel said of Nessa that she was 'a courageous, determined, ambitious, intelligent—fiercely intelligent—kind, gentle, engaging, warm, witty, funny human being. All these epithets and more—elegance, empathy and grace—are justified; they're scattered liberally through the tributes that have poured in from around the world'.
Nessa was a wonderful mother and she absolutely adored her boys. As Noel said and as was reported in the Carlow newspaper, the most important thing, the one that trumped all else was her boys—Daniel, Joseph and Patrick. She adored them, supported them, backed them unconditionally. She lived a responsibility to deliver them to the world as upstanding, decent young men and good citizens. Her gift to the world, she would have been proud of them today, as I am.
To be leaving this world at the age of 58, so clearly talented, with so much more to give and clearly very loved, is a great loss. She was a great participant in the international democracy in which we participate. The relationships that we form with the ambassadors from across the globe are vital not only to our edification as human beings but to our trade relationships and our contact with one another. Nessa brought all of the accomplishments necessary to that role, and she was a fine support to Noel.
She is survived by Noel; her sons, Daniel, Joseph and Patrick; and her four sisters, Catherine, Jean, Pat and Jennifer. I pass my deepest condolences to her wonderful family and pray that her memory remains a blessing and that the light that she brought into all our worlds remains with us. Rest in peace, Nessa Delaney.
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (19:45): Today I rise to speak about Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. It's held in February every year. I also want to acknowledge the amazing work of Ovarian Cancer Australia. I give a particular shout-out to Jane Hill, the CEO, who's known to so many of us in this building for her fierce advocacy on behalf of women who suffer from ovarian cancer. It's also a huge honour to have been asked to be a parliamentary ambassador for Ovarian Cancer Australia, along with Meryl Swanson in the other place and Sarah Hanson-Young in this place.
Like so many other Australians, I have been touched by this disease, having had a very dear, close friend die of ovarian cancer way, way too young. Sadly, we know that all cancers have a serious impact on Australians, but the likelihood of survival from ovarian cancer is the lowest of any female cancer. It's less than 50 per cent. Women diagnosed with ovarian cancer face an extraordinarily daunting challenge, and it's both absolutely heartbreaking and equally inspiring to hear the stories of people who've walked on that journey. This morning, Alisi Jack Koo Fussy shared her experience of her journey with ovarian cancer. Alisi has only just turned 30. Tragically, she has stage 4 ovarian cancer. She's dealing with challenges and decisions that no young woman should have to face.
Alisi's ovarian cancer is terminal. But it's the devastating reality for so many women who are diagnosed with this insidious disease. Alisi's bravery this morning in sharing her journey and her experience with the illness, her experience with the treatment and the emotional trauma that has followed her subsequent diagnosis, was one of the most incredibly powerful speeches I have ever heard. It demonstrated how absolutely every effort must be put into improving diagnosis, treatment, support and prevention in the first place of this horrible disease. By sharing her story, she has taken powerful action to increase awareness, but more must be done to progress this message.
Currently there is no early detection test available for the screening of ovarian cancer, which means that often when it's diagnosed the disease is already in advanced stages. Without the ability to do early screening and detection, many, many more Australian women's lives will be lost because we have missed the opportunity to treat them at an earlier stage. That's why we must continue to increase our investment in health and medical research in Australia, particularly so that we can find early detection measures and mechanisms that will allow women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer to be treated much earlier. This would give them a better chance in life, as we wish to do for all other people in Australia who are diagnosed with cancer. The coalition were pleased to make available $21 million for ovarian cancer research, and we will continue to work with the government to make sure that this research investment is continued and is an absolutely top priority for the government of this country going forward.
Along with improving access to treatment and making sure we've got research into better treatment and diagnosis, it's important that we have the right programs to support women when they are diagnosed with all sorts of cancers, but particularly ovarian cancer, given that it has such a low survival rate. In February last year, $2 million was provided by the coalition to Ovarian Cancer Australia so that they could continue to provide vital psychosocial telehealth services through their Teal Support Program. Those services go along with the psychosocial supports that so many women value so deeply when they find themselves on the horrible journey that is cancer.
Today, Ovarian Cancer Australia are asking for $4 million to continue this important work. It is important work to make sure that every woman who is diagnosed with ovarian cancer does not walk that journey alone. It seems quite a small ask.
I'd like to take this opportunity today to thank, in particular, Ovarian Cancer Australia and all the amazing people who work in research, who work in support, who work in mental support services, for the extraordinary work that they do: the tirelessness, the selflessness that they present every day as they walk beside women who are taking this terrible journey. It's critical that we continue, as governments and as people in this place, to support programs that are going to support women who have to make this journey. It's important that we continue to support research. We must do all we can to increase awareness, to increase education and to make sure that medical research and support for victims of ovarian cancer is the best that we can provide them.
Senat or O'NEILL (New South Wales) (19:50): by leave—I associate myself with the remarks from Senator Ruston and table the piece from the Irish Nationalist about Nessa Delaney for the chamber to have on record.
Radioactive Material
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (19:50): Last month in my home state of Western Australia, a small amount of radioactive material went missing somewhere near the Pilbara. Under the so-called 'care' of fossil fuel giant Rio Tinto, this material fell off the back of a truck. No, you didn't hear that wrong. It fell off the back of a truck. You honestly could not make this up. Worse: this material, contained within a small capsule, remained lost in the Pilbara for a week. That was seven days in which a radioactive pellet was languishing somewhere out in the community before it was found just south of Newman. This capsule was about the size of the nail on my pinky finger, lost somewhere in 1,400-kilometre stretch of desert highway. I think the chamber can appreciate just how unlikely its recovery was, how lucky and how incredibly, absolutely unacceptable it was that it was lost to begin with.
Now, this radioactive capsule posed a serious health risk, emitting the same amount of radiation a person would be exposed to in an entire year. It had the potential to cause radiation sickness and burns to anyone who may have come in contact with it. The significant environmental risk it posed through contamination to soil or a water source is almost unbearable to think about, yet the maximum penalty under the law for such an egregious breach of safety is a mere $1,000.
Radiation Services WA, a radiation management company that services the mining industry, described the loss of this radioactive capsule as 'highly unusual'. Let's consider that. Every year around the world, there are more than 1,000 incidents of radioactive materials going missing. Here in Australia we have had 27 such incidents in the past seven years alone. Does this really qualify as highly unusual? I don't know about you, but it strikes me as frighteningly too usual. The incident forms part of a much bigger picture here in Australia: of AUKUS, of the federal government's proposed dump of nuclear waste in South Australia, of the repeated attempts to revive the nuclear power conversation. They are all connected because they all put our community at an unacceptable risk.
We need fewer nuclear projects and less reliance on nuclear technology, not more. We need far stronger safeguards around the management of nuclear material and far stricter penalties for any such breaches. We need a guarantee from our government that the community will not be exposed to this kind of risk ever again. How are we to trust them when they insist that a nuclear dump or a nuclear propelled submarine is safe when they cannot even keep radioactive materials from falling off the back of a truck?
This incident is a timely reminder of what the Greens have been saying since our very inception: nuclear is never the answer and radioactive materials pose an unacceptable danger to the community. The Greens will continue to fight to ensure that these soul-shivering radioactive incidents never occur again, that this is the very last time that the WA community is placed at such a risk.
Women's Safety
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (19:55): I rise to speak today on the important issue of women's safety. Any government and any policy that allows a violent male rapist to choose to be placed in a women's prison has profoundly lost its way. For a number of years, women's rights campaigners have been trying to warn that self-identification policies, which have been embraced by governments worldwide in the name of inclusion, create loopholes that dangerous male predators will exploit. The response to women raising those logical concerns has been for left-wing politicians and media outlets to go on the attack—not against the predators who exploit these loopholes and put women in danger but against the women who sound the alarm. We have seen a classic example of this occur over the last few weeks in Scotland.
The Scottish government allowed a man called Adam Graham to elect to be sent to a women's prison after being convicted of raping two women. As many in Scotland have pointed out, Adam Graham was far from the first dangerous male sex offender in Scotland to be housed alongside women, but this time something happened that the Scottish government weren't expecting, and that was that the media actually called them out for it. There was a predictable and swift public backlash, particularly because the Scottish government had spent the previous months insisting that this would never happen and that anyone who suggested that it would were bigots. As usual, women who correctly pointed out what would happen were attacked by the political Left as transphobic and as TERFs—all the usual slurs thrown at women by the Left to intimidate others into staying silent.
The Scottish government and its First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, confirmed that those women were right all along when it was announced last week that Adam Graham would be moved out of the women's prison. But by dodging questions about other male sex offenders in women's prisons Ms Sturgeon unwittingly revealed the truth about self-identification in prison policies. That truth is that such policies are always based on secrecy and falsehoods and are unjustifiable when exposed to public scrutiny. That's why the governments and lobby groups who create these policies do whatever they can to hide the truth from the public, and this brings me to Australia.
We don't have to look overseas for evidence that dangerous men can identify as women and be placed in women's prisons. It's happening right here. Every government, state and federal, knows that it's happening. They rely on the silence and complicity of the media to sustain this policy to attack any woman who raises it in the public domain. Just like in Scotland, governments and the media in Australia have stayed deliberately quiet about male offenders who identify as women and request to access women's prisons.
How many Australian media outlets have reported that a man sent to a women's prison in Victoria had spent six years in a German prison for repeatedly sexually abusing his six-year-old daughter; that, upon returning to Australia, he was charged and imprisoned for failing to comply with sex offender reporting obligations; that, despite this conviction, he is known by police to use multiple different identities, which has somehow been permitted, according to the AFP in answers provided to me through Senate estimates, on the grounds that he 'did not officially change their name but rather chose to informally be known by other names'—and that is a direct quote from that response—and that he committed a serious sexual assault on a woman in 2021 yet was sent to a women's prison? Any reasonable person knows that this is indefensible, just as the Scottish government ultimately could not defend placing Adam Graham in a women's prison when they were caught out. That's why activists and governments put so much effort into stopping the media reporting on this information so it never reaches the public.
Interest Rates
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (19:59): I rise tonight to talk about interest rates. Interest rates are something that we've talked a lot about over the last few years. You would have heard time and time again those on this side of the chamber telling the Australian people that interest rates are always lower under the Liberals and under a coalition government. I've said it myself, but I thought I would just dig back through the records and look at the actual facts, and put some of the facts about those average interest rates under Labor versus the coalition on the table.
Firstly, for mortgage holders: obviously, the underlying cash rate is not the mortgage rate—it's two to three per cent higher for a mortgage rate. But the average cash rate since 1990, when the RBA started publishing the cash rate, is 6.17 per cent under Labor. Under the coalition it's 3.69 per cent. Again, for an average mortgage holder, where the interest rates are two to three per cent higher than those average cash rates, you're looking at an average interest rate under Labor of around eight per cent—between eight and nine per cent—and, under the coalition, of between four and 4½ per cent. So you're talking about a very real difference for mortgage holders in this country.
What about the highest cash rate we've seen in that period since 1990? That's 32 years—let's call it a generation. Under Labor, the highest rate was over 17 per cent, after the recession we had to have in 1990. The highest cash rate under the coalition government was 6.75 per cent. My mum and dad were small-business people. My mum and dad had a farm with an overdraft. This is something that affects small business owners fundamentally. A difference like this was the difference between making a profit and making a loss in those years under Labor, when we saw the interest rates hit 17 per cent. Again, this was the cash rate; a cash rate of 17 per cent meant a rate of 22 to 23 per cent per annum for my mum and dad's overdraft.
And, finally, let's have a look at the lowest cash rate recorded under the ALP versus under the coalition government. The lowest cash rate recorded under the ALP was 0.85 per cent, and I admit that's low. It happened to be in the first month when they were in government, and they inherited it from the coalition government. But under the coalition government it was 0.1 per cent. So we can see over a period of 30 years—in fact, over the entire period where the RBA has been publishing a target cash rate—the coalition delivering lower interest rates than Labor. That's something that all Australians should remember.
Cost of Living
Turkiye and Syria: Earthquake
Asylum Seekers
Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (20:02): Interest rates went up again today. For those with a mortgage, these constant rises are brutal as budgets are squeezed to keep paying off a home. For renters, prices are already astronomical and getting worse. We hear stories about families looking for cheaper places to live, of rental inspections with 50 people looking at a single home and of people renting homes without ever having seen them, out of pure desperation.
Mortgages are rising faster than wages and rents are rising faster than wages. Food, fuel and electricity are all rising faster than wages. People are starting to make choices: to pay the electricity bill or to take a child to the dentist for a check-up; or a fortnight of train fares or a single session with a mental health professional. These are awful, impossible choices—like to pay for new school shoes or to buy groceries. Wages have been deliberately suppressed by state and federal governments, with wage gaps, freezes and anti-strike laws, and by corporations, with increasing commercialisation and precarious work.
Workers are paying the price, while billionaires are celebrated and treated as media personalities for increasing their already obscene wealth. And corporations, who never waste a crisis, report ever-larger profits. It's time to restore wages and to tax profits and obscene wealth. If we do that, we can ensure that every Australian has a secure home. We can fund essential public services that put dental and mental into Medicare. And we can make this country live up to its increasingly tattered promise of a fair go all round.
In the last 24 hours, more than 4,800 people have been killed in deadly earthquakes across Turkiye, Syria and the lands of the Kurdish people. Many thousands more are trapped in collapsed buildings, or are missing. This devastation, grief and loss is in addition to the trauma of 11 years of ongoing conflict in Syria and the region. The humanitarian needs were already enormous, but now hundreds of thousands more are in need of shelter, food, water, fuel and essential trauma informed care.
Survivors after such grief and pain face the added hardship of a freezing winter, with some areas in deep snow. While we stand in this building today, warm and comfortable, hundreds of thousands of people who have just undergone a catastrophe, many losing loved ones, are now waiting for our aid and our help in the snow. It is unthinkable. I note the $10 million in urgent aid announced by the Australian government as a positive first step, and I hope our government remains open to offer every possible assistance in the next days and months to ensure a humanitarian response that helps as many people as possible and, particularly, that supports local humanitarian actors working on the ground in their own community.
I've spoken to families here just today about what their extended families are facing on the ground. They've asked for the Australian government to ensure that our aid goes directly to the communities affected, whether they be Turkish, Arabic or Kurdish, and that it's distributed free of discrimination. Now more than ever, the broken politics of division in the region must be set aside for common humanity, and I stand here—I think with all of us—in solidarity with all of those affected.
Today this parliament heard from the powerful Behrouz Boochani about the devastating laws that imprisoned him and thousands of other refugees. Every day we hear tragic stories that highlight the inhumane nature of our refugee laws that torture and cause suffering of refugees. I want to share just one of those stories with you. Leila and her son were refugees from Iran. In 2013 they had no choice but to board a leaky boat and seek asylum in Australia. They were imprisoned on Nauru, and her son was just nine. She told that story today through a painting. This painting is a portrait of her son and his journey as a refugee. It represents the constant threats that he and other children in his situation have received since stepping foot in Australia. For 10 years, they were threatened and bullied, and constantly told they were not allowed to stay in Australia—not allowed to study, to get a job, to have a normal family life or to hope for a secure future. The impacts have been devastating for her son and her family.
Leila's painting represents just one of thousands of stories from Australia's offshore detention system. Countless families have been victimised by both major parties in Australia. Too many people have lost or taken their lives. The scars and trauma will stay with their families forever. After 10 years of suffering, Leila told me she doesn't expect the Australian parliament to become humane, and that is a heartbreaking conclusion. If you listen closely, her request has actually moved beyond this parliament. She wants freedom. Freedom to work, to study and to have access to basic human rights. Freedom as human beings. In the words of the ever-inspiring Behrouz Boochani: 'Freedom, only freedom.'
I seek leave of the Senate to table this document.
Leave granted.
Bennett, Mr John P, AM
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (20:07): For decades, the hard work of John Bennett AM was done in the shadows—in the soft grey light of early morning and the pitch black of cold Tasmanian evenings. Day in, day out, rain, hail or shine, the Bennett family would work. The work would often go unnoticed, but it was crucial work that ensured that thousands of Tasmanians started their day off right—with breakfast. How many of you started off your day this morning with a bowl of cereal? If not that, how many of you had a cup of coffee? What do these two things have to do with John Bennett? Both of these items are mostly served with milk, and there is no-one more synonymous with the dairy industry in Tasmania than John Bennett AM.
John was the co-founder of Ashgrove Farms. If you've not heard of them, they are the homes of the happiest cows in Tasmania. John, sadly, passed away last month, and I think it's incredibly important that we take a moment to consider his legacy to agriculture, not only in Tasmania but in Australia. There are many words that could be used to describe John Bennett—icon, founding father, entrepreneur, pioneer and visionary—but he was, first and foremost, a family man, a father and, of course, a farmer. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my condolences to his family on their loss.
The idea for Ashgrove was initiated by John and his brother Michael, and their wives Connie and Maureen, in the late 1980s after John spent many years studying agriculture and cheese manufacturing on family farms in the UK. At the time, unemployment on the north-west coast of Tasmania was high, and dairy farmers in Tasmania were among the worst-paid in the world. Decades later, Ashgrove is a dairy-producing powerhouse and an iconic tourism destination. Its innovative Dairy Door at Elizabeth Town attracts thousands of visitors every year, following a $2 million investment in the facility recently. Ashgrove is unique. It was one of the first examples of agritourism in Tasmania, and it has paved the way for the industry to thrive. John Bennett and Ashgrove Farms wanted to throw open the gates rather than shut them, and people loved it.
None of this would have been possible without the vision of John Bennett, who had a lifelong commitment to serving his community. John's mark on the dairy industry will never be forgotten. He paved the way as a founding member of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and was a member of the inaugural National Farmers Federation. He first represented dairy farmers in 1972 as a delegate to the northern dairy division of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and was elected in 1974 as chair of the state division of the Dairy Council. He was president of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation from 1976 to 1985 and deputy chair of the Australian Dairy Corporation from 1981 to 1986. As inaugural chair of the Australian Dairy Conference, from 1976 to 1985, he was responsible for bringing together farmers and dairy manufacturers for the first time. In 1980, he initiated the establishment of the Australian Specialist Cheesemakers Association. And in the seventies and eighties John held the role of director of the Asia Dairy Industries and, following that, was appointed as president-commissioner of PT Indomilk and director of the Thai Dairy Industry Company between 1980 and 1987. His standing on the international dairy scene was cemented when he was elected vice-president of the International Federation of Agriculture Dairy Division in 1982. In 1992 he was named a Member of the Order of Australia for his services to the Australian dairy industry.
A common thread throughout the life of John Bennett is service. Not only did he serve the dairy industry but he was also fiercely passionate about serving his community, which he did until his recent passing. John served his community as a Deloraine municipal councillor from 1970 to 1979 and as a member of the Deloraine Rotary Club for 20 years, where he served as president between 1997 and 1998 and was named a Paul Harris Fellow in 2002.
While farming was in his blood, the importance of community events and tourism was also paramount in the mind of John Bennett, which was evident in one of his smaller but nonetheless significant roles. For three years John Bennett was director of the extremely successful and popular Tasmanian Craft Fair, between 2000 and 2004. The Craft Fair is organised by the Rotary Club of Deloraine in conjunction with other service clubs in the area and has become an iconic event for our state.
John Bennett was a leader, a passionate community member and a farmer. But he was also much more: a craftsman, a fisherman and a family man—a father and grandfather. He was a visionary who looked beyond the present and manifested a future in which we can all benefit. Thank you, John, for your lifetime of service. Vale, John Bennett.
Communism
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (20:12): In 1979, Margaret Thatcher prophetically said:
Communism never sleeps, never changes its objectives, nor must we.
While the rhetoric has changed, the ethos is still alive and well and the objectives of communism remain the same: the abolition of private property and total control afforded to the state. Today, believers in Marx's utopian fantasy continue to populate government departments, our education system, universities and the media. As Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci said in 1915:
Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.
Not much has changed today. Engels, the co-author of TheCommunist Manifesto, wrote:
The abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterise the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry—and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.
The main demand of communists is, 'You'll own nothing and you'll be happy,' a catchphrase often used by the World Economic Forum. Marx claimed to be concerned for the rights of the working class, although he never actually worked a day in his life. And he was right when he said that the powerful and wealthy can and will exploit weaker people. The solution is not abolishing the right to property, but upholding it—not giving total control to the state but minimising it. Marx even desired to abolish the family unit, the concept of the nation and institutions, which he viewed as the old social order. Well, in 2023, the old social order is increasingly under attack. The nuclear family is under attack. Children are being indoctrinated in our schools, where they're separated from their parents into social justice ideology as well as a general dependence on the state, complete with critical race theory, the diversity equity inclusion agenda and climate alarmism.
Taxes and the cost of living are needlessly high, and the state's monopoly over finance and how you spend your money is expanding. Progressive activists backed by the state use identity politics to foster grievances between so-called identity groups. It's no longer about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; it's now about one's race, gender, sexuality and so on. That's why the government promotes things like the Voice to Parliament and so-called gender conversion therapy laws, fostering division. Those become protected by the state, getting them on side to make them dependent. Climate action requires that we ban fossil fuels in pursuit of net zero. COVID requires you to let the government control your medical decisions and restrict your movements. Racism and sexism require employee quotas and mandatory diversity workshops. You can see the trend. We must resist the welfare state, which global entities such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations endlessly promote, and we must do the opposite of what Marx argued for: protect the nuclear family and our national heritage.
Today the communists have swapped the Mao suits for three-piece suits and the corporate boardroom. Marxism continues to rise and haunt us. But if we understand it we can defeat it. If it bleeds, we can kill it.
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (20:16): I rise every February, ever since I've been in this place, to speak on Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, being February, and the devastating effect that ovarian cancer has on women and their families in Australia. Unfortunately, ovarian cancer statistics are not getting any better. Cancer Australia reports that, in the four years between 2018 and 2022, ovarian cancer diagnoses rose. It reports that one in 84 women risk being diagnosed with ovarian cancer. The Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation reports that every eight hours one woman dies in Australia from ovarian cancer. That is three women a day, three families that are devastated by this disease ever single day.
Ovarian cancer is not simple to diagnose. Symptoms are too easily mimicked by menstrual symptoms of gastrointestinal complaints. It's so easy for women to put them down to their normal cycle or to think they've eaten something or they're feeling bloated. As I will articulate later, women who are working as flight attendants put it down to just their job. Doctors try to rule out other issues through non-invasive methods before putting forward the idea that they will have to do invasive tests to confirm whether or not there is ovarian cancer. Due to this late diagnosis, approximately 70 per cent of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer are diagnosed with a disease that has already spread. They are normally in stage 3 or stage 4. We're seeing only a quarter of women diagnosed live more than five years past receiving their diagnosis. Early-stage diagnosis can dramatically improve the chance of survival by 90 per cent.
We have to do so much more about raising awareness in relation to ovarian cancer. Almost one in every three Australians don't even realise that there is a difference between cervical cancer, which is routinely screened for, and ovarian cancer. When it comes to raising awareness we can all do our part. Have those conversations with your friends, work colleagues and family members. The more we talk about ovarian cancer, the more awareness will grow within the community.
I'd just like to put on the record—and I have my Tasmanian colleagues here; they may not be as fanatical as me—that the Tasmanian JackJumpers, the National Basketball League team from Tasmania, are fantastic. We are so proud of them.
It was great to watch our great JackJumpers on 29 January. They initiated wearing teal to raise awareness of and to demonstrate their support for gynaecological cancer in conjunction with the words, 'Support, hope, educate, achieve'. The fact that a men's basketball team of such great calibre was able to raise awareness is a really good example of what can be done. This is not just an issue for women; this is the responsibility of all of us—and I see those opposite nodding their heads. It is important that the JackJumpers and other sporting teams demonstrate their support, as the Australian cricket team have got behind Breast Cancer Australia and we know about the wonderful work that's being done there.
This is the deadliest cancer for women in this country. I acknowledge the wonderful work that is being done by Ovarian Cancer Australia. We're looking for support because we need to put more pressure on our government—which I intend to do—to continue to fund the very important research into this cancer. Ovarian Cancer Australia is trying to raise $4 million. This money will help grow the specialist ovarian cancer nurse Teal Support Program and it will also help progress research. We're finding that it is not just the physical diagnosis and the treatment that women have to endure. This disease has a psychosocial impact on their lives, and that's devastating. It's devastating for their families, and so we need more nurses that can be there to give the support and the psychosocial counselling that is needed to alleviate the depression that comes with the diagnosis. These women also suffer from anxiety and feelings of isolation because they believe that they're walking this path alone.
Those services need to be there because the diagnosis does not just affect the individual with the diagnosis but also their families. They have to have conversations with their children and their families. In addition, there are the economic costs of the depression, the anxiety and their fear of the recurrence of the disease. They have to deal with changes to their sexuality, their body image, how they relate to their intimate partners. These are things that we need to be talking about. We also need to talk about the nutritional plans that they need to have. They need dietitians, that support, that counselling. Let's be real: in the last 30 years very little has changed in the treatment of ovarian cancer, and the devastation of this disease continues to grow.
I want to acknowledge what happens to women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and the wonderful work of Ovarian Cancer Australia every single day to support Australian women. I want to talk about two women in particular, and I thank them for giving me permission to tell their stories and to put them on the record. I thank Alisi Jack-Kaufusi and Carolynne for allowing me to share their stories. Carolynne was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in March 2022. She went to the emergency department with severe pain in her lower right side. Her doctor did a CT scan, and this showed a 16-centimetre growth from around her right ovary. Carolynne started treatment, and that cancer treatment made her feel terrible. Physically, she felt so unwell. She was struggling with the change in her appearance and how this impacted her mental health. She has two children, and the first question that they asked when she was talking to them was, 'Am I going to die?' This is a horrible conversation to have to have with your children. But with the support of the Teal Support Program and her oncologist her overall health has improved, and we hope that continues to occur.
This morning, at the Parliamentary Teal Ribbon Breakfast, we heard from Alisi. In 2017, as just a young woman, a 20-year-old, who was living a full life, working as a flight attendant, she was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer. Alisi told her story. She talked about having a full life in her twenties before she was devastated with the news that she had ovarian cancer. She described the intimate details of how she felt—the physical and mental anguish that she went through.
Unfortunately for Alisi, her cancer has come back three times, and each time she's gone back to study; she's rebuilt her life. Obviously, it's not the life that she's had, with the feelings that she had; she was no longer the beautiful young woman who knew where her life was leading. She had her goals and her plans.
The devastation of this is that the aggressive nature of the chemotherapy and the treatment that she's had have brought her to a point where she's had to make that decision not to continue with the treatment. She's looking at the quality of her life and she wants to be able to tick off a lot of those things that she'd aspired to do in her life—the bucket list, as we refer to it. But what she really wants to do is to make sure that her life means something. From what she's gone through, time and time again, she's been able to tell her story, whether it's through the media, through groups or through the work she does. What she delivered to us today would have to have been the most powerful presentation that I have experienced in all the years I have been in this place. It was so powerful. There was not a person who left that breakfast who has not been impacted. I want her to know that she will not be forgotten and her words will stay with us. I thank her for her courage and the power of her speech and her message. (Time expired)
Reserve Bank of Australia
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (20:26): At last year's G20 summit in Bali, the leaders' declaration contained an innocuous statement, in paragraph 30:
G20 central banks are strongly committed to achieving price stability …
… … …
Central bank independence is crucial to achieving these goals and buttressing monetary policy credibility.
This statement couldn't be further from the truth. Central banks are the cause of the current bout of inflation and upheaval in the world, and their independence is the problem. The rise of independent bureaucrats has led to the rise of a powerful class of people called autocrats: government officials who are accountable to no-one. They have no place in a democracy.
Monetary policy is the least understood role of government. In fact, monetary policy is so little understood that there was no controversy in the 1990s when the RBA became independent. Imagine if today's Treasurer was to allow the Australian tax office to set rates independent from the parliament, yet that is exactly what the RBA can do with regard to the price of money without any parliamentary oversight. This price fixing arrangement should dispel any notion that the people of Australia operate in a free market. It is time the people and elected politicians woke up to the importance of monetary policy as a tool critical for good government. To do that requires a far greater understanding of how monetary policy works and its history.
Many wars have been fought and are currently being fought over who controls the printing press. Before paper money, wealth had to be stored as a form of hard asset, whether it be gold, land or livestock. While hard assets were always vulnerable to conquest and theft, the custody of wealth was always much more transparent. The introduction of paper money to Europe in the late 17th century changed the way monetary policy worked and saw the rise of a powerful new business class: the banking industry, an industry which produces nothing but controls everything.
From the 17th century through to the early 20th century there has been a constant battle between governments and the private sector as to who controls the price and volume of money in the system. A stable currency is vital if it is to maintain confidence as a medium of exchange. The revolutionary war was just as much about the control of the new colony's monetary supply as taxation with no representation.
In the mid-1700s, the USA was not indebted to a privately owned central bank. It used its own currency called the colonial script which provided a reliable medium of exchange. Most importantly, these were notes, not bills, so the colony didn't have to pay interest to private banks. America had learned the secret of money, much to the dismay of the Bank of England. Not surprisingly, the British parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money so that Britain could, instead, lend to the early settlers and bleed the new colonies of their wealth—much like the petrodollar of today, which I'll touch on later on.
Benjamin Franklin claims that this was the cause for the American Revolution. He said:
The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created great unemployment and dissatisfaction … The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the International Bankers was … the Prime reason for the Revolutionary War.
No country is truly democratic or independent unless it controls its own currency. Currencies are underwritten by taxes on the people. As a result, it is the people via the democratic process—and not unelected bankers—who should control the currency. I don't have time to go through all the political battles in regard to monetary policy throughout the 19th century in the United States. But it is worth noting that, unlike today, monetary policy was a political issue.
Unfortunately, in 1913 the private bankers gained control of the US printing press. Unbeknown to most people the federal reserve is privately owned, unlike most other central banks in the world. I should note that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, a story more associated with the children's movie than the original book, was based on William Jennings Bryan, the 1896 Democrat US presidential candidate who advocated against private banks controlling the monetary supply. He was represented by the lion in the book: 'Bryan Lion'.
In the original story, Dorothy wore silver slippers and represented the American people. The scarecrow represented the farmer and the tin man represented the worker. The yellow brick road was, of course, gold. The emerald city was the same colour as the greenback, and the man behind the curtain represented the central banker. In the end, Dorothy realises that the wizard is nothing but a fraud—much like today's central bankers. The power in her shoes was represented by silver—and was outside the control of central banks. Bryan wanted silver as a part of the currency standard so that banks couldn't control the currency.
The US dollar gained hegemonic status at the end of World War II when the Bank of England was nationalised. Unbeknown to the British people, they were forced to repay the cost of war in US dollars for the next 60 years. The transfer of wealth from the Old World to the New World was complete. Paper money must be backed by a hard asset if it is to retain its value and credibility.
That nexus was broken in 1971, when Nixon went off the gold standard due to the USA's inability to fund the Vietnam War. Inflation quickly reared its ugly head. To curve it, the petrodollar was created, with the cooperation of one of the world's worst perpetrators of human rights: Saudi Arabia. Because oil has to be paid for with US dollars, countries need to borrow US dollars. This means they pay interest to the private owners of the US federal reserve. All users of US dollars, including US citizens themselves, must pay interest to these unelected bankers. The USA of the 1970s found itself in the same position as Britain in 1764, forcing other countries to use its currency in order to pay for foreign wars. Any threat to the petrodollar must be destroyed at all costs.
The greatest threat in recent times has been the creation of the euro. The Iraq War was the result of Saddam Hussein wanting payment for Iraq's oil in euro, which was a threat to the petrodollar. The same goes for the war in Ukraine. The sale of Russian energy via the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany will undercut energy supplies backed by US dollars. 'US dollars' is a misleading term as it is really the deep state dollar. What else is misleading is the idea that soldiers fight wars in the name of democracy and freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wars are fought to protect the private unknown bankers who control the world's printing press.
It is time the spotlight was shone on these central bankers and they were held to account for the financial hardship and bloodshed they cause. I believe the 1937 banking royal commission got it right when it said the government should regulate the volume of credit in the system with oversight of its distribution, while privately owned training banks should be responsible for the distribution of credit.
The RBA should stop relying on foreign debt to fund Australia's growth. This only transfers wealth offshore. Rather than adopt an austerity policy by raising interest rates—which is going to have catastrophic results for many homeowners in the next 12 months—the RBA needs to adopt a productivity policy through the funding of government infrastructure. Why should Australian governments—both state and federal—have to pay private banks interest to fund the construction of infrastructure? These are hard assets that generate wealth for a nation. If the government builds a dam for $1 billion and funds that via offshore debt then the first $1 billion it creates will have to be repaid offshore. That's not to mention the accumulated interest which often ends up being more than the original amount of principle.
This strategy isn't new. Lachlan Macquarie was the first governor to see Australia as a country and not a colony. He knew, perhaps based on the experience of the US patriots, that countries should have their own currency, which is why he introduced Australia's first currency: the holey dollar. Unfortunately, today the holey dollar logo is used by Macquarie Bank, whose business model is to help manage the privatisation of our nation's infrastructure. It's time the RBA adopted quantitative, productive measures that will fund infrastructure to build our nation rather than destroying it via this ridiculous austerity policy that is only going to result in the asset-stripping of hundreds of thousands of Australians in losing their homes.
Brain Cancer
Senator LAM BIE (Tasmania) (20:36): Tonight I'm presenting a speech written by Ken Fleming, father of Jack, who passed away at 21 from brain cancer. While this isn't an easy speech to read or hear, it's too important not to. This is Ken's story:
'Brain cancer kills more Australian children than any other disease. It also kills more people under 40 in Australia than any other cancer.' I didn't know this. I naively thought leukemia was the no. 1 killer of children in Australia. My brutal awakening started on the evening of Saturday 28 May 2016. My son Jack, who was 19 at the time, complained of a headache. My wife, Dianne, told him to take a couple of panadol and lie down. We didn't think anything of it. That night he had his first seizure and spent the night in hospital under observation.
Several tests later, including a biopsy on 6 July, we met with his neurosurgeon, Andrew Hunn, on 8 July. Andrew sat directly in front of Jack and said: 'I am afraid I have bad news for you, Jack, and wish there was some other way to tell you, but you have brain cancer. And it is terminal. It's called glioblastoma multiforme, or GBM, and it is stage 4.' Jack didn't say a word. I could hear Dianne's breathing but not my own. I'd stopped breathing. I said, 'How long?' He said a year, give or take a month or two.
We got 22 months.
Jack said, 'All I want to do is live.' I knew I would do everything in my power to make that happen. But I didn't. I couldn't. As a parent, I felt my greatest failing was my inability to prevent the death of my child. A chance meeting with Professor Manuel Graeber gave a glimmer of hope. He was surprised that someone so young was diagnosed with such an aggressive form of brain cancer. Collaborating with Dr Michael Buckland, they conducted molecular testing of Jack's tumour, a procedure that is not routinely used in Australia for brain cancer diagnoses. The original diagnosis was confirmed, along with a number of factors and unique markers that led to a new treatment regime and access to antibody drug ABT-414.
While Jack was alive, we invested in a whisky company, and while I have now sold it, the new owners will be dedicating a barrel, with all the bottles to be auctioned to raise money to help fund the testing facility. After Jack died, I wrote a book—Jack's Story. It's not a fairy tale; it's a tale in search of a solution.
Leukemia, breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancers, amongst others, have experienced major breakthroughs in recent years and may not be a death sentence. However, brain cancer survival rates are low and have hardly changed for 30 years, despite significant increases in survival for Australians diagnosed with other types of cancer. Since Jack died, I have been collaborating with the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney University and Sydney Local Health District to establish a molecular testing facility in Sydney for brain cancer patients. Together a formal submission was made to the former health minister to establish the facility, along with a letter I wrote, a copy of Jack's Story and a T-shirt. The T-shirt had a picture of a tattoo on the front—"the tattoo that never was"—and a picture of Jack on the back—"the boy who is no more". His response was an invitation to Canberra to discuss our proposal. I had many discussions with the former health minister subsequent to that and have a photo of him wearing Jack's T-shirt on a run around Lake Burley Griffin. Unfortunately, COVID got in the way and everything was put on hold.
I wrote to the new minister for health, Mark Butler, on 11 July 2022 and enclosed a copy of my submission for the facility in Sydney, my book and a T-shirt. I also told him of the three pioneers of Australian whisky—Bill Lark, of Lark Distillery; Casey Overeem, of Overeem Whisky; and Patrick Maguire, of Sullivan's Cove—and our joint project to auction bottles of whisky from the first whisky barrel we produced to raise money for the research facility in Sydney.
Minister Butler's response was perfunctory, patronising, dismissive and discourteous, and he made no acknowledgment of the submission, which was authored by three prominent organisations, all of whom are directly or indirectly involved in brain cancer research. There was no thankyou for the book or T-shirt and no acknowledgment or even encouragement for the proposed auction of whisky bottles or the cause it was supporting. The response from Minister Butler was a marketing opportunity about all the wonderful things that 'this government' is doing in brain cancer research.
I also wrote to Senator Ruston, shadow minister for health and aged care, but only received a cursory acknowledgment.
The reason I approached Senator Lambie was that I needed someone who was principled, fearless and equally passionate about children's health to ask the minister the following questions—
These are the questions:
1. Why was such a well-thought-through and considered proposal to establish a molecular testing facility, authored by three prominent Australian organisations, completely ignored?
2. Was my book read?
3. And maybe a word of support to three iconic Australian whisky brands to raise money wouldn't have gone astray?
I have similarly written to the Minister for Health in NSW in 2022, and at least Minister Butler is one step ahead, as I have received nothing from Brad Hazzard.
I'm not special, just a father who lost a son, and, like many parents, I just want to do something that might save another child's life. Seven million dollars—
We're talking about millions, not billions—
is desperately needed, and maybe a conversation between Brad Hazzard, Mark Butler and the three organisations I have been collaborating with might find a way forward to fund a molecular testing facility and help me find solace knowing that I may have helped save a life, and the universe will be back in balance again.
That is Ken's tale. I know he's not the only parent to lose a child to cancer, and he won't be the last, and that thought just breaks my heart. I know that we've been talking about cancer up here, and it's really hard when someone passes, but I think that we all have to admit that what really, deep down, pulls at the heart strings is when it involves our kids, whether they're kids of disadvantage or kids that are sick and dying. Let's be honest here; it really does pull at our heart strings. I'm asking the Labor Party to please look at this. It's $7 million. If we don't have one of those facilities, we need one, and it's not a lot to ask.
I will see Minister Butler, but I did promise Ken I would tell his tale, and I have done that to pay respect to his son. Once again, I'm sure, Minister Butler, that you'll hear this. I'm hoping that you could just do the right thing and contact Ken—he's been through enough—and at least show your support and talk to him. That is all I'm asking for, and I think, out of respect, Ken and his family deserve that. But it's not just that. If that $7 million does this and we can help other kids in the future, whether it's to even slow down the progression and give them a longer life, then for seven million bucks we're not asking a lot.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): I remind senators of standing order 185(1).
Human Rights
Senator RICE (Victoria) (20:44): The Australian Greens believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected for all people in all countries. That principle informed my approach as the Greens foreign affairs spokesperson, and it continues to inform my views on foreign policy. I want to particularly note and thank Senator Steele-John, who is now the Greens foreign affairs spokesperson, for his important advocacy in this portfolio and the passion he has for justice and human rights around the world.
I want to start tonight talking about human rights and foreign affairs, starting with Magnitsky legislation. The Magnitsky legislation that Australia has in place is something I campaigned for strongly, including by introducing the Human Rights (Targeted Sanctions) Bill 2021. I note there are a number of improvements in that bill that could still be incorporated into our current Magnitsky framework.
Having campaigned for that legislation and for the imposition of targeted sanctions against leaders of the coup in Myanmar, it has been a relief to see the Australian government finally impose targeted sanctions against the leaders of the coup. It is much later than it should have been, but it is an important step and one that brings Australia closer to being in line with a number of other countries who have rightly responded to the ongoing atrocities that are occurring in Myanmar by targeting those that are responsible for so much suffering. I want to thank those community members, right around Australia, who kept up the pressure before, during and after the election. I also, again, want to particularly note the important work of my colleague, Senator Steele-John.
I also note that the Australian government recently imposed targeted sanctions against key figures who have committed human rights violations in Iran. This is also an important step, and, again, I want to thank those community members who have pushed incredibly hard for this. You know that your advocacy and your campaigning for justice makes a difference.
I recently wrote to the Iranian Ambassador to Australia, notifying that I would be acting as a political sponsor for three young activists, Ali Jahangiri, Sina Mohammed Rezaei and Mehdi Shirani. Tragically, these three young folk are facing execution under a system that is desperate to stamp out every trace of dissent and silence every opposing voice. I want to acknowledge all of those campaigning outside and particularly inside Iran under the unified banner of Woman, Life, Freedom. For your courage and your conviction, we thank you. Too many have paid the ultimate price for their principles and have had their lives cut short by a regime that is so terrified of losing its grip on power that any trace of disagreement, any hint of a different vision, terrifies them.
Applying sanctions is an important step by the Australian government in responding to the atrocities. We think more can be done to respond to the actions of the Iranian revolutionary guard corps through stronger travel bans and further sanctions. This is an important issue, and the Australian government should be closely considering its approach, including ensuring that it is doing everything possible to respond to these horrific atrocities.
I also want to mention the situation in Armenia and Azerbaijan. The closure of the Lackin corridor has had major humanitarian consequences on the Artsakh community and caused great alarm to the Armenian diaspora here in Australia. The Greens have called on Azerbaijan to urgently reopen the corridor to ensure free movement and security and, most importantly, to prevent this crisis escalating. The Greens remain in solidarity with the people of Artsakh, demanding a reopening of the road and reaffirming our support for the rights of all peoples to self-determination.
I also want to mention the situation in Bangladesh. Sadly we continue to see violations of human rights by government. I thank members of the Bangladesh diaspora community in Australia, many of whom live in New South Wales, for their continued advocacy. I had a recent meeting with members of that community and was inspired by their courage and persistence in the face of suffering and attempts to silence them. As Human Rights Watch summarises:
Bangladesh security forces have been implicated in serious abuses, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances.
The government has arrested journalists and critics under the Digital Security Act and otherwise stifled civil society. Authorities fail to protect LGBT people, religious minorities and indigenous populations. Women and girls face widespread violence and sexual assault without reliable protection or legal recourse. We urge the Australian government to do everything it can to address these atrocities and to work to protect and promote human rights whenever possible.
As I speak about human rights around the world, I want to now focus on the plight of peoples who live under occupation, starting with Tibet, which China invaded in 1950, overthrowing the Tibetan government in 1959, 64 years ago. Tibetan Uprising Day is observed on 10 March each year and commemorates the 1959 Tibetan uprising, which ultimately resulted in a violent crackdown on Tibetan independence movements and in the flight of the Dalai Lama into exile. Since that time, it's estimated that over a million Tibetans have been killed and, with the Chinese government policy of resettlement of Chinese people to Tibet, Tibetans have become a minority in their own country.
In November last year, a group of UN special rapporteurs issued a statement noting their grave concerns. They said they had received information:
… concerning what appears to amount to a policy of acculturation and assimilation of the Tibetan culture into the dominant Han Chinese majority, through a series of oppressive actions against Tibetan educational, religious and linguistic institutions, in contradiction with the right to freedom of religion and belief, the right to education and cultural rights of the Tibetan people.
Just yesterday the UN human rights commissioner issued a media statement noting their alarm at the separation of one million Tibetan children from families and forced assimilation at residential schools. I continue to be extremely concerned about the disappearance of the Panchen Lama 28 years ago. Last year I introduced a motion to the Notice Paper calling for the Senate to recognise only a Dalai Lama appointed by Tibetan Buddhist traditions and practices without interference by the Chinese government.
I am looking forward to joining other members of our All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet in April to visit Tibetans in exile in Dharamshala in India and have an audience with the Dalai Lama. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the Tibetan Information Office for extending this invitation to us.
Palestine is another part of the world under occupation. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many other organisations have clearly stated that the actions of the extreme right-wing Israeli government constitute apartheid. Due to the ongoing military blockade of Gaza by the Israeli government, 97 per cent of the water is undrinkable. Media reports indicate that recently there were 144 attacks on Palestinians in a single day. This followed the targeted attack that killed at least seven worshippers outside a synagogue in Jerusalem on Holocaust Remembrance Day. The tragic attack on Jewish people on this solemn day and the subsequent horrific and unrestrained response from the Israeli government is deeply concerning and is no way to achieve progress towards peace. The cycle of violence must end. In that context, the new Israeli government is incredibly concerning. Breaking the Silence stated:
By anyone's standards, this will be the most hardline, ultranationalist and illiberal government Israel has ever known.
A few weeks ago, over 90 countries condemned punitive measures by the Israeli government against Palestinians. We urge the Australian government to join those calls.
The Australian Greens want to see an end to injustice and human rights violations. The Australian government must do more to advocate for an end to the occupation. We want to see peace, justice and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians.
I want to finish by mentioning the situation in West Papua, another occupied part of the world. Indonesia has controlled West Papua since invading in 1963, and security forces are accused of severe human rights violations during the occupation, with an estimated half a million Papuans killed. The Australian government has been blind to these abuses and has failed to take action. We're in solidarity with all the West Papuans who are facing such violence. We urge the Indonesian government to immediately withdraw all military forces and to cease attacks on civilians. Instead, we urge them and we urge the Australian government to support the West Papuan right to self-determination.
Economy
Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (20:54): I rise this evening to make some remarks in relation to the essay which was written by the Hon. Jim Chalmers, MP, the member for Rankin in my home state of Queensland. The article was entitled 'Capitalism after the crises' and it was published in the Monthly magazine of February 2023.
I should say that I have a copy here. I did buy the magazine—there is no such thing as a free lunch; that's one of the economic principles I believe in, so I actually did buy a copy of the magazine. But I left it at my apartment, so I'm using my one free Monthly article and printed this out. But I have certainly paid my dues and I have read the 6,000 words in the article. I want to make some preliminary comments firstly in relation to the member for Rankin.
Firstly, I engage on a very regular basis with the same local communities and multicultural communities that the member for Rankin engages with, and I acknowledge, and deeply respect, the work he does on the ground in his engagement with local communities and multicultural communities. In fact, the last event I attended with him was a celebration of Waitangi Day in Logan City just last Friday.
Secondly, I think it really is important—I think it's incredibly important—that participants in the political sphere actually go to the trouble of putting down their thoughts with respect to their philosophy et cetera, as Mr Chalmers has done in a very well-written and articulate article. I acknowledge that.
And, thirdly: whilst, clearly, this article evidences a deep, philosophical divide between those who are social democrats, on the one hand, and those of us who believe in classical liberal principles with respect to economic management on the other, these are very much two mainstream views with respect to the economy, and so it is quite legitimate that we have this discussion and debate. So I think it is to be welcomed. I may not be able to get through all of my remarks in my 10 minutes, and there may be a collective sigh that that means I'm going to use the next seven minutes! But I will at least attempt to cover some of the main points. I will do this by reference to some of the major players in Mr Chalmers. article.
The first quote is on page 2 of my printout:
Successive leaders failed to find their way conclusively or convincingly past the neoliberalism of the pre-crises period. In other words, while the world was getting more uncertain, we had been growing more vulnerable.
This is in the manner of Kevin Rudd's article which appeared in the same publication following the global financial crisis. There's this attack on the concept of neoliberalism, as if neoliberalism were a dirty word. So I brought some friends with me in order to defend the concept of neoliberalism, and what it actually means.
My first friend, of course, is Nobel Prize laureate Milton Friedman. In his book, Capitalism and Freedom he wrote:
The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation.
… … …
It is this feature of the market that we refer to when we say that the market provides economic freedom. But this characteristic also has implications that go far beyond the narrowly economic. Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority—
as we have today—
The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated—a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.
That is one of my heroes Milton Friedman.
Mr Friedman was inspired by another of my heroes Friedrich Hayek. I wish to quote from Friedrich Hayek's book The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. Friedrich Hayek said:
This book argues that our civilisation depends, not only for its origin but also for its preservation, on what can be precisely described only as the extended order of human cooperation, an order more commonly, if somewhat misleadingly, known as capitalism. To understand our civilisation, one must appreciate that the extended order resulted not from human design or intention but spontaneously: it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain traditional and largely moral practices, many of which men tend to dislike, whose significance they usually fail to understand, whose validity they cannot prove, and which have nonetheless fairly rapidly spread by means of an evolutionary selection—the comparative increase of population and wealth—of those groups that happened to follow them. The unwitting, reluctant, even painful adoption of these practices kept these groups together, increased their access to valuable information of all sorts, and enabled them to be 'fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it' …
… … …
The main point of my argument is, then, that the conflict between, on one hand, advocates of the spontaneous extended human order created by a competitive market, and on the other hand those who demand a deliberate arrangement of human interaction by central authority based on collective command over available resources is due to a factual error by the latter about how knowledge of these resources is and can be generated and utilised.
That's Hayek's The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism.
Of course, Hayek was inspired by Ludwig von Mises. I'd like to quote from Ludwig von Mises's magisterial analysis of socialism entitled Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. He said:
If a socialist community were capable of economic calculation, it could be set up without any change in men's moral character. In a socialist society different ethical standards would prevail from those of a society based on private ownership in the means of production. The temporary sacrifices demanded of the individual by society would be different. Yet it would be no more difficult to enforce the code of socialist morals than it is to enforce the code of capitalist morals, if there were any possibility of making objective computations within the socialist society.
The common theme in all of those contributions is that you do not get better results from seeking to dictate the allocation of resources from a central government under a command structure than you get from the millions and millions of spontaneous decisions made between individuals in a free market who make decisions based on their own interests and who thereby take into account information and knowledge which cannot possibly be taken into account by a government. So we come back to the old debate between classical liberalism on the one hand and social democracy on the other. Those opposite should remember the lessons of the Hawke-Keating years and should remember that this country did have 30 years of economic growth and a major reason for that was that both major parties of government were on the same page with respect to the need for economic reform, with respect to the need for growth based on productivity and on the basis of the power of the market to make decisions, which government is simply unable to make.
Esther House
Senator PRATT (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (21:04): Sexual assault allegations, reports of gay conversion therapy, forcible restraint and unqualified pharmaceutical treatment providers are very unfortunately just a few examples of experiences reported by survivors of Esther House. Esther House was an unregulated private residential facility that until recently was operating in Perth, Western Australia.
Over the duration of its operations, the foundation of Esther House promoted itself as providing mental health and alcohol and other drug treatment services, as well as a range of other in-demand general support services. Esther House received in 2019, under the Morrison government, some $4 million as part of an agreement within the Australian government's Community Health and Hospitals Program. The grant was announced in person by then Prime Minister Scott Morrison during a visit to the facility.
Fortunately, the facility has now closed. In December of 2022, the WA government tabled a report in the state parliament from a parliamentary committee inquiry into the Esther Foundation. The inquiry provided a real opportunity for survivors of this unregulated private health facility to be heard. These survivors were often young and vulnerable at the time of entering this residential facility. Some of those survivors have shared their experiences with me, and I say thank you. I say thank you to the survivors who gave their evidence to the parliamentary committee. I want to send a message to all of those who don't yet feel safe enough to speak out. I hear you and I, too, ask questions as to how this could have been allowed to happen and what we can do to ensure this doesn't happen again.
I'm pleased and relieved to know that the McGowan government has moved on one of the recommendations of the report, and that is to criminalise practices that seek to change or suppress an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no evidence that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed. These practices are more than ineffective; they are simply extremely harmful. I have sat and listened to the recollections of a number of survivors and I know that these practices can amount to torture and can cause long-term mental health issues, even suicide.
The work must continue to ensure that vulnerable people can access the help they need without the risk of unprofessional, unregulated and/or unqualified operators causing them further harm. The report's findings and recommendations point to state government acts and regulations that need review. We at a federal level, though, must also ensure that national frameworks and quality standards are met by private rehabilitation service providers, whether they receive public funding or not. I would like us to keep in mind that, even without direct government funding, facilities like Esther House can and do receive referrals from government agencies. They receive referrals from judges and magistrates. They receive referrals from distressed parents and even individual members of the public, and they receive self-referrals from people in need. They receive in-kind support, small grants and public endorsement from existing state and federal governments, all while avoiding and excluding themselves from the regulatory framework that normally accompanies funding agreements.
It stands to reason that the public should feel confident when they access a rehabilitation service offering mental health support that they will be in a safe and supported environment, with qualified staff and a clear complaints mechanism should any issue arise. It's reasonable to expect that services are subject to systems of monitoring, reporting, minimum standards and licensing—licensing that includes verifiable statistics and best practice methods, with the oversight of a regulating body and a framework. In short, this is what we should expect from any treatment service such as a hospital.
The report of the state parliamentary inquiry makes the important and key distinction between a positive regulatory system, which includes a barrier to entry where specific targets and quality standards need to be met, versus this case where—at best, or in part, but not very much—there was a negative regulatory scheme in place, which focused on dealing with non-compliance of established standards after complaints were made. Even so, very few of those standards were actually upheld in practice or had any oversight within that institution. It was not until complaints were made that caused the institution to be closed that anyone saw any kind of protection. I was horrified to learn that neither the Morrison government's grant agreement nor the subsequent amendment made to the original agreement sought to embed sector-specific quality requirements as part of the initial grants funding requirements.
I'm sad to say that the case of Esther House is not an isolated one. Across the country, there have been other controversies surrounding, in particular, faith based organisations—amongst others, but particularly faith based organisations—seeking to assist vulnerable people but actually perpetuating abuse against them, because they do not have governance and oversight that meets quality frameworks and standards. The inquiry noted in its report similar complaints directed at, for example, Mercy Ministries and Healing House.
The work must continue to ensure that vulnerable people can access the help they need without the risk of unprofessional, unregulated and/or unqualified operators causing them further harm. The report's findings and recommendations point to state government acts, and we must ensure, at a national level, that agencies and organisations like Esther House do not continue to receive government referrals and government funding in the future. In the words of one survivor who shared their horrifying lived experience with me: 'Esther hurt me, broke me down and made me feel like less of a person, or even a being. Every day with myself is a major challenge, and it's exhausting.'
This cannot be allowed to continue to happen. As the report states, the complexity of running a trauma recovery program should have demanded strong governance structures. Where such programs are allowed to exist without them, we're left with an organisation that has the potential to cause far more harm than good and leads us to a place where we have individuals who require more future ongoing mental health support to aid their recovery.
Human Rights
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (21:14): It's a welcome addition to this parliament that there's been a noticeable improvement in the level of interest that Australian parliamentarians have been giving to the issue of human rights. I make this observation as a former chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is not good enough to be interested in a human right; it is important to be interested in all human rights, because it's the consistency of their application that protects the human rights of all people at all times.
I rise this evening to acknowledge an issue that is very, very close to my heart, and an event that took place last year. Australia, we can be proud, has demonstrated through the decades that we are a progressive, forward-looking and humane nation. The abolition of the death penalty here is a proud testament to this.
Queensland became the first place in both Australia and the British Commonwealth—then the British Empire—to abolish the death penalty in 1922, and it was because of the centenary of that event last year that I had cause to travel to Brisbane to celebrate and commemorate this important human rights achievement at the Queensland parliament. I was pleased to be in the presence of the Hon. Michael Kirby as he gave a keynote address on this important occasion. Justice Kirby noted that capital punishment was quickly adopted in England's overseas colonies, including in Australia and, notably Queensland. The reform of this aspect of criminal punishment proved most resistant to change. This is why the abolition of the availability of the sentence of death in Queensland on 1 August 1922, a century ago last year, is so worthy of remembrance, because it led to change across our whole country and, indeed, across the world.
But it took time. Tasmania abolished the death penalty in 1968. The Commonwealth followed five years later in 1973. Victoria did so in 1975, South Australia in 1976 and Western Australia in 1984. New South Wales finally abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 1985. Abolition first arose as a topic of intense parliamentary debate in 1899, sparked by increasing public unrest and a distaste for the practice. Hotly debated in 1922, as you would expect, the pivotal Criminal Code Amendment Act—the one where we celebrated its abolition—received assent by a narrow 33 to 30 votes, but became the law. My state of Western Australia was one of the last to officially abolish the death penalty, but it became a defunct practice after the 1960s. Serial killer Eric Edgar Cooke became the last person to be hanged in WA in 1964.
I think it is important here to lay out why I personally oppose, and I believe others should oppose, the death penalty. For many people of faith, the idea of state-sanctioned killing brings one of the Ten Commandments, that 'Thou shall not kill', to the forefront of our consideration. Of course, we know that the death penalty is the final and absolute punishment. It offers no recourse in being able to correct any miscarriage of justice.
I'll return to the story of Eric Cooke, a West Australian. Eighteen-year-old Darryl Beamish was convicted of the 1959 murder of Jillian Brewer. Beamish was sentenced to death, but his sentence was later changed to life imprisonment after new evidence came to light pointing to his innocence. Beamish was found innocent because the murder he was charged with was committed by Cooke. Another man, John Button, found himself in a similar situation and was later reprieved. The fact that innocent men like Beamish and Button faced the hangman's noose for murders committed by another is a clear reminder of the precariousness of the death penalty—in the 1960s and now—as well as why its abolition was an important step forward for society, not to mention an important moral victory.
Most Australians today see the death penalty as an abhorrent and outdated practice, and we should welcome that. While from time to time, when unspeakable crimes are committed, we hear calls for its return, we have seen through public polling that most Australians remain overwhelmingly opposed to it. We saw proof of this opposition when two Australians from the Bali Nine, Myuran Sukamaran and Andrew Chan, faced execution by firing squad in 2015. There were appeals for clemency for the two from all sections of our society. Unfortunately, we know all too well that the death penalty extends far beyond the boundaries of our neighbour Indonesia.
A key feature of Australia's constant advocacy against the death penalty has been the Australian parliament's multipartisan work through the Australian parliamentarians against the death penalty parliamentary group. In the 47th Parliament, in this parliament, a group of many members and senators have again committed themselves to working internationally with other parliaments and with non-government organisations to advance the abolition of the death penalty. When international campaigning first began to abolish the penalty in 1977, there were just 16 countries that had abolished the penalty. As of 2021, a total of 108 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Despite this success, a third of the world still lives under legal frameworks which comprise capital punishment.
Tonight I want to particularly acknowledge the work of a wonderful, committed, passionate but small group of Australians. They are known as the Capital Punishment Justice Project. They work to free people from the death penalty around the world. They are a committed group of Australians. I want to share two points that they drew to my attention just last year. The first is with regard to Bangladesh, about which the Capital Punishment Justice Project says: 'Since 2009, 2,606 people have been sentenced to death. Many people languish on death row in solitary confinement whilst their cases make their way through the courts, with can take more than 10 years. A further 320 people were sentenced to death in 2021.' With regard to Singapore they have said: 'Since October 2021, Singapore has issued at least 15 execution warrants and executed at least 11 men. Of the 11 men executed, 10 were convicted of relatively low-level heroin trafficking and one convicted of trafficking cannabis. There are now approximately 55 people on death row, almost all for drug offences, mostly members of poor, disadvantaged minorities.' This is Singapore, a country we would regard as a peer in the family of liberal democracies. Tomorrow, I invite members and senators to come to a meeting of Australians Against the Death Penalty where we will meet with human rights championships from Singapore to talk about this terrible and atrocious practice that is happening in a country like Singapore.
I end my contribution with the words of Michael Kirby: 'The project begun on 1 August 1922 remains incomplete. Humanity must not endure a further century of argument, attempted persuasion and agitation to complete the challenge launched in the Queensland parliament in 1922. Australians should on honour and remember the political leaders, judges and advocates, politicians and civil society leaders for standing up and speaking out on the death penalty.' Here in this place, on this evening, I encourage all of my colleagues to adopt the spirit of the 100th anniversary of the abolition of the death penalty and join with me and their colleagues in this Australian parliament by arguing, campaigning and advocating for the continued abolition of the death penalty wherever it presents itself.
Senate adjourned at 21:23