
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2020-02-25</date>
    <parliament.no>46</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>2</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a type="" href="Chamber">Tuesday, 25 February 2020</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Scott Ryan)</span> took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs 5 to 8 of standing order 111 not apply to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.</para></quote>
<para>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 <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The document read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2020 AUTUMN SITTINGS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SOCIAL SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SIMPLIFIED INCOME REPORTING AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The measure will reform the way 1.2 million income support recipients report their employment income to Services Australia. Instead of estimating the amount of income they have earned each fortnight, recipients will instead report the gross income they have actually been paid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill provides the legislative basis for implementing a key measure in the 2019-20 Budget, Changing the Social Security Income Assessment Model. The measure will deliver savings of $2.1 billion over four years to 2022-23.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill will underpin the substantial implementation process associated with the measure commencing on 1 July 2020. Implementation of the measure will include significant ICT changes by Services Australia, working with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), and a coordinated communication strategy to prepare income support recipients for changes in reporting requirements.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>2</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019</title>
          <page.no>2</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="">
            <a type="Bill" href="s1245">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Concluding from where I was yesterday, the Greens will be supporting this legislation, but we do want to underline that this is just a minor tweak to our biosecurity legislation. It is not the main game. It is not where the attention of this government should be. We're doing these minor tweaks, fiddling around the edges; meanwhile, the country has been on fire. We are facing a climate emergency. The government cannot claim to be doing things in the interests of streamlining agriculture and supporting farmers while they are ignoring the elephant in the room. This legislation is just like a flea on that elephant's back. We need to be addressing that elephant in the room. We have reports on the front pages of the newspapers this morning absolutely outlining the reality of the science: unless we get to zero carbon emissions much earlier than 2050 we as a society and our civilisation on this planet is facing an existential crisis. It's not hyperbole. It is reality. We know that we need to be taking rapid, urgent action to reduce our carbon pollution. We need to be taking action to be rapidly reducing it far earlier than 2050. We need to have the strategies in place to be getting out of fossil fuels, to stop burning coal, gas and oil, to be shifting to renewable energies, to be transforming our agriculture sector so that it is sustainable.</para>
<para>Otherwise things are looking pretty grim. It is a very scary future that our farmers are facing, that we are facing, that our children and grandchildren are facing. We are facing a world where the climate of our wheat-growing areas under four degrees of warming—which we are well and truly on the road towards—becomes like the climate of the central deserts. We know that you cannot grow wheat in Hermannsburg.</para>
<para>We are facing a future of ongoing, more-intense, more-frequent droughts. We are facing a future of ongoing, more-intense other extreme weather events. We are facing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. We are facing a future of fire events such as we have just experienced this summer, where 20 per cent of the forests of Australia have been burnt—massively, compared with any other fire event in forests around the globe; a massively greater proportion of our forest estate has been burnt. That is the future we are facing. We have only had just over one degree of warming so far, and even if we meet our Paris targets we are signing up to a world of 3.4 degrees of warming.</para>
<para>We cannot go on this way. We cannot continue just having tiny, minor tweaks to bits of legislation and this sense of, 'Oh, well, we're keeping busy in here,' when the huge issues that are facing us are going unconsidered and certainly without the necessary action being taken. So yes, the Greens will be supporting this legislation. But we call upon the government and we call upon Labor to actually take stock of where we are headed as a society and to take the action that's required to address the huge existential issue that we're facing: our climate emergency.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Rice for her contribution to this second reading debate on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019 and that the Greens will be supporting this legislation. This is very important legislation to support our agricultural industries, which we don't want to see destroyed by bad policy. I will just take note of Senator Rice's comments around reducing emissions. I think reducing emissions is a very important step that this country needs to take. I am very proud of this government's commitment to meeting or beating its Paris targets. While we're talking about practical ways that we can reduce our emissions, let's also talk about the fact that gas-fired power releases half the emissions of coal, so that should be an option, and nuclear power has zero emissions and should be an option. Hydropower, with new dams, is zero-emission power generation, so that should also be an option. When the Greens are willing to talk to us about those options for reliable baseload power with zero emissions, I think we would welcome them at the table.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Rice</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Gas is not zero emissions!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Gas is not, but it has half the emissions. Nuclear has zero. Hydro has zero. Let's talk about what we could do practically to reduce emissions while keeping industry in this nation and while ensuring that we have reliable and affordable baseload power.</para>
<para>But back to the bill at hand, the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019: this bill will strengthen the ability of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of our biosecurity system. It will allow the use of current technologies that will ensure that biosecurity controls are enforced efficiently for vast cargo volumes. Biosecurity is so important for Australians. It is so important for our $62 billion agricultural industry, our food safety and our way of life in this country. Our work to protect biosecurity often flies under the radar, and I would like to commend all the dedicated Australians who work in this field, on our borders, to make sure that our biosecurity measures are robust.</para>
<para>Yes, we have the occasional high-profile biosecurity issues, like the discovery of illegally imported dogs Pistol and Boo. Then there are the headline issues, like the equine influenza outbreak and, more recently, putting up defences to ensure that we don't have African swine fever cross our borders. In fact, the African swine fever issue is still alive. Just last December our government announced funding of $67 million to address the threat of African swine fever, a disease for which there is no known vaccine and which kills about 80 per cent of the pigs it infects. We responded to and continue to respond to the severity of this threat, with more biosecurity officers, more detector dogs and new 3D X-ray machines installed in mail centres—taking no chances.</para>
<para>We've got a new squad of post-border biosecurity officers to help identify and target incorrectly declared products that have been brought into Australia for sale. We are putting significant resources towards keeping swine fever out, and so we should because if our efforts fail our $2.8 billion pork industry and the 20,000 individuals that work for that industry would be devastated. But the biosecurity reality is that much of the risk to our agricultural industries is far less obvious and far more insidious. It is bugs, mites and disease that can be hidden in a container of cargo. It can be a piece of fruit, a lost termite in a wooden article or even a stray leaf. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment process, on average, 45,000 commercial cargo referrals a month. These cargos carry different goods from different regions. Thus, from cargo to cargo there exists a great variation in threat to Australian biosecurity. It is vital that our process to adapt to this reality ensures we can put the resources necessary when the threat is high.</para>
<para>For example, we are currently in the peak season for the brown marmorated stink bug. This tiny little pest ravaged the United states destroying tens of millions of apple crops. Imagine that replicated here. We have 500 commercial apple and pear growers in this country producing a crop worth over half a billion dollars. Managing this little stink bug in the US has proved difficult. The population continues to grow in the absence of effective pesticides. We can't allow that bug to come here. Some of our apple orchards so dramatically devastated by the bushfires, particularly around the Batlow area, need to rebuild. They don't need to be worrying about pests like this stink bug.</para>
<para>Another example closer to home has been the incursion of the zebra chip disease in New Zealand in 2008. This little pest, carried by the tomato potato psyllid, cost the New Zealand potato industry $45 million. So when the carrier of zebra chip disease, the tomato potato psyllid, was discovered in Australia back in 2017—and we heard from the Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre that up to 50 per cent of our production was at risk—we made sure we put in the right early interventions. We've ensured that the zebra chip disease has not yet infiltrated our country.</para>
<para>But let me make it clear, biosecurity is also not limited to agriculture. It has implications for your family pets, for your domestic gardens and even for your recreation. I pity anyone who's tried to picnic in a park that has a fire ant incursion. The red imported fire ant is native to South America and, unfortunately, has been found in Australia, thought to have arrived in a shipping container back in 2001. It is now prolific around the south-east corner of Queensland. Had we at the time had access to the technology available today, technology that this bill enables us to utilise, maybe those pesky ants would never have seen the light of day on our shores.</para>
<para>Biosecurity is important not only to our industries and to our lifestyles but also to our international reputation. We know that once you have an incursion, even if you are able to eradicate the problem, you have to then deal with the international reputation for the countries we export to. It's not just lost production and the costs involved in attempting to eradicate the problem, but the lingering cost of lost confidence in our biosecurity, in our clean production systems, that remain.</para>
<para>The Nationals, in government, are absolutely committed to protecting Australia's important and unique agricultural and food industries, our pets and our plants, and our lifestyle in the same manner as we are committed to a strong economy. For us to maintain such protection is key and we continue to look at ways in which ongoing changes in technology can assist in ensuring that our process for identifying and managing risk remains positive, responsive and flexible.</para>
<para>The new technology that this bill proposes is computerised decision-making, as was reported by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. Their report said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Computerised decision-making, as proposed by this bill, presents a number of benefits to stakeholders who engage with the importation of a large volume of various products. For example, it will allow more efficient clearance processes, and reduce the administrative burden on both importers and biosecurity officers.</para></quote>
<para>It achieves this since, as the report goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the automation of decision-making for a limited number of administrative actions may provide biosecurity and other authorised officers with more time and resources to spend on the ground, focusing on those areas where there are existing threats and emerging risks to Australia's biosecurity.</para></quote>
<para>This bill will allow us to keep pace with the changing biosecurity environment. The safeguards present in this bill will ensure that there is no weakness in the enforcement of the Biosecurity Act and the Imported Food Control Act. As I said earlier, we have a vast number of dedicated officials working to protect our borders from biosecurity threats, and they need to be supported by robust legislation that allows them to make best use of the technologies that are available. The many incidents of biosecurity concern demonstrate how important it is for us to ensure these officers are given the flexibility necessary to focus resources on these severe threats. That is what this bill achieves, and that is why I support this bill.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The bill before the Senate, the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019, seeks to amend laws relating to biosecurity and imported food to provide for streamlined administration through computerised decision-making. It allows risk identification and management across a large number of goods and conveyances, reduces the burden on importers, enables a fast, accurate clearance, and provides some flexibility in relation to existing and emerging risks. The Labor Party will support the legislation, but I want to make a few comments about the legislation and about biosecurity and Australian agriculture more broadly.</para>
<para>The bill itself allows for discretion for authorised officers to override a computer decision if it's inconsistent with the objects of the act or if another decision is circumstantially more appropriate. It provides a process of reviewing both computer and human based decisions to ensure that they're accountable. This does represent an important balance between the efficiency of computer decision-making and the inherent risks that exist in an important and sensitive area such as biosecurity.</para>
<para>The use of artificial intelligence is controversial. The government's robodebt approach to social security demonstrates some of the hazards that are involved in AI approaches to managing policy. They are sensitive issues. We're waiting on a full report from the Human Rights Commission, to be released later this year, on the legality and ethics of the use of artificial intelligence in areas of policy like this. However, in a discussion paper last year, the Australian Human Rights Commission said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The progress in AI-informed decision making since the early 2000s could not have been contemplated by lawmakers at that time. The possibility of full automation of AI-informed decision making, for example, is now a realistic prospect. This means that older legislation dealing with this issue should be reviewed. Technological development necessitates a new approach to ensure AI-informed decision making is accountable.</para></quote>
<para>So there's a democratic imperative and there's a policymaking imperative here. There are proposals that the Australian Human Rights Commission has provided to the government about the government use of artificial intelligence, including a requirement of cost-benefit analysis and public consultation with affected groups before deploying AI-informed decision-making; legislation to require that an individual is informed where AI is materially used in a decision that has a legal or similarly significant effect on their rights; and legislation which creates a rebuttable presumption that the legal person who deploys an AI-informed decision-making system is liable for the use of the system.</para>
<para>We will see plenty more bills and much more legislation come before this parliament, and future parliaments, that grapple with the implications of regulating and utilising this technology. Caution on this bill is understandable. However, this bill represents the opportunities that artificial intelligence can bring to government and explores some of the possibilities involved in regulating its use.</para>
<para>On biosecurity more broadly: we are an island nation. Our agriculture, environment and tourism are not just fundamental economic values but social values that make this country a great place to live. We have to fiercely protect our ability to prevent contagions coming from overseas. It's a key competitive advantage in agriculture, a key competitive advantage for the environment and our tourism sector, and a key competitive advantage for not just agricultural exports but food sector exports as well. We have $59 billion of agricultural production, $45 billion of agricultural exports and $38 billion of inbound tourism.</para>
<para>Equally, biosecurity efforts protect human health and social amenity and help to maintain our unique biodiverse natural environments. The Australian Bureau of Statistics—and it's extraordinary that you would do such a thing—sought to value our environmental assets in dollar terms. In 2016 they valued Australia's environmental assets at $6 trillion. It was, therefore, reckless and dangerous to have made the kinds of cuts to biosecurity regulation that have occurred under this government.</para>
<para>In 2014 Mr Abbott—remember him?—abolished key agencies that work with industry to increase compliance in biosecurity, abolished the Biosecurity Advisory Council and abolished the National Biosecurity Committee stakeholder engagement consultative groups. There are fewer biosecurity workers on the ground than there were under the last Labor government. The economy and the volume of imports have gotten bigger but there are fewer people protecting Australia, Australians and Australian agriculture from imported pests than there were a decade ago.</para>
<para>The department of agriculture is now prohibited by the government from reporting total inspection figures, but in the last report that it made it found that, over the decade, there have been 39 per cent fewer seizures of items from air passengers—and you can pretend to be worried about African swine flu—and 56 per cent fewer mail articles seized. So the volume of imports has increased but the numbers of inspections and seizures are down.</para>
<para>Where on earth are the National Party? They come into this place talking about standing up for agriculture and they make a big noise in country towns, hoping that people don't read the big-city papers. They have been part of an operation that has materially compromised Australia's biosecurity capacity. The National Party, sucking up to the Liberal Party and their ideological commitment to cutting public services, has put Australia's biosecurity regime at risk.</para>
<para>There are innumerable threats to our biosecurity. The Russian wheat aphid has the potential to affect 75 per cent of our grain crop. Fire blight in apples can destroy a whole apple orchard in one season. The tomato potato psyllid, discovered in Australia for the first time in 2017 in a suburban garden in Perth, has the potential to reduce tomato and potato production by 50 per cent. The cucumber green mottle mosaic virus was discovered on watermelon farms in Katherine and Darwin in September 2014. The Panama TR4, an existential threat to the banana industry, has already cost the Queensland government $26 million in attempting to eradicate it. The Pacific oyster mortality syndrome, discovered in Tasmania in 2016, destroyed $50 million worth of Tasmanian oysters. These threats have all happened over the course of the last decade, and the risks presented by these diseases or pests is far greater because the government does not understand its biosecurity responsibilities. White spot disease, discovered in the Logan River, near Brisbane, has already done $25 million in damage to the Queensland prawn industry. It's highly infectious and kills more than 80 per cent of prawns in an infected farm.</para>
<para>There are even bigger threats out there. African swine fever has spread across the world and killed 25 per cent of the world's pork population. Farmers understand what such an epidemic would mean. They are counting on the government to deliver a biosecurity regime that works, but the government has comprehensively failed to deliver for Australian agriculture, in terms of biosecurity. We know what's required. In 2017, a comprehensive review of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity came out. It spelled out what banana farmers, oyster farmers and prawn farmers in southern Queensland already know. It said there is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… broad concern that existing funding and resourcing arrangements are inadequate and ad hoc and, if continued, they will not be able to support the national system into the future.</para></quote>
<para>There are 42 recommendations, all set out there. Recommendation 34:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Funding for the national biosecurity system should be increased by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">• implementing a per-container levy on incoming shipping containers of $10 per twenty-foot equivalent unit and a levy of $5 on incoming air containers, effective from 1 July 2019 …</para></quote>
<para>That is straightforward. One of the critical aspects of maintaining biosecurity is maintaining funding for biosecurity. It makes a great deal of sense for those importing goods into the Australian economy to cover the cost of funding the biosecurity regime that monitors those imports. The levy was promised by the then minister, David Littleproud. It was supposed to come into effect last year and generate $100 million a year for biosecurity. Well, where is it? Did it come into effect on 1 July? No, they moved it back to 1 September. Did it come into effect on 1 September? No. The government missed the deadline again.</para>
<para>They can deliver an ad in record time in the middle of a bushfire season but they cannot deliver this basic requirement for funding biosecurity monitoring in this country, because it's not politically important to them. Where is the National Party? Nowhere to be seen. It's of no political importance to Prime Minister Scott Morrison. It's of zero political importance to the government. They've missed the deadline again. In December, the next Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie, pushed it back to July 2021, claiming that it needed more consultation with industry. When The Nationals talk about consultation with industry, are they talking about family farms? Are they talking about food processors? Are they talking about agricultural employers or people who work in country towns? No. They're talking about the Minerals Council of Australia. Here's what they had to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The levy would impose additional costs on the import of key inputs that are crucial to the ongoing success of the minerals industry, including fuel, chemicals, construction materials and mining equipment.</para></quote>
<para>So, when it came to backing in the interests of either big miners or the farming industry, the government made a choice and they left Australian agriculture behind and backed the profits of big miners up to the hilt. The National Party went missing—nowhere on country towns and nowhere on workers. These are country towns in which the grandparents of the residents had jobs as rural labourers and workers in factories, but these towns have now not had decent work in generations.</para>
<para>What passes for the National Party now—Senator Canavan and the member for New England—can produce weird podcasts but they cannot produce a sensible level of pressure on government to actually deliver what is in the national interest, and that is a sensible biosecurity regime. Remember when the Deputy Prime Minister was asked to list a single instance of the National Party backing farmers over the interests of mining bosses, and he couldn't do it? He couldn't do it, because it's never happened. That's what the modern National Party is. They don't represent farmers. They don't represent workers. They represent bigwigs in corporate suits and their donors. And that is all they are good for.</para>
<para>The government's response on biosecurity is a mess. It's a shambles. But no wonder the government is confused—not because the policy area is particularly complicated, but they've had six agriculture ministers over the course of the government. And the National Party is consumed by their weird psycho dramas about who's going to be the next leader of the National Party and who's going to have whatever ministry it is. The current leader couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag. The guy who wants to be the leader, the member for New England, has really gone troppo over the course of the last four or five years, and he's absolutely unelectable and unsuitable for office.</para>
<para>We're still waiting for somebody to take the interests of Australian agriculture seriously and deliver for country communities and call this government to account. You would think, in the position they're in, that the once great National Party of Australia could pull it off, but they are completely distracted and unable to face up to their real responsibilities. They can squabble, they can suck up to mining bosses, they can even threaten to kill Johnny Depp's dogs if it gives them a cheap headline, but there will be a price to pay for this failure of policy, and it will be paid by rural and regional Australia, it will be paid by blue-collar workers in the towns, the country towns that traditionally vote for the National Party, and it will be paid by Australian agriculture. The Nationals have failed them on water, they have failed them on drought and they have failed them on biosecurity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are good reasons why Australia has an outstanding reputation of being the cleanest and greenest food bowl in the world. Australia's superpower status as a food producer continues to be a cornerstone of the national economy and promises much more in the future. When it comes to quality produce Australia is simply second to none, because of our impeccable standards upheld by the tireless dedication of our farmers and other land managers.</para>
<para>According to the Global Food Forum, Australia already feeds 50 million people every year—way beyond our own needs. Some forecasts say that we can quadruple our primary exports to feed a staggering 200 million people. The forum was told that within 10 years Australia could have 20 times more arable land per capita than China, Indonesia and India and 60 times more than Japan's available space for agricultural production. There are three billion people in Asia, a huge market ready to anticipate a massive boost in the export of valuable commodities from our great and bountiful country. But with our potential, for delivering vast quantities, will come the quality.</para>
<para>The coalition is committed to ensuring every level of government supports the hardworking men and women of Australia's farm and rural industries. The latest estimate of Australia's total farm production sits at $62.2 billion, up 28 per cent since we came to office. Despite all the challenges of what can be a punishing environment, there are very strong prospects for dynamic growth. The value of agricultural exports is estimated at $49 billion, up almost 27 per cent on our watch. Much of the credit for this stunning growth can be attributed to Australia's world-class biosecurity framework. This ensures our agricultural industry, local communities and natural environment are protected from pests and disease.</para>
<para>The Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019 will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our biosecurity system by authorising automated decision-making for biosecurity officers under the Biosecurity Act and the Imported Food Control Act. This bill will support deregulation and improve the effectiveness of the biosecurity framework and the imported food system. There is an urgent need for this bill. We need to maximise the use of current technologies to effectively and efficiently enforce biosecurity controls over vast cargo volumes with a potential to increase risk to Australia. These incursions would have a devastating impact on Australia. It doesn't bear thinking about.</para>
<para>Every month, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment processes an average of 45,000 commercial cargo referrals. The need for innovation in identifying efficiencies is critical to the effective operation of Australia's biosecurity framework. This bill is particularly timely as we deal with the peak season for one of Australia's high-risk pests, the brown marmorated stink bug. Intensive resources are also being devoted to stopping African swine fever virus and other high-risk pests and disease, including the khapra beetle, from entering Australia's borders. There is an ongoing threat posed by foot-and-mouth disease. The amount of work needed to prevent biosecurity incursions of these high-risk pests and diseases has increased rapidly in recent months and continues to require considerable amounts of manual effort.</para>
<para>Automated decision-making promises to reduce the operational burden in high-risk times and allow the department to concentrate on other priority areas. In supporting the implementation of computerised decisions, this bill will provide appropriate safeguards as the department streamlines services and reduces decision times on biosecurity matters while minimising costs and freeing up resources. The risk of not providing Australia's biosecurity framework with all possible tools is just far too grave. We need to prevent the entry of such pests and diseases to avoid irreparable damage to Australia's impressive record of world's best practice in biosecurity. There will, of course, be careful consideration of what decisions will be suitable for automation, in line with administrative law requirements. Ordinarily, they will be decisions where particular facts are confirmed, without the need for any subjective assessments.</para>
<para>We all know that biosecurity has played and will continue to play a leading role in reducing risk and enhancing our chances of remaining free of the world's most severe pests and diseases. It's true enough that our geographical isolation comes into play in maintaining this status, but we can't be complacent in any way. As we've seen with the recent coronavirus, borders are becoming incidental, as record numbers of people travel from country to country. It's confronting enough to know that more than 60,000 kilometres of coastline offers many varied unguarded gateways for exotic pests and diseases, but the Morrison government is doing all it can to reduce the risk of incursions, and it will be controlled.</para>
<para>Every year, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment screens, inspects and clears millions of people, mail parcels, baggage, ships, animals, plants and cargo using x-ray machines, surveillance and detector dogs. According to the department, the prevention efforts use a range of sophisticated technologies and approaches, including research, shared international resources and intelligence. Surveillance and monitoring of risk areas are the highest priorities, along with border-control activities focusing on assessing and managing potential biosecurity threats at Australia's airports, seaports and international mail centres. On our farms, biosecurity practices also include disinfecting; signage; maintaining boundary fences; checking for strays; restricting visitor and vehicle movements; ensuring all machinery brought onto the property is cleaned; good husbandry; ensuring purchases are from reliable sources; regular inspections of flocks and herds; and quarantining new stock. In recent years, changes to biosecurity have focused on the consequences of some pests and diseases, increased emergency powers for swift responses to biosecurity threats, and nationwide consistency in emergency situations.</para>
<para>If Australian agriculture is to become a $100 billion industry by 2030, premium produce will be central to that ambition, and maintaining our impeccable clean and green reputation is essential. We've worked hard to earn the trust of countries buying our produce, and biosecurity has played a huge role in consolidating that belief and our reliability and consistency. These standards and the determination of our primary producers to uphold them are central to the Morrison government's policy of underpinning the integrity of Australia's agricultural industries. Indeed, our nation's history and evolution as an economic force are inextricably linked to the quality of our primary production, and that's a proud past we are determined to honour and respect.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McMAHON</name>
    <name.id>282728</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019 and something that is dear to my heart—agriculture and biosecurity. The backbone of our great nation is, and always has been, the people who have ventured away from the urban areas and who have settled in rural and remote areas. These bold people established themselves to be part of Australia's farms and rural industries, a mighty machine that provides food and fibre not only for all Australians but also for our export markets. It was once said that Australia rode on the sheep's back. Whilst those days are long gone, agricultural and primary production remain vital to our economy.</para>
<para>As a measure of success in our agricultural sector, consider that in 2018-19 Australia's total farm output was estimated to be $62 billion, representing a substantial increase of about 28 per cent in nominal terms since this government came to office. The value of agricultural exports is estimated to be $49 billion for this same period. This represents a significant increase of almost 27 per cent, again, since we came to office. Furthermore, we are proud to say that we have strong prospects for dynamic growth in the future, ensuring continued development and opportunities for the hardworking Australians of our rural industries. Make no mistake about it: these are staggering achievements and a testament to the ingenuity and tenacity of our producers.</para>
<para>Critical to the success of the agricultural industry is Australia's world-class biosecurity framework, which has ensured our $62 billion agriculture industry, local communities and natural environment are protected from the incursion of pests and diseases. As our industries develop, expand and grow, we need to maintain our biosecurity standards while fostering an evolution of practices to ensure industries are not placed at risk by red tape. This same evolutionary process must also allow procedures to become more fluid and automated whenever possible in order to achieve greater capacity without compromising our high standards. We also need to standardise these processes. The agriculture legislation amendment bill will achieve precisely this.</para>
<para>Biosecurity incursions of high-risk plants and diseases would have a devastating impact on Australia. We have not always been great at biosecurity throughout our last couple of centuries. Either accidentally or by intention, we have introduced many bacterial, viral and fungal diseases, as well as many plant and animal pest species—things like cane toads, rabbits, lantana, prickly pear, tuberculosis, brucellosis and, more recently, prawn white spot disease, equine influenza and fire ants. Consider the enormous cost associated with eradicating or containing these pests. Across others nations we have seen the oceans of devastation caused by numerous diseases such as swine flu and foot-and-mouth disease. I myself have worked in the UK and witnessed firsthand the effects of foot-and-mouth disease and the immense financial and social toll that that took. Examples we have seen of such outbreaks serve to strengthen our resolve and focus our determination to ensure such events do not occur here in Australia.</para>
<para>This being said, I am concerned that right now we are at higher than acceptable risk levels due to our inability to keep pace with growing volumes of products and people needing to be screened. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment processes an average of 45,000 commercial cargo referrals each month. This represents huge quantities of products that must be thoroughly and completely examined. This is a monumental task and one that needs to be streamlined. It is critical that the department be innovative in identifying deficiencies and improving all efficiencies that can be made in the operation of Australia's biosecurity framework. Such measures must be suitable for broad implementation, allowing the application across multiple locations throughout Australia and at all ports of entry, while maintaining a uniform level of control and consistency in application. For these reasons the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019 is an excellent means of achieving these goals. Only by legislating these processes and procedures can we be assured that specific standards are achieved.</para>
<para>Another focus of the bill is to promote the efficiency and efficacy of our biosecurity system by authorising automated decision-making for decisions made by biosecurity officers under the Biosecurity Act 2015 and authorised officers under the Imported Food Control Act 1992. This approach will support deregulation and improve the effectiveness of the biosecurity framework and imported food system. A pressing example of where this bill is needed is in our ability to properly inspect and scan vast cargo volumes that potentially pose a high biosecurity risk to Australia. This bill will allow us to immediately make use of current technologies to effectively and efficiently enforce biosecurity controls over this state of affairs, and will be able to do this right across Australia.</para>
<para>Every day we face the constant threat of diseases reaching our shores, with one such current example being the worrisome presence of African swine fever in Timor-Leste, just off our northern coast. African swine fever is potentially the biggest animal disease event the world has ever seen. It is marching south through Asia towards Australia and is now less than 700 kilometres away. Hardening our defence against this threat is no easy matter, requiring multifaceted approaches, which include expedient and effective scanning of products, detection of illegal products and managing cases where offenders are identified. In doing so, we not only protect our 2,700 pork producers, including their families and employees, but we also protect Australia's reputation as a supplier of clean, green, safe and nutritious food. It is a splendid reputation that has taken an extraordinarily long time to earn. When we consider that approximately 50 per cent of pork products detected and seized at our borders tested positive to African swine fever, including a ham sandwich from an airline, we understand the enormity of this task.</para>
<para>A constant threat to our biosecurity is the high volume of international visitors arriving in Australia with undeclared food products. Well over 30 tonnes of illegal and potentially catastrophic product has been intercepted by our vigilant border security personnel in recent months. This bill will enable them to respond not only faster but also with greater efficiency. As diligent as our border security members are, there are limitations on available resources. Working smarter is pivotal to overcoming these.</para>
<para>There are a large number of pests and diseases that currently pose a high risk to Australia's biosecurity, challenging our perpetual state of preparedness. This bill is particularly crucial right now, as we are in peak season for one of Australia's high-risk pests—brown marmorated stink bug. Other high-risk pests and diseases include the copra beetle as well as the continued threat posed by foot and mouth disease. The volume of work associated with preventing biosecurity incursions of these high-risk pests and diseases has increased rapidly in recent months and continues to require considerable amounts of manual effort. Our hardworking border security staff punch well above their weight, and by implementing automated decision-making we can improve their reach by lessening the operational burden during these high-risk times and allowing the department to focus its efforts on other high-priority efforts. Effectively, new measures enabled by this bill will allow us to do more.</para>
<para>This bill supports implementation of computerised decisions, with appropriate safeguards, to provide the department with the flexibility to streamline services, reduce the length of time for decision-making in relation to biosecurity matters, reduce costs and free up resources. We will also have improvement in consistency of decisions and send out a strong message to those who would be reckless with our biosecurity standards and those who would threaten our products and industries. In essence, the measures promised by this bill allow us to keep pace with the changing biosecurity environment and ensure that there is a clear statutory basis for application of automated decision-making under the Biosecurity Act. It will allow wider use of automated decision-making to issue biosecurity directions and notices for imported food control certification. The Director of Biosecurity is able to determine by legislative instrument which biosecurity officer decisions under the Biosecurity Act may be made by operation of a computer program. The secretary can arrange to have automated decision-making for certain sections of the Imported Food Control Act.</para>
<para>If we do not provide Australia's biosecurity framework with all reasonable tools to strengthen our high standards, the entry of a high-risk pest or disease becomes inevitable—something that Australia cannot afford. Australia's agricultural industry, our hardworking producers and farmers, and our world-leading reputation for biosecurity may be irreparably damaged. We owe it to all Australians to utilise new and emerging technology to enhance our surveillance and detection wherever appropriate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to rise on this bill, the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019, and second the remarks of my good colleague from the Northern Territory Senator McMahon in relation to the importance of biosecurity and of the broader agricultural industry across Australia.</para>
<para>Those who are regular listeners to Senate FM will have noted that I will bore for Australia about the yellow crazy ants. The yellow crazy ants are an invasive species that have come from somewhere—we think the east coast of Africa—and I'll tell you how bad the species is and explain the situation of a man south of Cairns called Frank Teodo. Frank is what you call one of those true characters of Far North Queensland. He is very frank in his views and very earthy in his approach to politicians. Frank woke up one night, as you sometimes do, because he could feel something moving across his face. He wiped it away, and what was happening was that a swarm of yellow crazy ants were deciding that his face was going to be a nice resting place. The yellow crazy ants don't bite, but they spray a form of acid on their prey to immobilise them, and Frank was blinded for a number of weeks because of the acid that had been sprayed on him by the yellow crazy ants. Frank also has a number of dogs that he uses for hunting wild pigs or wild boars, and the yellow crazy ants were able to get into their nostrils and destroy their sense of smell, which unfortunately meant that the dogs were not particularly efficient at chasing wild boars. This is just one example of the impact of yellow crazy ants on one individual.</para>
<para>Supercolonies—and that might sound like slightly emotive language—of yellow crazy ants have formed up in the tropics. Luckily a number of people—such as Frank Teodo and a staffer for the Wet Tropics Management Authority, a lady by the name of Lucy Karger—have been leading the efforts to fight against yellow crazy ants. And the local federal member up there, Warren Entsch, has been particularly strong in advocating down here for extra funds so that we can try to stop these supercolonies from growing and developing and actually wipe the supercolonies out. So, the federal government has spent millions of dollars, in conjunction with an amount of funding from the state government, to bait these supercolonies of yellow crazy ants, not just through using what used to exist, in terms of the Green Army, but also by using helicopters to drop the baits into wild areas—because unfortunately the yellow crazy ants didn't just stay in and around the southern parts of Cairns, around Gordonvale and Edmonton, but actually got up into Kuranda—hence the interest of the Wet Tropics Management Authority.</para>
<para>With this invasive species, you might think it's a little ant—it's quite a tiny ant—that can't do much damage. But when they form these supercolonies they have the ability to wipe out the native animals of Far North Queensland. And although this is not a point for partisan politics, I know that the Labor Party has also supported the granting of money to local groups up there to fight this scourge of yellow crazy ants. That's why it is so important that we do everything possible to utilise and streamline our biosecurity measures, because Australia is one of those rare countries that has such a pristine natural environment where invasive species, notwithstanding the aforementioned yellow crazy ants, are kept at a minimum because of our biosecurity measures—and it's not just because we don't want to wake up in the middle of the night with a swarm of yellow crazy ants deciding to nest on our face and temporarily blind us; it is because of the importance of the agricultural industry to Australia.</para>
<para>We all know that back in the 1950s and 1960s Australia rode on the sheep's back. We still ride on the back of sheep, and on the back of cattle, and we also ride on the fields of barley, maize, wheat and sugarcane. Our total farm production is estimated at $62 billion. That is a lot of money in anyone's terms. It's many, many Lotto rollovers on a Saturday night. But the potential that is there for our agricultural sector is so important. Our exports are valued at $49 billion, and that's up by almost 27 per cent since we came to office. This bill is so important because of how it could help protect our agricultural sector. We've done a number of things over the years since we came into power in 2013 to protect and grow the agricultural sector as well as to grow our biosecurity measures. In the 2019-20 financial year the government has made available $852 million for biosecurity to maintain our strong pest- and disease-free status and to support agriculture trade. Senator McMahon mentioned earlier the threat of swine fever to our pork industry in terms of the damage that has previously been caused and could be caused if our pork industry is wiped out.</para>
<para>We're spending $29 million to strengthen our agricultural export trade through developing an internationally competitive and profitable horticultural sector and working to minimise the impact of non-tariff measures, and that's particularly important in terms of our trade with some of the South-East Asian countries. What is interesting is that when you travel around Queensland, which I do as a senator for Queensland, all farmers have one eye to the horizon—to the clouds—to see if rain is coming, but they also have one eye open to where the markets are. The days when farmers would necessarily just trade with each other are still there in certain small quantities. but so many farmers are dependent on our ability to trade not interstate but overseas. Queensland farmers know that their ability to grow their farm and to grow their property comes from their ability to export their goods overseas to that growing market in South-East Asia and also across South Asia, Sri Lanka and India.</para>
<para>But it's not just biosecurity and trade where we're spending money to ensure the future of our important agriculture sector; it's also to do with what's happened with the drought. As much as I've bored senators about yellow crazy ants in this place for this years, I've also bored senators for many years about the impact of the drought in Queensland. It was only about two years ago that the drought came onto the national stage. For many people in Queensland who, at that point, had been living in drought conditions for up to six or seven years, it was a little bit like saying: 'Welcome to the party, ladies and gentlemen. This is what we've been dealing with.' There were kids in western Queensland who had never actually experienced rain. We're talking about six-, seven- and eight-year-olds who had never experienced rain, such was the length of the drought and such was the impact of the drought on local communities. You just think about that—trying to explain to a child that there's a thing called rain, and it's just something they see on the television.</para>
<para>We're spending not just millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars but billions of dollars over the coming years to help droughtproof Australia and to help ensure the resilience—that's probably a word that is overused—to ensure the future of farming in this country. This country is a dry country. I live out in the Darling Downs. I live in an area that has been drought declared for a number of years. And, even though, in the last four weeks, we've had as much rain as we received in all of last year, we are still a drought declared area. Because of what's happened now, we've got what's called a green drought. The grass is green and the grass has grown a bit, but, until we get more sustained rain and the restoration of the normal rain patterns, then we are in a green drought.</para>
<para>But this bill—the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019, to give it its full title—is something that's going to assist the efficiency and effectiveness of our biosecurity system by authorising automated decision-making for decisions made by biosecurity officers under the Biosecurity Act 2015. That may not sound particularly exciting to those listening at home, but, to those who are sitting on their tractors, this is very exciting. To those who've come in to have a lunch break, this is particularly exciting news, because what the government is doing is ensuring that we are making our biosecurity system more efficient. Produce not only leaves this country but comes into this country. And what those on certain sides of politics—the far Left and the far Right—sometimes don't understand is that trade means we can export our brilliant produce around the world, but it also means we do need to import. But we need to make sure that our imports that come into this country go through the proper mechanisms, through proper screening and through the proper processes to make sure that we do not get invasive species, like yellow crazy ants, coming into this country and allowing them to damage and destroy our agriculture industry.</para>
<para>The approach of this bill will be to support deregulation and improve the effectiveness of the biosecurity framework and the imported food system. The bill is urgently needed to enable the use of current technologies to effectively and efficiently enforce biosecurity controls over vast cargo volumes that may pose a high biosecurity risk to Australia. Briefly, I did reach the dizzying heights of Assistant Minister for Immigration and—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Lofty!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Lofty heights. What was interesting about that, working under Minister Dutton, was going and looking at our airports and looking at our ports in terms of the huge volume. Sometimes we forget about it, but there is a huge volume of produce that actually does come into this country. We realise that we rely so much on technology in terms of screening—seeing what's there. We rely so much on the professionalism and the hard work of those staff who are on the front line fighting against bad things trying to come into this country. We do put invasive species into the category of bad things, considering they pose such a threat to the economic security of this country. That's why this bill is so important.</para>
<para>The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment process an average of 45,000 commercial cargo referrals each month, that is a lot, and that is why this bill is needed. Senator McMahon talked about the brown marmorated stink bug. I'm just going to call it the stink bug. In terms of the—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Doesn't it have an acronym?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It does have an acronym, but I'm just going to call it the stink bug. In terms of the impact that stink bug can have on—I don't want to say on our biosecurity—our home. Biosecurity is about protecting our home. What this bill does is make sure that the screens we have around our homes—the guard dogs, the burglar intrusion systems and the security cameras—are all working efficiently. That is why this bill is a good bill and it is a bill that is needed to make sure that our agricultural sector is protected, that jobs are protected, that small businesses are protected and that security of Australia is protected. Australia is one of those rare countries around the world where we have such a pristine environment. We are so strongly protecting this environment because we know it is so important in protecting our economy. Thank you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is, indeed, a pleasure to rise to conclude debate on the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019. I do thank senators for their contributions to this very important debate.</para>
<para>Having heard some of the remarks made by my colleagues, and in particular Senator McGrath who has just concluded his, not enough emphasis can be put on how important the agriculture sector is to our nation's economy and the jobs that that industry produces for our regional communities. The point that was made by Senator McGrath in his contribution about protecting the brand and ensuring we remain pest and disease free as best as we possibly can is critical to that sector being able to trade on its brand. Our trading partners have very high expectations of the goods we export. We, as discerning consumers, also have very, very high expectations of the quality of the produce we consume. So having in place robust and far more than adequate biosecurity measures is essential to underpinning the confidence that is required by domestic consumers and our trading partners when it comes to our primary production sector. This bill does go some way to assisting that sector and the authorities—the department of agriculture and the teams at biosecurity Australia—to do their jobs to make sure that we can retain a strong border when it comes to protecting our country from pests and diseases, and most importantly protecting our brands. Because we know what happens when we have incursions. It does have an impact on our produce and people will make a consumer choice—be they international markets or domestically. That, in the end, has an impact on jobs, particularly in regional communities. So, that's where the rubber hits the road with this bill and that's why I'm so pleased to be speaking to it today.</para>
<para>The point has been made by a number of my colleagues already about how much cargo is processed and the amount of cargo that comes into our country. The high volume of the cargo that is brought in to this nation in, itself, like you would expect, does present an opportunity for pests and diseases to enter our country. As Senator McGrath mentioned, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment process roughly 45,000 commercial cargo referrals each month—not each year, but each month. That is a huge number of referrals to process and to ensure meet the standards we require in this country when allowing goods to enter. That's why this bill assists the department in being innovative in how it deals with this high number of referrals, while preserving the integrity of the system and maintaining that robust biosecurity framework that we need.</para>
<para>As I'm sure has been stated by my colleagues and of course Senator McGrath, the presence of one of Australia's highest-risk pests, the brown marmorated stink bug—which has a terrible name but I'm sure would have a much more terrible impact on our primary producers—and the fact that we're coming into peak season is why this bill and passage of this bill is critical. As has been referred to by the previous minister for agriculture, Bridget McKenzie, who I acknowledge, along with the current minister, Minister Littleproud, a huge amount of resources have been allocated to ensuring that we do have in place the resources to be able to stop other problems that can be encountered in this space, including the African swine fever virus, ensuring that they can't enter Australia's borders. There are other high-risk pests and diseases, including the khapra beetle and the foot-and-mouth disease, just to name a few. The volume of work associated with preventing these incursions does mean we do need to look at ways to ensure that work can be done in the most timely way to ensure that goods can come into our country in an expeditious manner. We've seen it in other jurisdictions where things get stuck on docks because they've got to be processed by the quarantine or biosecurity authorities of that relevant jurisdiction. Particularly with fresh produce, that poses a problem. Timeliness and innovative ways of utilising the resources available to us is critical to allowing the department to preserve the integrity of our biosecurity system and our relative status when it comes to pests and diseases.</para>
<para>The amount of work that these high-risk pests require will increase, and has increased in recent months, and will require considerably more amounts of manual effort. Automated decision-making, which is provided for in this through the amendments to the two bills, the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Imported Food Control Act 1992, enables that work to be done, lessening the operational burden in these high-risk times, allowing departmental officers to allocate those manual efforts and resources to more complex matters, which I think is sensible. We need to make sure that our resources are allocated appropriately and to ensure that we are using that human interface in the more complex situations that require that human touch.</para>
<para>As I mentioned, this bill does amend those two pieces of existing law—that is, the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Imported Food Control Act 1992. In doing so, these amendments will allow the Director of Biosecurity to determine, by way of a legislative instrument, which decisions under the Biosecurity Act can be made by an automated system. There will be judgement exercised about which decisions are made through these new processes. It also enables decisions under particular sections of the Imported Food Control Act to be made by automated systems as well, enabling the department to provide food control certificates to all food that's imported into Australia, irrespective of whether the food is required to be inspected, which I think should provide consumers the confidence they need when it comes to ensuring that what we consume here in Australia is not going to pose a threat, as already outlined in contributions so far. The certificates for foods that are not required to be inspected will remind both the importers and the brokers of their requirements to ensure food safety. We can never have a high enough standard when it comes to these sorts of things. Across the globe, modern regulators are increasingly relying on automated decision-making for decisions based on risk matrixes to enable a more timely decision-making process, freeing up resources to where they are better allocated. Again, it's about timeliness—ensuring that we do not unduly create delay. We often talk in this place about red tape and bureaucracy and about how to lessen them. This is a prime example of how we are reducing red tape and reducing the time it takes to do business with this country, and that's something I'm sure our trading partners will welcome with open arms.</para>
<para>It's also important to note that, in dealing with these sorts of things—how bills intersect with other parts of government and different pieces of legislation—there was a degree of internal consultation undertaken with the Attorney-General's Department; the Department of Health, which looks after food standards; the Office of Best Practice Regulation; and also, as you would expect for the drafting of a bill, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.</para>
<para>Those listening might be interested in the sorts of decisions that might well be automated through this process. It's a valid question to ask. Consideration will be given to all sorts of decisions and whether they are suitable for automation in line with administrative law requirements. There are standards around these things, and those standards will of course be applied. Ordinarily these decisions will be ones where particular facts are reliably established without the need for a subjective assessment or the need to assess information to come to a particular position. As such, you would expect fairly straightforward and simple cases where high degrees of resources and effort are not required to reach the conclusion that you would ordinarily reach when making an assessment.</para>
<para>The types of decisions that are not proposed to be subjected to automated decision-making include decisions that require assessment of information provided by applicants and assessment as to whether specified statutory criteria have been met. Complex decisions involving consideration of conflicting information from many sources would require persons adversely affected by the decisions to be accorded procedural fairness and again would not be covered by automated decision-making. I think that is just plain old common sense. Where we need to to-and-fro to establish facts, or go and do some research, or where officers need to apply their judgement and investigative skills to be able to assess whether something should be permitted or not, of course, an officer will be sent in to do that work. That is not what we are talking about. Of course, that means we should retain confidence in the processes we're talking about.</para>
<para>Obviously there'll also be great benefits flowing to stakeholders—importers of food, the brokers, our trading partners—which in turn will be of benefit to us here in Australia. The administration of the act and allowing officers to respond to biosecurity risk are critical. Again, it underpins the whole framework around our trading relations, particularly when it comes to primary produce. While it'll have a minimal impact on Australian domestic stakeholders, if we continue to prevent pests and diseases from entering our country through this process then, as Senator McGrath cited when concluding his remarks, our own crops and produce won't be subject to the risks associated from that exposure. That's what a robust biosecurity system is able to provide.</para>
<para>In terms of small business—the engine room of the economy, as we often refer to it, particularly in regional communities—it's about efficiency, it's about timeliness and it's about ensuring that goods get to market on time. Of course, the faster clearance of goods at the border through the automated decision-making process will reduce the burden on industry—I'm talking about red tape reduction and the timeliness of doing business with government—and result in a dramatic improvement for small businesses at the receiving end of these goods.</para>
<para>The department's systems have the capacity and the capability to automate decisions already; however, this bill will allow for more automated decision-making to increase efficiency. As already cited, this means that we will have faster clearance of goods across the border. It will also enable the department to maximise resources in addressing critical risks and ensure that current and planned decision-making tools can be implemented as effectively and efficiently as possible, optimising resources and minimising impacts on importers. This is something we absolutely need to do, because we do import and consume products from overseas, and that is an important part of what we are looking to do here.</para>
<para>In summing up—and without detaining the Senate any further—a significant degree of consideration has been given to this piece of legislation. We've talked about the acts that will be amended—the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Imported Food Control Act 1992—to enable the government to put in place automated decision-making. In summary, the bill ensures that there is a clear statutory basis for applications of automated decision-making under the Biosecurity Act. It enables wider use of automated decision-making to issue biosecurity directions and notices for imported food control certificates. It enables the Director of Biosecurity to determine by legislative instrument which biosecurity officer decisions under the Biosecurity Act may be made by operation of a computer program. It also authorises the Secretary of the Department Agriculture, Water and the Environment to arrange for automated decision-making for certain sections of the Imported Food Control Act.</para>
<para>These changes will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Biosecurity Act and the Imported Food Control Act, and will ensure that Australia’s biosecurity system continues to keep pace with the changing biosecurity environment and the emerging risks we face every year. This is particularly important in an environment where, as a nation, we import high volumes of goods on vessels entering Australia. We've already talked about the 45,000 commercial cargo referrals per month, a process that we have to deal with—a process which the passage of this legislation will be able to assist with—and where intensive resources are necessary to prevent incursion of high-risk pests and diseases such as African swine fever virus.</para>
<para>I conclude where I commenced, and that is to underscore the importance of the primary production sector, our agricultural businesses and every element of that in the value chain and the production chain, and why we need to protect this sector. By putting in place systems like this and enabling small business to get greater efficiencies out of our importing programs, we are doing the right thing by the rural and regional communities of Australia and by those people who invest in and work on our farms by protecting their biosecurity and by protecting jobs in these communities as well. I commend the bill to the Senate and once again thank senators for their contributions.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, then I shall call the minister to move the third reading.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>13</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of the government business order of the day relating to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>13</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6488">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020. While Labor supports this bill, we are seriously concerned about the government's ability to implement these changes properly. The bill will change the way income is reported to Centrelink. Its aim is to improve the accuracy of income reporting. It will remove the requirement for people to estimate their total pay based on the number of hours worked, which, of course, is more susceptible to error. Income will be reported based on when a person is paid, not when income is earned. In most instances people will receive their pay slip before reporting their income. This shift to reporting income when it is paid will more closely align the receipt of the employment income with the timing of the Centrelink payments. It will make it easier for people to manage their budgets.</para>
<para>The bill will also enable Centrelink to use the Single Touch Payroll information from the Australian Taxation Office to prefill income for Centrelink reporting. It will not be automated reporting, however. The individual will still be required to check and certify income that is prefilled using the Single Touch Payroll system. Improving the accuracy of income reporting will reduce instances of overpayments and underpayments. That's the hope and the wish. For many, the new reporting system will be more straightforward than existing payment and reporting arrangements. The prefilling of Single Touch Payroll data will, hopefully, make income reporting more convenient.</para>
<para>I note, however, that ACOSS and other stakeholders support these changes in the bill if they are properly implemented. If properly implemented, they could make interacting with Centrelink much easier for people on social security. But the government has to get it right. Labor are very concerned that the government simply won't get the implementation of these changes right, and we've got good reason to hold these concerns. This is a government that holds in contempt Australians who are doing it tough. No-one will forget the government's legacy of robodebt. This government has run down Centrelink services to the point where pensioners are waiting months to get the pension or are having to spend hours on the phone waiting to speak to someone.</para>
<para>We do not want to see more people having to wait for these payments or having those payments cut off. We certainly do not want to see any more people issued with false or inflated debts, because the government was unable to implement these changes properly. If people have questions, they should not be left waiting on the phone for hours. It is absolutely critical that the government has the right system and resources in place to make this scheme work. The government's track record on managing our social security safety net has been horrendous. The government must not let these new reporting arrangements go the way of robodebt.</para>
<para>This is a government that pursued thousands of innocent Australians with false or inflated debts for three long anxious and fearful years. For three long years the government stubbornly tried to defend the shambolic, cruel and illegal robodebt system. This is a government that has sought to make claiming or applying for income support so difficult, so painful and so frightening that vulnerable Australians just give up. This is a government that has axed, and outsourced to labour hire, thousands of Centrelink jobs. Over that time pension processing times skyrocketed and call waiting times to Centrelink for pensioners also skyrocketed. Older Australians who have done the right thing by this country, who have worked all their lives and contributed by paying taxes on their earnings, have been forced by this cruel government to wait months for their pension. Every pensioner will tell you their own personal nightmare about Centrelink. They have been forced to wait hours and hours on the phone just to speak to someone at Centrelink. Australians should not be made to jump one bureaucratic hurdle after another just to get access to Centrelink. Australians should be able to access income support or the pension as and when they need to.</para>
<para>It is no wonder the community are so anxious about the government's ability to implement these new reporting arrangements. The Senate inquiry into this bill certainly reflected the anxieties and concerns from the community. A number of submissions and witnesses raised significant concerns about this government's ability to implement the changes in the bill smoothly and efficiently. The National Social Security Rights Network, for instance, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We're particularly concerned about the transition periods, where we understand that people will actually need to do some manual calculations to make sure that the period that the data relates to is correct. That particular period is, I think, going to be fraught, and there are going to need to be additional resources from Services Australia to support people through that period.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Unemployed Workers Union said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While we support the idea of making income support reporting simpler, the recent experience with robodebt offers salient warnings about the harms that arise when the algorithms that inform income imputations do not reflect the reality of variable income many underemployed workers experience. The robodebt experience shows how the design and digitisation initiatives too often occurs in a vacuum, with insufficient testing of the concepts on human subjects and with a disregard for the suffering that arises when these initiatives fail to work as intended.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Council of Social Service said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We'd like to see the system tested on a large number of people in different circumstances and who live in different areas of Australia, with different access to online forms of communication, access to Services Australia et cetera … We need to see that comprehensive testing of the new scheme before it commences so that we can guard against any issues or problems that may exist in the scheme or that haven't been detected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Importantly, we want to see testing with social security law experts and not just people who could be affected down the road. That's because they can often identify issues that people who would be using the scheme may not be aware of, simply because they have a decent understanding of social security law. If we compare it what happened with robodebt, there was no consultation there with experts at all.</para></quote>
<para>And Anglicare, in their body of information, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is a lot going on at Centrelink at the moment, and it would be really good to see demonstrated consolidation of the current lessons to assist in the future changes. These changes must be seen as an investment into a better system for Australians. They will not work for the people using Centrelink if they're viewed as a cost-cutting exercise. An investment outlook will involve careful design and testing, but it will, ultimately, deliver better outcomes for everyone.</para></quote>
<para>Labor has supported the recommendations from the committee for further targeted consultations and user testing to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the simplification income reporting system to ensure that the measures and associated information and supports are capable of meeting the needs of all income support recipients.</para>
<para>Labor has also supported the recommendation that government commit to initiating a review of the implementation of the simplified income reporting measures within 12 months of commencement of the legislation and that a report of review be tabled in the parliament.</para>
<para>In addition, Labor has also recommended that the government take all reasonable steps during the period of transition to the new income reporting system to detect, to confirm and to correct overreporting of income. This is essential to ensure that payments are corrected and reflects the moral duty of care to use the available information in the system to make sure that social security recipients receive accurate payments.</para>
<para>We also recommend that the one-year review of the implementation of the changes proposed in the bill be conducted independently and that consultations with experts and social security recipients is part of the review process. Accordingly—to keep this slippery government honest—we're on the side that will be proposing three amendments to this bill. Firstly, we want to prevent the repeat of the unfair robodebt system. Secondly, we want to ensure that the government concludes a review of the changes in the bill. And thirdly, we want to improve the implementation of the bill through clearer rules about how irregular income will be averaged forward.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this government holds pensioners and those who find themselves in need of income support fundamentally in contempt. They have sought to make it so difficult and so painful for pensioners and other vulnerable Australians to access Centrelink that they have just given up; people have just walked away—it's too hard. That's what these schemes are designed to do. The government have unleashed the cruel robodebt system on thousands of innocent Australians, inducing fear and anxiety among the most-vulnerable Australians. They cut the pension and sought to cut it further—in every budget. And now they plan to cut the Newstart allowance by doubling the waiting period. Given this record, Labor is very concerned, and many in the community have already stated this, that the government runs a high risk of stuffing up the process of implementing these changes. The appeal is to pay attention to the implementation and ensure that it works for those in need and those who are reliant upon the system. But the Morrison government obviously can't be trusted to get Centrelink reporting right.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This bill changes the way employment income is reported and assessed for the purposes of determining income support payments—and of course it can't be taken in isolation from the fact that we are still going through the current robodebt debacle. So, in principle, something that actually has the potential to improve this situation should be looked at favourably, but it also needs to be looked at to ensure that it doesn't result in any further debacles involving vulnerable Australians who are trying to access our income support system.</para>
<para>The bill introduces new employment income attribution rules, and from 1 July this year income support recipients will report the gross income that has been paid to them by their employer. This represents a significant departure from the current model, where income support recipients have to estimate the amount of income they have earned—and anybody who has had to do that knows what a nightmare it can be. These measures will affect 1.2 million income support recipients who report earnings. This includes recipients of Newstart allowance—which, as we know, tends to be the jobseeker payment—single and partnered parenting payment, Abstudy, Austudy, youth allowance, single benefit, age pension, carer payment and the disability support pension.</para>
<para>From September this year, income support recipients will progressively have their Single Touch Payroll data prefilled when they report employment income to Services Australia. A person's employer and gross pay details will be prefilled through the Single Touch Payroll data. Income support recipients will then need to review, confirm or edit—and that's really important, and I'll come back to it—the prefilled information. By July 2021, all employers will be required to undertake Single Touch Payroll reporting except for those with one to four employees. In other words, Single Touch Payroll and the prefilling of forms for people will be rolled out over 12 months—another really important point that may confuse people.</para>
<para>This is a significant change to our social security system. Our social safety net looks after some of the most vulnerable members of our community. It is critical that we get these changes right and avoid the mistakes of the robodebt debacle. We have a responsibility in this place to ensure this bill does not cause unintended harm. The measure to simplify income reporting has broad in-principle support from the social services sector, but they have concerns which were expressed in the short inquiry that we had into this bill, and the Greens share these concerns. As I said, we support, in principle, the objectives of this bill, but we want to resolve a number of issues identified through the committee inquiry process, and I'm circulating a suite of amendments to address the issues I'm about to articulate.</para>
<para>This measure was part of the 2019-20 budget. Despite having had eight months to work on this legislation, there has been an incredibly limited consultation phase and a short time frame provided for stakeholders to consider the bill. I am concerned that the time frames for this bill are being driven by the associated savings, which the government claims to be about $2.1 billion over four years, instead of a genuine need to make reporting easier for income support recipients. That concern is specifically about the time line driving this.</para>
<para>There are some technical elements of this bill that are unclear and need to be clarified. I will be circulating an amendment to insert a definition of 'employment period' into the bill. As it currently reads, it is unclear whether 'employment period' refers to the number of days in a person's pay cycle period or the period during which a person worked. This could lead to a person misreporting their employment period and being penalised for using the wrong period. The amendment seeks to clarify this by explaining that 'employment period' means the period of time over which the employment income was earned. This issue was raised in the submissions to the Senate inquiry, and Victoria Legal Aid had strong concerns about the period of payment and how it would be used to assess income. They say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">it is not clear what is meant by the "particular period to which the employment income relates". It could be the pay cycle period … or the period during which the person worked.</para></quote>
<para>This means that people could be confused about how they report their employment period when reporting to Centrelink. This amendment seeks to clarify what is meant by 'employment period' so that people can report their income correctly—and we know what happens if people mistakenly report their income. It's a clarification that won't change any provision in the bill, and it won't change the way income is calculated or assessed.</para>
<para>There is another clause in the legislation that provides the secretary with discretion to attribute employment income that does not have a corresponding time frame—for example, a Christmas bonus. They can appoint that over a certain period. There are currently no guidelines or limitations on how the secretary should exercise their discretion, which we find concerning. The way income is assessed has consequences for how people manage their budgets and for eligibility, of course, for income support payments. Whether the secretary attributes a bonus for two or 52 weeks has real-life implications for income support recipients. This is why I am circulating another amendment that will require the secretary to consider the nature of the person's work or employment, any hardship that may be caused and whether the work was undertaken when the person was receiving income support.</para>
<para>The success of this bill largely rests on the quality of its implementation and rollout. Given the complicated nature of these changes, that, I think, is self-evident. This includes the phases of user testing, communication and supports provided to income support recipients. Let's start with user testing. During the bill inquiry, we heard evidence that a small-scale focus group of 10 people has been conducted in Brisbane. Services Australia has also been working on co-designing a letter about the changes to 600,000 customers of Services Australia. However, ACOSS, Anglicare and other stakeholders highlighted the need for more urgent, widespread and comprehensive user testing. We know that people receiving income support payments often had complex employment situations and experience additional vulnerabilities. I'm not convinced that there has been, or will be, a process that has captured all of these requirements by the user-testing process undertaken by Services Australia. I urge the minister and the department to ensure that the government urgently undertakes comprehensive user testing on a large and diverse range of cohorts. User testing must capture people of different ages, abilities, literacy levels and geographical locations; people with different access to technology; First Nations peoples; and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. It is also recommended that the government undertake user testing with social security law experts, who would to be able to identify issues with the new reporting rules.</para>
<para>On the other hand, the effectiveness of this bill hinges on how the new reporting rules are communicated to income support recipients. A key concern I have is that people will be nervous about editing their prefilled Single Touch Payroll data. It is possible that people will also assume that their prefilled data is correct and that they don't need to check it. This could lead to debts being raised against people who think they are doing the right thing. It is essential that income support recipients are provided with advice about their rights and responsibilities if they make changes to their prefilled Single Touch Payroll data, and we had a discussion about that—and about the need to be able to access information fairly well instantly when they're looking at their forms—during the Senate hearing into the bill.</para>
<para>During the bill inquiry, many stakeholders raised the likelihood that many income support recipients will be underpaid during the transition fortnight—there's a transition fortnight that's been identified for when people are being transferred to this new system of reporting. For example, ACOSS are concerned that people will double-count income as opposed to underreport income. Given there is no obligation for government to detect underpayments—and we have that on record from the government on a number of occasions—I am concerned that income support recipients will face additional hardship during this transition fortnight. I hope that the government will not unduly penalise any income support recipients who accidentally misreport their income during the transition period. In fact, I will be seeking, during the Committee of the Whole process, a commitment from the government about how they will look after people during the transition period.</para>
<para>To avoid unintended harm, the government must implement an effective communication strategy to ensure people from all backgrounds understand the changes. This includes tailored communication channels that meet people's needs, and we cannot assume everybody is digitally literate or has a strong understanding of English. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that Services Australia is getting the message. The transition calculator, frequently asked questions and video messaging will be provided online. What support options are available for those who don't report their income online? Centrelink apps are currently largely available in English, and some people find them hard to deal with. What happens to people who don't have a strong understanding of English or aren't digitally literate? This tailored communication strategy needs to start as soon as possible to ensure income support recipients have enough time to understand the changes.</para>
<para>Another key component of the implementation of this measure is providing appropriate support services through Services Australia. It is absolutely essential that people are able to ask Services Australia questions about the changes in person, online and on the phone. I'm worried that the closures of multiple Centrelink offices—which, I'll add here, my office is getting a large number of complaints about—will mean there won't be sufficient face-to-face support for people to understand the changes. I strongly recommend that the government consider having a dedicated Centrelink phone number, contact channels and face-to-face support for those that are affected by these changes.</para>
<para>As I mentioned earlier, we are concerned that this bill is being rushed through the Senate without proper consideration of the 1.2 million income support recipients who will be impacted. Stakeholders have voiced serious concerns that introducing new reporting rules in July, and then progressively rolling out the pre-filled STP data, will cause confusion for recipients. I don't have enough confidence in Services Australia to effectively communicate these two different changes in this extremely short period of time. I am concerned about whether Services Australia have the staffing, organisational or technical capacity to undertake user testing and get all those other issues addressed before the implementation on 1 July this year. This is why I've also circulated an amendment to delay the start date of this bill until 1 September 2020. So we are supporting it, but we think it needs a bit more time.</para>
<para>During the inquiry we heard about the importance of reviewing the operation of the bill and I addressed that in my additional comments to the inquiry. That's why I've also circulated an amendment for a review. But we don't just want the government to give us commitment; we want it in the legislation to make sure it actually happens.</para>
<para>I want to go specifically to the issue about robodebt, which I've spoken about extensively in this place, and articulate our concerns that this is not repeated. We understand that under this provision, if this works, future debts will be avoided and we think that's important. We think it is important that people are able to report their actual payment rather than having to continue to estimate it. But we are concerned that while we are dealing with this particular piece of legislation there are hundreds of thousands of people who still do not know what is happening with their illegal robodebts. So that's why I'm also circulating, and will move, a second reading amendment at the end of the motion to add:</para>
<quote><para class="block">but the Senate calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) come clean on the robodebt disaster;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) provide all legal advice relating to the robodebt program to the Senate; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) use the savings generated from this bill to compensate robodebt victims.</para></quote>
<para>As I said, we are supporting this legislation in principle because we think it's progress for income support recipients, but we have some concerns that if we don't get this right we'll end up in a bigger mess than where we started from, which is a big mess in terms of robodebt. That's why I'll be asking a series of questions in the committee of the whole and moving amendments to improve this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>009FX</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020. As chair of the Senate standing legislation committee on community affairs, I'm pleased to make a contribution to the debate. On 6 February 2020 the House of Representatives introduced the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020 to parliament. It was referred to the Senate standing legislation committee on community affairs on 6 February and the committee tabled its report on 20 February 2020.</para>
<para>The bill seeks to simplify the way income support recipients report their employment income to Services Australia. Under the Social Security Act 1991 income recipients who earn income through employment are required to calculate these earnings based on the number of shifts they, or their partner, have worked within a fortnight and report this estimate. This estimate is then used to determine their rate of payment for that period. In theory, this seems simple enough. However, in most cases a person will not know exactly how much they have earned until they are paid at a later date, which often falls after their income support payment is made. They may also have income from more than one source, further complicating the calculation. As a result, this scenario frequently results in social security recipients either over or under estimating their total income for the time period. This may then result in an overpayment or underpayment occurring. Measures introduced in this bill will make it possible for those receiving income support to report their gross earnings as it appears on their payslip from 1 July 2020.</para>
<para>Around $2.1 billion is expected to be saved over four years as a result of amending this legislation to ensure improved payment accuracy. It also implements the 2019-20 budget measure to change the social security income assessment model.</para>
<para>As noted by Senator Siewert, the measures in the bill will affect recipients who report income on jobseeker payment, parenting payment—single and partnered—Abstudy, Austudy, youth allowance, special benefit, age pension, carer payment, disability support pension and farm household allowance. This bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 and four other acts to ensure that employment income is assessed once it is actually paid to a social security recipient. This will provide a more accurate picture of the amounts of employment income paid to social security recipients and minimise the number of incorrect social security payments resulting from misreported employment income. As mentioned earlier, subject to the passage of legislation, it is proposed that this change in reporting will take place from 1 July 2020. This will allow recipients to adjust to the new reporting requirements prior to the addition of prefilled information being included later in the year.</para>
<para>At that point, Services Australia will use data collected by the Australian Taxation Office to facilitate this change. Payroll information collected through the Single Touch Payroll system, which is administered by the ATO, will be expanded under the changes outlined in this bill. From September 2020, it will be possible for Services Australia to use the data collected by the Australian Taxation Office via Single Touch Payroll to prefill payroll information for income recipients' fortnightly reports. This process is similar to the way the ATO already prefills tax returns in readiness for us to do our tax at the end of each financial year. Income recipients will be prompted to review and confirm or update the Single Touch Payroll data before it is used to assess their entitlements. The bill amends the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to remove any doubt that this may be done.</para>
<para>Once the new Single Touch Payroll is introduced, employers can use it to report income, tax and superannuation information to the ATO each time an employee is paid. There are a small number of employers who are eligible for temporary exemptions or for quarterly reporting until 2021, such as microbusinesses with between one and four employees, but most employers have transitioned, or are in the process of transitioning, to Single Touch Payroll. If a recipient works for an employer who is not covered by Single Touch Payroll, they will continue to report their income using their pay slip.</para>
<para>The ATO started sharing Single Touch Payroll data with Services Australia for employees who are customers of Services Australia from July 2019. This data includes the salary and wages, tax, lump sum payments and allowances in a year-to-date format on or before the employee's payday. From 1 July 2020, the ATO will start collecting an expanded set of income data from employers, with full implementation of this expanded dataset starting from 1 July 2021. The expanded dataset includes the disaggregation of gross income, Child Support Agency deductions and garnishee amounts, and reasons for stopping employment.</para>
<para>The bill also amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 to remove any doubt that Services Australia can use information from the Single Touch Payroll system to administer the family assistance law. It further amends the Student Assistance Act 1973 to remove any doubt that Services Australia can use this information to administer that act and the Abstudy scheme, and it amends the provisions in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 regarding the work bonus and pension bonus scheme.</para>
<para>During the inquiry, the committee received eight submissions regarding the legislation. Submitters were broadly supportive of the bill, noting it would simplify reporting obligations, help ensure income support recipients received the rate of payment they were entitled to and help reduce the number of social security overpayments. The submissions highlighted the complexity of the current system and noted government statistics regarding the significant rate of corrections of reported income due to mistakes being made in estimating and reporting income. The Australian Council of Social Service stated that it welcomed the bill because it will simplify the reporting of income and remove the guesswork involved in the current system.</para>
<para>Despite the broad support for this bill, there was one common concern posed by the submitters. This was the need to ensure that the new reporting system was robust enough and would work for everyone who needed to use it. Submitters highlighted the need for consultation and user testing with a range of income support recipients and organisations that support them, to identify potential risks and unintended consequences. I might just stop there.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Askew! You will be in continuation. It being 2 pm, we will go to questions.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>19</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Last night the minister released a statement saying that she had received an undertaking from Naval Group that at least 60 per cent of the contract value of the future submarines build will be spent in Australia. What is the legal basis of the undertaking?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for that question and, yes, I can confirm that I've been having ongoing discussions with my French counterpart Florence Parly to ensure that Naval Group delivers not only on cost and on schedule but also for Australian industry capability and content. We have had ongoing discussions and, as I reported back to the Senate per my release, we have agreed on a minimum of 60 per cent Australian industry content. There were very strict guidelines in the agreement we had with France for contracted arrangements, but there wasn't a specific number. That is what I have now negotiated with the French government, and also Naval Group, to ensure that we have a minimum of 60 per cent.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Marielle Smith, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At last night's Senate hearing, Naval Group revealed it would not make any contractual commitment to a local content target for another two years. Given former Minister for Defence Mr Pyne repeatedly asserted that 90 per cent of the build of the future submarines would occur in Australia saying, 'Less than 10 per cent of the work will be done outside Australia,' how is this undertaking now received by the minister any different to that received by Mr Pyne?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, nowhere in the contract is a 90 per cent figure mentioned.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So Chris was lying?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course he wasn't. Of course he was not.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Reynolds will continue when there's silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've said, I welcomed the commitment for 60 per cent, but it is very important to remember the stage that this project is up to. The project is still in the design phase. Even in the design phase, we've had many expressions of interest. We've had 1,500 expressions of interest, and several thousand companies are looking to work with Naval Group.</para>
<para>However, as those opposite would know, when you are designing your house or any other property, if you are still in the design phase you do not go out and get commitments and contracts to deliver supplies before you actually know what you want. At the moment, we are in the design phase of this project. Naval Group will start going out and looking at contracts in 2023. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Marielle Smith, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday the minister criticised Labor's strong advocacy on behalf of Australian defence workers and businesses, saying, 'Those opposite harp on about local content.' Can the Minister explain how advocating on behalf of Australian workers and businesses can be described as 'harping on'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for that question. I have to say I think I've just heard the definition of hypocrisy. You would have far more credibility if those on that side of the chamber when in government had commissioned a single Australian built ship. They commissioned zero. Zero per cent of 100 per cent is still zero. They caused the valley of death which we have fixed through our national naval shipbuilding project. So please don't come and lecture us when you have no credibility whatsoever on shipbuilding.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. What is the Morrison government doing to address the scourge of domestic and family violence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously, violence against women and their children is absolutely abhorrent. It's as simple as that, and we must never ever make any excuses for the sorts of behaviours that are perpetrated under situations of domestic and family violence. This isn't just limited to physical violence. It could be verbal, it could be sexual, it could be emotional and it could be financial. We believe that this must be stamped out in all its forms. It is completely unacceptable that any woman or her child should feel unsafe in Australia at the hands of a partner or a previous partner.</para>
<para>That is why we have a target of zero tolerance, in relation to domestic violence, and we have committed the largest ever amount of money towards achieving that through the fourth action plan. Particularly, we want to make sure that men take responsibility for their own attitudes and their behaviours, and we want to encourage them to seek the necessary help that they need to change those attitudes and behaviours. Last week, as part of the overall commitment of $340 million, we announced $2.4 million to go towards four specific programs to assist men, to help them make the behavioural changes that they need, to make sure that they end their use of control, of abusive behaviour and other problematic behaviours that lead, eventually, to a level of violence.</para>
<para>While it's absolutely essential that we continue to provide the level of financial resources to enable frontline services, to be able to meet the demands and respond to the issues that come before them, money alone is not going to change the dial. What we need to do is we need to change everybody's attitudes but, particularly, we need to make sure that those attitudes are changed to start with respect. It's very important that we make sure that the language that we talk about is a language of respect for everybody.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chandler, a supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister outline to the Senate what measures the government is funding to stop domestic violence before it starts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, it is an absolute goal of this government to make sure that we respond to domestic, family and sexual violence, but we have an additional goal and an additional responsibility, and that is to prevent it from happening in the first place. To that end, we will be continuing our campaign of Stop It At The Start. This campaign recognises that to break the cycle of domestic violence we have to encourage adults to reflect on their behaviours, on their actions and their attitudes and the impact that they have on our children, and about how children deal with and develop respectful relationships.</para>
<para>It explains that our actions and our language as parents, as family members, as teachers, as coaches, as role models, are very, very important, in terms of determining the influence that they have on young people. This is a three-phased approach. The first two phases, about bringing awareness to the issue and dealing with misinterpretation, have already occurred. The third phase is about to begin.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chandler, a final supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister explain what frontline services the government is investing in to reduce domestic violence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In addition to making sure that we deal with the issues of prevention, we are also making sure that the main frontline responders are showing real leadership. We want to stand by the states and the territories to make sure that we work with them to strengthen their response actions, whether it be with services or whether it be with law enforcement.</para>
<para>One example of the kinds of actions that we think are really, really important and we continue to be committed to is the funding of the 1800RESPECT phone line. This has become an absolute central pillar of the assistance that we give to women, and sometimes to men, when they are confronted with a situation of domestic violence—to make sure that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, anybody who is confronted with a situation of domestic violence can pick up the phone and make a phone call and speak to someone who can assist them, in making sure that they can give them the support and direction to deal with the issue that is before them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change: Australian Defence Force</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is also to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. I refer to the speech prepared for Defence Force chief Angus Campbell obtained under freedom of information in September 2019. That speech notes, 'Climate change is predicted to make disasters more extreme and more common,' and warned the ADF will be required to undertake more disaster relief operations and peacekeeping missions given climate change has 'the potential to exacerbate conflict'. What is the Morrison government doing to prepare the ADF for conflict in our region and beyond as a result of climate change?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Watt, for that question. I can confirm that Defence does have a very detailed policy on the impact of climate change and the impact on force structure. As you would know, it is also in the <inline font-style="italic">2016 Defence white paper</inline>, where it is very specifically referenced. The potential for climate change in our region, and also in our nation, is well addressed and well studied by the ADF.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are we going to have any detail?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Have you concluded your answer, Senator Reynolds?</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Watt interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I wasn't sure if Senator Reynolds had resumed her seat, concluding the answer, or you were rising on a point of order.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Watt interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Reynolds has finished, so we'll go to a supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to hear something about what that is, so I ask a supplementary question. The speech prepared for the Chief of the Defence Force noted:</para>
<para>Deploying troops on <inline font-style="italic">numerous disaster relief missions, </inline> <inline font-style="italic">at the same time, may stretch our capability and capacity.</inline></para>
<para>Does the Morrison government acknowledge climate change induced disasters pose a threat to the capability and capacity of the ADF? And again, I ask: what is the Morrison government doing to prepare the ADF for these challenges?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much, Senator Watt. As I said, the <inline font-style="italic">2016 Defence white paper</inline> did identify climate change as one of the causes of state fragility, a key driver for our security environment, out through to 2035. Defence prepares—as you referenced the CDF talking about it, as he does regularly—for climate change impacts on defence capabilities, estate, personnel, equipment and also related operational responses. You can see from Operation Bushfire Assist that the Australian Defence Force is well prepared for humanitarian disaster relief operations both here domestically and overseas. So I think the proof is there, Senator Watt, that we are well prepared and well capable of supporting any of those disasters here in Australia and overseas.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In January 2019, the US Department of Defense released a report assessing the future impact of climate change on its military installations. The report found more deserts, bushfires, flooding and drought—exacerbated by climate change—posed risks to the US military's bases and capability. Has the ADF conducted a similar assessment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will say for the third time: yes, the ADF has done extensive work on this and has preparedness for this. As I've said twice already—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Reynolds, Senator Watt is rising on a point of order. Senator Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is relevance. This question was about whether the ADF had conducted a similar assessment to that of the US Department of Defense. It wasn't about some general statement the government might have made.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, with all due respect, the minister had been speaking for 10 seconds. I was listening very carefully. At this point, I am more than happy to say she was being directly relevant. I believe your point of order goes to how she is answering the question rather than being directly relevant. There is an opportunity after question time to debate that. Senator Reynolds, I cut you off.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr President. As the Australian Minister for Defence, what I'm doing is actually answering the question about the Australian Defence Force and the extensive work that we're doing here. I cannot speak for the United States system or the United States Secretary of Defense and what his department has done. We have for many years in Defence looked at the impacts of climate change, and we work with the region in terms of humanitarian disaster response and many other supports. So the answer is: yes.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Cormann. Does the government accept the findings of the world's scientists contained in last December's <inline font-style="italic">United </inline><inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">n Science</inline> report, prepared for the UN climate summit, that the world is currently on track for up to 3.4 degrees of global warming? And can you please tell the Senate what the impacts of 3.4 degrees of global warming will be on Australia's economy and how many people will die?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've said on a number of occasions now in response to similar questions from Senator Waters, the government accepts the need to take action on climate change. We also are committed to ensuring that our actions are both environmentally effective and economically responsible. What we won't do is shift emissions, together with jobs and economic activity, overseas where, for the same level of economic—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Waters, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With respect, Mr President, it's relevance. I've heard the general spiel before. This question specifically went to the impact on our economy and people's lives of 3.4 degrees of warming.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, I can't instruct the minister how to answer the question, as long as he's being directly relevant to it. There's an opportunity after question time for senators to debate the merits or otherwise of answers. The minister can continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, the reason what I'm explaining to you is directly relevant is that if we did not do what we're doing then we would make the challenges for the global environment worse. If we were to decide to stop producing and exporting Australian coal and it were to be displaced by coal from other sources which are more polluting, the emissions in the world would go up. If we decided to pursue the reckless agenda that you're suggesting, we would shift jobs, economic activities and emissions overseas where, for same level of economic output, emissions would be higher and the world environment would be worse off. That is why what I'm saying to you is directly relevant.</para>
<para>The course of action that you're suggesting would not only harm working families around Australia; it would harm the global environment. This government will never do anything to gratuitously harm the Australian people in a way that would then also harm the global environment. Our agenda—we are committed to effective action on climate change, we are committed to taking action that is environmentally effective and economically responsible, and we will not make meaningless commitments without being able to tell the Australian people what the impact is going to be on them, on their jobs, on their future job security, and on their future job opportunities, particularly if it means making the situation for the global environment worse.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's own inadequate 2030 targets are consistent with three degrees of global warming. Given that it appears to be government policy to heat Australia by three degrees, can you please tell us, to the nearest billion dollars, the damage expected to be suffered to the tourism, agriculture and infrastructure sectors by your government's policies, or are you not costing your own policies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You are quite right: we are committed to a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target, which on a per capita basis means that we will be reducing emissions by half and on an emissions intensity of the economy basis means we will be reducing the emissions intensity in our economy by two-thirds. And do you know what? We have a target. The Labor Party doesn't even have a 2030 target—none. They're running for the hills. They're now trying to run a smokescreen. The reason the Leader of the Opposition came out with the statement he did last Friday is that he knows he can't get a consensus in his party room between Otis and Mr Butler around a 2030 target. That is what that is all about. It's just one massive smokescreen.</para>
<para>We are taking responsible action. We are being guided by our commitment to ensure that our agenda is environmentally effective and economically responsible. We will have to agree to disagree, and the Australian people— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you accept the findings of three key Australian climate scientists reported in the media today that neither the government's targets nor a zero-by-2050 target alone will limit global warming to less than two degrees and that what is needed is deep cuts to pollution now and a stronger 2030 target? Do you accept that science?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've said on many occasions now, the government is committed to effective action on climate change. But we're also committed to ensuring that the agenda that we pursue is environmentally effective and economically responsible. We will not be pursuing an agenda that gratuitously harms the future opportunities of Australians in a way that makes global emissions increase more, that makes the situation for the world environment worse. We want to improve the global emissions outlook, not make it worse. Indeed, Australia as a net exporter of energy—including, of course, as an exporter of Australian coal, displacing more polluting coal from other sources—will continue to help reduce global emissions in the way that we have for some time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence. Can the minister update the—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Abetz, I'd like to hear your question. I know it's kind to welcome senators asking questions, but I'd like to be able to hear them. Senator Abetz.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They always love hearing from me, Mr President! Can the minister update the Senate on any commitments made to guarantee Australian industry involvement in the Future Submarine program.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was so excited, Mr President! I thank Senator Abetz for his question and for his enduring interest in and support for defence and defence industry. I can advise colleagues that, since my appointment as Minister for Defence, I've worked closely with my counterpart, the French minister for defence, Florence Parly, to ensure that the French government is supportive of and that Naval Group is meeting our government's expectations for Australian industry involvement in the Future Submarine program. I welcome Ms Parly's commitment to me, and that from Naval Group, that they will achieve at least 60 per cent Australian industry involvement in the program. But this government is not just focusing on minimum benchmarks. I am holding and I will continue to hold Naval Group to account to ensure that they maximise Australian industry involvement, as outlined in their obligations through our strategic partnering agreement.</para>
<para>Through you, Mr President, to Senator Wong: this is an ambitious program capability, one that is also matched by its ambitions for Australian defence industry to deliver a sovereign capability. Our government's position is crystal clear: we are maximising Australian industry involvement. The Auditor-General recently concluded that we have the right partnering agreement to pursue this objective. The Future Submarine program underpins the growing strategic partnership between Australia and France, and I very much look forward to continuing my productive dialogue with Minister Parly as we deliver this critical national security capability for Australia. Minister Parly and I have agreed on an ongoing process to review at our level the implementation of the program on a quarterly basis for the rest of this year—meeting again in France in April and in Australia midyear.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Abetz, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for that extensive answer and I ask: can the minister advise the Senate what steps the government is taking to create a stronger and more resilient Australia by building Australia's sovereign defence industrial base to deliver the future submarines?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Abetz, for that question. We are investing $90 billion to create a national naval shipbuilding enterprise, not only to deliver a stronger and more resilient Australia but also to build a sovereign defence industry right here in Australia. This will deliver major strategic, economic and employment dividends for Australia but also for Australians for generations to come.</para>
<para>Unlike those opposite, our record stands proud and stands strong. We brought the air warfare destroyer and the Collins class back on track following Labor's failures during its times in government. We are exceeding targets for Australian industry content in the offshore patrol vessel program, which is already now over 60 per cent. We are delivering the sixth of 21 West Australian built Guardian class patrol boats committed to by this program. And, through our Hunter class program we are guaranteeing a continuous naval shipbuilding program here in Australia for generations to come.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Abetz, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for outlining that extensive record. Can the minister also outline to the Senate the government's commitment to Australian industry involvement in the broader naval shipbuilding plan?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This particular program is still in the preliminary design phase. However, despite this, we are already proactively engaging Australian industry to ensure Australian businesses are best placed to win contracts when the program enters production design phase, from 2023. But, today, already 1,600 Australian companies have registered interest in the Future Submarine program.</para>
<para>Australian companies are already benefitting from their participation in this program, in work such as research and development, exploring concepts ranging from autonomous navigation techniques to new methods of communication. Just two examples: Thomas Global Systems in Australia and Acacia Research in Adelaide are working on designs that will support the delivery of optronics, of radar and of navigational data distribution systems for the future submarine. Of course, all 12 boats will be built using Australian steel from companies like BlueScope.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>24</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I draw to the attention of honourable senators, the presence in the gallery of the Pacific Friendship Group of the German Bundestag, led by the Chair, Mr Volkmar Klein. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.</para>
<para>Honourable senators: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>24</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought, and Emergency Management, Senator Ruston. Australia's red meat sector has committed to being carbon neutral by 2030. Meat & Livestock Australia Managing Director, Richard Norton, has said—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Can I hear the senator's question?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He said that 'achieving the goal will put Australia head and shoulders above its competitors'. Is Mr Norton correct?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Ciccone, for your question. Mr Norton is absolutely right. The meat and livestock industry has made a commitment as a part of the agriculture sector to work towards their contribution to making sure that carbon emissions in Australia are kept as low as possible. Just like the National Farmers Federation, the meat and livestock industry is also part of the commitment by the agricultural sector to play a very important role in the Australian economy. In fact, I note that the National Farmers Federation, as part of their global roadmap towards 2030, have also committed to increasing the output of this industry to $100 billion. That's up from $60 billion to $100 billion, which is a very significant increase. I commend the agricultural sector for the innovative ways that they are addressing the expansion of the agricultural sector.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For those opposite, I would like to point out that the agricultural sector is a huge supporter of regional Australia. The Australian economy rode on the sheep's back, and it still does. The agricultural sector, whether it's through the meat and livestock industry, through the grains industry, through our fabulous horticultural sector or through our marvellous wine industry, all understands that Australia's future is going to be built on a future that does address the issues of carbon emissions. However, as the leader in this place has said constantly, the Australian Morrison government is not going to recklessly commit to a target of 2050, like you are, just because you think it is a good idea. We will be targeted in our focus about how we address our economy and emissions.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I would like to hear Senator Ciccone's question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ABARES estimates that over the last two decades more than $1 billion—that's right, $1 billion—has been wiped from annual agriculture production due to climate change. Does the minister accept the University of Melbourne's recent findings that failure to reach net zero emissions, which is required to meet our obligations under the Paris Agreement, is estimated to cost $211 billion in agricultural and labour productivity losses?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, there is much in Senator Ciccone's question that I would actually reject the premise of. However, what I would say is that what we are delivering as part of our policy as the Australian Morrison government's energy policy is what the Australian public voted for in May last year. It doesn't matter what you come in here and say. The fact is that the Australian government is absolutely committed to effective climate action that actually delivers an environmental result. But, at the same time, we're not going to be economically reckless and we are not going to put up people's prices.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Ruston. Senator Ciccone, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ciccone</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance: my question was very specific in relation to the University of Melbourne's findings, and that of ABARES. I ask the minister to come back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was part of the question. I had trouble hearing the minister's answer during my constant pleas for silence. I've let you remind the minister of the question. She has 17 seconds remaining.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just reaffirm that I rejected the premise of some of your question. However, I would say that this government actually accepts the science of climate change. We will continue to work in a responsible and effective way to address that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ciccone, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that yesterday the minister confirmed that the National Farmers' Federation's <inline font-style="italic">2030 Roadmap</inline> includes the goal of Australian agriculture achieving carbon neutrality and that Meat & Livestock Australia aims to be carbon neutral by 2030, why is this Liberal-Nationals government failing to back the Australian agricultural sector?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will just draw to Senator Ciccone's attention some comments yesterday by the NFF's CEO, Tony Mahar, on <inline font-style="italic">Sky News</inline>: 'We've got a policy position. That policy position has been in place since 2018, and it's part of our roadmap towards a $1 billion agricultural sector. As part of that roadmap we would like to move towards carbon neutrality in 2030'—and here's the bit you need to listen to, Senator Ciccone—'so it's not that we would be carbon neutral by 2030, or by 2050 for that matter. What we have said is that we need to be trending towards a net zero approach by 2030.'</para>
<para>So, I think you also need to be very careful, when you come in here and make these accusations, that you are absolutely correct in what you are making the assumption of, Senator Ciccone.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left! There's too much noise.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Drought</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Senator Ruston. Despite recent very welcome rainfall, most of New South Wales is still in drought or is drought-affected, which became very apparent to me last week when I was with charity organisations in drought-affected Molong. How is the government continuing to support these drought-affected communities?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to be clear with the minister that if she wishes us to give leave to Senator McKenzie to add to the answer, we will do so.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, that's not a point of order. You know better than that. Senator Cormann?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, that was not a point of order. That was just another demonstration of the juvenile nature of Labor politics in Australia today.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll declare that 15 all, with two people who should know better both making points of order that were not. Senator Ruston, to answer the question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank fellow regional senator, Senator Davey, for her question. We both know that people living in rural and regional communities know that drought is not like fire or flood. It doesn't just occur; it creeps up slowly. But when it actually takes effect, it has a massive effect on our regional communities. As you rightly point out, we've had some great rain, and obviously we want more. But it hasn't been enough to break the drought. We're going to need an awful lot more rain, and it's going to be long time, even after those rains, before our rural and regional communities are going to recover.</para>
<para>Despite the rain, 98.8 per cent of rural and regional New South Wales, your home state, is in drought, with 22 per cent classified as being in intense drought. The Australian government is absolutely committed to assisting our rural and regional communities through this terrible drought, with over $8 billion now having been put into recovery actions and initiatives. Just last week the government extended its Drought Community Support Initiative, with another $82.75 million of continued funding to assist households that are battling this terrible, terrible drought, on top of the commitments that have already gone out the door—$180 million—and in New South Wales alone that's $36 million that's been invested in eligible household support.</para>
<para>Since May last year the government has rolled out more than $1 billion in grants and payments to support our regional communities. We've announced the appointment of the drought coordinator, Shane Stone, to make sure we work with our states and territories, because it's really important that we work together so that we play an important role of coordination and collaboration and make sure we get the very best out of every dollar that's been invested so that we are targeting our farmers and their communities so that they receive the support they need. It remains a key priority of this government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Davey, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister please explain how the government's actions are helping to build a stronger and more-resilient Australia for farmers as they continue to struggle with this drought?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a range of measures available to farmers who are struggling with drought. Recognising that there is no one-size-fits-all model here, we need work individually with farmers and their communities to make sure that we are targeting and putting the right and appropriate drought supports in place for our farmers. As an example, one of the most important measures has been the farm household allowance. It's a safety net, and it's there to make sure that our farmers have the dignity and the respect that they deserve during these tough times and to make sure farming families can put food on the table. Also, in response to our significant drought conditions last year, we changed the existing drought loans eligibility and criteria through the Regional Investment Corporation to make sure that we could get money to farmers that was interest free over the next two years so that they would not be burdened with the interest. We continue to invest in our farming communities because we know they need our help.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Davey, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What support is there to help build resilience across the communities, specifically in associated industries like agronomy and in farm supply companies that have seen their incomes fall as well as a result of this ongoing, incessant drought?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Davey makes a very good point, because it's not just the farmers who are impacted. Drought doesn't stop at the farm gate; it extends to the mechanics who have to fix their tractors. It might impact the schools and the number of children who are actually going into town to be educated. It might impact local businesses that are just so vital to the fabric of the community. Last month, another 52 local government areas applied for and were successful in getting the million-dollar Drought Communities Program funding to stimulate their local economies, to make sure that there was money in the economy to allow the money to flow through to these communities and the small businesses in these towns. It's about making sure that we support the local tradies. It might be through supporting local products being bought and local jobs in the communities. In your home state of New South Wales, Senator Davey, $121 million has been committed to New South Wales shires to make sure that we are supporting the local governments to support their communities. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Payne. Duncan Lewis says that China is attempting a takeover of Australia's political system with foreign interference and espionage. My question for the minister is simple and direct: is China a threat to Australia's political system and national security?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Lambie for her question. As colleagues would know, China and Australia have a deep and longstanding relationship which is underpinned by the development of a comprehensive strategic partnership between our two nations. We have the highest levels of engagement and respect within the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and its key platforms. The senator has made observations in relation to the differences that exist between us. These are differences which we endeavour to manage with respect, acknowledging that we are very different systems. We are very different culturally and politically, and we have—as we all realise, being elected to a democratic parliament—very different approaches to a number of key areas of governance. That said, though, I think it would be remiss of me not to also acknowledge the depth of the strength of the Chinese-Australian diaspora, for example, in this country, which brings enormous richness and support to our nation and goes back over at least a century. Those of us who are heavily engaged in this area in strategic terms work very closely, but we make our differences clear in a respectful and appropriate way. I appreciate the concerns that Senator Lambie has raised, but they do not lead to the conclusion, on my part, that she has drawn.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll attempt to rephrase my question to the minister for her to answer directly. Has China conducted foreign interference operations against any Australian targets?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think Senator Lambie has been part of this chamber for long enough to know and been part of the relevant committees for long enough to know that the Australian government never comments on intelligence matters.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>China says that all suggestions by Australian media and security institutions about Chinese interference are fabrications. So I'm asking the minister about what they're saying—does she believe they're right? And if she doesn't, then why won't the Liberal-National parties support an inquiry into relationships with China?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I actually missed the very beginning of Senator Lambie's second supplementary question. But I will say that in relation to matters of foreign interference, no matter where they come from, this government has taken a very forward approach on those matters. We have introduced legislation, which has been through this place and the other place, to address issues of foreign interference. We have in the last week, for example, attributed cyberinterference particularly in relation to actions of Russia, and these are things that we take very seriously. We make those decisions and acknowledgment of those issues—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Payne. I have Senator Lambie on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. I'm simply asking why the coalition—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Lambie. I'm afraid Senator Payne has concluded her answer. Senator Chisholm.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Sport Infrastructure Program</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Evidence from the Australian National Audit Office to the select committee has revealed that the Prime Minister's office corresponded with former Minister McKenzie's office about the Community Sport Infrastructure program on dozens of occasions, with one email stating: 'These are the ones we think should be included in the list of approved projects.' Does the minister believe the actions of the Prime Minister's office, in directing the approval of projects for a political purpose, was appropriate?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't accept the characterisation that Senator Chisholm has put on it. The correspondence that has been released is entirely consistent with the statements the Prime Minister has made on a number of occasions now. Of course, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's office, like prime ministers in the past, have made representations on behalf of colleagues. Ultimately the decision-maker was Senator McKenzie. All of these things are long on the public record.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What direction did the Prime Minister or his office provide to the minister's office with respect to the Urban Congestion Fund?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think Senator Cash gave an outstanding answer on the Urban Congestion Fund yesterday. One of the things she made very clear was that the projects approved under the Urban Congestion Fund were decisions by government. Indeed, there was a whole series of election commitments that we took to the last election—at which we were successful. The Labor Party had already been measuring the curtains in the Lodge. They had already made all of the arrangements to take over government. But, of course, the Australian people had a better idea. The Australian people decided to endorse the plan that we took to the last election, including our plan to address urban congestion. These are decisions that went through the usual and proper processes of government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chisholm. A final supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Which other programs was the Prime Minister or his office involved in, in directing the approval or selection of projects prior to the election?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If the senator has a specific question I'm happy to answer it. In relation to programs funded by the government, the usual decision-making processes apply. Again, if the senator has a specific question, I'm happy to assist him.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Resources Industry</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. What actions are the Morrison government taking to create a stronger and more resilient Australia through supporting a skilled workforce, for the future, in the resources sector?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Rennick for the question, and I acknowledge that he comes, like I do, from one of the great states that understands the benefits that the resources sector makes to its economy but also understands that as a government we have to continue to put in place policies that will ensure the future of the resources sector in Australia. When we have a strong resources sector, the economy prospers and grows, and we see the creation of more jobs for Australians.</para>
<para>In terms of job creation, since we were elected to office in 2013 the policies that the coalition government has put in place have seen the economy create now in excess of 1.5 million jobs. In fact, with the recent labour force figures for January 2020, employment has increased by almost 250,000 jobs, and that continues to be above the decade average for jobs growth.</para>
<para>We've also made a commitment that we will put in place the right policies that will enable the economy to create an additional 1.25 million jobs over the next five years. To achieve this, we understand that we in Australia need a strong resources sector and we need to ensure that Australians have the necessary skills that our resources sector needs. That is why, through the government's $585 million investment in our skills package, we've announced a skills organisation pilot in the resources industry and, in particular, the mining industry.</para>
<para>The mining industry, as we know, is strongly engaged with the VET system. The mining industry invests heavily in its workforce and in the training of its workforce to ensure that they have the necessary skills. We are committed to working with the resources industry to ensure that they continue to deliver and we as a government continue to deliver to Australians the right skills— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Why is supporting the continuing development of a skilled workforce for our resources industry critical to promoting economic growth?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's because the resources industry in Australia makes such a great contribution to the Australian economy. We as Australians rely on a strong and growing mining industry that is highly reliant on a skilled, mobile and diverse workforce. In terms of the statistics, the resources sector accounted for eight per cent of Australia's GDP and 59 per cent of Australia's export earnings in 2018-19. That is something that the coalition government respects. The sector employed nearly 245,000 Australians at the end of 2018-19. That's around two per cent of Australia's total workforce. Also, though, as a sector, it is one of the fastest growing employers in the Australian economy, with employment rising from 94,000 just 15 years ago. That's why we— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to supporting our resources sector, and are there any risks associated with this approach?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've employed an actor. Do almost anything else. Do something vaguely competent.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have to say that there are some on the other side who have done something 'vaguely competent'—to take the interjection from the senator—and they are the Otis group, who expressed confidence in the resources sector of this country but were shouted down by those at the top. They are a group of Labor senators who raised what we believe is actually a valid point and expressed support for the resources industry and its job-creating prospects. They were not just shouted down by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Labor Party; on top of that, they were then insulted by the policy Labor brought out in relation to net zero emissions for everything by 2050. That is a job-destroying policy. So, for those on the Labor side who do support growing the resources industry, I look forward to watching you— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assange, Mr Julian</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Marise Payne. Minister, last year you flew to Thailand to lobby the Thai government against extraditing Hakeem al-Araibi, an Australian soccer player, to Bahrain. At the time you said publicly your intervention was because you were very concerned about Hakeem's detention and very concerned about his potential extradition to Bahrain. This was the right thing to do. Minister, given that you and your government were so vocal about Hakeem's detention and the risks of his potential extradition, why have you not shown the same zeal and commitment to secure the release of Australian citizen and Walkley-Award-winning journalist Julian Assange? Why have you not flown to the UK to lobby the UK government or to the US to lobby the US government against extraditing Julian Assange?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his question. On any examination of the facts of the two matters which Senator Whish-Wilson has put to the chamber, that of Hakeem al-Araibi and that of Julian Assange, they are qualitatively different circumstances. As the government have previously indicated, we are in regular contact with authorities in the United Kingdom, in line with our consular mandate, and have been assured by those authorities that Mr Assange is being held in appropriate and humane conditions. I can also inform the chamber that I specifically raised the issues of Mr Assange, and his conditions, in my discussions with Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Secretary Raab, when he visited Australia just a matter of weeks ago. I want to also note for the chamber—and this may go to a further question from Senator Whish-Wilson, at which point of course I would repeat this statement—it is important to note that the Australian government has no standing in any of Mr Assange's legal proceedings and is unable to intervene in them.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They certainly are different, Minister. Let me tell you why. Overnight, the UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, said that Julian Assange's case is about more than one individual. He said, 'This is a battle over press freedom, the rule of law, and the future even of democracy.' Strong words coming from the United Nations. Minister, if you agree with the United Nations about what is at stake here, why isn't your government doing more to intervene in this case and bring Julian Assange home—more than the usual consular assistance?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My personal opinion on what the special rapporteur may or may not have said is not relevant in this matter. What is relevant is the undertakings the Australian government has sought from British authorities in relation to the position on the detention of Mr Assange as the proceedings are awaited. We continue to closely monitor Mr Assange's case, as we would for other Australians in detention overseas in other contexts, and we in fact do. I note that Mr Assange has a very high public profile. For the Australian government, he is a consular client, and one for whom we provide appropriate support, according to our consular mandate, as I said. I appreciate that members of the public, including people in this chamber—self-evidently from Senator Whish-Wilson's questions—do feel strongly about Mr Assange's situation. But it is important to remember that Australia cannot intervene in the legal processes of another country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A few days ago, it was revealed that meetings between Julian Assange and his lawyers had been secretly taped and filmed. This is a clear and egregious breach of legal professional privilege. Minister, do you believe that Julian Assange will get a fair trial in the US, or do you agree with Nils Melzer that, for all intents and purposes, Julian Assange is a political prisoner and he should not be extradited to the US, where he would face nothing but a politically motivated show trial?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson continues to quote the views of an individual rapporteur—yes—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've done it on several occasions—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>of an individual rapporteur who has made a range of observations, not all of which we agree with. As I have indicated, and I am aware of the media reporting in relation to alleged surveillance of Mr Assange while in the Ecuadorian embassy, I don't intend to provide a running commentary on this case. I don't provide running commentaries on cases before courts in other parts of the world, nor in Australia, frankly. We have no standing in the legal matter that is currently before the courts. As is the case for any individual, Mr Assange is entitled to due legal process, which we expect the legal systems of both the US and the UK to deliver. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Industry</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. The Minister for Defence Industry has said there are over 130 Australian companies and organisations subcontracted in the design phase of the Future Submarines. Can the minister then explain why this government counts the work of French-language school Alliance Francaise d'Adelaide as Australian industry content for the Future Submarines?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I have already in this question time comprehensively gone through what our policy is in relation to the Future Submarine project and Australian industry, and in terms of what stage we are at. Can I remind the senator that we are in the early design phase and we are two years away from—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order is direct relevance. This is a direct quotation from the minister's junior minister which is making an assertion about local content. We have asked the minister why Alliance Francaise is included as being one of the companies that the government has counted for local content. We haven't asked about policy; we've asked a very specific question about what is included in local content.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm listening carefully to the minister's answer. You've reminded her of the nature of the question. She can also respond to the quotation of the minister. But she has been speaking for only 20 seconds, and I'll call the minister to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong or the senator who asked the question might not understand the importance of this phase of the project; however, it is incredibly important. We are still in the early design phase. As I said in a previous answer, through Naval Group, that money is going back into the local communities. In the cases you cited, they are South Australian companies that employ Australians. So whether they are a service provider or a construction or a manufacturing company, they are Australian companies employing Australian people—and, unlike you opposite, we think that is a very good thing.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, thank you, Mr President; I do have one. Can the minister explain why this government counts media monitoring as Australian industry content for the future submarines?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, I've made this point at least three or four times in question time already: this is money going into Australian businesses in local Australian communities employing Australians. You might not think that is a good thing—because, clearly, you dismally failed in doing that at all; in fact, you created the valley of death. You might not like it, but we are putting money, through our contractors, including primes—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, a point of order on direct relevance. It was a very simple question that we'd asked the minister to be directly relevant to, which is why the government believes media monitoring should be counted as Australian industry content for future submarines. Why is media monitoring part of local content?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, with respect to the point of order, the minister can answer it as long as she is being directly relevant. That goes, in my view, to instructing her how to answer a question. The minister was explaining the government's position on the importance of money being spent locally. I do concede that to be directly relevant. There's an opportunity after question time to debate answers.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I really don't think I've got much more to add. If Senator Wong does not understand Australian companies, and money going in, and Australian employees, I really have nothing more to add.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr President. I do have another question. Can the minister explain why this government counts the work of the Royal Agricultural & Horticultural Society of South Australia as Australian industry content for the future submarines?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've said, and for about the sixth time, Australian companies, Australian jobs, money in Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister outline the Morrison government's actions to create a stronger and more resilient Australia through our record investment in aged care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Smith for his question and for his long interest in aged care, which we have discussed many times. This government is committed to improving the aged-care sector in Australia, and we have delivered unprecedented investment into aged care. This year, 2019-20, our investment will be $21.4 million into the aged-care sector—funding that goes towards some of this government's most important priorities. We have provided 44,000 additional home care packages in the last two years alone. That's an additional investment of $2.7 billion. We can do that, because we've managed the budget well and we have the capacity to make these investments. When we came to government there were just over 60,000 home-care packages in the market. That will go to 158,000 in 2022-23, an increase of over 160 per cent. Our government is supporting 1.3 million Australians in some form of aged care across the system.</para>
<para>Our determination to ensure that we have the best aged-care system possible is demonstrated by our calling of the royal commission—one of Prime Minister Morrison's first acts when coming to government—so that we could have the best overview of the system. We've put in place the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. We appreciate the opposition supporting the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission legislation that went through the parliament just prior to Christmas.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister advise the Senate what the government is doing to support the aged-care needs of our older Australians and the communities they are living in?</para>
<para>Opposition senators: Not enough.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Those sitting on the opposite side might think that this is not something of note. Our announcement on 31 January of almost $50 million towards the Business Improvement Fund demonstrates our desire to ensure that aged-care providers across Australia are supported when they get into difficulty. We already have in place a business assessment service. The new Business Improvement Fund provides support to aged-care providers from all over Australia who qualify. It helps them implement strategies to improve their delivery of aged care to senior Australians. This government remains determined to ensure that the care provided to senior Australians across the nation is the best it possibly can be.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister advise the Senate on how the new powers and authorities of the independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission are protecting our senior Australians and ensuring they receive quality care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators opposite don't seem to really care about the importance of aged care to Australians. They went to the last election with $387 billion worth of new taxes and not one single new home-care package, not a cent for the workforce and not a cent for mainstream residential care. Providing safe quality care is important. As I said before, we do appreciate the support that the opposition gave to us in legislating to bring all the functions of quality care into one service under the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. It was an important reform that was recommended by the Carnell-Paterson review. Those regulatory powers give senior Australians the capacity to go to one agency now in respect of all the issues that relate to their aged care.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>31</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Water</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>31</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, pursuant to standing order 164(3), I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia as to why order for the production of documents No. 255, relating to New South Wales water access licences, has not been complied with.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that there are a large number of documents under this order. I understand though that Senator Patrick has been working with the former Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Mr David Littleproud, on this issue. I have made contact with the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Mr Keith Pitt, and I'm advised that the government will work constructively with Senator Patrick to provide the Senate with the documents that he seeks.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the statement.</para></quote>
<para>I point out, however, that this OPD is now 13 weeks overdue. It is an OPD of importance. Let me provide some context as to why it's important. For people who are not familiar with the Murray-Darling Basin system: there are three main rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin—the Murray River, the Darling River and the Murrumbidgee. The Murray River flows from the east across to South Australia and provides South Australia with its water entitlement. The Darling River flows from the northern basin down past Menindee, where the fish kills took place last year, and into the Murray River. It contributes to South Australia's water entitlement—except we've got a problem. That is that the Darling is dry. We've been in a situation where, for the first time since settlement, Tolarno station in particular—I've been there a few times—has been without water flowing past its property on the Darling. Since 1851 never has it been not flowing for more than three months. That situation changed in 2015. The river is bone dry. That means that instead of having the northern basin feeding down through the Darling River into the Murray, we now have to rely on the Murray itself, the entire Murray River, to provide all of South Australia's water.</para>
<para>Now people in this place may remember protests that we had outside parliament and protests that took place in southern New South Wales and Victoria in relation to their lack of ability to pump water from the Murray. It's not that the Murray is not full. It's simply that they can't afford to buy the water that's passing their property because it has to meet South Australia's water obligation. It's not South Australia's fault. The fault is that instead of getting 40 per cent of our water coming from the Darling, there's none. There's no water coming from the Darling River into the Murray. It's hugely problematic.</para>
<para>This all comes down to the incompetence of the New South Wales government in managing its river system. It's failed to properly manage the northern basin. It's failed to even lodge its water sharing plans under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Former minister Littleproud and I didn't agree on a lot in terms of the Murray-Darling—he would often call me a cotton killer and I would often call him a river killer—but we did agree on the fact that it is quite proper for the federal government to withhold funds from New South Wales until such time as they lodge those water sharing plans.</para>
<para>We all know there's been a fair amount of rain in Queensland and New South Wales. I would have thought we would use that water to have a first flush to allow water to flow down through the river system to get the Darling River flowing back into the Murray. That would have provided relief for irrigators in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. So in some sense the New South Wales government are cutting their nose off to spite their face. What they've done in this instance is, instead of placing an embargo—in fact they did place an embargo for a very short period of time, and then they lifted it for some reason—instead of allowing water to get to communities that need it and get all the way down the Darling to the Murray, they have started pumping again. They started floodplain harvesting. As I said, that will perhaps advantage some of the irrigators in the northern basin, but it will severely disadvantage irrigators in Victoria and southern New South Wales.</para>
<para>So we have a perverse situation where, when the Queensland rain started in February, New South Wales water minister Pavey basically came out and complained that Queensland wasn't letting water flow down into New South Wales. And yet, when the rain starts to fall in New South Wales, she doesn't let water flow down the Darling River, instead letting irrigators take that.</para>
<para>Now, I'm kind of sick of New South Wales. Every time there's a problem with the river, they threaten to pull out of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They threatened to pull out of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan when the Senate blocked changes to the northern basin, when the Northern Basin Review was underway. When the Labor Party proposed lifting the 1,500-gigalitre cap on water buybacks, New South Wales spat the dummy again and came out threatening to leave the plan. They've done it several times in relation to the 450 gigalitres of efficiency measures which have been built into the plan and to which they agreed. They are like a petulant child. It's their mismanagement that has stopped water flowing from the northern basin through the lower Darling and into the Murray River, which would provide relief for irrigators in Victoria and New South Wales. As I said, they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.</para>
<para>Now I want to go to the Murrumbidgee, because that's what this OPD was about. It's a similar story. The Murrumbidgee is another river that feeds into the Murray. We're looking at a situation where we've got some alpha irrigators—an alpha irrigator is someone who believes that any water that flows past their property will be wasted, so they take as much of it as they possibly can—building storage dams up in places like Hay, and their aim is to capture supplementary water that would otherwise have flowed into the Murray. That's exactly what this OPD was about. It's a disturbing and fairly dumb thing to do, and it's really driven by greed. OPD 255 sought to gain access to information about how those storage dams came about, and it stemmed from the ABC's <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline> report on that scenario in its 'Cash splash' program. It's for this reason that this is quite an important order for the production of documents. The Senate does need to see what is happening along the Murrumbidgee. It's an important feeder into the Murray River, just like the Darling River is, and we need to start being sensible about it.</para>
<para>I understand that there are many stakeholders across the river system. They include irrigators and, of course, tourism operators, the environment, Indigenous people—lots and lots of different stakeholders. We do want to share the water about, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. We get our first rains, but instead of having a flush of the river system and then getting back to normal, and everyone getting their fair share, that hasn't been happening. We need to examine what is going on in the Murrumbidgee, and that is why it's important for this OPD to be responded to in an open and transparent manner.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>33</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought, and Emergency Management (Senator Ruston) and the Minister for Defence (Senator Reynolds) to questions without notice asked today by Senator Ciccone and Senator Watt relating to climate change.</para></quote>
<para>One of the big issues dominating political discussion at the moment is climate change: its impact on our economy, its impact on jobs and its impact on the environment. One of the reasons why this debate is so alive at the moment is the shocking bushfires that we saw over the summer break and the predictions from the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and many other scientific groups that we face similar—in fact, more and more severe—natural disasters into the future as a result of climate change. That's one of the reasons federal Labor have in the last few days announced our commitment, should we be elected at the next election, to ensuring that Australia becomes carbon neutral by 2050.</para>
<para>To start with, what does that mean? What that means is simply that we would, as a country, absorb or offset at least as much pollution as we emit into the atmosphere. I note, in fact, that the government has made the very same commitment by signing Australia up to international agreements at the Paris convention about four or five years ago. The government has made exactly the same commitment that Labor has announced. You wouldn't know that from the reaction from the government. Many people, from Senator Canavan to the Prime Minister himself, are running around like Chicken Little, saying that the whole world will fall in in Australia, that every industry in Australia will fall over and that every job in Australia will disappear. If that's the case, you have to wonder why it is that the government itself has made the very same commitment. I can't imagine that this government would want to see every industry or every job disappear, and it wouldn't have signed up to that commitment if it actually would have that effect. That's why it is so patently false for the government to continue going around making these comments.</para>
<para>As has already been said by a number of people, in some respects there's nothing revolutionary about this commitment. It's something that more than 70 countries around the world have already committed to, as have some of the biggest emitters in the corporate world in Australia—whether it be BP, Shell, Santos, Origin, Qantas or BHP. These are companies that create a lot of emissions as well as creating a lot of jobs. They've decided that they can reach carbon neutrality by 2050, and I ask the government: why is it that these companies, some of the biggest emitters in this country, are capable of doing this but it's so terrible and disastrous an idea for Australia as a country to do so?</para>
<para>One of the other groups that have made a commitment around carbon neutrality is Meat & Livestock Australia, which represents the beef industry in this country. Not only have they made a commitment to reach carbon neutrality but they are aiming for their industry to be carbon neutral by 2030, 20 years ahead of Labor's commitment to reach this point by 2050. Again, the beef industry, and agriculture in general, is one of the bigger emitting industries in this country. It creates a lot of jobs and a lot of export dollars, but it also creates a lot of emissions. So you would think that, if there were one industry that would be concerned about signing up to carbon neutrality in any decade coming forward, it would be the agriculture industry and, in particular, the beef industry. But they've done that. They are aiming to reach carbon neutrality by 2030, and it's no surprise, because between 2005 and 2016 the beef industry actually reduced its emissions by 60 per cent. This shows this can be done. This does not mean the end of the beef industry or agriculture. This can be done.</para>
<para>Why are they doing so? Their then managing director, Richard Norton, said, 'Achieving this goal'—carbon neutrality—'would put Australia head and shoulders above its competitors.' This is actually an economically sensible thing to do for the beef industry. This is not just about the environmental benefits which we will all gain by reducing our emissions; this is actually the economically sensible thing to do, because the beef industry, like so many others, knows that the cost of doing nothing, as the government would have us do, is far higher than the cost of taking action on climate change.</para>
<para>Senator Ruston in her answers, in the spirit of this government's approach to climate denialism, sought to deny the commitment of the MLA and then went on to deny and reject the premise of the question when we put to her figures that were actually provided by the federal government's own bodies. ABARES, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, has said that over the last two decades more than $1 billion has been wiped from annual agricultural production due to climate change. The agriculture industry knows that becoming carbon neutral is not only good for the environment but good for their bottom line. The claims that government members are making, that this industry and other industries will die, are simply wrong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd just like to start by commenting on the cruelty of the Labor Party's tactics group, which keeps humiliating their own senators with their line of questioning, which never fails to highlight their absolute inadequacies in any number of policy areas. I think it's particularly harsh to be leading out with Senator Watt, who was, along with his left-wing colleagues, the author of the strategy at the last election to make it a climate change election, which worked out so beautifully for them around the country but most particularly where Senator Murray Watt was leading the charge, in the great state of Queensland. This is where the Labor Party, in making it a climate change election, managed to poll at roughly 22 per cent of the primary vote.</para>
<para>I would like to, first, comment on the absolute abject cruelty of Labor's question time strategy when it comes to highlighting their inadequacies. When they ask about aged care, we're reminded of the fact that they had $387 billion of new taxes and not one dollar—not one dollar—for aged care. When they ask about defence, we are reminded of the fact that the Labor Party lowered the defence budget as a proportion of GDP to about the lowest in this country since World War II, and we have been picking up the slack since. When we talk about climate change, and when they ask questions about climate change, we are reminded about the Labor Party's abject failure when it came to policies in this space.</para>
<para>Despite imposing a carbon tax that they promised they would not impose on the Australian people, guess what? When the Labor Party were in government, they were still on track not to meet the 2020 Kyoto targets. So not only did they impose this economy-destroying tax, which we had to come and repeal in 2013-14, but also they were still on track not to meet their Kyoto targets. They imposed all of the economic pain on the Australian people without any of the environmental gain. What did we do? We came in with our direct action—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Pratt interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will tell you what we did in comparison! We have the Labor Party's record, which is a carbon tax they promised not to deliver but did deliver, but a failure to meet the 2020 targets. That was where we were on track. Then the coalition comes in, repeals the carbon tax, grows the economy, and guess what? We meet our 2020 targets. Now the Labor Party can only argue about whether or not carryover credits should be used, because we were able to achieve our targets—of course they wouldn't use carryover credits, if the Labor Party were in, because they were on track not to meet the targets. You only get the carryover credits if you overachieve. If you underachieve you don't get to use the carryover credits. That is a fundamental difference between us.</para>
<para>It is particularly cruel, in the last couple of days—and I do have sympathy for some of my Labor Senate colleagues who have been sent out by the tactics group. Members of the Otis group have been sent out to lead the charge on climate change questioning. I think that is particularly cruel. When we saw that the Otis group had formed and had fine Farrell wines and delicious foods—God knows what their carbon footprint was, but we won't get into that—and they had got together to try and fight and argue for more sensible policy, when it came to the balance between emissions reductions and supporting jobs, supporting industry, little did we know that only a few days after the emergence of this group this get together was a meeting of surrender.</para>
<para>We saw the 2050 net zero emissions reduction announced only a few days after the Otis group came out. It appears that that meeting was a declaration of surrender by the more sensible people within the Labor Party who have been completely rolled. Where Anthony Albanese is taking the Labor Party and where he wants to take the Australian people is to a place where our economy suffers, where jobs are lost, where we have higher electricity prices, and if your record when you were last in government follows you still won't achieve the targets, because you were absolutely useless at delivering it last time— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That contribution has just shown us why this government has thrown up the white flag, in terms of action on climate change. That contributor was more interested in talking about every issue other than climate change. He certainly didn't talk about the numerous industry associations that support the target that the Labor Party has announced. He didn't even go there. Not interested. He's one of the climate change deniers.</para>
<para>And I want to say that the most ardent opponents of action to mitigate the dangerous effects of climate change in this government are the supposed defenders of the bush. The National Party seems determined to use every ounce of their influence in government to see the value of our agricultural production in this nation plummet. They'd rather satisfy the climate change deniers that form the ever-dwindling membership base of their rump of a party than do something to support our farmers. And we know why. It's because they're scared of One Nation—petrified. The weak leadership of their leader in the face of growing electoral competition will spell the demise of their party. But the future of this nation's agricultural capacity and output is far too important to leave neglected simply because the internal politics of the National Party and the coalition make it too hard for this government to address. The effects of dangerous climate change are already severely impacting our agricultural capacity, productivity and output, and this is only set to worsen.</para>
<para>How do we know this? ABARES have quantified the financial impact borne by our farming sector due to the drying of our climate and increasing temperatures. In their report, ABARES found that changes in our climate since the year 2000 have reduced the average broadacre farm's profits by a whopping 22 per cent in 20 years. That's an average loss in profit of $18,600 per year, per farm. For cropping farmers, considered the most exposed to climate change, annual farm profits have fallen by 35 per cent. That equates to a loss in profit of $70,900. Nationally, ABARES calculates that more than $1 billion has been wiped from the value of Australia's annual crop production in the last 20 years due to the effects of climate change.</para>
<para>Farmers are only too acutely aware of the impact that dangerous climate change is having on their viability, yield and profitability. That's why they're crying out for their government, the national government, to take action, to put us on a path towards sustainability, a pathway to net zero emissions. Meat & Livestock Australia have said that they believe a zero-carbon footprint is possible for their sector by 2030. In fact, since 2005, the beef industry has already reduced its emissions by around 60 per cent, making net zero very achievable.</para>
<para>But if the government won't believe the industry associations, perhaps they should listen to one of their own. Niall Blair, former New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries and former Deputy Leader of the New South Wales Nationals, known as the Professor of Food Sustainability at Charles Sturt University, has written an opinion piece in today's <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> praising federal Labor's announcement of a net zero emissions target by 2050. Mr Blair notes the opportunity this provides the agricultural sector across this nation to diversify and thrive. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A net zero emissions future in Australia provides nothing but opportunities for our farmers. And, with 30 years to get there, they are ready, willing and able. It's also the right thing to do. Granted we need details, innovation, research and costings but, if we get it right, we can capitalise on the opportunities and leave behind those who are doing the scaremongering. The future awaits us and we shouldn't fear it.</para></quote>
<para>The minister's unfortunate response to questions today clearly indicate that this will not— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As Senator Seselja was just outlining there, really Labor is just incredibly cruel. They are incredibly cruel to their members in the Senate that are actively wanting to see the Labor Party adopt some sensible, quality projects. But they're also very, very cruel to the Australian people. This is, I think, the nub of the issue. They're taking the Australian people for mugs by setting up this bright, shiny target that's somewhere off in the never-never—2050—to try to convince the Australian people that they actually have a plan to deal with what is a very serious issue not only for this country but indeed for the planet. They're proposing a target of net zero by 2050, but they really have no plan whatsoever. How do we know that? Because the first target, which ought to be recognised and laid out very clearly in this place, so we can actually understand what they're on about, would be a 2030 target. But do they have a 2030 target? No! We don't know what it is. There's no plan. These guys really don't have any plan to deal with what would otherwise be a very, very serious issue. Labor has not learnt from their climate policy mistake. Their net zero emissions target by 2050 is a target without a plan to get there. A 2050 target is no substitute for a 2030 target.</para>
<para>Speaking of people that I think they have dudded and been cruel to, let's talk about Joel Fitzgibbon, a member in the other place. In October last year Joel Fitzgibbon was running around calling on the Labor Party to drop its emissions reductions target and adopt the coalition's policy of 26 per cent to 28 per cent by 2030. But this week he has backflipped, penning an article in <inline font-style="italic">The Newcastle Herald</inline> in support of Labor's new net zero emissions target. Maybe he's changed his mind because Mike Freelander, Mark Dreyfus and other members in the other place—Tanya Plibersek and Catherine King—have slapped him down. Maybe he has changed his mind—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Sullivan, normally I wait until people have concluded their contributions. Just put titles in front of their name.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take your point. I just can't remember their particular titles. Members in the other place have said that maybe he's changed his mind for another reason. Last year Mr Fitzgibbon stated that Labor needs to reach a sensible settlement on climate change. 'How many times are we going to let it kill us?' he said. 'How many leaders do we want to lose?' he said. It seems that Mr Fitzgibbon has decided which Labor leader should be lost next. Because this Labor leader has no plan to actually deal with the problem that we have—these emissions targets. They're treating the Australian people like mugs. I think that that is absolutely disgraceful. They cannot front up to the Australian people and tell them what it's going to cost and how many jobs it's going to lose, particularly if you're living in regional Australia, where we know that they are facing challenges. They're not prepared to front up and explain to the Australian people what's actually going on.</para>
<para>For example, Labor is at it again with regard to a carbon tax. Labor has been citing the CSIRO report—the <inline font-style="italic">Australian National Outlook</inline> 2019 report—to support their target with no plan. But what Labor won't tell you is that the CSIRO had modelled a $273 carbon price to get to net zero emissions by 2050. The CSIRO says, 'Producers and consumers bear the cost of achieving emissions reductions.' What does this mean? The CSIRO shows that to achieve this target sheep, crop and cattle production falls off a cliff, decimating regional towns and hurting Australian families and businesses that rely on agriculture for their livelihood.</para>
<para>Anthony Albanese, the Leader of the Opposition, failed seven times to rule out a carbon tax when asked on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline>. Joel Fitzgibbon has followed suit. They cannot explain. They're not prepared to be up-front to the Australian people about what this will cost them. How many jobs will be lost? What is it going to cost the economy? They're not prepared to do that because they have no plan. They've just got it out there on the never-never, thinking of some big, shiny target that they can fool the Australian people with. But the Australian people are not fooled, just like they weren't at the last election.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today in rising to take note of answers from the Minister for Defence and the minister representing the minister for agriculture, we've seen in their answers—and in those members opposite as they also take note of answers—how they continue to perpetuate that acting on climate change is the end of the beef industry, the end of the transport industry and the end of the mining industry. But it's rubbish. I heard Senator Ruston call Labor's policy 'reckless'. Well, what we have seen here from this government is entirely reckless. You are playing with the future of our industries, the future of our economy and, indeed, the future of our planet by refusing to take meaningful action on climate change and to give our nation the policy security that it needs.</para>
<para>We've seen industry already responding to this policy vacuum with their own plans and targets for carbon pollution. Companies like Qantas, Telstra and Santos have already committed their companies to zero net emissions by 2050. The energy minister 'Mr Angus Beef'—oh, no, sorry, Mr Angus Taylor—has said that net zero emissions will slash the beef industry. Well, Minister, even the red meat industry has a target of net zero emissions. Their ambition is, wonderfully, to be carbon neutral by 2030.</para>
<para>As we know, the MLA has conducted its own research and, indeed, it's research funded and developed hand in hand with this Commonwealth government. The report has identified it is possible to become carbon neutral, and Meat & Livestock Australia will develop business models to unlock productivity for industry. They've discussed how they want to be, and are, part of the solution and part of shifting the narrative.</para>
<para>Pip Band said at climate week:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The… panel discussion was one of the ways we're working to shift the narrative from red meat as a 'climate villain' to one where livestock producers are part of the solution and seen as climate heroes.</para></quote>
<para>I think that is great news.</para>
<para>On the other hand, what we see from this government is going play straight into the, 'Go vegan for the planet' campaigners as you decry a sustainable future by setting up this, 'You can't act on climate change and save this industry.' That is the narrative you set up: 'You can't save the beef and livestock industry if you also want to act on climate change.' Well, that is false. We will fight for the jobs of our nation.</para>
<para>Business in Australia is already doing a lot. Flinders and Co became the first meat company in the world to fully offset carbon emissions from their business from every kilogram of meat that they sell. Maybe the minister should try talking up business instead of playing into the scare tactics that you so love to employ.</para>
<para>What is really of concern for all industries in our nation is the impact of doing nothing. We already see this playing out all over the country. We've seen existing stranded capital, as technologies and economies change, where you have refused to put plans in place to facilitate that change to protect jobs and to protect consumers. The impact of climate change is detrimental to red meat producers. It's impacting grasslands that support livestock. More than $1 billion has been wiped from the values of Australia's annual crop production over the last 20 years already. You can see in the south-west of Western Australia a 20 per cent decline in rainfall in some of our most productive agricultural areas.</para>
<para>In closing, the Prime Minister's inaction on climate change is a recipe for higher power prices, fewer jobs, lower wages and slower economic growth.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assange, Mr Julian</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to questions without notice asked today.</para></quote>
<para>The standard response this government has had to any question asked about Australian citizen Julian Assange—award-winning journalist who's being extradited to the US for uncovering their war crimes—has been that, 'This government doesn't intervene in any foreign legal process involving other countries.' I asked the question of Senator Payne today that clearly shows that is not the case. Last year Senator Payne flew to Thailand to lobby the Thai government against the extradition of Hakeem al-Araibi, an Australian soccer player who was being extradited to Bahrain. The minister claimed today—I will go back and have a look at the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>—that the cases are very different. Once again I beg to differ.</para>
<para>It was very clear, when I saw the 'Australian story' that featured the work around a number of high-profile Australians to help secure the release of Hakeem, that he was a political prisoner in Thailand. He was going to be sent back to Bahrain to face potential torture, harm or even a death sentence. Let me tell you what the UN rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, said last night and you can tell me that there are no similarities between these two cases. He said, 'The extradition of Julian Assange is a modern show trial.' He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The case of Julian Assange is nothing else than a modern show trial featuring politically motivated prosecutors, denial of justice, manipulated evidence, biased judges, unlawful surveillance, denial of defence rights, and abusive prison conditions. What sounds like a textbook example of dictatorial arbitrariness is in fact an actual precedent happening in the middle of Europe, the birthplace of human rights.</para></quote>
<para>It is our ally and friend, the United States, who he is talking about here. It's not Bahrain. It's not a country in the Middle East with a record of human rights abuses. This is the United States of America that the UN is talking about. I recommend senators read this report that was out last night. The language is extraordinary. It is extraordinary that this has come from the UN about the case of Julian Assange.</para>
<para>The minister said, as I just mentioned, that the two cases are quite different. I would agree that in a sense, yes, they are quite different because the UN is clearly saying—as, by the way, is just about every journalist and major outlet around the world—that is, the ones who are speaking out in defence of journalistic freedom and trying to oppose the criminalisation of journalism—that this case is unique because it is not about an individual anymore. This case is about freedom of speech. It is about journalistic integrity. It is about the rights of an Australian citizen. That's what's at stake here. In fact, the UN rapporteur said last night, 'This is ultimately about democracy and whether we want a totalitarian regime that we all sit under.' And I would ask the minister to reflect on her answers and to explain to this chamber and to Australians who care deeply about the torture and the extradition of Julian Assange why these cases are different. I know why they're different. It's because the US is a close ally and a friend of ours. We have an ANZUS Treaty with this country. I understand there's a lot at stake with our close friend and ally, but, because they're a close friend and ally, that's exactly why we have a relationship where we should be adults with our ally and where we should say: 'This is simply unacceptable. You cannot extradite an Australian citizen who has rights on the basis of a breach of a US law.' If this precedent occurs, it is extremely dangerous. Today it's Julian Assange. Tomorrow, it could be your son or your daughter or your brother. This is an egregious abuse of power. It is an appalling abuse of power by our friend and ally the US. This parliament has been silent for too long. I ask senators to speak out on this case and bring Julian Assange home. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions in paragraphs 5 to 8 of standing order 111 not apply to the Statute Update (Regulations References) Bill 2020 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020, as set out in the list circulated in the chamber, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings.</para></quote>
<para>I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The statements read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2020 AUTUMN SITTINGS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">STATUTE UPDATE (REGULATIONS REFERENCES) BILL 2020</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill removes references to specific Regulations in Acts, replacing them with references to the enabling powers for those Regulations. Passing the Bill will contribute to the ongoing maintenance and integrity of the Commonwealth statute book, and improve the quality and accuracy of Commonwealth legislation. This is important as it will promote consistency and useability of the Commonwealth statute book. The Bill contributes to the Government's regulatory reform agenda by improving the accuracy of Commonwealth legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Statute Update Bills make minor, but important, technical amendments. The Bill is uncontroversial and will contribute to the ongoing maintenance of legislation to ensure its accuracy, usability and currency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2020 AUTUMN SITTINGS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (REUNITING MORE SUPERANNUATION) BILL 2020</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To enable eligible rollover funds to voluntarily transfer amounts to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) so that the Commissioner of Taxation can proactively reunify amounts to a person's active superannuation account. There will be a final deadline by which an eligible rollover fund must transfer amounts which it still holds to the ATO.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The first deadline by which an eligible rollover fund must transfer amounts to the ATO is 30 June 2020. Quick passage in the 2020 Autumn sittings will give industry certainty as to obligations and as much time as possible to implement the reforms.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Fierravanti-Wells to move 15 sitting days after today—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fires Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Rules 2019, made under the <inline font-style="italic">Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915</inline>, be disallowed.</para></quote>
<para>Senators Watt, Green and Chisholm to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that the Leader of the Liberal National Party in the Queensland Parliament, Mrs Deb Frecklington, has promised to require government-owned energy companies to invest in renewable energy generation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) supports increased investment in renewable power as the cheapest and cleanest means of supplying our future energy needs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) calls on the Federal Liberal National Party to support further investment in renewables.</para></quote>
<para>Senator O'Neill to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACAT) are teams of experienced, qualified and highly trained medical, clinical and allied health professionals who are responsible for assessing the level of government-funded care that ageing Australians should receive,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the Morrison Government sees ageing as a problem and the market as the solution,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Morrison Government has announced that it intends to privatise ACAT from April 2021,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the New South Wales (NSW) Minister for Health and Medical Research, Mr Brad Hazzard, has been highly critical of the Morrison Government's decision to privatise ACAT,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) Minister Hazzard has said that "NSW has major concerns" about the Government's plan to privatise ACAT,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) Minister Hazzard has said that "It would worry me if a private company had accountability that went beyond the pure interest of the elderly person",</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vii) Minister Hazzard has said that "It seems pre-emptive and unreasonable to be effectively privatising health aged-care services while the royal commission into aged care is still under way", and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (viii) Minister Hazzard concluded that the Government's decision to privatise ACAT demonstrated that there was "Not a lot of logic there"; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Morrison Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) listen to the concerns of their colleague Minister Hazzard in the NSW State Government, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) stop the privatisation of ACAT services.</para></quote>
<para>Senators Gallagher and Watt to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate acknowledges the important work of federal public servants, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) staff and Australian Defence Force personnel in the recent bushfire crisis, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the work of scientists and other staff at the Bureau of Meteorology who helped to forecast extreme weather patterns and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, who took part in the scientific roundtable on the bushfires;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the ABC's efforts to provide comprehensive coverage of the bushfires and accurate emergency information to people in bushfire affected areas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australian Defence Force personnel, reservists and other staff involved in Operation Bushfire Assist;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) those involved in the response effort, from staff at Emergency Management Australia to those in the Department of the Environment in their efforts to support the protection of native wildlife;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) those involved in the recovery effort, from staff working to address the mental health impact of the bushfires to those at Services Australia helping to deliver emergency relief payments to people in need; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) staff at the newly-created National Bushfire Recovery Agency.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate acknowledges the important work of federal public servants to address the ongoing Coronavirus outbreak, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consular staff and other public servants who have gone into high-risk areas like Wuhan to evacuate Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) officials from agencies in Health and Home Affairs who have managed stringent quarantine procedures, including in the facilities on Christmas Island and near Darwin;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, and the Department of Health, which have led the public health response to the outbreak; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, whose research is forming an integral part of the rapid global response to the outbreak.</para></quote>
<para>Senators Faruqi and Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) that 15 March 2020 will mark one year since the Christchurch massacre, when a racist, hate-filled and violent white supremacist man from Australia killed 51 Muslims during Friday prayers at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) that the anniversary of Christchurch is a painful reminder to Muslims in Australia, New Zealand and across the world that anti-Muslim racism and white supremacy has fatal consequences,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the recent concerns of ASIO Director-General, Mr Mike Burgess, regarding far-right extremism in Australia, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (A) the extreme right-wing threat is real and growing,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (B) Neo-Nazi groups regularly meet to salute Nazi flags, inspect weapons, train in combat and share their hateful ideology, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (C) extremists are seeking to connect with like-minded individuals in other parts of the world; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expresses solidarity with the families, friends and communities of the victims of the Christchurch terrorist attack at this difficult time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expresses a deep commitment to calling out and stamping out extreme right­-wing ideologies, white supremacy and anti-Muslim racism; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) urgently calls on the Federal Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) dedicate adequate resources to targeting right-wing extremism, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) work to stop the spread of hate speech and far-right movements.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Keneally to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Morrison Government has announced that it intends to privatise Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACAT) from April 2021;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians said claimed he is implementing a recommendation from the Tune Review;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Tune Review made no such recommendation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians also claimed he is implementing a recommendation from the Royal Commission into the Aged Care Quality and Safety; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Royal Commission made no such recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Senate condemns the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians for failing to adequately explain his decision to privatise the ACAT, despite neither the Tune Review nor Royal Commission making any such recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) At 9:30 am on 27 February 2020, before government business is called on, the Senate requires the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) provide an explanation as to why the Morrison Government is continuing with its tender of ACAT services despite the fact the Royal Commission has stated that it has yet to make recommendations about which sector or mechanism should deliver ACAT-type services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that a senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice, that the Senate take note of the explanation.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) condemns child exploitation material of any kind and through any medium;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) acknowledges that Japanese anime (animation) and manga (graphic novels) are visual mediums which share a unique style in which some media depict children in explicit sexual activities, poses and even being sexually abused;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Japanese anime and manga depicting scenes and images of child abuse is readily available for sale at retail outlets, online and for consumption on streaming services in Australia,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) certain anime containing child abuse material has received classification by the Classification Board, allowing it to be imported and sold in Australia, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) explicit manga is currently not vetted by the Classification Board;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) recognises that the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Criminal Code Act</inline><inline font-style="italic">1995</inline> prohibits the sale, production, possession and distribution of offensive and abusive material "that depicts a person or a representation of a person who is or appears to be under 18"; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) calls on the Federal Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) ensure the current Review of Australian Classification Regulation considers how the Classification Board deals with child abuse depictions in animation and considers extending its oversight to printed materials, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) facilitate the removal of all such child abuse material in animation and print, as a matter of urgency.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That the Senate notes the inquiries relating to domestic violence in Australia undertaken by the Finance and Public Administration References Committee in 2014-2015 and 2015-2017, and the 2019 Auditor­ General's report on implementation of the <inline font-style="italic">National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children 2010-2022</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, informed by the reports named at (1), inquire into and report, by not later than 13 August 2020, on domestic violence with particular regard to violence against women and their children, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the status of, and any barriers in implementing, the recommendations of the reports;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the adequacy, effectiveness and resourcing of policies, programs, services and responses to domestic violence across the Australian Government, state and territory governments, local governments, non­government and community organisations, business and the media;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) immediate and long-term measures that need to be taken to prevent violence against women and their children;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the effects of policy decisions regarding housing, legal services, and women's economic independence limiting the ability of women and children to escape domestic violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) how the Australian Government and state and territory governments can best support, contribute to and drive the social, cultural and behavioural shifts required to eliminate violence against women and their children; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any other related matters.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) First Nations children are over-represented in the youth justice system and the failure of state and territory governments to address the underlying causes of disadvantage is entrenching children in the criminal justice system,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the age of criminal responsibility is currently 10 years of age around Australia meaning children as young as 10 are being charged, brought before courts, sentenced and imprisoned, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the United Nations has recommended that the age of criminal responsibility for all nations be increased to 14 and the minimum age at which a child could be placed in detention be raised to 16;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) welcomes Dujuan Hoosan and his family to Parliament House this week, who will be meeting with Parliamentarians and screening the documentary <inline font-style="italic">In m</inline>y <inline font-style="italic">Blood it Runs</inline> that features his struggles to integrate his Indigenous culture with the western education system and his experiences in Mparntwe (Alice Springs) with the justice system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) acknowledges Dujuan's courage, leadership and advocacy on behalf of First Nations children and his community; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) calls on the Federal Government to urgently address the underlying causes of youth incarceration including systemic racism, intergenerational trauma and poverty, and to work with state and territory governments to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years, as a minimum.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Norwegian oil company Equinor, has announced it is discontinuing its exploration drilling plans in the Great Australian Bight,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) this is an opportunity to celebrate the pristine and precious Great Australian Bight and to protect it for future generations and the rest of the world to come and experience,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Bight is ecologically and environmentally significant and home to some of the most unique wildlife in the world with 85% of marine life found in the Bight found nowhere else,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) Australia Institute Research has shown that more than 4 in 5 South Australians (84%) and 7 in 10 Australians want to see the Bight given World Heritage protection, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) in July 2018, the South Australian Parliament called on the state government to work with the federal government to seek listing under the World Heritage Convention of the waters, seabed and coastline of the Great Australian Bight as a matter of urgency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Federal Government to submit the Great Australian Bight for consideration as a World Heritage Site.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) in his statement to Parliament regarding the murders of Ms Hannah Clarke and her children on 24 February 2020, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said "We must reflect on how and where the system failed Hannah and her children, as it has failed so many others. It's so frustrating. It's so devastating", and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) women's services have consistently identified the need for more funding for the Family Court, prevention and early intervention programs, specialist legal and support services, crisis accommodation and housing support to improve the family law system; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Federal Government to adequately fund domestic, family and sexual violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women and children seeking safety can access these services when and where they need them.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Waters to move on 27 February 2020—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) since the last sitting of the Senate, two more women have been killed by violence in Australia taking the national toll since the start of 2020 to 9, as reported by Counting Dead Women Australia from Destroy The Joint;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there is no national government reporting program to record the ongoing toll of women killed by violence in real time and ensure that these horrifying statistics receive ongoing public attention;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) on average, one woman is murdered every week by her current or former partner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2016:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) more than 370,000 Australian women are subjected to violence from men each year,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) 1 in 3 Australian women has experienced physical violence,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) 1 in 5 Australian women has experienced sexual violence,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) 1 in 6 Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) Australian women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vii) Australian women are 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalised for assault injuries arising from family and domestic violence than men, with hospitalisation rates rising by 23% since 2014-2015;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) in 2017, young women aged 15-34 accounted for more than half of reported sexual assaults;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) there is growing evidence that women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women report experiencing violence at 3.1 times the rate of non-Indigenous women;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) in 2016-2017, Indigenous women were 32 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family violence as non-Indigenous women;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Fourth Action Plan of the <inline font-style="italic">National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022</inline> states that the overall prevalence of violence against women will only start to decrease in the very long term as gender roles change; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) the Fourth Action Plan recognises that demand for domestic and family violence services has increased, and will continue to increase.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Senate calls on the government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) recognise domestic violence against women as a national security crisis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) adequately fund frontline domestic, family and sexual violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women seeking safety can access these services when and where they need them;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) legislate for 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave so that women don't have to choose between paying the bills and seeking safety;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) ensure that all government funded counselling services for domestic and family violence are delivered by expert family violence service providers in accordance with the National Outcome Standards for Perpetrator Interventions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) implement all 25 recommendations of the 2015 Senate inquiry into domestic violence in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) maintain and publish an official real-time national toll of women killed by violence Australia.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 2 pm on 23 March 2020, all reports and correspondence received by the Minister for Finance from other Ministers under paragraph 4.12 of the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017 or 4.13 of the previous Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines between 1 August 2016 and 31 April 2019.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In the event the Minister fails to table the reports and correspondence, the Senate requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to attend the Senate on 25 March 2020, by no later than 10:15 am, to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the Government's failure to table the documents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Any Senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Any motion under paragraph (3) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all government business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 30 April of each calendar year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) all reports and correspondence received by the Minister for Finance under paragraph 4 .12 of the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017 during the preceding calendar year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a summary of the decisions reported under paragraph 4.12 of the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines 2017, including the the Central Budget Management System program title, sub-program, grant activity, grantee, total grant value, grant funding location, postcode, and a brief statement of reason for the decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) 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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This order is of continuing effect.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) requires that, at its examination of the 2019-20 additional estimates, on 4 March 2020, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee examine the Department of Health Outcome 3: Sport and Recreation, Program 3.1: Sport and Recreation, and Sport Australia, prior to commencing the examination of any other outcomes, programs, or portfolio agencies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this requirement may be altered by unanimous agreement of members of the committee.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Committee</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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 possible:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">RAAF Base Tindal</para></quote>
<para>I table a statement in relation to the works, together with accompanying documentation.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Question agreed to.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>43</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is possible:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">National Education Centre for the Great Barrier Reef</para></quote>
<para>I table a statement in relation to the works, together with accompanying documentation.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>43</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Death of Mr Reza Barati</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) 17 February 2020 was the sixth anniversary of Mr Reza Barati's death,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Mr Barati was murdered on 17 February 2014 while in the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre, Papua New Guinea,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Mr Barati's murder occurred during protests and rioting in the centre that also resulted in about 70 refugees being injured,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) according to the <inline font-style="italic">Review into the events of 16</inline><inline font-style="italic">-18</inline><inline font-style="italic"> February 2014 at the Manus Regional Processing Centre</inline>, initiated by the then Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Mr Martin Bowles AO PSM and conducted by Mr Robert Cornall AO, Mr Barati, who was not involved in the unrest, "suffered a severe brain injury caused by a brutal beating by several assailants and died a few hours later",</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) Mr Barati was an architecture student who fled Iran and sought asylum in Australia; due to his size and nature, he was known to friends as 'the gentle giant', and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) since Mr Barati's death, there have been 12 more deaths in Australia's offshore processing system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expresses sincere condolences to Mr Barati's family and friends; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at the passing of this motion rises and spends a moment in silence to reflect on the deaths that have occurred in Australia's offshore processing system, including that of Mr Reza Barati.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, on a point of order: the motion contains wording that if it is passed the Senate should rise and spend a moment in silence reflecting on Mr Barati's death, and I ask that that be observed.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Quite right correcting me, Senator McKim. The motion has been passed; so, pursuant to clause (c), I will ask senators to join in a moment of silence.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable senators observed a moment of silence—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Senate.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2019 report, <inline font-style="italic">Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia continuing the national story</inline>, which states that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) family, domestic and sexual violence is a major health and welfare issue affecting people of all ages and from all backgrounds, but mainly women and children,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) 1 in 6 women and 1 in 16 men have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or previous partner since the age of 15, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Australian women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) acknowledges the Federal Government's commitment of $340 million in the 2019-20 budget to support the <inline font-style="italic">Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) further acknowledges the Minister for Social Services' recent announcement of only $2 million towards men's behaviour change programs which will involve group sessions, counselling and home visits, taking place only in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia and run only to June 2022;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) recognises that domestic violence is borderless, affecting every community in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) calls on the Federal Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) fund behaviour change programs in every state and territory,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) fund behaviour change programs that are tailored to indigenous communities, culturally and linguistically diverse communities as well as the broader Australian community, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) increase funding for behaviour change programs.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government takes domestic violence seriously. The Stop it at the Start campaign uses social marketing and takes a primary prevention approach to help break the cycle of violence by encouraging adults to reflect on their own attitudes and have conversations about respectful relationships with young people aged 10 to 17 years. In November and December, the Stop it at the Start campaign appeared online and on bus shelters and public infrastructure, with the information reaching almost 10 million users. It received six million views and was shared 20,000 times and liked or reacted to 83,000 times, with many instances of the resources being downloaded. Material for the next phase of the campaign, 'respond and reinforce', is under development.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Watt, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Morrison Government has announced it wants to privatise the Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACAT) workforce from April 2021, when a tender will be put out for organisations to deliver this vital assessment,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) ACAT teams are currently based in hospitals across the country and are responsible for assessing which older Australians should receive government-funded care,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Morrison Government's plan could take away the jobs of over</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1,000 qualified, experienced and highly-trained professionals across the country, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the Morrison Government's plan to privatise ACAT services is not supported by highly regarded experts, the sector or the states;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) strongly opposes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the privatisation of the ACAT workforce, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) any changes to the current qualification arrangements of the ACAT workforce; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) condemns the Morrison Government for its continued piecemeal approach to aged care policy.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government remains committed to creating a better experience for senior Australians entering aged care, including receiving timely, consistent and high-quality needs assessments. The government made a commitment in the 2018-19 budget to create a single assessment workforce for aged care, in line with the 2017 Tune review recommendation No. 27, and we continue to work towards this outcome, working with the jurisdictions and the sector. Labor, on the other hand, have offered nothing but fear campaigns and baseless commentary. Despite plans for $387 billion in new taxes at the last election, including their retirees tax, Labor provided no additional funding in their costings for home care places and no additional funding for aged-care quality, workforce or mainstream residential aged care.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Kitching, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Morrison Government sees ageing as a problem and the market as the solution,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the Morrison Government sees older Australians as a problem, with the Treasurer describing the ageing population as an "economic time bomb",</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) this Morrison Government thinks a market-led solution is the answer to every problem, including visa processing, Centrelink's Robodebt compliance and outsourced debt collection program, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and security vetting services in the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) based on the track record above, the Morrison Government's market-led solutions result in additional costs to the taxpayer and poor outcomes for ordinary "quiet" Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Morrison Government to stop the privatisation of ACAT services.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has not made a decision to privatise aged-care assessments. It's disappointing that claims to that effect by the opposition are misleading the community and, indeed, the parliament. The government made a commitment in the 2018-19 budget to create a single assessment workforce for aged care in line with the 2017 Tune review recommendation No. 27, and we continue to work towards this outcome, working with the jurisdictions involved and the sector. As the Treasurer said last week, that statement was not in his speech. It was Wayne Swan as the Treasurer who called Australia's ageing population a demographic time bomb. The Morrison government remains committed to creating a better experience for senior Australians entering aged care.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Bilyk will also sponsor this motion. At the request of Senators Polley and Bilyk, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Morrison Government has announced that it intends to privatise Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACAT),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) when asked about the privatisation of ACAT in Parliament, the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck, said he is "actually implementing a recommendation from the Tune Review", and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Tune Review did not recommend the privatisation of ACAT services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) condemns the Morrison Government for its current plans to privatise ACAT services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) calls on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Minister to correct the record and clarify that the Tune Review did not recommend that ACAT services be put to tender, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the Morrison Government to stop its plans to privatise ACAT services.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has not made a decision to privatise aged-care assessments, and again it's disappointing that claims to that effect are being made by the opposition. They are misleading the community and the parliament. The government had made a commitment in the 2018-19 budget to create a single assessment workforce for aged care in line with the Tune review of 2017. Recommendation No. 27 of that review was that the government integrate regional assessment services with aged-care assessment teams. The government rejects the false claims by Labor about consultation. In fact, there have been several rounds of consultation with states following the Tune review recommendation. The government remains committed to creating a better experience for senior Australians entering aged care.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator McCarthy, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Morrison Government has announced that it intends to privatise Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACAT) from April 2021,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) when asked in Parliament about the ACAT tender, the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck, said he is "actually doing what the royal commission said in its interim report last year",</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) following reports that the Morrison Government would privatise ACAT, the Chair of the Royal Commission into the Aged Care Quality and Safety, the Honourable Gaetano Pagone QC, issued a statement to say that, "the Interim Report did not endorse the Government's stated position", and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the Chair of the Royal Commission also stated that, "we have not yet made recommendations about which sector or mechanism will best achieve an integration of Regional Assessment Services and the Aged Care Assessment Teams";</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) condemns the Morrison Government for its current plans to privatise ACAT services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) calls on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians to correct the record and clarify that the Royal Commission did not recommend that ACAT services be put to tender, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the Morrison Government to stop its plans to privatise ACAT services.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Again the government has not made a decision to privatise aged care assessments, and again we are disappointed that claims to that effect, which are misleading the community and the parliament, are being made by the opposition. The government has made a commitment in the 2018-19 budget to create a single assessment workforce for aged care in line with the Tune review of 2017, and we continue to work towards the outcome in the recommendations in that report, working with the jurisdiction and the sector. The royal commission in the interim report stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has announced that it will implement this recommendation and will integrate the two assessment workforces from 2020. The Royal Commission considers that this integration needs to be progressed urgently.</para></quote>
<para>The Morrison government remains committed to creating a better experience for senior Australians entering aged care.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senator Hanson-Young, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) on 19 February 2020, a man murdered his ex-wife, Ms Hannah Clarke, and their three children by dousing their car with petrol and setting it alight,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Ms Clarke was the 8th woman to be killed by violence since the start of 2020,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) many initial media reports of the crime sought to minimise her</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ex-husband's role or to portray him as a "loving father pushed too far",</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) following a <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners </inline>report on 17 February 2020 regarding the conviction of an athletics coach at St Kevin's for grooming a student, prominent commentators also sought to minimise the offence and its consequences,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) inaccurate and biased reporting of violence against women and children allows a culture of violence and entitlement to perpetuate,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) guidelines adopted by the Press Council, Commercial Radio Australia and FreeTV Australia for reporting of sexual, domestic and family violence make clear that reports should emphasise the role of the perpetrator and avoid any suggestion of culpability on the part of the victim or survivor – for example, the various guidelines state:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) "Words matter: Publications should be mindful of the language they use and try to avoid terms that tend to trivialise, demean or inadvertently excuse family violence",</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) "Violence is never acceptable: The perpetrator is always solely responsible for a violent situation – Avoid using language or framing the story in a way that suggests the survivor of violence was in any way to blame for what happened to him or her", and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(C) "Domestic violence is sometimes reported with headlines like 'Woman assaulted', or with stories that focus only on what happened to the survivor – This can suggest that violence is something that 'just happens' to women – Emphasise that someone perpetrated this violence, and that it was a crime"; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vii) current guidelines are advisory only and are not part of the enforceable standards against which complaints can be assessed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on all reporters, commentators and media outlets to comply with guidelines for reporting on sexual, domestic and family violence.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on 19 February, Mr Rowan Baxter murdered his wife</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Hannah Clarke, aged 31, and their children Aaliyah, 6, Laianah, 4, and Trey, 3,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Mr Baxter doused his family in petrol and burnt them alive in their car on a suburban Queensland street before taking his own life,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) according to Ms Clarke's family and friends, Hannah had experienced years of emotional, sexual and physical abuse in her marriage to Mr Baxter, had only recently been able to escape with her children, and had a domestic violence restraining order in place against Mr Baxter at the time he committed these murders,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) this horrific event has shocked Australia and the Senate joins in that shock, expresses its grief, deep sorrow and support for the family and friends of Hannah, Aaliyah, Laianah, and Trey,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) violence against women is a national shame in Australia:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, on average, one woman a week in Australia is murdered by her current or former partner,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. 1 in 4 women in Australia has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner since the age of 15,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. 1 in 5 women in Australia has experienced sexual violence since the age of 15,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3. almost 40% of women continued to experience violence from their partner while temporarily separated, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4. 1 in 6 women has experienced stalking since the age of 15; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) according to studies commissioned by the Department of Social Services:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. children of mothers experiencing domestic violence have higher rates of social and emotional problems than other children, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. violence against women is estimated to cost the Australian economy $22 billion a year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) according to studies conducted by Our Watch, 1 in 3 young people don't think controlling someone is a form of violence, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) according to a news report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Australian police deal with domestic violence every two minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) That the Senate calls on the Commonwealth Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) acknowledge that Australians demand more, and more effective, action to stop the violence,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) acknowledge that violence against women is an urgent matter of national importance, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) convene a national summit as soon as possible with states, territories, service providers, experts and survivors to address this crisis.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has placed this on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments on 13 March, including a status report on the work that all governments are undertaking as part of the fourth action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022. The work of addressing domestic and family violence is done in partnership and alongside the states and territories, who are on the front line.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) on the same day that Queensland Police Commissioner, Ms Katarina Carroll, said it was inappropriate to suggest the murder of a woman and her children by her husband could be an instance of a husband being driven too far, Ms Bettina Arndt, who received an Order of Australia honour in January, nonetheless said "keeping an open mind and awaiting proper evidence, including the possibility that Rowan Baxter might have been driven too far",</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the statement of Ms Arndt has the potential to bring the Order of Australia, instituted by Her Majesty The Queen, into disrepute, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Order of Australia awards are a privilege and an honour and come with responsibilities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) agrees that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Ms Arndt's comments are reckless and abhorrent, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the values that underpin Ms Arndt's views on this horrific family violence incident are not consistent with her retaining her Order of Australia.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will support this motion. Comments like those expressed by Ms Arndt are abhorrent and unacceptable. There are never any excuses or justifications for family violence or the evil that Hannah Clarke and her children experienced. The government does not make decisions to award or cancel honours in the Order of Australia, and government senators respect the independence and confidentiality of the deliberations of the Council for the Order of Australia in making recommendations to the Governor-General. In respecting the independence of the council, it's important that this motion is not seen as directing the Council of the Order of Australia, whose independent deliberations must be respected.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation will not support this motion, which directly attacks both Bettina Arndt and her defence of Queensland Detective Inspector Mark Thompson. The circumstances that emergency services respondents faced that day are unprecedented. Detective Inspector Mark Thompson faced a media pack like no other. His comments were unscripted as he tried to accommodate both the media and the public's heartfelt disbelief of the calculating, callous murder-suicide of Hannah Clarke and her three children by her former husband, Rowan Baxter. It is the role of the police to investigate this unconscionable incident, and that may very well include triggers that led to the event on 19 February. No right-thinking person condones the actions of domestic violence, and this was one of the country's worst. Bettina Arndt has the right to support the role of police and, in particular, Detective Inspector Mark Thompson— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>May I seek leave to make a very short statement? I seek the indulgence of the House because I feel that would assist both government and opposition members.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would just like to place on the record that this motion has been carefully crafted to ensure that this chamber in no way is making comment or condemnation of the Queensland Police. We support the work of our police officers. We recognise the comments made by the Police Commissioner Katarina Caroll. This motion has been carefully crafted to make clear that the concern expressed—and I hope expressed by this chamber—is with the comments of Ms Bettina Arndt only. As the mother of a police officer, I strongly support the work of those men and women who bravely support and protect everyone in the community, including victims of domestic violence.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Keneally be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:03]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>55</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                <name>Wong, P</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>2</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Roberts, M (teller)</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Keneally will also sponsor this motion. I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 489 standing in my name and the name of Senator Keneally for today, relating to PFAS contamination.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber. I, and also on behalf of Senator Keneally, move the motion as amended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade tabled its report on the <inline font-style="italic">Inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases</inline> in November 2018, to which the government response is overdue by a year,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) that in a resolution of 29 July 2019, the Senate called on the Government to provide a response to the aforementioned report,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) that on 9 September 2019, the Senate ordered the production of the government response to the report, with which the Government failed to comply,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the statement made in the Senate by Senator Birmingham, representing the Minister for the Environment, on 13 November 2019, that a response to the report was to be finalised before the end of 2019, with no response to date,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) that communities are waiting anxiously on the Government's response to the key recommendations of the inquiry, such as:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      1. the appointment of a Coordinator-General to coordinate the national response to PFAS contamination,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      2. undertaking measures to improve participation in the voluntary blood testing program for PFAS, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      3. assisting property owners and businesses in affected areas for the demonstrated, quantifiable financial losses associated with PFAS contamination, including the possibility of buybacks,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) the failure of the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister for Defence to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      1. respond to recommendations by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's <inline font-style="italic">Inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases</inline> tabled in November 2018,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      2. provide adequate compensation to affected communities, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      3. coordinate a whole-of-government response to the issues arising from PFAS contamination; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) declares its lack of confidence in the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister for Defence for their:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (i) handling of issues related to PFAS contamination,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (ii) failure to respond to the concerns and needs of affected communities, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (iii) disregard of the Senate in failing to comply with multiple resolutions of the Senate to produce a response to the aforementioned inquiry.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I support this motion. It's now been 47 years since DuPont discovered the dangers of PFAS to the human body, it's 40 years since DuPont pulled young women off their PFAS production lines because they knew back then that PFAS damages reproductive health, and it's 15 years since our defence department was forced to acknowledge the dangers of PFAS in firefighting foam. Last month, the state of Michigan in the United States sued DuPont and 3M for environmental damage caused by PFAS chemicals. This followed outrage after the new Hollywood movie about PFAS, <inline font-style="italic">Dark Waters</inline>—which One Nation is showing here in Parliament House tomorrow night—was released. As in the movie, cattle in our contaminated zones like Oakey and Richmond are unfit for human consumption, yet farmers are being denied compensation and the Department of Defence tells farmers to send cattle to the market anyway. This government is doing nothing to help residents trapped in this nightmare to receive compensation, relocation and remediation—nothing.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Poverty</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the <inline font-style="italic">2020 Poverty in Australia Overview </inline>released last week found that poverty rates have remained at much the same level for the past decade, despite economic growth,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the report found that more than 3 million people including 774,000 children under 15 are living below the poverty line and that more than 1 in 8 adults and 1 in 6 children live below the poverty line in Australia, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Government's continued failure to act has meant that those trying to survive on Newstart are falling even further behind, prompting the Australian Council of Social Services to call for an urgent $95 increase in Newstart; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Federal Government to make it a priority to help address poverty in Australia by immediately raising Newstart and Youth Allowance and to implement a Government strategy to address poverty.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the New South Wales (NSW) Government has lifted its moratorium on floodplain harvesting and water pumping,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) water from recent rains has not yet made it down the river and there are still towns without drinking water, dry catchments and storages and fish species facing collapse,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority says it is too early to say whether all storages will receive water, or if flows will be enough to connect the rivers,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the Queensland Government has also allowed floodplain harvesting which was criticised by the NSW Government,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) upstream Basin states making decisions that only benefit them puts the entire river system in jeopardy, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) the Murray-Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse, and family farms, river communities and the environment need national leadership; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the NSW Government to reinstate the moratorium on floodplain harvesting and water pumping.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Matters regarding flood-plain harvesting, allocations and water access are the responsibilities of individual state jurisdictions. We're advised by New South Wales that they have actively managed the recent event to ensure that the first flush is protected and flows will reach Lake Wetherell. The health of the Murray-Darling Basin is a priority of the federal government, and we'll continue to engage with all states in a cooperative manner.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor won't be supporting the motion today, because it lets the Morrison government off the hook for its abject failure to manage the Murray-Darling Basin over the last seven years. We also don't believe that motions in the Senate should be used as instruments for the Greens to instruct other governments what to do, particularly on issues that impact the entire Murray-Darling Basin.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I oppose this motion. The essence of flood plain water licences seems to have eluded Senator Hanson-Young. Licences to pump water in a flood happen only, unsurprisingly, in a flood. Once the floodwaters soak into the ground, there's no pumping allowed. What this motion says is that Queensland farmers who have waited up to 10 years for a flood should be prevented from pumping the water that they have a legal right to access. How many more farmers do the Greens want to put out of business? Meanwhile, the farmers Senator Hanson-Young wants to receive these floodwaters in South Australia are already on a 100 per cent allocation. One Nation does agree that we need an urgent audit of floodwater harvesting in the northern basin, but to stop extraction until that audit is completed demonstrates a contempt for the property rights of farmers in my state of Queensland.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:15]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>11</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>45</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Smith, DA</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senator Waters, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Tax Justice Network Financial Secrecy Index, released on 18 February 2020, assigns Australia a secrecy score of 50 out of 100, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the Narrative Report on Australia states that Australia undoubtedly hosts significant quantities of illicit funds from outside the country, and identified that the following weaknesses in Australian law continue to enable illicit funds to find a safe haven in Australia:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (A) that real estate agents, accountants and lawyers are not subject to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing obligations, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (B) the absence of adequate transparency measures for the beneficial ownership of companies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Federal Government to introduce legislation that would:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) ensure that real estate agents, accountants and lawyers are subject to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing obligations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) establish a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership of companies.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government is committed to continually improving Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing laws without placing an undue burden on industry. Last year the government introduced the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which will strengthen the regime by improving requirements around customer identification, correspondent banking and the sharing of financial intelligence. The government is also strongly committed to improving the transparency of information around beneficial ownership and control of companies available to relevant authorities. It is considering how best to give effect to this commitment without imposing unnecessary regulation. The government continues to carefully consider a range of options for future regulatory reform. Senate grandstanding is in no way going to make economic and national security policy.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor will also be opposing this motion. While we support elements of the motion, including the call to create a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership of companies, we don't believe that a motion like this begins to scratch the surface of the government's complete apathy towards anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism finance regulation.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Whish-Wilson, I listened to you—if I could just finish. This government hasn't even dealt with their badly explained cash ban bill yet, let alone implemented the recommendations of the 2016 review into anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing. Labor is committed to pursuing this issue and holding the government to account for its failures, but this complex issue needs careful and thorough consideration and debate, which the time allocated to this motion today does not provide.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 476 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:21]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>13</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>44</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Smith, DA</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gas Industry</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that the impacts of opening up the Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory would increase Australia's emissions by a staggering 6.6% and destroy any chance of Australia helping to contain global warming below 1 degrees;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) acknowledges that the Liberal, National and Labor parties are supporting this destructive project because the proponents, Origin Energy and Santos have donated at least $1 million to both political parties, with at least $900,218 going to the Coalition and at least $810,353 to the Labor Party since 2012; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) supports the farmers and traditional owners that do not want their water supplies threatened, their cultural heritage compromised, and the climate sacrificed if the 1,200 fracking wells planned for the Northern Territory proceed.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia needs to develop more gas to help bring down energy prices and support jobs. The Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory has the potential to be a world-class gas province. Some estimates say that over 6,000 full-time jobs can be created, including many jobs and business opportunities for Indigenous people and local communities. By rigidly opposing the Beetaloo basin development, the Greens are denying Indigenous people their right to choose and consigning Australian families to higher living costs and fewer jobs. The experience with CSG in Queensland is that communities benefit, that increased gas supplies are keeping manufacturers open and that environmental impacts are managed.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 477, moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:26]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>10</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>48</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Smith, DA</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Collins Class Submarines</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 487 standing in my name for today.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and move the motion as amended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Australia's Collins class submarines provide vital capability for the Australian Defence Force,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) in June 2011 the Navy could not put even one of our six Collins Class submarines to sea,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) it took more than half a decade and a significant amount of taxpayer's money to rectify submarine sustainment and achieve world benchmarks,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the sustainment model now has short term maintenance activities in Western Australia and deep maintenance in South Australia, specifically through Collins Class Submarine Full Cycle Dockings,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) Australian Submarine Corporation in South Australia (SA) still sends experts to Western Australia (WA) when WA is unable to resolve complex maintenance issues, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) there is a proposal before Government to move Full Cycle Dockings from SA to WA which would result in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) only a small percentage of the SA workforce relocating to WA, causing a huge loss of corporate knowledge from Australia's submarine sustainment organisation,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) significant challenges and risk being injected into the sustainment model,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(C) submarine availability suffering, thereby damaging national security,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(D) at best, only similar outcomes would be achieved, thus the cost of the move cannot represent value for money,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(E) a sustainment model inconsistent with Defence's longer term plans of having submarines based on the East and West coasts, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(F) Defence being exposed to higher levels of risk by having all its Collins Class submarines maintenance capabilities in one location; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Federal Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) recognise the success of the current sustainment model, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) continue the current sustainment model, retaining all Collins Class Submarine Full Cycle Docking activities in SA.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A decision on the future location of the full cycle docking activities for the Collins class submarine sustainment has not yet been made. Our most important priority is to guarantee the ongoing availability of our nation's submarine capability throughout the transition from the Collins class submarines to the next fleet of 12 attack class submarines. This decision will be made by the government after careful consideration of all the relevant information and advice and on the basis of what is in our national interest. We will not decide this issue based on emotion in the Senate. Senator Patrick, in moving this motion, knows that no decision has been made in relation to the future full cycle docking arrangements. He also knows that the government, not the Senate, will ultimately make this decision. As we have made consistently clear, that decision will be made on the basis of what is in our national interest after proper consideration of all the relevant information and advice.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor will not be supporting the motion. Australian submarine capability, including the outstanding work of the personnel at ASC that maintain the Collins class submarines, is a national strategic asset. The fact is that only the government has access to all the relevant advice from Defence and ASC to make an informed decision. Senator Reynolds promised to make a decision last year but singularly failed. She has left ASC workers in the lurch. We also encourage Senator Patrick to use his vote as much as his words. He's a crossbench vote. The government needs to pass legislation, but his support for government legislation is largely a foregone conclusion. This motion won't persuade the government to do anything if Senator Patrick won't back up his words with his vote.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to. I think the noes have it—division required? Senator Whish-Wilson on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order is that there was only one aye that I heard, and I was watching very closely.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Without pointing out any particulars, I was looking very carefully at senators. I'll put the question again, on that basis, because I was looking very carefully. The question is that motion No. 487 as amended be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:33]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>2</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL (teller)</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>49</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Smith, DA</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before moving general business notice of motion No. 474, I wish to inform the Senate that Senator Green will also sponsor the motion. At the request of Senators Sheldon, Watt, Chisholm and Green, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) pay and conditions in supply chains are often characterised by a race to the bottom in which companies at the top drive down rates through their economic power,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) in the resource industry, mining companies such as BHP, BHP Mitsubishi Alliance and BHP Mitsui Coal through their tenders for auxiliary work are the ultimate employer in the sector influencing the setting of pay and conditions across the sector,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) workers at Greyhound Resources have in, good faith, engaged in negotiations with their employers for a new enterprise agreement,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) workers at Greyhound Resources exercised their democratic right to take protected industrial action as part of the bargaining process,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) Greyhound Resources responded threatening to lock out any and all workers who took part in a legal industrial action, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) Greyhound Resources carried out this threat and is currently locking out those workers who took part in protected industrial action;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on Australian mining companies to recognise their role as the ultimate employer in the sector and their influence on the rates and conditions across their industry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) supports the workers of Greyhound Resources who are currently locked out by their employer and calls for the end to the lockout so that negotiations can continue in good faith.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Fair Work Act provides rights for employees to take protected industrial action in support of claims and corresponding rights for employers to take protected response action to respond to employee industrial action. It is not appropriate for the Senate to support protected industrial action by one of the parties and oppose it for the other party purely on partisan and selective grounds. The Senate has no knowledge of the issues in dispute and is unable to assess the respective bargaining stances. It should not embark on a partisan and unbalanced intervention seeking to support costly industrial action and deny other parties their legislative rights to advance their interests.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation supports this motion because everyday Australian workers have had a gutful of the 'Big Australian'. Not satisfied with ripping off Hunter Valley casual coalminers through sham agreements that breach the coal award, BHP through another contractor is now boosting its profits by squeezing the wages of Queensland transport workers. The common factor in these cases seems to be BHP and its affiliates. The 'Big and Not So Good Australian' has ripped off casual labour hire workers and leaves injured workers without due care or proper compensation—shameful! In regional Queensland, wages growth has stalled, and BHP is using its procurement muscle to force down wages and conditions. I hope that shareholders will see right through this abuse of workers and dump BHP. It will not be long before the depth and high cost of this scandal will be fully realised by BHP, Chandler MacLeod and others. Tick, tick, tick, BHP: the clock is turning. All hardworking Australians deserve fair wages and conditions that support both their family and the success of their business.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 474 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:43]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>Kitching, K</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Sterle, G</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>31</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abetz, E</name>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McGrath, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Wong, P</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>58</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">   (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 7:20 pm on 25 February 2020, the final report provided by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Phillip Gaetjens, to the Prime Minister in relation to the application of the Statement of Ministerial Standards to the former Minister for Sport's award of funding under the Community Sport Infrastructure Program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (2) In the event the Minister fails to table the report, the Senate requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to attend the Senate on 26 February 2020, prior to government business being called on, to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the Government's failure to table the report.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (3) Any Senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (4) Any motion under paragraph (3) shall have precedence over all government business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Senate has already dealt with this matter and the government has provided its response. As is longstanding practice, the government has made a claim of public interest immunity regarding cabinet documents. There have been no changes in circumstances which would require a change to that response.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 478 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:47]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>34</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>5</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Wong, P</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment Restoration Fund and Communities Environment Program</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>59</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by not later than 9am on 27 February 2020,the following documents in relation to the Environment Restoration Fund, as announced in the 2019-20 Budget, and the Communities Environment Program, announced in March 2019 prior to the 2019-20 Budget:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) all communications between the Commonwealth policy entity responsible and the Minister for the Environment (the Minister) or the Minister's office in relation to the programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all communications between the Minister and other parliamentarians in relation to the programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) all Ministerial briefs prepared for the Minister in relation to the programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) all administrative guidelines, including grant funding guidelines, in relation to the programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) any advice on the content of guidelines or program arrangements, or drafts of the same, prepared for the Minister in relation to the programs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) all documents prepared for the Minister relating to the eligibility and eligibility assessments for the programs.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 491 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:51]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) all Australians deserve the best possible healthcare, especially older Australians,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) our community is ageing, with population projections for Australia suggesting that there will be 4 million people aged between 65-84 years by 2022, with the over 65 and over 85 cohorts rapidly accelerating over the next decade,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) a third of this cohort live outside of major cities in rural and regional Australia,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) as our population ages, our community will increasingly rely on appropriate aged care services for good health, support and dignity,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACAT) are teams of experienced, qualified and highly trained medical, clinically and allied health professionals who are responsible for assessing the level of government-funded care that ageing Australians should receive,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) in 2018-19, ACATs provided over 178,000 assessments,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vii) ACAT teams are local, know their communities, have enormous expertise over 30 years, and their role is to independently assess what older Australians need and identify the best options,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (viii) ACAT teams are independent of private service providers and owe no allegiance or preference for any particular provider, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ix) the Morrison Government has announced it intends to privatise the ACAT workforce and put out a tender for these vital services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) rejects the Morrison Government for its plans to privatise ACAT, which would threaten the quality and independence of services provided to ageing Australians, and jeopardise the jobs and independence of Australian healthcare professionals; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) seeks concurrence for this motion in the House.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a shortish statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute-ish!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has not made a decision to privatise aged-care assessments. It's disappointing that claims to that effect are misleading the community and the parliament. The government made a commitment in the 2018-19 budget to create a single assessment workforce for aged care in line with the Tune review recommendation which states: 'That the government integrate regional assessment services with aged-care assessment teams.' Further, in its interim report the royal commission stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has announced that it will implement this recommendation and will integrate the two assessment workforces from 2020. The Royal Commission considers that this integration needs to be progressed urgently.</para></quote>
<para>The government reject the false claim by Labor about consultation. In fact, there have been several rounds of consultation with states following the Tune review recommendations. The government remain committed to creating a better experience for senior Australians entering aged care and our position remains unchanged. We are committed to ensuring that Australians seeking to enter aged care receive the timely, consistent and high-quality needs assessments that they deserve.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 480 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:56]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>32</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>Kitching, K</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Sterle, G</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>30</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abetz, E</name>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McGrath, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>6</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Wong, P</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South Coast Track Huts Walk</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>61</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development no later than midday on 27 February 2020, the grant agreement between the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development and South Coast Track Huts Walk Pty Ltd.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 472 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:00]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>5</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Wong, P</name>
                  <name>Cormann, </name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 492.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, eight proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Keneally.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">'Withholding NDIS funds from the states is not an appropriate way to balance the budget'</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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 clocks accordingly.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak to this MPI raised by my colleague Senator Keneally. The NDIS is such an important reform for people with disability in this country and, quite frankly, I'm disgusted that the Morrison Liberal government is delaying the provision of essential services to people with disability just to prop up an artificial surplus. Those opposite really should hang their heads in shame. I've seen firsthand so many times how the services that are provided under the NDIS can make life better and more comfortable for people with disability, give them dignity and assist them in day-to-day living. These people deserve a government that respects them, not short-change so the government can reach their goal of a budget surplus.</para>
<para>We've seen recently a letter by the New South Wales Liberal and Victorian Labor governments to the minister responsible for the NDIS, Mr Stuart Robert, trying to access around $1.6 billion in funds that the federal government is deliberately withholding. This isn't about politics; this is about doing the right thing. It is about the government doing the moral, right thing. New South Wales and Victoria have governments from across the political divide, but they can see that the people with disability in their states, and in other states and territories, are being deliberately short-changed by this Morrison Liberal government.</para>
<para>Mr Gareth Ward, the New South Wales Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I want to make sure that money doesn't sit in a bank account offsetting the Commonwealth's budget, which is what it's doing.</para></quote>
<para>And I agree. The money just shouldn't sit around in the federal government coffers in some kind of cheap accounting trick. It should be used to improve the lives of people with disability.</para>
<para>We're still seeing tens of thousands of families with family members who deserve support being given the red tape run-around, not being able to access modest services to improve the quality of their lives. In such a situation, to deliberately delay funds to meet an artificial goal of a temporary budget surplus is just plain cruel.</para>
<para>We've also seen some serious allegations of fraud in the NDIS. It's yet another example of this government's mismanagement and incompetence when it comes to running its agencies. The government needs to investigate the alleged fraud and ensure that the NDIS funds are being put to good use, because the government's failure to correctly administer the NDIS is impacting on the people who rely on it.</para>
<para>The latest Council of Australian Governments quarterly performance report into the National Disability Insurance Agency's operations showed that in Tasmania 67 per cent of participants rated satisfaction with the agency's planning processes as 'good' or 'very good'. This isn't a particularly glowing figure, especially compared to two years ago when satisfaction in Tasmania was at 97 per cent. In Tasmania—my home state and your home state, Madam Acting Deputy President—we have heard that there are widespread issues relating to disability transport and to the availability of NDIS approved allied health professionals.</para>
<para>The joint standing committee on the NDIS held a public hearing in Hobart in October last year. I'll spend a couple of moments highlighting some issues that Tasmanian participants are facing. Representatives of Li-Ve Tasmania told the committee:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Participants are scared of reviews too. We've had participants who've gone for a new commode chair and all of a sudden their community access has been slashed by $20,000, completely unlinked. So you've got a group of participants who are terrified to go back, even though their plans don't meet their needs, because of the negative experiences they've had. Then they've had to go back for another review.</para></quote>
<para>Witnesses from the Office of Public Guardian also outlined some key concerns:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There are unacceptable delays in the planning process… the delays occur in scheduling both initial and review plan meetings, in having plans approved, in sourcing services for plan implementation and, most importantly, for securing urgent reviews. There are inadequately skilled and experienced planners. Some appear to us to have a very limited understanding of the support needs arising from a disability and/or a lack of understanding of cognitive impairments and the associated communication issues that will often accompany those kinds of impairments… The failure to provide for crisis services… is certainly a concern from our point of view and we consider that the NDIS really does need to provide contingency funding to be available for crises when they occur and for clear procedures and processes to access funding and services… provisions need to be established in response to crisis situations but also for market failure situations, particularly for participants who have exceptional needs and challenging needs…</para></quote>
<para>It's up to the government to start fixing some of the issues faced by my Tasmanian constituents instead of delaying payments to the states and territories to prop up their budget. By deliberately delaying these payments to the states the Morrison government is short-changing people with disability and denying them the care that they desperately need. They are causing unnecessary delay and unnecessary suffering.</para>
<para>We're talking about a government in its third term. It's them. They're responsible. They shouldn't be callous, they shouldn't be petty and they shouldn't be downright mean when it comes to targeting vulnerable people, many of whom cannot speak up for themselves. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Nobody could seriously question the Morrison government's rock-solid commitment to disability services, yet, here we are. To see this issue being treated as a political football is quite simply offensive, but if Labor insists on inviting us to debate and defend our credentials in cleaning up the mess of the NDIS we inherited from the Gillard government, then Senator Keneally can consider this speech my RSVP.</para>
<para>The latest attacks on our funding commitments to the NDIS conveniently overlook seven years of hard work from the coalition to finish the job started by Julia Gillard with such undue haste. In the dying days of her government she ordered the NDIS to start from 1 July 2013, defying a recommendation from the Productivity Commission to start a year later. As the commission later pointed out, the NDIS was like an airplane being designed in mid-flight. The MPI has no foundation whatsoever and proves a thorough lack of understanding on the part of the opposition about how the NDIS is funded and their ignorance about the purpose of the NDIS Reserve Fund. The government completely rejects any proposition it is withholding funding to the NDIS to the states or to the territories. The government also completely rejects that funds identified for the NDIS Reserve Fund is propping up its budget. The NDIS is fully funded on an ongoing basis for every participant meeting the eligibility requirements. It is fully funded in a way that allows the Morrison government to build a strong economy and bring the budget under control.</para>
<para>Full scheme funding arrangements that have been signed by the Commonwealth and every state and territory except WA clearly articulates that states and territories make a fixed contribution to the NDIS, indexed at four per cent a year, and that the Commonwealth will pay the balance of all NDIS costs, taking into account the contribution of all states and territories.</para>
<para>Since 2013, the growth of NDIS participants has been commensurate with increased spending. In 2017-18, spending on the NDIS was $6.4 billion. In 2018-19 it was $13.3 billion. This year it will be $17.9 billion, and by 2020-21 it will be $22.2 billion. With the budget showing a $4.5 billion increase in NDIS spending next financial year, how can Labor claim a $1.6 billion cut. Labor is already guilty of cynically mischaracterising a highly technical budgeting issue known as an estimates variation and now the deceit continues. Labor's claims that we're somehow under resourcing the NDIS is completely wrong and it's pure mischief.</para>
<para>Once and for all as the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, and the minister have stated repeatedly, the NDIS is fully funded. It is a demand-driven scheme, and if demands exceed our estimates, the funding will be there—a point Labor's Linda Burney was willing to concede on ABC radio before the last election. When questioned if Labor would put more funding into the NDIS if elected, shadow minister Burney replied with this, 'There doesn't need to be a commitment; it's a demand-driven program.' In 2019-20 there has been a $850 million increase in funding through the individual plans of NDIS participants. This boost also reflects an increase in payments to service providers such as personal care workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and psychologists. An extra $400 million in NDIS funding has also been provided for administration costs and people supported under existing Commonwealth disability programs before their transition to the NDIS.</para>
<para>Labor is in the scurrilous habit of lying about their social funding programs. We recall their claims of Medicare in 2016. Four years later they're at it again with the NDIS. The NDIS is on track to reach 460,000 participants in 2020. Today, more than 338,000 people have been supported by the NDIS and have active, approved plans in place. Many of these people are kids being supported across areas ranging from health, wellbeing and lifelong learning to support in daily activities. Before the NDIS was established in 2013, families faced an uphill battle to find coordinated quality support. As the mother of a son with autism, I shared the pain of dealing with limited available services and expensive metropolitan best-practice therapies. The introduction of the NDIS has been a great help to many families, including my own, who previously had little to no assistance.</para>
<para>The NDIS is the biggest social and economic reform Australia has undertaken since the introduction of Medicare. The latest COAG Disability Reform Council performance report tells us that 56 per cent of people on an NDIS plan identified with having autism or an intellectual disability. After my son's diagnosis we were completely lost on where to find support and daunted by the prospect of having to scale a mountain of red tape before finding a pathway. Now, in my role as senator, I again recognise the need to reduce the amount of red tape and make processes easier. I'm relishing the prospect of playing my own role in providing long-term, sustainable improvements for many families living with disabilities across Australia.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth and all states and territories that have signed up to full-scheme funding arrangements have agreed the objective of the NDIS Reserve Fund is to improve participant outcomes and manage scheme sustainability on insurance principles by using the Reserve Fund to manage the lifetime risk of participants' supports. The NDIS Reserve Fund is designed to support participants over the longer term. Any suggestion the fund would be spent all in one go or provided back to the states and territories is just pure rubbish. The Commonwealth and all states and territories have signed off on an agreement to establish the Reserve Fund using accumulated cash currently sitting with the NDIA. No government is expected to make an additional contribution to the NDIS Reserve Fund. Accumulated cash set aside for the Reserve Fund remains in the NDIA's accounts and is not being used to balance the budget.</para>
<para>The NDIS plan reaffirms the government's commitment to support people with disability to achieve their goals. The plan reaffirms the National Disability Insurance Agency's commitment to deliver world-leading NDIS to an estimated half a million participants over the next three to four years. The plan is all about establishing the NDIS on to a business-as-usual footing and long-term success. The plan focuses on quicker access and quality decision-making, increased engagement and collaboration, market innovation and improved technology, a financially sustainable NDIS, equitable and consistent decisions, and improving long-term outcomes for people with disability, their families and carers. The government asked what the NDIA what they needed to deliver, and we listened. The NDIA is currently filling an additional 800 APS positions capable of exercising delegations under the NDIS legislation, bringing the total NDIA workforce to more than 11,000.</para>
<para>One of the key deliverables is the implementation of the participants service guarantee. The independent review of the NDIS Act by Mr David Tune to inform the development of the guarantee has been complete and sets the foundations to establish the guarantee. The government will use the findings to update and clarify the legislation and remove barriers to a better NDIS, with a government response to be released shortly.</para>
<para>The government's NDIS plan is already having a significant impact. There are now 338,982 Australians benefitting from the NDIS as at 31 December 2019, including 134,455 people receiving disability supports for the very first time—40 per cent of the total number of participants. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants are up to 7.8 per cent. Culturally and linguistically diverse now represent 11.1 per cent of participants who received a plan in the quarter. The average wait time for children zero to six years to meet NDIS access has been reduced from 43 days in June 2019 to an average of fewer than three days in December 2019. The average time for children currently awaiting a plan has reduced from 104 days at 30 June 2019 to 44 days as at 31 December 2019.</para>
<para>We are all in this together—and frankly, we owe that united front to people with disabilities, who deserve so much more than having to listen to gratuitous, unfounded and feeble accusations from a Labor Party that deliberately ignores the truth.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When it comes to the NDIS, disabled people have watched a bit of a political blame game play out for a long, long time now, and while that debate's been going on we have been falling through the cracks and suffering. And I've got to say, listening to the contributions that have been made so far, that I find myself deeply frustrated by the continuation of that blame game. The reality is, if you look at the history of the NDIS, mistakes have been made on both sides. And there is an attempt now to cast the contribution made on one side or the other as perfectly pure, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.</para>
<para>Senator Hughes, in her contribution, talked about the rushed nature of the scheme—that it was rushed into being. There is some merit in that argument. It was rushed. I remember it. I remember campaigning for it. I remember looking at the time lines and thinking they were very ambitious. But you've got to remember why it was rushed. It was rushed into being because the Labor Party, the Greens and the disability movement knew that the Liberal Party wanted to kill it. We knew that you wanted to kill it, because your advisers were out there saying, 'Oh, it's a nice idea, but we can't quite afford it.' Maurice Newman, head of Tony Abbott's business advisory council: 'It's a nice idea but not something we can afford.' So, we knew it had to be brought into being.</para>
<para>Senator Hughes talks about demand, and this is something we hear from the government a lot: if there's more demand there'll be more funding. Well, I tell you now, there is more demand, and that demand is not being met. The agency is being suffocated by the staffing cap that has existed upon it, without reason, for the best part of 10 years now. The institutional knowledge that has been lost in that time is profound. The waste and inefficiency caused by outsourcing to the private sector has been horrendous, and the outcomes for disabled people have suffered as a result. Disabled people know exactly what has happened to their scheme in the past six years, and that is that it has been under the management of a party that never really believed in it in the first place but regarded it as a political third rail that they dared not touch. So, it was passed from one incompetent minister to the next, until it washed up with Mr Robert.</para>
<para>The reality of the NDIS today is that it is letting far too many disabled people down. How do I know that? Because we keep dying. How do I know that? Because in the time that the NDIS has existed the rates of abuse, neglect and isolation have not moved a jot. How do I know that? I spend so much time talking with my friends, advocates who work in the space, going through horrendous stories of people having to waste their lives fighting agency decisions through administrative tribunal processes, just trying to get what they need, just trying to get what they are entitled to, just trying to get what they should be able to expect.</para>
<para>The real kicker in all of this is the structural underspend in this scheme that the government is now using to prop up its budget. I'll say it again really clearly: this government is balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. When you look at the driving causes of that underspend, it's not that people don't want services and supports; it's that they can't access them. If a deaf person in WA has had for a year 10 hours of interpreter support a day in their plan, when they sit back down with their NDIA planner in a year's time they won't have used half of it—not because they decided that they wanted to stay indoors but because currently they can't access that much interpreter support in WA because there is an absence of interpreters on the ground.</para>
<para>Those kinds of problems have been created by a fundamental lack of engagement in the disability space by both sides of politics. The real essence of why this scheme is still so much less than what people need is that neither side of politics in Australia actually truly understands what disability is in 2020. There is still so much belief in a medical model of disability that puts the impairment with the person rather than in a social model of disability that correctly identifies disability as the result of barriers in society created and sustained by ableism. That lack of acknowledgement has led to an approach to this scheme that has fallen back into the old pattern of turning to somebody who asks for support and saying: 'It's a bit too pricey. We just can't go that far.' That attitude needs to change, but it can't change until the NDIS has the resources that it needs and it ultimately can't change until everybody in this place takes their lead on the NDIS and every other piece of disability policy from disabled people. I thank the chamber for its time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to say at the outset that the Labor Party will never resile from putting this government in the spotlight regarding the NDIS, because currently what the government is doing is wrong. To prop up their budget, they are banking money that is meant to go to the NDIS and to participants. That is exactly what they're doing. To come in here and suggest that all it is is an accounting process is just disingenuous. It is downright insulting to participants in the NDIS and their families.</para>
<para>Each and every senator and member of the House of Representatives should know exactly what is happening out there in terms of the NDIS because they should be getting the calls and the emails from participants and their family members. They are coming to, ringing and emailing their offices for assistance. If they have got a plan, they can't access the services, get the equipment or organise for somebody to give them occupational therapy. There are huge issues in terms of the NDIS and how it's being run.</para>
<para>A number of issues were raised by the previous Liberal speaker, Senator Hughes. I know Senator Hughes is well aware of some of the issues that the NDIS has, which of course go to the fact that there are delays and underspends. We know why there are underspends. We know why there are delays in reviews and in plan building. That goes also to the fact that there is a staffing cap on the NDIS. It is easy for the government to remove that staffing cap. The government has been called on by numerous disability advocates to remove the staffing cap to enable staff to be put in place to go through the plan building and to reduce the delay that is currently happening in the NDIS. But it's fallen on deaf ears. I don't know whether that's because in this government we've had about six ministers in this critical area, six ministers that just seem to hand it over as soon as they can. It's just not good enough.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a really appalling reflection on me personally. You should withdraw that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it is true, Senator. As I said, the Labor Party will hold this government to account in terms of the NDIS. As this MPI states, we will also hold them to account around the issue of withholding NDIS funds. I want the Senate not to take my word for it. We know this is the view of both the Victorian and the New South Wales state governments. The federal government wants to hold on to the $1.6 billion worth of funding for the NDIS to try to make their books balance, despite the many people with disability throughout Australia that desperately need the money to be spent on care and support. The New South Wales minister for disability, Mr Gareth Ward—a Liberal minister—has said: 'I want to make sure that money doesn't sit in a bank account offsetting the Commonwealth's budget, which is what it is doing'. That's what Mr Ward said, the New South Wales minister for disability. Mr Ward went on to say: 'There's $1.6 billion sitting on the Commonwealth's balance sheet that we want to spend on people with disabilities.'</para>
<para>I also would like to remind colleagues that the $1.6 billion is part of the appropriation we voted to give the NDIA with the passage of the last budget. This $1.6 billion comes on top of the $4.6 billion underspend in the NDIS last financial year. That is a total, over two years, of $6.2 billion ripped from the NDIS to help the government manage their deteriorating budget position. As Senator Bilyk said in her contribution, quite rightly, this is cruel and heartless in the extreme. This latest $1.6 billion underspend on the NDIS will cause heartache and despair every day for the very people it was intended to help. People living with a disability are missing out on care and support because this government is not putting out there the measures that need to be undertaken. I mean, as I've already said, lifting the staffing cap, acting on recommendations of a very good committee, a bipartisan committee, the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, who have put forward unanimous recommendations, which need to be acted upon by this government and will help to reduce some of the delays and the issues around plan building and trying to get equipment for people.</para>
<para>Also, what we now see causing huge delays is the fact that there isn't the professional workforce available. I am talking about allied health professionals. We don't have enough allied health professionals who are able to do the work that they have to do prior to the participants going out and sourcing equipment, whether it be a bed or a chair or whatever piece of equipment, that they have been able to source through their plan. This is a real issue. We really have not yet seen anything from this government that's going to fix those issues.</para>
<para>As I've already said, the New South Wales government have highlighted their concern that it will be people with disability in regional areas, and Indigenous Australians, and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, who will miss out on support and services, thanks to the withholding of this $1.6 billion. Just this week in my home state of Tasmania it's been revealed that New Horizons, which is based in Mowbray in the seat of Bass—Ms Archer's seat—was unsuccessful in its bid for funding under the NDIS ILC grants scheme, even though there were, I think, 300 applications—28 were successful, but, of course, none in Tasmania. New Horizons has been there for more than three decades, doing a wonderful job leading the way in inclusive sport and recreation.</para>
<para>As I said when I first started my contribution, the Labor Party will always highlight issues around the NDIS. The NDIS is a transformative scheme. It is transforming people's lives and we need to ensure that the funds that have been set aside for the NDIS are used for the NDIS and not used to prop up the federal government's budget.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, and I do so with a great deal of pride. I would like to comment on a couple of comments that Senator Brown just made in her contribution. I really take issue with Senator Brown and the particularly disgraceful comment that she made that ministers in our government couldn't wait to hand over their job. I think that's a shocking reflection on the commitment of our government and ministers, including myself. When I was Assistant Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services I did that job with a great deal of pride and a great deal of honour. I was very sad when I was not able to continue as the assistant minister. For Senator Brown to reflect on ministers in that way, I really do think that she should come back into the chamber and withdraw that comment. When I was the assistant minister, I was incredibly proud to stand up for people with a disability, to stand up for their families, and their carers, and everyone in their world, to make sure that they had a better life, that they could be the very best that they could be.</para>
<para>One of the most significant reforms that happened when I was the assistant minister was our reform of the special disability accommodation allowance, which wasn't being included in people's packages. So, people were being left in a situation where they could not go out and seek accommodation, because they didn't know what sort of resources they had. That just seemed to be completely the wrong way around and we fixed that. I don't think I probably had a better day as the assistant minister when I joined Kirby Littlely and her family when she moved into her new home in Belmont in Geelong. There was such a sense of joy. We are seeing that joy all around the nation. These are people who previously had nowhere to live, whose parents and families were wracked with grief, not knowing what would happen to their children. Now, through the SDA, as but one example, which supports those who have the highest needs—around six per cent of all people who have a disability—this is absolutely transformative. So I'm incredibly proud of the work that we are doing in delivering the NDIS. That is not to say—and I do acknowledge the contribution of Senator Steele-John—that there have not been problems. Yes, there have been problems. There have been challenges. There has been too much bureaucracy at times. But our government, led by our Prime Minister, has been single-minded in our determination to improve the NDIS to make sure Australians with a disability get what they deserve by way of support, services and funding and to ensure that, as a nation, we can hold our heads high, because this is a world-first social insurance scheme.</para>
<para>I want to pay tribute to all Australians with a disability, their parents, like Senator Hughes, their carers and, of course, all the workers in the disability sector who play such an important role. And I will put on the record that, before the election, it was very disappointing that the current member for Corangamite, Ms Coker, drove around in a trailer saying she was going to put the heart back in the NDIS. It was a very embarrassing and, frankly, low political act to use people with a disability to try to make a point, obviously attacking me. And I regret today that we cannot celebrate with a sense of bipartisanship what we are doing on both sides of the chamber. On the point that Senator Steele-John has made about the scheme being rushed, yes, it was rushed. It basically began on 1 July 2013, one year before it was meant to. It was rushed because the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, wanted to roll out the scheme a few months before the federal election. And I want to correct a very important statement that Senator Steele-John made: there was absolute bipartisanship. When Tony Abbott was opposition leader, the Liberal opposition was absolutely and utterly committed to rolling out the NDIS. I want to put that very strongly on the record and correct what Senator Steele-John said.</para>
<para>Of course, we are here because there is more politicking over the NDIS, and I do very strongly reject the premise of this MPI. The Morrison government has always been committed to fully funding the NDIS, and it's very clear that the Labor Party—with the exception of the member for Barton; I do acknowledge her concession—does not understand that this is a demand driven system. The money is there and it is provided for so that it can be drawn down as required. That, unfortunately, is the inconvenient truth which undermines the motion before the Senate today. What we are seeing is an increase in the NDIS budget as it is rolled out across the nation, from $13.3 billion in 2018-19 to $18 billion in 2019-20 and to $22 billion under the full scheme, which is no less than what Labor would commit to, of course, if it were in government. As I say, this is just some really regrettable politicking.</para>
<para>The NDIS, under our government, has evolved into the largest and fastest social reform, and one of the most significant social reforms, in our history. There are now nearly 340,000 Australians benefitting from the NDIS. And, of course, as at 31 December, there are another 134,000 people receiving disability supports for the first time—40 per cent of the total number of participants. So we are rolling out the NDIS at a very rapid rate. We're also listening. When things are not working—and that was certainly the experience when I was the assistant minister—we are listening and fixing the things that are not working, such as lifting the staff cap. So we certainly took very strong action to lift the staff cap.</para>
<para>The COAG NDIS quarterly report found that the average wait time for children aged up to six years to receive NDIS access had reduced from 43 days in June 2019 to an average of less than three days in December 2019. So, yes, there was a problem with children waiting too long, but we got in there and we fixed it. We have worked very hard to reduce the waiting time on the plans, and we've also worked very hard to reduce issues such as when someone wants to amend their plan and, of course, when someone wants to access assistive technology without having to get a number of quotations. So there was lots of bureaucracy which hampered the NDIS at an earlier stage but which our government is now tackling under our new minister, very much led by the Prime Minister, and we are doing that with a great deal of pride.</para>
<para>As I say, through schemes like the SDA, we are changing lives. We are making the most substantial contribution by way of committing $22 billion at full scheme rollout by 2021-22. That money is there. That money is provided for in the budget. Just look at the converse argument: imagine if we did not provide more money than was required in the budget. There would be a shortfall. As it is a demand-driven scheme, if there weren't a surplus amount of money in the provision for NDIS drawdowns then there would be a shortfall. Our government is not going to allow that to happen. As I say, that money is there. It can be drawn down when required. The faster the scheme rolls out, the more quickly the drawdown occurs.</para>
<para>So this is one of the many ways in which we are supporting Australians, and we're doing it because we are running our budget responsibly. We are making sure that through 29 years of continued economic growth, with low unemployment and lower taxes, and by fixing Labor's mess that we inherited—its spiral of debt and deficit—we are running the budget responsibly so that we can stand up for so many Australians who have a disability and provide all the other services that make Australians' lives all the better.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting to hear the comments from Senator Henderson. There is an underspend of $1.6 billion. There are numerous examples of poor performance of programs of the NDIS because of being underfunded and under-resourced. There are staff freezes. It is a third-term government managing this, yet we're still seeing, consistently, problems with the NDIS and how it's performing. We see the government using some of Australia's most vulnerable people, people living with disabilities, as an accounting trick to convince the Australian people it has a budget surplus. Leaving aside the question of whether this government, through its economic mismanagement, does or does not have a surplus, the fact remains that there is currently $1.6 billion sitting on the Commonwealth balance sheet. That is $1.6 billion—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'Neill</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Four.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Four point six? I'm sorry; I'm corrected. It is $4.6 billion that states have been told they cannot access to fund people with disabilities to have access to essential services. It's come from 'underspending', in layman's language, on the NDIS. We're talking about billions of dollars the government is supposed to spend on people with disabilities, but it's now apparently using it to balance its books. It is using people with disability, people with dire need for support from our community.</para>
<para>In fact, as senators on the other side who spoke previously have said, this was an initiative that the opposition at the time and the government at the time came to a consensus on. I can remember those negotiations and those arguments. I can remember when Tony Abbott was brought kicking and screaming to the table. The reason why is that good, thinking people of all politics outside the Liberal Party, including people who voted for them, turned around and said that what Labor was proposing made sense. It gave people respect and it gave them an opportunity to look after their families and have some assurance about their families into the future. Now we see what they're doing. Now we see them turning around and doing budgetary tricks.</para>
<para>It's not just Labor who are angry about this government hobbling the futures of people who just want to go about their lives and be the best they can be. New South Wales Liberal minister Gareth Ward, who himself is visually impaired, has blown the whistle on his own side. They haven't answered that argument yet, have they? They haven't answered the argument that's been put forward by one of their own. This senior Liberal minister in the New South Wales government said that these are 'people who sit in a room all day with no support, looking at the four walls' and talked about the cruelness of this government holding onto its money. Those are not my words. Those are not Labor's words. That is one of their own saying how devastated they are by the lack of action, the inappropriate steps and the lack of appropriate steps by this government.</para>
<para>The minister has gone public with stories of despair of people who desperately need speech therapy or occupational therapy to be able to live a full and dignified life but simply cannot get it. That the Morrison government is calling this denial of funding an underspend in the first place is a disgrace. We all know how Scott Morrison and Stuart Robert have mismanaged the NDIS system. Don't believe it because I'm saying it—believe it because one of their own is saying it. In actual fact—and even more importantly—people with disability and their carers are saying it.</para>
<para>My office, like many others, has received so many representations from constituents who have been affected by the callousness and inhumanity of this government. We received correspondence about a Meals on Wheels service who had booked $20,000 to $30,000 worth of work supplying meals for high-need individuals. They were left high and dry for 18 months. NDIA was not paying them, and they ended up basically supplying meals to hungry and vulnerable people at a loss, limiting the reach of their program.</para>
<para>Then we had representations from the father of a young man, who we'll call Jack, with several disabilities, including being completely blind. He had been given less than a third of the funding he needed to have any semblance of a normal life. Jack did everything that he was required of the NDIS. He had a comprehensive plan prepared for him by an approved not-for-profit NDIS provider. The plan provided for all of his disabilities. It was holistic and comprehensive, taking into account his carers' needs—his carers being his mother and father.</para>
<para>Instead of funding the comprehensive plan, the NDIS funded less than one-third of it. The funding ran out in December last year, and Jack has been at home since then. He cannot use a phone or feed himself. His father has had to take the last month off work to relieve his mother, because Jack feels unsafe without having someone there with him. He, in fact, was learning to use the phone with the funding that he previously had that was cut off. But funding for those lessons were cut two years ago. He was told that the NDIA could only see him as being blind and could not see him as having other disabilities such as autism, OCD and anxiety, despite having submitted reports from both a psychiatrist and a psychologist.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution in this debate. From the outset, how ruthless, shonky and dishonest is this government? That's what the Australian people have come to realise since the election. They have been taken for a ride by this government. In the last two days, the people of Northern Tasmania, my home state, have learnt that this government has denied NDIS grant funding to a disability support and recreation organisation, New Horizons. We know the track record of how shonky the grants programs of those on the opposite side are, but the fact that the Morrison government is unwilling to support New Horizons, who actually change people's lives and improve people's wellbeing, beggars belief. It really does.</para>
<para>I question the humanity of this government, which will not be assisting—will not be funding—an organisation that helps people to live a respectful and better life. Under the NDIS Information, Linkages and Capacity Building grant scheme, 28 grants were issued. You might ask, how many of those went to Tasmania? Well, I can tell you: it was zero. That's what it was: zero, to my home state of Tasmania. This news has gutted New Horizons. It's also gutted the northern Tasmanian community, because this funding black hole will not disappear unless the federal government does the right thing by the people of northern Tasmania.</para>
<para>I would expect—and I know people of northern Tasmania would expect—that the federal member for Bass would do more than just write a letter to Minister Stuart Robert. With all due respect, she's a member of the government. She should be banging on the Prime Minister's door. She should be banging on Stuart Robert's door, demanding a better outcome for her electorate. What we've seen from the local member is a report, as we've read in the local newspaper, that she has written to the minister. New Horizons—just in case she's not aware of what New Horizons does in northern Tasmania—provides meaningful physical and social activities for over 462 people in northern Tasmania who have a disability.</para>
<para>Well, Bass is a marginal seat. You would think that, as a member of the House of Representatives in a marginal seat, she would be in there fighting to retain her seat. Those votes alone will change the member for Bass at the next federal election. New Horizons, based in Mowbray, has existed since 1986. I've had a long association with them in the various roles that I had before I came to this place. People with a disability deserve the support of their federal government. But the funding that New Horizons gets and how they use it goes beyond just physical and social activities. Their work actually prevents social isolation associated with disability. And there is a crucial need for this important work to continue. It also plays a crucial role in building more-inclusive communities.</para>
<para>As I said, we've read in the local paper that the Liberal state government is going to contact the federal government over this decision. Well, whoopee-doo! It's a marginal seat. I can't believe that the federal member hasn't already been banging on the Prime Minister's door. We have a federal and a state Liberal government that aren't even talking to each other. So, I call on the federal member for Bass—who doesn't like to be accountable for the decisions of the federal government—to actually be a strong voice for those people from the disability sector and from our local community who need her to be that voice. I'd have to question, yet again: of 28 grants, I find it hard to believe—and I'm speaking about only one organisation in Tasmania, New Horizons; but what about the other organisations in Tasmania that have missed out? I wonder, is this another sports rort? How were the grants actually determined? Was it also done on the basis of marginal seats or target seats? Was it colour coded? I would really like those sorts of details to come before us. But the important thing is that we know that this government has never really been fair dinkum when it comes to the NDIS and funding it. We know that they've used it to prop up their budgets.</para>
<para>The Australian people and people with disabilities in my home state deserve so much better. We know that this government ripped $4.6 billion out of the NDIS to prop up their Claytons surplus while agency executives were being given huge bonuses. How was that fair? Massive delays and institutional malaise have seen more than 1,200 Australians with disabilities die while waiting for an NDIS package. It's a bit like the home care packages: 30,000 older Australians have died in the past two years. It's not a very good track record, and you cannot be trusted with the NDIS. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I want to call this speech, 'What happened while you weren't watching,' because there are so many Australians out there trying to do the very best they can with their lives, particularly people who are caring for those with a disability. While every hour of their day is spent on caring and advocating for someone they love with a disability, this government went through the most extraordinarily deceptive set of motions to take money away, from people with disability, to the tune of $4.6 billion. They euphemistically called it an 'underspend' and then they decided to shuffle it off to the side to try to balance their books—to balance their books on the back of people with a disability.</para>
<para>This is an absolute disgrace. I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my fellow senator from New South Wales Senator Sheldon, who revealed that the Liberal government in New South Wales is well and truly alive to the problems of this federal government and its deceptions around the matter of disability, and those of Senator Polley from Tasmania, who put on the record in the closing moments of her speech the fact that 1,200 people died while waiting for a package to give them some support on NDIS.</para>
<para>I'd like to let this chamber know about a remarkable group of people with whom I walked, on Sunday, at the Gough Whitlam Park in Earlwood. I found out about this particular group by a great leader in the trade union movement in New South Wales, Graeme Kelly, who's the head of the USU. Thirty thousand members got information from Mr Kelly, and 20 of his executives walked with him having decided that they would support the Save Our Sons Duchenne Foundation in their quest to try and give a decent life to young boys—in particular, but some girls—who have been diagnosed with Duchenne, a motor neurone disorder that sees young people who reach about the age of five or six suddenly present with muscular difficulties that very much limit their lives without adequate support.</para>
<para>I want to pay respect to Mr Kelly for the leadership that he's showing there, and his executive, and his commitment to try to help this community. But the reason that help is being wrapped around charitable work is that this government has failed every test in the rollout of the NDIS. I want to acknowledge Elie and Nancy Eid who set up the Save Our Sons Duchenne Foundation in 2008, and their son Emilio who they are caring for. I also want to acknowledge Michael Galderisi who's a general manager. He was outraged and shocked—many of the parents were shocked—to find out that the reason their kids are waiting for vitally needed resources, including wheelchairs, is that this government set up so many barriers and impediments to them that they couldn't access the care they need for their children.</para>
<para>There are families that I walked with on Sunday who despairingly talked about the next round of participant planning that they will be forced to do every year. Every single one of those parents who spoke to me was really very concerned about the permanent erosion of any support that they might receive. They talked about a completely untrained workforce, about somebody being sent to them by this government—and not enough sent because they had a cap on it—somebody ill-prepared and ill-educated, to create a plan that didn't even acknowledge the needs of the illness. So ill-prepared were they that they didn't even know what the disease was or what the real needs of the young person were. This is parents fighting a system that was organised by this government, constructed by this government, but not delivered to the people of Australia. Rather, they used it as an ATM, a bank machine, to get cash to prop up a headline where they wanted to declare a surplus.</para>
<para>We cannot believe a word they say, because ordinary, hardworking Australians who want to believe in some of the things we heard Senator Henderson say, who want to believe that this government will look after people with disabilities, have been failed. While they weren't watching, and were living their lives, this government let them down. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for discussion on the matter of public importance has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Employment References Committee</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Government Response to Report</title>
            <page.no>71</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the government's response to the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on its inquiry into the mental health of first responders, emergency workers and volunteers and seek leave to have the document incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The document read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Government Response to the Recommendations of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee Report 'The People Behind 000: Mental Health of Our First Responders'</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Introduction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 27 March 2018, the Senate referred 'The role of Commonwealth, state and territory governments in addressing the high rates of mental health conditions experienced by first responders, emergency service workers and volunteers' (herein collectively referred to as 'first responders') to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee (the Committee) for inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 14 February 2019, the Committee delivered its final report, 'The people behind 000: mental health of our first responders' (the Report). The Report made 14 recommendations that seek to address the high rates of mental health conditions experienced by first responders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Achieving the best outcome for first responders (or anyone else) who suffers, or is at risk of suffering, a work-related mental health condition is a vital and complex issue. During the inquiry, concerns were raised about the demanding work first responders perform for our community and the consequent risk to their psychological health, which, in some cases, is contributed to by workplace culture. While complex in nature, the Australian Government is committed to seeing duty holders fulfil their obligations under work health and safety (WHS) laws to eliminate or minimise risks to psychological health in the workplace so far as is reasonably practicable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some stakeholders raised concerns about workers' compensation claims processes, including that they may discourage some first responders from seeking timely assistance. The inquiry was presented with evidence about the diverse range of activities and initiatives being implemented by jurisdictions in relation to early intervention, rehabilitation and the administration of workers' compensation claims.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government would like to thank all those who assisted with this inquiry and acknowledge the invaluable and unique role of first responders towards ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the Australian community. The Government is resolute in its commitment to ensuring that first responders are given the highest level of support and protection from harm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Leadership in the emergency management sector</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's first responders and emergency services workers, including volunteers, are critical members of our community, many of whom risk their personal safety for the safety and security of our nation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 20 November 2019, the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, the Hon David Littleproud MP, secured the commitment of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management to lead development of a national, collaborative approach to addressing mental illness and suicidality in Australia's first responders and emergency services workers, including volunteers and former/retired workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In response to the 2019-20 bushfires, the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, announced on 12 January 2020 that the Government would establish a National Bushfire Recovery Agency with an initial investment of $2 billion for a national bushfire recovery fund. The Government is also providing $76 million in funding for mental health support services for communities and emergency services workers affected by the 2019‑20 bushfires. This includes funding to deliver a national action plan aimed at reducing suicide and improving mental health outcomes over the long‑term.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is working towards zero suicides and, in July 2019, appointed Ms Christine Morgan as the first National Suicide Prevention Adviser reporting directly to the Prime Minister. Ms Morgan is working with relevant Ministers to drive a whole-of-government approach to suicide prevention.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Details of the extensive array of Government initiatives to address the high rates of mental health conditions experienced by first responders, emergency service workers and volunteers are provided in this response.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The national framework of WHS laws</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 1 January 2012, the model WHS laws were adopted in the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The model laws were adopted in Tasmania and South Australia on 1 January 2013. Victoria and Western Australia are yet to implement the model WHS framework, however, in both those jurisdictions, WHS is governed by a system of laws, regulations and compliance broadly similar to the model laws. The Western Australian Government has however introduced into the Parliament legislation that mirrors the model WHS Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under the harmonised approach to WHS regulation in Australia, states and territories have responsibility for enforcing compliance with work health and safety laws for the majority of Australian workers. The scope of the Australian Government's direct authority is primarily to Commonwealth workers and those working at Commonwealth workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to supporting the development of measures that will result in improved safety outcomes for all Australian workers and works proactively with state and territory governments to achieve this end.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Safe Work Australia (SWA)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SWA is the Australian Government statutory body established in 2008 to develop national policy relating to WHS and workers' compensation. The <inline font-style="italic">Safe Work Australia Act 2008</inline> sets out the functions of the agency, which is jointly funded by the Commonwealth, states and territories in accordance with an Intergovernmental Agreement. It is a tripartite body and has Members representing each of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, and worker and employer representatives. As a national policy agency, SWA does not administer or regulate WHS or workers' compensation arrangements, which remain the responsibility of Commonwealth, state and territory governments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian workers' compensation arrangements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Each state and territory has its own workers' compensation legislation and arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The <inline font-style="italic">Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988</inline> establishes the Commonwealth workers' compensation and rehabilitation scheme (the Comcare scheme), administered by Comcare, for employees of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth authorities and licensed corporations. Agencies with first responders under the Comcare scheme include the Australian Federal Police (AFP), ACT Emergency Services Agency and Airservices Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the government work with state and territory governments to collect comprehensive data on the occurrence of mental health injuries and suicide in first responders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the federal government work with state and territory governments to collect data on the cause of death for first responders who die while employed or die within 10 years of leaving their service.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response: Support in principle</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government values the importance of using data to inform and improve mental health services. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) provides statistical information that governments and the community can use to promote discussion and inform decisions on health, housing and community services. AIHW hold data on mental health, disease and injury. Mental health services in Australia (MHSA) provides a picture of the national response of the health and welfare services system to the mental health care needs of Australians. Data is updated progressively throughout the year as it becomes available.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is commissioning a multi-year study of more than 60,000 Australians to provide the most complete picture of Australians physical and mental health to inform a Long Term National Health Plan. The Intergenerational Health and Mental Health Study will cover mental health, general health, nutrition and physical activity and provide information to inform improvements in mental health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SWA currently compiles, analyses and reports on a range of work health and safety (WHS) and workers' compensation data to describe national trends in work-related injuries, diseases and fatalities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Work-related Traumatic Injury Fatalities (TIF) data set includes all first responders fatally injured as a result of a work activity or travelling in the course of their work and the mechanism of incident (i.e. cause of death). This dataset does not include fatalities that result from self-inflicted injuries (for example, suicide) due to the difficulty in establishing a direct connection between these injuries and work. The Committee's recommendations on collecting data on suicide and the cause of death for first responders who die within 10 years of leaving their employment are outside of SWA's remit, as they extend beyond the workplace.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">First responders are employed predominantly by state and territory governments. Therefore, state and territory data collections may be more suitable for collecting and reporting outcomes for first responders. Further consideration should be given to these recommendations in the context of a national action plan on first responder mental health, as discussed in the response to recommendation 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that federal, state and territory governments work together to increase oversight of privately owned first responder organisations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response: Noted</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Privately owned first responder organisations operate in a limited number of states and territories. The Government notes all first responder organisations, privately owned or not, are subject to oversight by the WHS regulator in their jurisdiction. Any concerns about the way in which a workplace is handling health and safety issues should be raised with the relevant government, including the WHS regulator.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that a Commonwealth-led process involving federal, state and territory governments be initiated to design and implement a national action plan on first responder mental health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response: Support</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has committed to a national action plan on first responder mental health. The Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management will lead development of a national, collaborative approach to addressing mental illness and suicidality in Australia's first responders and emergency services workers, including volunteers and former/retired workers. The Government has allocated $4.5 million for a national action plan, which will be delivered by the Department of Home Affairs and is aimed at reducing the rates of suicide and mental illness among emergency services workers. This work will be developed in consultation with stakeholders from across all levels of government, the non‑profit sector and current and former emergency workers and their families. It will be undertaken concurrently with other initiatives to better understand and improve mental health outcomes for first responders and emergency services workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Following the 2019-20 bushfires, the Government announced that the Commonwealth would play a larger role in responding to emergencies such as fires, floods and cyclones. As part of this, the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, and the Minister for Health, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, announced a commitment of $500,000 towards the development of a cross‑jurisdictional mental health framework with state and territory governments for responding to natural disasters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is noted that mental health conditions are also a national priority of SWA's Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022 (the Strategy). A mid-term review of the Strategy, undertaken by SWA in 2017, found that more work is needed to drive improvements across priority disorders, including mental health conditions, in the next five years. SWA has undertaken work to address this finding through the development and issuance, in June 2018, of national guidance material for employers of their duties to manage work-related psychological health and safety.a1a This will improve the understanding of psychological hazards and risks in the workplace, and what can practically be done to manage them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2016 the Government funded Beyond Blue to develop the Good Practice Framework for Mental Health and Wellbeing in First Responder Organisations. The Good Practice Framework provides information about the range of programs and practices required to effectively promote the mental health of first responders and reduce suicide risk. It is intended to be used as a practical guide by first responder agencies to develop or renew their workplace mental health strategy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The AFP Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2018-2023 builds on the Good Practice Framework and was launched by the AFP in 2018 to prioritise employees' health and wellbeing and establish a prevention and education framework for the next five years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Reducing stigma and discrimination</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A key priority for the Government is to reduce the stigma around mental illness and the Government is working in collaboration with state and territory governments through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to achieve this. COAG has endorsed the development of the Fifth National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan and its Implementation Plan (the Fifth Plan) to establish a national approach for collaborative government effort from 2017-22 across eight targeted priority areas. The Fifth Plan identifies the reduction of stigma and discrimination towards people with mental health issues as a priority. Under the Fifth Plan the Mental Health Principal Committee has established a working group—the Reducing Stigma and Discrimination Working Group—to address stigma and discrimination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Implementation of the Fifth Plan has commenced with the Commonwealth funding the University of Melbourne to review the evidence relating to the reduction of stigma and discrimination towards people with severe mental illness. A consultant will undertake targeted consultations with consumers, carers, community groups and key organisations. Consultations will focus on options for a nationally coordinated approach to the reduction of stigma and discrimination, with particular attention paid to the experience of people with severe mental illness, which is poorly understood in the community. The consultations aim to identify solutions and not restate known problems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 5</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that compulsory first responder mental health awareness training, including safety plans, be implemented in every first responder organisation across Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 6</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that compulsory management training focusing on mental health, such as that developed by the Black Dog Institute, be introduced in every first responder organisation across Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that mental health support services be extended to all first responder volunteers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response: Support in principle</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government recognises that risks to psychological health for first responders includes exposure to traumatic incidents, and in some cases, poor workplace practices and culture. Under WHS laws in Australia, employers have a legal responsibility to provide a physically and mentally healthy workplace as far as is reasonably practicable, and individual regulators are responsible for ensuring compliance with these duties and obligations. Model WHS laws are applied nationally and, given that volunteers are 'workers', organisations have a duty of care to put in place appropriate measures to ensure volunteers are given the same level of protection from harm as all other workers. A number of state and territory governments also have provisions in their workers' compensation laws covering volunteers engaged in specified duties such as ambulance services, firefighting, police operations and emergency services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government acknowledges that volunteers may be vulnerable to other factors influencing poor mental health, including geographic isolation. Many volunteers work and live in rural and regional communities where there may be fewer trained volunteers to respond to events spread across a wide geographic area. Therefore, they may be called upon at times when they are 'resting' from their ordinary jobs. Regional volunteers are also likely to have a closer personal connection to their communities—they could be responding to an event involving people they know and be personally impacted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">First responder organisations are familiar with the high-risk nature of first responder work and must consider and implement strategies to minimise risks to psychological health, including building a positive workplace culture and providing appropriate mental health training to staff and managers. Additional approaches in this area could be considered as part of the national action plan to be led by the Department of Home Affairs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has committed to the following positive initiatives relevant to these recommendations.</para></quote>
<list>In response to the 2019-20 bushfires, $76 million is being provided for mental health support for firefighters, emergency personnel and individuals affected by the bushfires. This includes funding to support the mental health of first responders:</list>
<quote><para class="block">$10 million for provision of trauma care services including for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other mental illness by specialist organisations to emergency services workers who responded to the 2019-20 bushfires, and their immediate families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$1.5 million for the establishment of a pilot program to provide a support and mental health literacy network for emergency services workers and their families/kinship groups. This network will also connect those in need of clinical services in relation to PTSD and other mental health issues, including suicidality.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$29.6 million will be allocated for Medicare rebates for up to 10 psychological therapy sessions (including telehealth sessions) for bushfire affected individuals and families, and emergency response personnel. These 10 sessions will be in addition to the 10 psychological therapy sessions currently available under Medicare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$10.5 million is available for immediate access to up to 10 free counselling sessions. The sessions will be available at recovery centres, Service Australia centres, and existing local mental health centres in fire affected regions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$4.2 million for Primary Health Networks in fire affected communities to deliver 'surge capacity' mental health services to impacted individuals and families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$3.2 million to help deploy bushfire mental health response co-ordinators to fire affected areas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$2.7 million to deliver community connectedness and recovery grants of up to $10,000, to fund grass-roots level activities to help mental health and healing activities after the bushfires. These activities will promote peer support, with local residents helping each other and reaching out to others to identify those who are suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or depression, and prevent suicides.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$2 million for training in trauma informed care and psychological first aid to be provided to frontline emergency staff, including doctors, pharmacists and health professionals, as well as organisations managing the frontline emergency staff to identify personnel at risk.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$500,000 towards the development of a cross jurisdictional mental health framework with state and territory governments for responding to natural disasters</para></quote>
<list>The Mentally Healthy Workplace Alliance will receive $11.5 million over four years from 2019-20 to support businesses to create workplaces that help workers to achieve their best possible mental wellbeing. This initiative will deliver a nationally consistent approach to mental health in the workplace, and will produce a suite of practical tools and guides for businesses.</list>
<list>$1.2 million in funding to Phoenix Australia—the Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health—to develop a digital training platform to provide support and resources for health professionals who support individuals and communities affected by disasters and traumatic events.</list>
<list>In April 2019 the Government announced it is providing $6 million to develop mental health services and support for police and emergency services. This includes:</list>
<quote><para class="block">A $2.5 million grant to the Police Federation of Australia to develop 'Blue Hub', a national framework for ongoing mental health care of policy and defence employees. A Blue Hub pilot will take place in Victoria to develop and implement a clinical assessment framework and resource for mental health practitioners to ensure appropriate specialist mental health support for police officers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$750,000 over 12 months from 2019 for development of the National Police Memorial Co portal, which will educate and build resilience in police officers in the area of social, emotional and psychological health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Around $650,000 over two years for the AFP to develop and implement a health training framework for all AFP employees. This will include Road to Mental Readiness (M2MR) training, an evidence-based program designed by the Canadian Mental Health Commission aimed at improving individual and organisational resilience and reducing stigma associated with mental health. The funding will also support the design and implementation of evidence-based best practice health standards and governance in addition to an evaluation framework, which supports the physical, organisational, social and psychological health of AFP members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$1.88 million over two years to Fortem Australia to improve health and wellbeing of emergency service workers and meet the needs of individuals and families from early intervention to crisis support. Fortem Australia, a specialised, community-based organisation focused on the health and wellbeing of frontline workers who deal with confronting situations in their daily work-life. It will initially support the national security and law enforcement communities of Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney as part of a two-year pilot program. Services will be rolled out to Australia's emergency service and first responder communities as funding permits.</para></quote>
<list>The Government also provides additional funding, on an as needs basis, primarily through Primary Health Networks, to increase immediate surge capacity to ensure mental health services are available to communities, including first responders, who are affected by disasters such as fire and flood.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 8</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government establish a national stakeholder working group, reporting to the COAG Council of Attorneys-General, to assess the benefits of a coordinated, national approach to presumptive legislation covering PTSD and other psychological injuries in first responder and emergency services agencies. This initiative must take into consideration and work alongside legislation already introduced or being developed in state jurisdictions, thereby harmonising the relevant compensation laws across all Australian jurisdictions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response: Support in principle</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government supports a nationally consistent approach to workers' compensation arrangements and the opportunity to convene a working group, reporting to an appropriate ministerial forum, to consider the benefits of a coordinated national approach to presumptive legislation covering PTSD and other psychological injuries in first responder and emergency services agencies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, as workers' compensation is primarily a state and territory responsibility, any such working group would depend on the cooperation of the states and territories. Any legislative changes to address first responder mental health will also need to take into account the different characteristics and circumstances of the various schemes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is aware of state and territory government initiatives relevant to this recommendation. For example, in 2019 the Tasmanian Government introduced presumptive liability for government employees with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and the Victorian Government commenced a pilot that allows eligible emergency workers to access payments for medical treatment and services while their compensation claim is being determined.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is already considering how presumptive provisions could better support first responders with a psychological injury under the Comcare scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As noted in the Committee's report, Comcare and the AFP have introduced a 'fast track' approach for PTSD claims to support early intervention and timely access to treatment. Under this process, PTSD claims for operational AFP officers are accepted without an independent medical examination where the diagnosis is supported by a treating psychiatrist and the AFP supports claim liability. Preliminary findings suggest that the fast-track process has improved average claim determination timeframes and the AFP and Comcare continue to develop these arrangements. The AFP is also reviewing and supporting its rehabilitation case management services to decrease the time between the submission and approval of claims and ensure early access to treatment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 9</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in collaboration with the states and territories, initiate a review into the use of independent medical examiners (IME) in workers' compensation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 10</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government establish a national register of health professionals who specialise in first responder mental health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response: Noted</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Broadly, in the workers' compensation context, IMEs are legally qualified medical practitioners who provide impartial medical opinion to an insurer or claims manager. IMEs do not have a therapeutic relationship with the worker—that is, IMEs do not treat, or advocate on behalf of, the worker.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) regulates Australia's health practitioners in partnership with the 15 National Boards. AHPRA regulates 16 health professions, including in areas of psychology and nursing, who are required to meet the standards and policies set by the National Boards. Individual complaints or concerns about registered practitioners can be raised directly with this agency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government notes the Committee's recommendation to establish a national register of health professionals who specialise in first responder mental health. Given the localisation of many practitioners, a national register may be of limited utility, however could be considered further as part of the National Action Plan being developed by the Department of Home Affairs. Additionally, the Australian Psychological Society has the Disaster Response Network, a national network of psychologists who have a special interest and self‑nominated expertise in working with individuals and communities affected by disasters and emergencies, as well as those working to assist them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is co-funding, and participated in the development of, Monash University's GP Mental Health Guideline, a national clinical guideline to help general practitioners improve the diagnosis and management of patients with work-related mental health conditions. The guideline was launched in March 2019 and will be trialled over the next three years. It is anticipated the guideline will play a significant role in advancing the delivery of evidenced-based care for workers with work-related mental health conditions, including first responders. Phoenix Australian has also developed guidelines for thediagnosis and treatment ofPTSD inemergency service workers, which complement the Australian Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Stress Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and are approved by theNational Health and Medical Research Council.a2a</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 11</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that a consistent approach to referrals to rehabilitation counsellors be developed across states and territories, requiring referrals to be made by general practitioners not associated with employers or insurers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response: Noted</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Nationally Consistent Approval Framework (NCAF) for workplace rehabilitation providers has been in place since 2010. The Commonwealth, Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia have all adopted the NCAF. The objective of the NCAF is to provide a robust approval system across participating workers' compensation jurisdictions to enable objective measurement of provider performance and establish standards designed to deliver high quality workplace rehabilitation services to injured workers, employers and insurers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In October and December 2018, the Heads of Workers' Compensation Authorities (HWCA) reviewed the NCAF and agreed to replace it with a principles based framework for the delivery of workplace rehabilitation services. A working group of representatives from each jurisdiction was established to progress the principles based framework.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2019, Principles of Practice for Workplace Rehabilitation Providers was developed to better support workplace rehabilitation providers in the delivery of services to injured workers. The principles recognise that competent and qualified professionals in eight professions, including rehabilitation counsellors, are suitably qualified to deliver workplace rehabilitation services.a3a Workplace rehabilitation providers are engaged for their professional expertise and their role is to support the injured worker and the employer through the rehabilitation and return to work process. The principles acknowledge the importance of obtaining competent and impartial workplace rehabilitation providers, recommending robust systems and processes be in place to ensure all conflict of interest issues are considered, mitigated and notified to the workers' compensation authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The current NCAF remains in place pending the finalisation of this work and for relevant jurisdictions the current three-year approval of workplace rehabilitation providers has been extended for a further 12 months through to June 2020.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 12</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that early intervention mental health support services be made available to all employees of first responder organisations with the aim of preventing, or reducing the severity of mental health conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 14</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that ongoing and adequate mental health support services be extended to all first responders who are no longer employees of first responder organisations around the country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response: Support in principle</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government supports the principle of early intervention and making available ongoing and adequate mental health support services to all first responders, including volunteers and former employees.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is taking a leadership role in helping to manage psychological health in first responder organisations. In addition to mental health initiatives discussed in the response to recommendations 5–7, the Government has also provided the AFP $1.5 million to scope a police health model, which will explore the cost benefit analysis of a health service delivery model. The scoping exercise will focus on prevention of injury and illness, provide early intervention treatment and rehabilitation for front-line officer physical and psychological injury. Notable, the model will be scalable across all policing jurisdictions and front-line organisations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government also notes the initiatives being implemented by the AFP in relation to early intervention. This includes the Early Access Program, introduced as part of a broader strategy to improve organisational health, wellbeing management, employee health and return to work outcomes. The program provides employees, including former employees and volunteers, with access to early intervention treatment for physical and psychological work related injuries, including pre-claim medical treatment such as psychological counselling. In addition, the Welfare Officer Network can provide welfare support to employees, including former employees and volunteers, if contacted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government funds a range of mental health supports and services that are available to all Australians including first responders. These include:</para></quote>
<list>Digital mental health services and supports which are accessible by all Australians, to increase their mental health literacy, and to provide support to assist during challenging times. For example, Head to Health (www.headtohealth.gov.au) is the Australian Government's digital mental health gateway which aims to connect people to information, advice, and free or low cost phone and online mental health services relevant to an individual's needs. These resources may contain useful information and links that could assist first responders to support their own mental health and well-being.</list>
<list>The Government provides funding for early intervention mental health services through the national headspace network for people of 25 years of age or younger. The headspace program provides access to free or low cost youth-friendly, primary mental health services with a single entry point to holistic care in four key areas—mental health, related physical health, substance misuse, and social and vocational support. The model provides a service platform for, and entry point to, existing services by engaging a range of youth workers and mental health professionals, as well as by referring young people to other appropriate services.</list>
<list>Better Access to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and General Practitioners through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (Better Access) is available to people who will benefit from a structured approach to treat mental disorders such as mild to moderate depression and anxiety where short-term evidence-based interventions are likely to be useful. The number of sessions required depends on the diagnosis, duration and severity of the disorder. Patients can access Medicare rebates for up to 10 individual and 10 group allied mental health services per calendar year. Psychological Therapy services can be provided by eligible clinical psychologists. Focussed Psychological Strategies can be provided by allied health professionals, such as appropriately qualified general practitioners, eligible psychologists, social workers and occupational therapists.</list>
<quote><para class="block">As noted above, the Government has also provided $2.8 billion over six years from 2016‑17 to 2021-22 for Primary Health Networks to lead mental health and suicide prevention service commissioning at a regional level. Through flexible primary mental health care funding arrangements, Primary Health Networks commission services within a person-centred stepped care approach that aim to improve outcomes for those with or at risk of mental illness and/or suicide, in partnership with local providers. Each Primary Health Network commissions services across six priority areas:</para></quote>
<list>Low intensity mental health services to improve targeting of psychological interventions to most appropriately support people with mild mental illness;</list>
<list>Early intervention for children and young people with, or at risk of, mental illness, including those with severe mental illness who are being managed in primary care;</list>
<list>Psychological therapies for people in under-serviced and/or hard to reach populations, including rural and remote populations;</list>
<list>Primary mental health care services for people with severe mental illness being managed in primary care, including clinical care coordination for people with severe and complex mental illness;</list>
<list>Encourage and promote a regional approach to suicide prevention; and</list>
<list>Enhance and better integrate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health services at a local level.</list>
<quote><para class="block">State and territory governments have the primary role in employing first responders and implementing recommendations 12 and 14 will involve working with state and territory governments to facilitate early intervention and mental health support services through first responder organisations. Further initiatives in response to these recommendations could be considered in the context of the national action plan, proposed at recommendation 4, which the Government has agreed to implement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 13</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government make funding available for research in the prevalence of mental health conditions in retired first responders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response: Noted</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government acknowledges the importance of research in relation to mental health and is funding the following initiatives:</para></quote>
<list>The Government is providing $2 million through the Medical Research Future Fund for research into the mental health impacts of bushfires on affected communities. This will support long-term monitoring of impacts on individuals, communities, and in particular emergency service personnel who have been in fire-affected areas.</list>
<list>Million Minds Mental Health Research Mission is investing $125 million over 10 years from 2018-19. As part of this, in August 2019 the Government announced a specific grant round worth $8 million targeting suicide prevention.</list>
<list>The Government is investing $400,000 in four innovative research grants to find new ways to protect people at risk of suicide interventions to prevent suicide.</list>
<list>$33.8 million is being provided over two years to Beyond Blue under the National Depression and Anxiety initiative to increase the capacity of the Australian community to respond to issues associated with depression, anxiety and suicide; reduce the impact of depression, anxiety and suicide in the Australian community; and reduce people's experiences of stigma and discrimination associated with depression, anxiety and suicide.</list>
<list>As part of the National Depression and Anxiety initiative, Beyond Blue established the Police and Emergency Services Program in 2014. This was in response to concerns for the mental health and suicide risk of current and former or retired police and emergency services employees, volunteers and their families. Its national survey of the mental health and wellbeing of police and emergency services, 'Answering the call', reflects the voices and experiences of 21,014 serving and former employees and volunteers from 33 police, fire, ambulance and state emergency services agencies.a4a</list>
<list>1 See A Work-related psychological health and safety: A systematic approach to meeting your duties at https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/work-related-psychological-health-and-safety-systematic-approach-meeting-your-duties.</list>
<list>2 See Expert Guidelines: Diagnosis and Treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Emergency Service Workers build on the Australian Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Stress Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, http://phoenixaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/PTSD_emergency_service_workers_Guidelines-2.pdf</list>
<list>3 Other professions include an occupational therapist, physiotherapist, exercise physiologist, psychologist, social work, medical practitioner or nurse; see http://www.hwca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/HWCA-Principles-of-Practice-for-Workplace-Rehabilitation-Providers-2019_.pdf .</list>
<list>4 See Answering the call: Beyond Blue's National Mental a Health and Wellbeing Study of Police and Emergency Services at https://www.beyondblue.org.au/about-us/about-our-work/workplace-mental-health/pes-program/national-mental-health-and-wellbeing-study-of-police-and-emergency-services.</list>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>I rise to take note of the government response to an important Senate inquiry that was conducted by the Education and Employment References Committee into the mental health needs of our first responders. What we're talking about here is our emergency services workers—police, firefighters, ambulance officers and a range of other first responders. This inquiry was launched in March 2018, and it addressed the high rates of mental health conditions experienced by first responders. I want to pay tribute to all senators who took part in this inquiry, in particular Senators Urquhart, Bilyk and O'Neill.</para>
<para>A 2018 survey of more than 21,000 police, firefighters, ambulance officers and SES personnel found that 10 per cent were likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder—more than double the average for non-first responders—and one in three had experienced high or very high psychological distress. First responders also reported having suicidal thoughts at two times the rate of the general adult population. It's not surprising when you think about the kinds of scenes that confront our first responders. Whether they be bushfires, domestic violence incidents or traffic accidents, they are obviously high-trauma situations that, understandably, also cause trauma to those who attend to assist those who are affected. The reality is that people involved in disaster management and on the frontlines across the country need specialised support to help cope with what they see. Those who are sent out to an emergency or a traumatic situation unprepared or who are hurt, or who see their mates hurt, in the line of duty need appropriate access to help. That was the motivation for the inquiry, and it made some excellent recommendations, which I'll come to in a tick.</para>
<para>One of the things that has been disappointing is that we have only received this government response today, more than 12 months since the report was handed down by the Senate committee. One can only assume that we've received this response today because last sitting week Labor senators lodged a motion demanding the response. It's customary in this place—and I think there are standing orders to this effect—that a government response to a Senate inquiry will be tabled within three months. Yet, here we are: it's taken 12 months and it's taken a motion lodged and passed by the Senate before this government bothered to deliver a response to an inquiry that looked into the mental health needs of our first responders. That is extremely disappointing, and it's yet another example of what we continue to see from this Morrison government: it's slow to react and it does nothing. It is a do-nothing government, whether we're talking about the economy, about health care or about bushfire preparation and, now, when it comes to taking issues of the mental health of our first responders seriously.</para>
<para>I think that forcing our first responders to wait more than 12 months to receive a government response—we haven't even got to the point yet of the government taking action to deliver on these recommendations—shows the blatant disrespect that this government has for people on the frontline. And we've seen a lot of that lately from this government—in particular, from the Prime Minister. Of course, we've just been through a horrific bushfire season where we saw first responders out there serving their nation, serving their communities and really putting their own interests below those of other people. What did we see from the Prime Minister throughout that whole period? We saw disrespect and we saw him going missing in action and making all sorts of offensive remarks. Can you remember his refusal to pay volunteer firefighters for day after day, week after week? No matter what Labor asked for, no matter what firefighters themselves asked for, no matter what bushfire affected communities asked for, the Prime Minister always had an excuse for why we shouldn't pay volunteer firefighters. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into finally agreeing to do it. There were those infamous comments to try to excuse his absence during the worst of the bushfires when he said, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' That's the kind of respect that he holds our first responders in. We've seen it reflected in the government's tardy response to this inquiry.</para>
<para>The events of this summer show why this inquiry was needed and why action is needed now. As I say, instead, as we see so often from this government, the government did nothing. This report was just shoved in the bottom drawer and ignored until a Senate motion required the government to finally respond. Again, it's another example of what we see from this Prime Minister and what we see from his government. He makes all sorts of promises, there's all sorts of marketing and there's all sorts of spin, but there's never any action to follow through and help people. He says that he cares about our first responders, he says that he cares about our emergency services workers, but here we have a Senate report that asked the government to do something about the mental health needs of our first responders and it was ignored and shelved for 12 months. This Prime Minister is simply about marketing and saying one thing and doing another.</para>
<para>Just turning briefly to the government response, the report itself made 14 recommendations, including a range of things that the Commonwealth government could do to assist our first responders. I won't go through them all, but they include things like designing and implementing a national action plan on first responder mental health, introducing compulsory training around mental health for first responders, establishing a national register of health professionals who specialise in first responder mental health and other things—good, practical steps that were put forward by a bipartisan committee that could actually help our first responders.</para>
<para>Having had a quick look at this government response which has been tabled today, again, it's profoundly disappointing. It's disappointing that the government refused to respond. When you look at what they're now saying after having this report for 12 months it's also incredibly disappointing. What we see from this response is simply in-principle support for a number of the recommendations. So it's actually taken 12 months for the government to even just say that they in-principle support things. There's nothing about what they're going to do, nothing about firm commitments, nothing about firm support and nothing about dollars on the table or changes to procedures; there's just in-principle support. In fact, all of the recommendations that required the Commonwealth to do something have only ever been supported in principle or, even worse, 'noted'.</para>
<para>What an offensive way to treat this Senate report but also our first responders. These are things that will actually make a difference to people's lives. In some cases, they might actually keep people alive. All the government can do after sitting on this report for 12 months is say: 'Thanks very much. Noted.' It is incredibly offensive and incredibly disrespectful. Again, it's just more marketing and more spin about caring about these issues that's not backed up by action.</para>
<para>If you read this report you will see something that we've also seen a fair bit over the summer from the Prime Minister—the old shifting of blame to other people. There are lots of comments in this government response about how some things have to be done by the states and territories and some things have to be done by another organisation. It's always someone else's responsibility with this Prime Minister and his government. He never wants to step up and take responsibility to fix the situation when there's someone else out there that he can blame or throw under the bus. The New South Wales Premier knows a fair bit about that. So, yet again, we're seeing this blame-shifting attitude from the Prime Minister. Again, we see that the government is keen to talk about its mental health support given to first responders during bushfires, but clearly from this report we see that more needs to be done and the government is not taking action.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this government response that we've finally received today is profoundly disappointing. Our first responders to bushfires, other natural disasters and other traumatic incidents deserve all of our support in this chamber. They deserve our respect, they deserve our support, and they deserve action. Instead, what they've got from this government is disrespect—a report that's been shelved for 12 months and now a response that basically says nothing and does nothing. It's a continuation of this do-nothing government that's all about marketing and all about leaving people out to dry. I really do hope that the government reflects on this response over the next 12 months and that we actually see some action.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, I rise to take note of the government's response to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee report into the role of Commonwealth, state and territory governments in addressing the high rates of mental health conditions experienced by first responders, emergency service workers and volunteers. The report was titled <inline font-style="italic">The people behind 000: mental health of our first responders</inline>. I'm grateful that the government has finally got around to responding to the first responders—albeit, more than a year after the committee responded to the Senate, on 14 February.</para>
<para>It was the pending anniversary of the tabling of that report, and my conversations with Senator Urquhart about not wanting to leave behind the really valuable work that was done because so many people had fought so hard to get this issue on the table, that reminded me that it was high time to hold this government to account for its lack of response. I note that the government's response is somewhat considered, but it is in other areas, I believe, inadequate. I know that all of those who gave evidence to the inquiry, who fought for this inquiry, will be talking to members of this place about whether they believe the government's response is adequate. I want to place on record my thanks and appreciation to all of the organisations that made submissions to the inquiry and my gratitude to all of those who've had experiences that would have been quite emotionally hard to articulate in terms of going out of their way to bring that evidence before the committee.</para>
<para>Our nation's first responders show their bravery in their work day in, day out. They do this for their employment and they do this because they care, and they demonstrated that commitment in their submissions to the inquiry. The union in WA previously known as United Voice, now the United Workers Union, cover paramedics, communications and first aid officers at St John Ambulance in WA. They said in their submission to the inquiry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… ambulance officers are inherently exposed to traumatic and often dangerous incidents on a daily basis, throughout their entire careers. Such incidents may include witnessing the result of violent crimes such as sexual and other assaults, victims of road trauma, suicides and horrific accidents.</para></quote>
<para>They also note that, less obvious stresses include the 'unpredictability of working with the public and the increase in violence against on road staff'.</para>
<para>My dear friend and colleague Mr Mark Folkard MLA made a contribution to the inquiry in his private capacity and bravely used his experience as a former police officer and spoke about the fact that he suffers PTSD. He used those experiences in suffering from PTSD to inform the contribution he made to the committee. I won't reflect on all those experiences here, but he did say that he did not wish for his contribution to be confidential as PTSD needs to be out in the open. We need to keep it out in the open and respond to those needs in the community. We need to heed the call of all the brave people that gave evidence to the inquiry.</para>
<para>Of course this brings to mind the trauma that some of our first responders in firefighting professions and as volunteers will be grappling with following the bushfires that have devastated the very places where these people live and where lives have been lost. I note that the government has committed funding for mental health support of bushfire affected communities and first responders. Recommendation 3 of the Senate committee was that federal, state and territory governments work together to increase oversight of privately owned first responder organisations. This is very salient to the situation of St John Ambulance officers. We might expect, when we conceptualise first responders, that they all work for the state. But they don't. In the case of ambulance officers, in this example they work for not-for-profit organisations. In other cases you've got volunteer firefighting organisations that might be incorporated in their own way.</para>
<para>While the government noted the recommendation asking for that cooperation, they said, 'All first responder organisations, privately owned or not, are subject to oversight by the work, health and safety regulator in their jurisdiction.' I have to say that I find this response manifestly disappointing. The government has only noted a recommendation that simply asks for cooperation between jurisdictions to better support first responders in private organisations. The fact that private organisations and those first responders who work for them are currently missing out was indeed a manifest driver for the need for this inquiry, because in many instances they don't have the same entitlements or rights as other first responders who work directly for the state.</para>
<para>I note that the government has been supportive of the committee's recommendations in broad terms, but I will be watching with great interest and dedication the implementation of new or ongoing measures that the government has alluded to in this report. I think it did announce money for a strategy. I had a quick look to see if there was anything already on record about a mental health strategy for first responders. I hope this is a new commitment to that strategy. But I also hope that you've been thinking about this and not making it up on the run.</para>
<para>I look forward to continuing to consult with affected individuals, groups, unions and agencies on all of these matters, and I give a shout out to everyone who made contributions to that inquiry to please get your hands on the government's response and reach out to Labor senators. We're more than happy to help you find your way to the response and to help you examine it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today marks 376 days since the Senate Education and Employment References Committee tabled its final report and recommendations on the mental health of our first responders. 376 days—that's what it took for the government to finally address the critically important recommendations in that report. They are recommendations on how we as a nation can support those who support us and support us all at times of extreme emergency, times of life and death. This report, even though I've only briefly looked at it, is sobering. It drew on testimony from seven public hearings across Australia. The inquiry received 164 submissions, ranging from government departments to NGOs, charities, employee representatives and first responders themselves. First responders told of the strain on their personal mental wellbeing and often that of their families as well. Now, after more than a year, finally we get a government response. This government response only came today after Labor passed a motion in the Senate at the last sitting demanding that they respond. How have they responded to the 14 recommendations in this report? Based on an initial reading, there are a lot of words but not a lot of specific commitments.</para>
<para>Take recommendation 2. This was all about collecting national level data. Collecting data can sound unimportant, until you realise that it can save lives. We know that first responders are more than 10 times more likely, than the national average, to take their own lives. We urgently need a single comparable national dataset of information collected from all states.</para>
<para>Take recommendation 3, which relates to mental health and safety outcomes for the two privatised emergency services in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Recommendation 3 called for the federal, state and territory governments to work together to increase the oversight of privately-owned first-responder organisations. The very important reason why privatised emergency services warranted their own specific recommendation is that the operation of private first responders in Western Australia and the Northern Territory has been extremely problematic. These organisations are much less accountable to governments, to their workers and, therefore, to their patients than government entities are. A decade ago the ABC <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline> program broadcast an investigation of the St John Ambulance services in Western Australia. In July 2009 paramedics blew the whistle on the workplace practices and systems that they said left patients to die waiting for assistance. Then it was made clear what it was still like today. Nationally coordinated federal and state government oversight is critical to ensuring that private operators comply with the highest-possible standards in supporting their staff and ensuring patient welfare. But again the government seem to be content to take a back seat. They don't want to lead. They want to leave it all to the states.</para>
<para>Take recommendation 4. The government rightly highlights the important work that has been done by beyondblue in designing and developing a good practice framework for mental health and wellbeing in first-responder organisations. But that strategy has to be implemented, and it's not happening fast enough. The devil is in the detail. I hope the government takes seriously the need to speak to all stakeholders, including the unions who represent our first responders on the ground.</para>
<para>Recommendation 8 calls on the government to establish a much-needed national stakeholder working group to assess a national coordinated approach to presumptive legislation covering PTSD and other mental injuries experienced by first responders, with a view to harmonising compensation across jurisdictions. What was the response? You guessed it—'Let's just leave it to the states.'</para>
<para>One year on and the report card for the government on the mental health of our first responders is looking like a C-minus at best. Supporting the mental health of our first responders is a national concern that deserves national attention. It's time this government stood up and took responsibility. Labor will be watching and will stay engaged with this issue. Reform for the health and wellbeing of our first responders is too important to be left languishing for yet another year or more. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>81</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning a government response to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into the mental health conditions of first responders.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>82</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6437">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>82</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>82</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.   </para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Today I am pleased to introduce theOfficial Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to meet Australia's existing and future obligations to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the World Bank's International Development Association;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the World Bank's debt relief schemes including the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Asian Development Bank's Asian Development Fund;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will provide a standing appropriation to meet Australia's international development commitments. Consistent with our membership arrangements of these organisations, Australia pledges to replenish our financial contribution every three to four years with payments being made over a three to ten year period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Special Appropriations Bill will allow the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to meet our ongoing financial obligations to the six specified Funds without the need for annual appropriations to be made. This reflects a change to the appropriation arrangements instituted in 2014-15.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Funds to meet the commitments authorised by this Bill will come from within the agreed Official Development Assistance budget.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our contributions to these organisations constitute an important component of Australia's support for the promotion, protection and improvement of the international rules-based order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These organisations complement Australia's efforts at the country and regional-level to promote the prosperity and security of the Indo-Pacific region.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The commitments outlined in this Bill will contribute to and be made in our national interest.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are six Funds to be supported through the passage of this Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The World Bank's International Development Association operates the largest pool of concessional finance in the world.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It provides grants, technical expertise and concessional loans to promote growth and reduce poverty in the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's contribution has supported 1.5 million new labour market programs across the world, including 3,500 young people to complete job-ready training and enter the workforce.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The World Bank-managed debt relief schemes, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, provide debt relief to eligible poor countries. In 2005, the Howard government made a 40-year commitment to support this fund; between 2001 and 2015, the average decline in crippling debt in eligible countries has fallen by 1.5 per cent of GDP, freeing up local government spending on health and education and reducing reliance on foreign aid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's contributions to the Asian Development Fund, managed by the Asian Development Bank, provides grants to developing countries at moderate to high risk of debt distress, to promote poverty reduction and accelerate development in the poorer countries of the Asia and Pacific region.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our contributions have assisted to lift 16 million people out of poverty and improved economic growth in recipient nations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia has been providing support to the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund since its inception.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our contributions have assisted the protection of over</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">350 million hectares of seascapes and ocean life, supported the phase-out of over 29,000 tonnes of ozone depleting pollutants and the safe disposal of 200,000 tonnes of chemicals, including in the Pacific. The Fund's work has supported a 60 per cent increase in tuna stocks in the Pacific.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's contributions to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol assists developing countries to phase out ozone depleting substances. Collective action through this Fund has seen over 215,461 tonnes of ozone depleting substances eliminated since 1991.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Conclusion</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's engagement with these global bodies and our participation in international institutions must and will be done in our national interests.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia leverages the financial resources, expertise, influence and geographic reach of these organisations to achieve greater development outcomes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These organisations bring financial resources, policy influence and convening power that complement and enhance Australia's bilateral programs.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6486">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 (the Bill) introduces changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme aimed at better supporting working mothers and families to access their payment more flexibly.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are around 300,000 births in Australia each year, with nearly half of all new mothers accessing Paid Parental Leave. The scheme provides eligible working parents with 18 weeks of payment at a rate based on the national minimum wage, currently $740.60 per week - a total of $13,330.80 over 18 weeks.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government understands the important role of Paid Parental Leave in supporting the health and wellbeing of mothers and babies and in encouraging workforce participation. To this end, the measure in the Bill introduces greater flexibility to support working women, including self-employed women and small business owners, who cannot afford to leave their businesses for 18 consecutive weeks.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The measure will help thousands of new parents who currently return to work before they have used all of their Parental Leave Pay and lose valuable time with their young children.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, Parental Leave Pay can only be taken as a continuous 18-week block, within the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of the child. From 1 July 2020, families will be able to split their Parental Leave Pay into blocks over a two-year period, with periods of work in between.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Parents will be able to use an initial 12-week block of their entitlement any time within the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of their child, without returning to work during this initial block. This gives parents a period of recuperation and bonding in the months immediately following the birth or adoption.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Parents will be able to take their remaining entitlement of up to six weeks any time before their child turns two years old and can return to work any time during this period. This totals the 18 weeks currently allowed, but with greater flexibility.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Pending passage of the changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme, the Government also intends to make complementary amendments to increase the flexibility of the existing unpaid parental leave entitlement in the</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Fair Work Act 2009. This will help ensure that parents who wish to access their Parental Leave Pay flexibly, will have access to a corresponding flexible unpaid parental leave entitlement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For many small business owners and self-employed women, 18 weeks is a significant amount of time to be away from their work. Under these changes, mothers will be able to take an initial period of 12 weeks Parental Leave Pay before returning to run their business. They will then be able to choose when to take the remaining six weeks of their entitlement, at a time that suits their personal and business needs, for example over the Christmas and New Year period if their business is quiet at that time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some mothers may choose to use their Parental Leave Pay to support a part-time return to work. For example, after returning to work following an initial period of parental leave, parents could negotiate with their employer to work a four-day week and receive a day of Parental Leave Pay for the fifth day they are not working, for up to 30 weeks.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The increased flexibility will also make it easier for mothers who are eligible for Paid Parental Leave to transfer entitlement to eligible partners who take on the role of primary carer, where it suits the family's circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For example, a mother may choose to take 17 weeks of her Parental Leave Pay entitlement to recuperate after the birth of her child, and transfer the remaining week to her partner, who may choose to take a week off work when the child is transitioning into childcare at 18 months old.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The changes to Paid Parental Leave will give parents more choice and allow them to tailor their payments to their family's needs and situation. Increasing the flexibility of Paid Parental Leave may encourage greater uptake of Parental Leave Pay by secondary carers, contributing to changing social norms around sharing care and encouraging men to take parental leave.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill helps to expand on the important safety net for working families who do not have access to an employer scheme, or who only have access to a few weeks of funded leave. It also ensures mothers, particularly self-employed and small business owners are better able to facilitate choice and flexibility when balancing work and family.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is expected around 4,000 parents will choose to take their Parental Leave Pay flexibly each year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the Bill to the House.</para></quote>
<para>Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to 23 March 2020, in accordance with standing order 111.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement Committee, Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee, Road Safety Joint Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" background="" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" style="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6488">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Dealing with government agencies and accessing government services should be made as easy as possible. There should be no unnecessary complexity. But unfortunately, time and time again we've seen the opposite occur under this third-term Liberal government. While the government likes to encourage a view of Centrelink recipients as dole bludgers, many receiving an income support payment actually have part-time work and would like to work more but are unable to find suitable employment. For these workers they need to report every fortnight to Centrelink the hours that they work. But because their pay periods and their Centrelink reporting periods do not overlap there can be confusion. They need to calculate what their expected income will be when reporting to Centrelink. Sometimes this can be difficult and confusing, particularly without the use of payslips or if you're working a small number of hours in multiple jobs.</para>
<para>The bill before us today will change the way income is reported to Centrelink so that is reported when a person is paid, not when it is earned, and Labor supports this bill. ACOSS and other stakeholders also support the changes brought about by the bill, which if properly implemented are expected to make dealing with Centrelink easier for people on social security.</para>
<para>While this may seem a minor technical change it will improve the accuracy of income reporting by removing the requirement for people to estimate their total pay based on the number of hours worked. In most instances people will receive their payslip before reporting their income. The shift to reporting income when it's paid will more closely align the receipt of employment income with the timing of Centrelink payments. This will also make it easier for people to manage their budget, as they will know exactly what they are getting and when.</para>
<para>The bill will also enable Centrelink to use single touch payroll information from the Australian Taxation Office to pre-fill income for Centrelink reporting. But let us be clear, the changes in this bill will not automate reporting. Individuals will still be required to check and to certify income that is pre-filled using the Single Touch Payroll System. However, the bill will improve the accuracy of income reporting and will reduce incidents of over and under payment. For many, the new reporting system will be more straightforward. They'll find the prefilling of Single Touch Payroll convenient when it commences. The bill does not make any changes to payment rates, thresholds or eligibility to criteria for payments.</para>
<para>We're putting the government on notice that they need to get the implementation of changes right as, unfortunately, this government has a history of mismanagement. We've seen time and time again an inability for this government to successfully implement policy. Labor is very concerned that the government runs a high risk of botching the implementation of these changes, because they have a track record of bungling any project involving the use of information technology. I'll take just a few minutes to outline some examples of their recent bungles.</para>
<para>We've all seen and been contacted by constituents regarding the government's robo-debt disaster, a project which, despite their protestations, was found to be illegal and described by an retired AAT member as extortion. The government's robo-debt scheme unleashed a faulty algorithm against social security recipients who, even if they had reported their income 100 per cent correctly, were slapped with debts, many running into thousands of dollars. Robo-debt used a crude calculation of annual income obtained from the ATO and then created a discrepancy by comparing it to Centrelink recipient's fortnightly income. In some cases, a decade had passed since the reporting period in question, leaving many, often formal social security recipients, shocked and distressed that they would have to retrieve pay slips from an old employer who may have gone into liquidation or simply not kept records. They were supposed to find these documents in order to prove that they did not owe the money to Centrelink. Figures obtained through the Senate also found almost 2,000 people died after receiving a robo-debt notice. That's completely outrageous. Low income Australians have been targeted by a flawed and illegal robo-debt program.</para>
<para>At estimates, it was revealed that the department took money from 73 estates of people who had died, totalling $225,000. The Liberals have done everything they could to keep robo-debt under the radar, with Centrelink never appealing judgement at AAT to level 2, where the reasons for decisions are made public. They have taken up to 553 days to settle a decision of the tribunal and allegedly intimidated robo-debt victims to stop them appealing their cases.</para>
<para>Australians have had enough of mopping up after the Liberals' mistakes. The government should just admit they are wrong, pay the money back to victims and apologise. On this side, we believe it's important to provide efficient, user-friendly government services and systems. We do not support cuts to the public service and the outsourcing of government work to its agencies customers, which is what it tried to do with robo-debt's unfair reverse practical onus of proof. People were guilty until proven innocent. The government have also spent almost $2 billion on the My Health Record system, an e-health scheme that doctors and patients refuse to use because of legitimate privacy concerns, including breaches. Currently, half of the 23 million records are empty. We all remember the disaster of the 2016 Census where for almost 48 hours Australians were unable to access the Census website due to a series of denial-of-service attacks, incurring a $30 million cost blowout to the Turnbull government. It was the worst run census in Australian history and one of the worst IT debacles Australia has ever seen.</para>
<para>Other disasters include the 2019 myGov outage, where technical difficulties brought down the online government service portal for an entire day when people tried to access ATO accounts and lodge their income tax returns. We've also seen the deliberate attempts to run down Centrelink services to the point where pensioners are waiting months to get the pension and people are waiting on the phone for hours to get service. The minister, Mr Stuart Robert, was determined to close down the Kingston Centrelink, near my office, before a campaign run with the support of the member for Franklin, Julie Collins, and myself was successful in keeping the office open.</para>
<para>Despite the success of that campaign, there remain ongoing concerns about the quality of services at the office because it is being co-located with Medicare and Service Tasmania. It is not about the quality of the staff; it's the quality of the people able to overhear people's conversations. I've been in there on numerous occasions and heard people's private banking details that they have had to talk about. Other offices across the country have closed or suffered a reduction in the amount of help that can be provided. This happened at Huonville in the Huon Valley, not too far from my office as well. Waiting times on phone calls to Centrelink offices have exploded, with many people waiting hours or simply giving up.</para>
<para>Given this track record of mismanagement the last thing we want to see is social security recipients having their payments cut off or being saddled with unfair debts because the government has failed to manage this change properly. I really hope that the government can be trusted to correctly implement this change and that, when people have questions about the change, they are not left waiting on the phone for hours. It's absolutely critical that the government has the right systems and resources in place to make this work, because, if it doesn't, many Australians on the lowest incomes could suffer as a result.</para>
<para>Stakeholders at the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill were particularly concerned about the government's ability to roll out these changes successfully. The Australian Unemployed Workers Union told the inquiry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While we support the idea of making income support reporting simpler, the recent experience with robodebt offers salient warnings about the harms that arise when the algorithms that inform income imputations do not reflect the reality of variable income many underemployed workers experience. The robodebt experience shows how the design and digitisation initiatives too often occurs in a vacuum, with insufficient testing of the concepts on human subjects and with a disregard for the suffering that arises when these initiatives fail to work as intended.</para></quote>
<para>The National Social Security Rights Network raised the following concerns about the transition from the current reporting arrangement to the new arrangements proposed in the bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We're particularly concerned about the transition periods, where we understand that people will actually need to do some manual calculations to make sure that the period that the data relates to is correct. That particular period is, I think, going to be fraught, and there are going to need to be additional resources from Services Australia to support people through that period.</para></quote>
<para>Then Anglicare Australia shared concerns about the government's ability to effectively manage change to systems and pointed out the importance of investing in the systems on which so many Australians rely in order to make them simpler and better to use. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Centrelink has not demonstrated its organisational ability to enact automated systems. There is a lot going on at Centrelink at the moment, and it would be really good to see demonstrated consolidation of the current lessons to assist in the future changes. These changes must be seen as an investment into a better system for Australians. They will not work for the people using Centrelink if they're viewed as a cost-cutting exercise. An investment outlook will involve careful design and testing, but it will, ultimately, deliver better outcomes for everyone.</para></quote>
<para>Australians need access to functional government services, not for taxpayers' money to be wasted mopping up mistake after mistake because the Liberals can't be trusted with digital service delivery. In addition to the recommendations in the committee report, Labor senators on the committee recommended that the government take all reasonable steps during the period of transition to the new income reporting system to detect, confirm and correct overreporting of income. This is essential to ensure payments are correct and reflects the government's moral duty of care to use the available information and systems to make sure that social security recipients receive accurate payments.</para>
<para>Labor senators also recommended that the one-year review of implementation of the changes proposed in the bill be conducted independently and that consultation with experts and social security recipients be part of the review process. We need to ensure that the review of these changes is done correctly. We don't want to see another whitewash, like the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sports rort report was.</para>
<para>While Labor supports the changes in this bill, unfortunately what this bill doesn't do is clean up the Morrison government's robodebt debacle. Many Australians have incomes which change from fortnight to fortnight due to insecure or intermittent work, often in the gig economy or balanced with study and other commitments, and rarely do they have the same number of hours each fortnight. This bill has the potential to make it easier for them to accurately report their income to Centrelink and reduce the potential for making mistakes in the reporting process. However, it's these workers who are most likely to be affected if the government bungles this important reform. I call on the Senate to support the bill and on the government to, for once, actually implement a policy change correctly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government has always believed that a welfare system should be accurate, fair and simple. The legislation that will deliver on this rock-solid commitment will make it easier for welfare recipients to report income and improve the accuracy of our payment system. Recipients can now report their earnings in real time, and the taxpayers who fund this support can be confident that every cent can be accounted for. The single touch payment will be fast and fair. In streamlining the process of reporting employment income to Centrelink, recipients will report their income when it is paid by their employer, not when it is earned. From 1 July, this will make it easier to report income correctly and better support people receiving the right amount of income support each time it's paid. There will be no more or less than the amount for which they're eligible, and this will reduce the likelihood of overpayments.</para>
<para>More than 1.2 million welfare recipients each year who also earn an income will be able to report their earnings simply as it appears on their pay slip. The days of complicated reporting will finally be over, with no need for recipients to undertake a calculation to report their or their partner's earnings based on the number and value of shifts they've worked. As it stands, reported earned amounts can require recipients to undertake multiple calculations. From July 2020, the Australian Taxation Office will begin providing employment income details to Services Australia to assist payment recipients to report accurately. Where single touch payment data is used, recipients will still be responsible for correctly reporting their income and will retain the ability to review, edit or add additional employment income before finalising their report to Centrelink. This will support payment recipients to accurately report their employment income, ensuring that they get paid the right amount from Centrelink. Employer provided payroll information will be used to make it easier for welfare recipients to accurately report income. It is not a retrospective compliance measure. The subsequent improvements in payment accuracy are expected to deliver savings to government of $2.1 billion over four years.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is seriously committed to ensuring that all Australians in need of financial support are able to receive the precise amount of their entitlement without any impact on eligibility criteria. This new process of modernising Australia's social security system by allowing technology to prevent overpayments before they happen does not diminish the individual's responsibility for reporting correctly. This is nothing less than what the Australian taxpayer demands. The Morrison government feels a deep sense of responsibility to deliver on fulfilling the expectation of Australians to make every cent of their tax payments count. This new process will meet that expectation without eroding the support we pledge to those who need it. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill will make great inroads into ensuring Australia's welfare system remains sustainable well into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill will change the way income is reported to Centrelink so that it's reported when a person is paid, not when it's earned. That should be a straightforward development. Perhaps it's my lack of knowledge about the relationship between the administrative and the legislative way these things are managed that it seems remarkable that something so straightforward, in a system that is so complicated and difficult for so many Australians, requires legislation rather than just regulation, but there we are.</para>
<para>Eighty per cent of the people who report income to Centrelink receive working-age payments, like Newstart and youth allowance. However, an increasing number of age pensioners are also reporting employment income. The bill will improve the accuracy of reporting by taking away a lot of the guess work. Currently, social security recipients are in the unusual position of having to anticipate their weekly income without a pay slip—not something that Australians in other circumstances are required to do. This shift will allow recipients to better align their employment income with their benefits and allow them to more effectively manage their budget. It will allow Centrelink to use the Single Touch Payroll System information from the Australian Taxation Office to prefill income for Centrelink reporting. For many people, this will be more straightforward and vastly more convenient than the current system. It will reduce the occurrences of under-reporting and over-reporting of income, which have been the basis of the government's scandalous, heartless and failed robodebt scheme.</para>
<para>I note that the Australian Council of Social Service and other stakeholders in this field support this bill on the basis that it will make the lives of social security recipients more straightforward. However, they—and we on the Labor side, here—remain sceptical about the implementation of the process. Australians who receive social security benefits, whether it's Newstart, youth allowance or the age pension, deserve a transparent and efficient system. Unlike the minister and some of the other characters over there, Newstart is not a punishment for people. It should be designed to sustain people with a reasonable standard of living and make it easier for them to seek work, not harder. That the government has fallen so short on all measures in their administration of social security is shameful.</para>
<para>Labor will support the bill but we remain deeply concerned with the system. The government has run down Centrelink services across the country to the point where Australians are waiting months for their entitlements. There is a cumulative effect of this neglect that those on the other side probably find difficult to understand. The average waiting time for people trying to call Centrelink has now expanded to 15 minutes and 35 seconds, but many people have reported being in the queue for many hours. There's no more compelling example of this than robodebt. The government's now jettisoned its practice of sending people debt recovery notices based solely upon the Department of Social Security's income average of ATO tax data. It's a faulty algorithm that heartlessly punished vulnerable people even when they reported income correctly. For all their rhetoric of promoting work over welfare, it was people who had intermittent or insecure work that were punished the most heavily. Comparing an average annual figure to fortnightly income for these people is absurd. To do so retrospectively is even more bizarre. In some cases, a decade had passed since they'd last reported their income.</para>
<para>A useful comparison is this week the government pushed legislation through this place, then passed an amnesty for unpaid superannuation for employers to report 26 years of unpaid superannuation without penalty—no penalty at all. They have tax data now to detect unpaid superannuation going back decades. It's the same data, albeit deliberately miscalculated, that inspired the robodebt scheme. They will never go after a shonky employer who hasn't paid their workers' superannuation. They will never implement a system that ruthlessly accounts for stolen wages. You lot are all too happy to unleash a Kafkaesque nightmare on poor and vulnerable Australians who can't find a job because your economic model has failed.</para>
<para>Exactly what the government knew and when is now a matter for the courts. We know because of emails made public this month from the department's legal counsel warning the scheme was illegal. We know the Federal Court last year ruled that there was no legal basis in the Social Security Act to use income averaging as a sole proof to raise a debt. And we know the government is retreating from the scheme and has frozen any debts related to it.</para>
<para>It was an absolute tragedy, perpetrated by the government. Some people died after receiving robodebt notifications, many of them at the margins of our society. And when somebody died, having had a debt struck up under the robodebt system, did that stop the government? No. They took money from 73 estates of people who had died, totalling $225,000. For all the time that the government was carrying on about the robodebt scheme and defending it, they were punishing these people with an illegal scheme that took money from dead poor people. All the marketing, all the affectation, all the phoniness left these people behind. In particular, what should not be forgotten when Australians consider the robodebt scheme and the way this government is dealing with people on social security is a consideration of what happens to people in country areas who lose their jobs and in particular those seats represented by the senators here and the members in the other house from what passes for the National Party in today's politics.</para>
<para>The Nationals represent some of the poorest electorates in the country. According to the ANU study, they include the seat of Mallee, where 16.9 per cent of households live below the poverty line; the seat of Page, where 16.4 per cent of households live below the poverty line; Hinkler, where 16.2 per cent of households live below the poverty line; Wide Bay, 15.9 per cent of households; Cowper, 15.5 per cent; Maranoa, 15.3. per cent; Lyne, 15.2 per cent; and the seat of New England, 15.2 per cent of people below the poverty line. These are communities where being poor is tough, and it's isolating. Depending on where you live, unemployment and underemployment are often high. Access to education and training is much more limited. Even access to basic health care for some Australians living in country towns on social security is much more difficult, much worse than it is in a big city. They are places where it is a long way away from Centrelink, hard to get decent internet access and in some cases difficult to get phone reception. When a system becomes cruel and bureaucratic, it's regional people who suffer the most.</para>
<para>There is evidence that poverty in regional and rural Australia is getting worse. A recent study by ME Bank showed that household financial comfort in regional Australia is sliding, with a 14 per cent decline in financial comfort in regional Queensland and similar declines in regional New South Wales and Victoria. The gap between regional households and metropolitan households has grown substantially. It's part of a larger story—a story of the cities growing richer and the regions being left behind, factories that have closed and services that have been shut. And the growth of the finance sector and the services sector never made it to some parts of the country. Rural labouring jobs and blue-collar professions that once delivered dignity to working class Australians in rural towns never came back. When a factory closes in a regional centre, a third of workers retire, a third of workers find another job—usually a job that is impermanent and much worse—and a third of workers never work again. The jobs went, but the people stayed there.</para>
<para>The largest group of Newstart recipients in Australia is people aged between 55 and 65. Many of them are regional workers who expected to have a good job—until the day that they didn't. How many of them got caught in a wave of economic change as the labour market changed under their feet? How many of them are languishing in regional towns, quietly trying to get by as it gets harder and harder to make ends meet? And the government's robodebt system made it immeasurably harder for those people. What's worse, for many of those people it took away their dignity as well. How many of them had been stuck waiting for the call centre, for Centrelink, for hours on end?</para>
<para>How many of them were sent illegal robo-debt notifications? How many of them struggled and skipped meals to pay to the government money that they didn't owe?</para>
<para>And where was the so-called party of the bush? Where was the party that promised to protect them? They would have known. For years, every MPs office has been flooded with constituents trying to navigate this baffling and cruel system. The National Party didn't do anything about it. They didn't even try. I'd be delighted, really, to find out that The Nationals did try, but there is no evidence to support that proposition. It doesn't matter either way, I suppose. The National Party hasn't stood up for working-class people in country towns. They're really good on the podcasts, really good on the political cosplay in the hi-vis vests and really good on wearing the funny hats and doing the routine. But when it actually matters, delivering for country people and delivering for working-class people in country towns, these people are nowhere to be seen. Even worse, they are enablers of cruel and heartless government policy that strips jobs away from these places.</para>
<para>And when people lose their jobs, what does the National Party do? Well, it's become pretty clear in the last couple of weeks. Last week, in the context of another policy debate, one of the characters who is one of the movers and shakers in the National Party, Senator Canavan, spoke on renewables in the energy sector—a form of energy that he doesn't like and that he's opposed to—and what was the worst thing that he could find to say about renewables in the energy sector? When he thought of the cruellest insult that he could mount, what did he say? He said that renewables were the 'dole bludgers' of the energy sector. I thought it was the cruellest, meanest thing that he could say. He thought it would get him a big cheer on Twitter. It says a lot about who the modern National Party is, who they represent and what they really mean when they talk about social security.</para>
<para>It was an odd claim to make, in that he was trying to suggest that the renewable sector is propped up only by government money. It immediately preceded a campaign that he's launched with his friend the member for New England for billions of dollars in government subsidies for a coal-fired power station that will never be built—that, if it were built, would be hopelessly inefficient, would drag the country backwards in technological terms and would make power more expensive for ordinary Australians. It's an odd thing to say. But the worst thing about what he said is that when he was trying to summon up the worst kind of insult, what he said was 'dole bludgers', and what he really meant was the tens of thousands of people in Wide Bay, Hinkler and Maranoa, where 15 to 17 per cent of households live below the poverty line, in communities where work has disappeared, in no small part due to the failure over the course of the last seven years of what passes for a government on the other side of this chamber and in the House. The worst kind of insult he thought he could level at the poor old renewable sector—I don't know what they ever did to Senator Canavan—was that they were 'dole bludgers'. He should be ashamed of it. It says a lot about the politics of the government.</para>
<para>It's the same philosophy that drives the government's approach. When the current minister, Senator Ruston, was challenged about lifting Newstart, she said that increases in funding for Newstart would go to drug dealers and publicans. The contempt that the people on that side of the chamber have for ordinary Australians who can't find decent work, who can't make ends meet, is absolutely palpable. It's driven their approach to this policy. We have to do much better. We should do much better, but we should pass this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020. We've heard a lot tonight about why this is a sound policy for the government to be pursuing. It appears our colleagues on the other side, despite having a running commentary that they wanted to provide to the chamber this evening, will be supporting this bill as well, and I'm certainly very glad to see that. But I wanted to come at this bill from a slightly different approach this evening. It might be a little nerdy of me, but I'm just going to go with it and we'll see where we go.</para>
<para>Before I found myself in this place, I used to work at Deloitte, an accounting firm. At Deloitte, we talked a lot about data driven government and the role that data has to play in government decision-making and the provision of government services. And know this: if we talk about it in these terms, it's probably not something that is particularly interesting for everyday Australians. They might say, 'Data driven government—what does that mean?' But, certainly in my previous career at a consulting firm, the idea of data and the role that it can play in informing government decisions and helping government go about its work better was something that we found really exciting. I did a lot of work in the public sector back in Tasmania working in our risk advisory practice in the Hobart office around this and many other issues. Data and the role that data has to play in government is something that we talked about a lot with our clients.</para>
<para>The policy we are discussing here this evening in the bill that's before the Senate is something that touches on how exciting these changes are for government and how data can be utilised by government to make the provision and delivery of government services so much easier and so much more straightforward for everyday Australians. In that way—like I said, it's a little bit nerdy—it really does align with the good principles of commonsense government that this government, the Morrison coalition government, stands for—reducing the administrative burden on government and business. We know that this government is all about doing that, all about reducing red tape and, most importantly, all about ensuring that we have accountability for the expenditure of taxpayers' money. I will be talking in my contribution this evening about how the measures that are proposed in this legislation—the simplifying income reporting and other measures bill—will facilitate that. This is a very exciting change. It's obviously something that we couldn't have done 20 or 30 years ago, and it's really interesting to see how the development of technology has enabled government to change the way that it delivers services for, I think, the better and to create better outcomes for Australians.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is committed to an accurate, fair and simple welfare system. Fundamentally, what we are doing with this legislation before the chamber this evening is taking the guesswork out of social security. We're trying to remove the margin for error. That's what, I believe, data-driven government services are all about. As part of this commitment, the government has introduced this legislation which will make it simpler for welfare recipients who report their income to do so and will improve the accuracy of our payment system.</para>
<para>This bill will improve the process of reporting employment income to Centrelink. From 1 July 2020, social security recipients will report their employment income to Centrelink when it is paid by their employer instead of when it is earned. I will identify, in just a moment, why the latter of those options—declaring when income is earned—is slightly more complex. Assessing employment income when paid will make it easier to report income correctly. This will better support people receiving the right amount of income support each time it's paid—no more and no less than what they are eligible for—which reduces the likelihood of overpayments. I fundamentally see this as a win-win from the perspective of those people on welfare who will utilise the system in this way. It minimises the risk that, at the end of a financial year, they will find out that their Centrelink payment has been overpaid and that they then have to pay that back. It also ensures that from the government's perspective and, I guess, the social contract we have with taxpayers to spend their money responsibly, taxpayers can be assured that the government is doing everything within its power to make sure that payments for government services like Centrelink are as accurate as possible. It will also pave the way for the future prefilling of employment income using Single Touch Payroll information, which will support easier reporting arrangements for recipients. Again, this is data-driven government service delivery. It's very exciting. I said I was going to be a bit nerdy, and later I will touch on the benefits of Single Touch Payroll and why I think that this has been such an exciting development for government services.</para>
<para>Under the changes, more than 1.2 million welfare recipients each year who also earn an income will able to report their earnings simply as it appears on their pay slip. That's up to 550,000 people in any given fortnight. From 1 July 2020 the bill will improve and simplify how employment income is reported and assessed. Currently —I said I was going to speak about this earlier—recipients must undertake a calculation to report their or their partner's earnings, depending on the situation, based on the number and value of shifts they have worked, not what they've actually been paid. Reporting earned amounts can require recipients to undertake multiple calculations. I think it goes without saying that that often includes a fair bit of guesswork. Over the course of 2017 there were over 15 million corrections to recently reported earnings, where people discovered when they had been paid that they had incorrectly reported their earned income for the previous fortnight.</para>
<para>When you think about it practically, that could arise in so many different situations. First of all, different employers have different pay dates that don't always align with the Centrelink reporting period. Further, people might work longer shifts than they originally predicted. They might pick up a penalty rate that they didn't originally think that they were going to. It really does result in an awful lot of careful calculations. That is time-consuming on behalf of the person declaring the earned income, and there may be a lot of guesswork and a lot of anticipation of hours worked that may not necessarily end up being accurate. As a result of that, these 15 million corrections just over the course of 2017 have occurred.</para>
<para>With this change, people are going to be able to refer to their pay slip. When they have undertaken the work, they can just utilise the information on their pay slip to declare that information to Centrelink. In a moment I will touch on the role of Single Touch Payroll and what new development that means. Changing the way employment income is reported simplifies requirements for social security recipients and will ensure that they are paid the correct rate. They are declaring only the information relevant to what they have been paid, not to what they anticipated being paid. Fundamentally, we are taking the guesswork out of this process. That's really important, both in terms of the people who are declaring any income that they might have earned. Also, as I was saying earlier, the role that government has to play in making sure that taxpayers' money is responsibly expended and ensuring that there isn't guesswork when we are trying to spend taxpayers' money is really important.</para>
<para>While this measure that we're discussing here tonight changes the way employment income is assessed, it also aligns with Single Touch Payroll data, which is based on what an employee has made to make reporting even simpler. Single Touch Payroll has been really transformative in the way that government services are delivered, and also in the superannuation space. Single Touch Payroll, for those listening at home—and I'm sure countless are—works by sending taxation and superannuation information from a business's payroll or accounting software to the ATO as the payroll is run. So, on a fortnightly, monthly, quarterly or whatever basis an employer is running the payroll, that information is provided to the ATO, effectively in real time. Employers are just required to run the payroll, give the employees their pay slip as normal and obviously pay their employees. The pay cycle doesn't need to change, but the information on the salaries and wages that have been paid to the employees, any pay-as-you-go tax withheld plus any super paid—all of that data—then goes to the ATO.</para>
<para>We've spoken in this chamber before, particularly in the superannuation space, around the role that this plays in ensuring that the information that the ATO gets is accurate. Anyone in this chamber, in this country, that has moved from filling out a paper tax return back in the day—I am just old enough that I still remember how to do that—to now using an online platform to lodge a tax return will know how much easier it is when the ATO has this information, so that when you're filing your tax return each year you just log into the system and sign off on it. I think it is important to reflect for a moment on the sign-off point. Obviously, with the legislation we're discussing here tonight, we're not giving any welfare recipient the ability to just accept, carte blanche, that the information must be correct. Welfare recipients are still required to log onto the system and look at the information and make sure that it aligns with their pay slips. I think that's a really important part of the process. There has to be an element of accountability in any of these service offerings, and enabling social security recipients to log into the system and check that is really important. We know that sometimes we can get it wrong, so it's good to be able to check.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this government believes strongly in the dignity of work, and the legislation that we're debating here tonight will provide even more support to people who are transitioning from social security into work by ensuring that they aren't financially disadvantaged by getting a job. In closing, I really want to reflect on that point. The importance of helping people who are on welfare transition into work is really important. If we make it easier for them to work and if we make it easier for them to declare income, like through the measures that we're discussing here tonight, then I'm confident that we will see more people transition from welfare into work. At the end of the day, that's what this government is all about.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm grateful to be able to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill and about our social security system. This bill does fix issues arising with the reporting of income for Centrelink programs so that a person reports their income when it is paid, not when it is earned. This is a commonsense approach—more closely aligning the payment of wages with the timing of Centrelink payments. It will make the reporting of income more straightforward for most, and it's useful that people will be able to use prefilling Single Touch Payroll data from the ATO. This will, if implemented correctly, make interacting with Centrelink easier for those on social security payments while also making it easier to manage their budgets. But with this government's record, that is a big 'if'. It is all about the implementation of this bill, and this government's record on implementation is hardly something that generates confidence.</para>
<para>We're concerned—and, I believe, rightly so—that the government runs a very high risk of mucking up the implementation of these changes because this is the same government that has run down Centrelink services so that pensioners are waiting months to get their pension payments, this is the same government that has run down Centrelink services so much that people spend hours and hours on hold when they pick up the phone to talk to a real human being, this is the same government that has been secretly shutting down Centrelink shopfronts around the nation, and this is the same government that brought us the absolutely catastrophic disaster that is robodebt. So, given its track record of mismanaging the implementation of projects like these, its record of attacking social security, and its record of showing a complete lack of compassion, I am more than a little concerned about the government's ability to role out these changes effectively.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>91</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Gaetjens report.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>91</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Team Rubicon Australia</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS</name>
    <name.id>e4t</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to speak about Team Rubicon Australia, an organisation that is quietly achieving not only for veterans but for those they are helping. Founded in August 2016, its mission is to unite the skills and experiences of Australian Defence Force veterans with first responders to rapidly deploy emergency response teams in Australia and internationally. Its primary aim is to provide disaster relief to those affected by natural disasters by pairing the skills and experiences of military veterans with first responders, medical professionals and technology solutions. Above all, Team Rubicon's aim is to serve the underserved. By focusing on underserved or economically challenged communities, Team Rubicon seeks to make the largest impact possible. We know disasters represent a massive financial cost, and by providing immediate relief work, free of cost, Team Rubicon aims to help communities get back on their feet quicker. Through continued service, Team Rubicon seeks to provide our veterans with three things they lose after leaving the military: firstly, a purpose, gained through disaster relief; secondly, community, built by serving with others; and, thirdly, identity, from recognising the impact one individual can make. Coupled with leadership development and other opportunities, Team Rubicon looks to help veterans transition from military to civilian life.</para>
<para>Following its founding in 2016, Team Rubicon Australia launched its first disaster relief operation following the devastation wrought by Tropical Cyclone Debbie. This operation, dubbed 'Operation Dunlop' after the famous World War II surgeon Sir Ernest Edward 'Weary' Dunlop, saw Team Rubicon Australia deployed to the hard-hit town of Proserpine in North Queensland. For over three weeks, 62 grey shirts worked tirelessly to help the community recover from that disaster. Most importantly, it proved just how ideally suited military veterans were to the conduct of this type of work. Since then, it has grown to a nationwide movement, with over 2,500 members and four fully operational disaster relief teams in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Townsville, representing a significant capability. Indeed, it has proven that capability on 15 disaster relief operations both domestically and internationally, helping thousands of disaster survivors. Over the next four years, Team Rubicon will expand from four to 12 disaster relief teams around Australia. As is stated on their website, in the spirit of World War I veterans returning to build the Great Ocean Road, Team Rubicon has reinvented the idea that veterans are some of the most highly trained civic assets, with skills and experience to be harnessed. They are anything but victims; they are built to serve.</para>
<para>Recently, we announced funding to support at-risk veterans transitioning to civilian life, including $15 million to roll out employment related programs for veterans—to Soldier On, Team Rubicon Australia and the national RSL. In making the announcement, Minister Chester stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">You only need to look at the mobilisation of Team Rubicon Australia to assist in the recent response to the bushfires to know the results will be promising.</para></quote>
<para>Recently, I joined CEO Geoff Evans and Team Rubicon members at Liverpool as they were about to set out for the South Coast of New South Wales. Thanks to the support of local businessmen like Brian Zammitt and others, Team Rubicon Australia have been supplied with three specially fitted buses to assist with deployments.</para>
<para>Can I conclude by referring to an ABCstory today: 'Team Rubicon using the skills of veterans to help bushfire victims rebuild'. It tells the story of Adam Weinert from the Adelaide Hills, whose home was destroyed by the bushfires. He is an army veteran. The story says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The bushfire left him feeling alone and longing for the friendship and support he had in the military.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Then Team Rubicon came to his rescue.</para></quote>
<para>The story says that Team Rubicon's help is like 'gold dust'. Team Rubicon is well on the way to achieving its mission to be the pre-eminent disaster relief organisation in the Asia-Pacific region. In so doing, it will change the narrative around what it means to be a veteran in Australia. I congratulate them for the great work they do. I look forward to hearing more about their achievements.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Acting Deputy President Askew, last week a house in Shearwater in our home state of Tasmania was evacuated on the orders of the Latrobe Council. The five-bedroom house was being occupied by up to 77 seasonal workers. Their accommodation had been organised for them by a labour hire contractor. The workers were each paying up to $130 a week in rent to live in what could only be described as slum-like conditions. If you do the sums, it's possible that the company was receiving close to $10,000 a week in rent. I'm not sure if the landlord was receiving that much, but most landlords could only dream of fetching that amount of rent for a five-bedroom property, particularly in Northern Tasmania.</para>
<para>Sadly, stories of mistreatment and exploitation of foreign workers are far too common. The Australian Workers Union Tasmanian branch has been contacted by a number of workers who have come to Tasmania under the Seasonal Worker Program and reported being subjected to poor living conditions. Under the program, approved employers are expected to make arrangements for accommodation and transport for their workers, for which they can make deductions from their workers' pay. Many workers end up being ripped off by these arrangements—being charged hundreds of dollars a week to live in cramped, overcrowded accommodation.</para>
<para>Workers under the Seasonal Worker Program come from poor countries like Timor-Leste, Fiji and Tonga. They hope to earn money to send home to their families, but too often their hopes are shattered because they have been ripped off by an unscrupulous employer. One worker told the AWU that they were charged so much for accommodation and transport they were left with only $80 a week in their pay packet. While workers are technically allowed to make their own accommodation and domestic transport arrangements, this is almost impossible for workers with limited English going to an unfamiliar place and relying entirely on their employer for advice and support.</para>
<para>The Seasonal Worker Program guidelines state that employers must provide workers with 'reasonable accommodation', but they provide no definition of 'reasonable'. There is also no process under the program to check that workers' accommodation and the amount being charged are reasonable. I'm sure seasonal workers are not expecting five-star hotels, but I expect most Australians would not consider it reasonable to cram five or six people into a small room for up to six months and charge each of them more than $100 a week for the privilege.</para>
<para>The Seasonal Worker Program is not the only scheme in which seasonal workers have faced abuse or exploitation. There were plenty of reports of abuse uncovered through the Fair Work Ombudsman's Harvest Trail inquiry. This three-year investigation found that some foreign workers on Australian farms had been 'bonded like slaves'—and, yes, the words 'bonded like slaves' are a direct quote from that report—referring to the practice where employers would refuse to sign visa extensions for workers unless they saw out the season with them.</para>
<para>Some of the experiences reported to the inquiry include workers being driven to their accommodation via ATMs in order to pay in advance for bond, transport and accommodation costs; workers being bullied and sexually harassed; and labour hire contractors disappearing at the end of the harvest season with thousands of dollars in wages. The inquiry report was released in 2018, but evidence of worker exploitation goes back even further than that. Reports about workers being charged exorbitant amounts for substandard accommodation were featured on the ABC <inline font-style="italic">7.30 </inline>program in February 2016—four years ago! These issues are not new and this third-term government needs to act urgently to make exploitation of seasonal workers a thing of the past.</para>
<para>The shadow minister for workplace relations, Brendan O'Connor, has written to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash, seeking answers to several questions about the Seasonal Worker Program, such as: What inquiries is the department making into the Shearwater incident? How long will these inquiries take? Will the findings be made public? Is the government aware of any other instances of mistreatment under the Seasonal Worker Program? Will it be auditing employers who use the scheme?</para>
<para>I understand that we will also be pursuing questions about the program through Senate estimates.</para>
<para>Exploitation of any worker is unacceptable, but, because of their vulnerability, there is a particular need to protect low-skilled foreign workers from exploitation. Failure to address these issues will turn workers away from Australia and damage relations with our Pacific neighbours. As such, I hope we can get answers from the minister. I hope we can get them soon and restore confidence in the program.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Criminal Responsibility</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to speak on the urgent need to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Australia. Today I had the privilege of meeting with Maya Newell, director of the film <inline font-style="italic">In My Blood It </inline><inline font-style="italic">Runs</inline>, and people from Dujuan Hoosan's community. Dujuan, who is the star of the film, is in Parliament House today for a screening of the documentary that features his experiences in Alice Springs in education and the justice system. Last September, Dujuan addressed the 42nd session of the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva and made history as the youngest person to do so. One of the issues he spoke about was the importance of raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years to a minimum of 14 years.</para>
<para>By locking up children as young as 10 years old, our system is setting First Nations children up to fail. As a recent report by the Productivity Commission on government services highlighted, First Nations kids are being detained at a rate more than 20 times that of non-Indigenous Australian children. Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years, at a minimum, is a key lever we can pull to decrease the over-representation of First Nations children in detention.</para>
<para>Below 14 years old—and, some would argue, even higher than that—children have not developed the requisite level of maturity to form the necessary intent for full criminal responsibility. Children at this age also lack the capacity to properly engage in the criminal justice system. The practices embedded in our juvenile justice system are contributing to the criminalisation of First Nations young people. Prison only perpetuates the cycle of violence, intergenerational trauma, poverty and crime.</para>
<para>But it's not only about prison; it's also about the culture within our justice system. I was alarmed by reports this month that police in New South Wales maintained a secretive blacklist disproportionately made up of First Nations children who they deem to be at risk of committing crimes. Many of these children, some of whom are as young as nine, have not been charged with any crimes. We know that our justice system is seriously sick when the police are secretly tracking First Nations kids. We must work with First Nations peoples to do better for First Nations young people in this country.</para>
<para>Fortunately, we know much of the pathway forward. The Royal Commission into the Detention and Protection of Children in the Northern Territory gave us a road map of 227 recommendations, many of which can be replicated across other states and territories. It recommends increasing diversion and therapeutic approaches in youth justice, developing a new model of bail, providing place based services to families and ensuring detention is only ever used as a last resort for people up to the age of 17. I'll say 'last resort'.</para>
<para>In 2018-19, the federal government spent more than $916 million on youth justice, with most of the money going towards detention centres. We are spending millions and millions of dollars on a system that doesn't work and in fact causes great harm. Imagine if we diverted that money towards the rehabilitative approaches that are recommended in the 227 royal commission recommendations. Imagine if we spent that money on those sorts of approaches: youth diversionary programs, justice reinvestment programs and actually nurturing our First Nations young people.</para>
<para>I, like so many Australians, am absolutely sick of watching in horror as shocking human rights abuses against First Nations children are uncovered by the media, by inquiries and by royal commissions and their commissioners. First Nations children in this country deserve better. We should be increasing the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years old. We should be investing in justice reinvestment projects, so that we're actually investing in the front end of the system to ensure that children do not have any interaction with the justice system; to make sure that we have placed based services; to make sure that we're taking a therapeutic approach and that detention is absolutely the very last resort, not the first as is the case now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Industry, Corio Electorate: Manufacturing</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in this adjournment debate to celebrate the very significant defence industry investment the Morrison government is making in the Geelong region—the investment to build and sustain 30 self-propelled mobile howitzers—and to condemn the member for Corio, Mr Marles, for his continuing campaign against the most substantial defence manufacturing project to be based in our region.</para>
<para>Just before the federal election last year I was very proud to join the defence minister and my good friend, Senator Reynolds, to announce that a re-elected Morrison government would commit to this massive investment—around $1 billion-plus—to be located in the Geelong region. As we announced, these 30 self-propelled howitzers in Geelong will deliver up to 350 jobs and provide vital capability for the Australian Army. For those who aren't familiar with the howitzer, it is best described as a large tank on tracked wheels equipped with a very significant long-range firing capability. It is vital capability for our nation.</para>
<para>Just last Saturday, 22 February, the <inline font-style="italic">Geelong Advertiser</inline> published a front-page story entitled 'Massive misfire', with the subheading 'Geelong jobs pledge a patent lie that mugs voters, says opposition.' This is the latest attempt by Mr Marles to condemn the project in his attempt to undermine this massive manufacturing jobs investment for the region. Mr Marles was such a poor advocate for the people of Geelong that when we—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Polley interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, standing order 197 says it is disorderly to interject except on a matter of order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Marles was such a poor advocate for the people of Geelong that when we announced this project last year he determined that this was not worthy of Labor's support. Of course we should not be surprised. In 2012, when Labor was battling to contain its out-of-control spiral of debt and deficit, it was the Labor government which cancelled this project. This is contrary to Army's requirements and contrary to our national security interests. On 3 May 2012 the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced dramatic Defence cuts, you including the cancellation of this project. This put our defence industry at risk. The then Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, was questioned at Senate estimates. He admitted that the decision to instead acquire further towed guns, which have a limited range and place soldiers at much greater risk of being harmed, could expose Australian troops to danger on operations, as well, of course, as being less mobile and less capable than the self-propelled alternative. Sadly, once again we see Labor continuing to refuse to back this crucial project for Geelong and Victoria.</para>
<para>But this is not the only example of Mr Marles deserting his electorate, including manufacturing workers. We know that on his watch Ford announced the closure of its manufacturing operations in July 2013—a dreadful day. He refused to back Avalon's international airport, saying at the time that this was not in Geelong and Australia's interests. On Mr Marles's watch, in a city that depends so much on manufacturing, he smashed heavy industry with a job-destroying carbon tax. In the lead-up to last year's May election he declared that the end of thermal coal exports would be a good thing, turning his back on Australia's 55,000 coal workers. He stood silent when there was an unlawful blockade by members of the AWU which cost Viva Energy $20 million. He has done nothing to advocate for fast rail infrastructure, including advocating to match our $2 billion fast rail commitment between Melbourne and Geelong. He backed, at one stage, the East West Link but then went silent when Premier Daniel Andrews cancelled that project, refusing to back this important vital infrastructure project. He went silent when state Labor cancelled Bay West, a second port for Victoria. He fails to stand up for onshore conventional gas and the need to lift the moratorium in Victoria. He prevails over an electorate with one of the highest unemployment rate in the country, with no ideas to fix it. Mr Marles is no friend of manufacturers, no friend of industry and no friend of farmers. I condemn his failure to celebrate our government's investments, including one of the most important manufacturing projects and opportunities ever to come to Geelong.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call Senator Polley, I remind senators on both sides of the chamber that interchanges across the chamber, even if not directed at the speaker directly, are disorderly and bring the chamber and the institution of parliament into disrepute. Senator Polley.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change, Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about climate change and the renewable energy space in Australia. Labor is the only party of government that is committed to real action on climate change. We on this side know that strong climate action is needed to protect the prosperity of future generations of Australians and to meet our international obligations under the Paris climate change accords but also to deliver prosperity today by modernising our economy and adapting to inevitable climate impacts. It is the very core of this issue. The issue of climate change is about jobs, supporting regional jobs and manufacturing.</para>
<para>Labor's approach to climate change policy will continue to be guided by the best science available and to be underpinned by Labor's values of equality and fairness. Our approach is to focus on the development of policies that would not only cut pollution but ensure we maximise the job and economic opportunities of a modern economy. In contrast, the Liberal and National parties have paid nothing more than lip service to real action on climate change. Their approach to climate change is best demonstrated not by their rhetoric but by their actions, including a commitment to more job-destroying pollution.</para>
<para>The world energy authority says Australian's hydrogen imports into Japan could be cheaper than domestic production by 2030. This means Australia has a golden opportunity to sell its product to its Asian neighbours. Hydrogen can be produced with no greenhouse gas emissions if the process is powered by renewable energy or fossil fuels when the resulting carbon is captured and stored. My home state of Tasmania is a renewable energy powerhouse. As Bill Shorten said in 2019—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Polly. Remember to call members in the opposite place by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Bill won't mind.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley! Call members by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Bill Shorten said, in 2019, in Launceston: 'The potential to be a renewable energy superpower, Tasmania can manufacture hydrogen and export it to the world,' but only if the member for Bass were to stand up and actually fight for jobs in northern Tasmania. It seems that only Labor is committed to investing in renewable energy projects like the proposed hydrogen production facility at Bell Bay, which is a perfect example of the opportunity that exists. Once complete, the proposed facility would invest in a process called electrolysis, splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen. The product can then be sold as liquid hydrogen or combined with nitrogen to create ammonia.</para>
<para>The regional development ramifications for a project like this are huge. An estimated 500 to 1,000 jobs could be created and the flow-on effect to other businesses and service providers would be ongoing. It is estimated that hydrogen could provide one-quarter of northern Tasmania's export growth over the next 10 years, and Labor understands the opportunities that are at play here—not just for the proposed facility but for the broader Tasmanian economy.</para>
<para>The Tasmanian state Liberal government has announced the Tasmanian Renewable Hydrogen Action Plan. This export market is expected to be worth up to $13.4 billion by 2040. The last time a renewable hydrogen project was mentioned to the federal member for Bass, all she could say was Labor was politicising the issue. Well, frankly, that line just doesn't hold water. At the moment, the federal member for Bass does not seem to rate this project and is only interested in the politics of spin, fear and dishonesty. I don't understand why she's not in lockstep with and does not support her own Liberal state colleague, the Minister for Energy, Mr Guy Barnett.</para>
<para>Tasmania and Australia cannot afford to delay in investing in jobs of the future. Government must build a framework for the future with the private sector so there are jobs in the services sector, the agriculture sector, the tourism sector and the aquaculture sector—the sectors that have made Tasmania richer over the decades. But what we see from this government is no vision, no economic plan for the future and certainly no vision from the federal member for Bass, for Tasmania, in ensuring that we have jobs and we're job ready for the future. It's so disappointing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sydney Harbour</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to speak about a very important national asset, which is Sydney Harbour. Why is Sydney Harbour important? Sydney Harbour would have been to this nation's greatest natural asset, if not the world's greatest natural asset. The Liberal Party has a very proud history of preserving and protecting this wonderful natural endowment. In 1998, we took an election commitment to the Australian people that we would protect the Sydney Harbour foreshore where the defence lands had been concluded and needed to be repaired. The environment minister at the time, Senator Robert Hill, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Trust will be established with a ten year life and be required to manage the properties in accordance with the Howard government's goals of maximising public access to the sites, cleaning up contamination, rehabilitating bushland and preserving heritage buildings and features at the sites.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Hill went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I look forward to working with the interim Trust to ensure that these wonderful sites on Sydney Harbour are appropriately protected and returned to the people of Sydney.</para></quote>
<para>It was the Liberal government, the Howard government, which decided to take the policy decision to preserve and protect the lands on Sydney Harbour, not hand them over to any other interests.</para>
<para>We established the trust and we got it going. We then got it to work on contamination reparation, on remediation and on ultimately opening up public lands. It did great work on Cockatoo and on Middle Head. It did exactly what John Howard said it would do when he was talking on radio in 1998 when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The idea of linking open space on the Sydney Harbour foreshores with the Centenary of Federation, it does catch my imagination, it catches the imagination of many Australians living, not only in and around Sydney, but all around the country.</para></quote>
<para>This recognises that Sydney Harbour is special. It is unique. It occupies a place in the minds of almost every Australian. That is why the Liberal government, the Howard government, established the trust to protect this land.</para>
<para>Later in that Howard period, we, the Liberal party, decided to extend the life of the trust. So not only did we get it working on anticontamination but we also extended the life of the trust. In 2007 we extended the life of the trust and the then environment minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Since the act came into effect, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has gained significant experience in transforming and managing seven important historic sites. The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has also received strong public support for its role.</para></quote>
<para>So we set it up to be effective, we opened public access to these lands, we extended the trust's life and, in 2019, we decided to ensure that the Harbour Federation Trust was fit for purpose, with the environment minister, Sussan Ley, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Morrison Government has launched a landmark review to give Australian their say on the best ways to maximise public access to Sydney Harbour’s historic landmarks.</para></quote>
<para>The key point here is that there is no other political movement that can lay claim to the conservation of Sydney Harbour like the Liberal Party. The Howard government established and extended the life of the trust, and we, the Morrison government, are now reviewing the trust to make sure that it is fit for purpose.</para>
<para>These lands are unique. They are very important to the Indigenous communities of Sydney and they present to First Nations people and non-First Nations people alike a unique picture of Australian life, whether it be military or Indigenous history. But, of course, the primary reason to preserve and protect these sites—in my view, it should be done in perpetuity—is for conservation purposes. There is no other piece of land in this nation which is as revered and respected as Sydney Harbour. It is the place that the world thinks Australia looks like. We are absolutely committed, as a party committed to conservation over the course of 75 years, to the future preservation of these lands. I remind the Senate that it was the Liberal Party that established this trust. We established the trust, we set it up for success and we want to make sure that this unique, wonderful Sydney Harbour is preserved and conserved for all time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>International Women's Day this year will be celebrated around the world on Friday 6 March. But, to be honest, I don't feel like celebrating. For me, International Women's Day 2020 will always be marked by the indelible horror and drowning sorrow of what was done to Hannah Clarke and her three children, Laianah, Aaliyah and Trey. Shamefully, their story was overshadowed by the man who mercilessly killed them. Media headlines portrayed the murdered as someone who was suffering, used passive language as if the car caught on fire through some bizarre coincidence and completely erased the identity of Hannah Clarke by focusing their attention on the murderer's life and his so-called achievements. This was not some random incident of a car catching fire. This was a man who planned and methodically—brutally—burned his former partner, Hannah Clarke, and their three children to death.</para>
<para>A senior officer from the Queensland police on the case asked us to keep a so-called open mind about the murders, questioning whether the horrific violence was 'an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues he's suffered'. The officer did apologise, but frankly that's not good enough. Let's be clear: violence against women is a choice made by some men, and they alone are responsible for it. But you wouldn't know that from the media reporting, which not only minimised the violence but somehow tried to enact the perpetrator as an equally suffering man. This is where the core of the problem lies: it's victim blaming; it's not believing women; it's justifying murder; it's patriarchy; and it's gendered power. It is what Jess Hill documents in her incredible book <inline font-style="italic">See what you made me do</inline>. She writes about domestic abuse, some of the most frightening experiences which cannot captured on a charge sheet or understood by a judge. 'It's not a crime to convince her that she's worthless,' she writes, 'It's not a crime to gaslight or break her sense of what's real.'</para>
<para>What happened is not a husband or father 'driven too far'; what happened is humiliated fury unleashed at the loss of control by the perpetrator. It happens because in Australia violence against women and children does not get the serious attention, the funding and the focus on changing attitudes that it needs. This kind of violence happens repeatedly because there are apologists for toxic masculinity. There are people out there and in here who will validate this violence. As a society, we give Orders of Australia to people like Bettina Arndt who blame victims, condone toxic masculinity and perpetuate the idea that men have the right to control their partners.</para>
<para>A Griffith University poster that emphasised the right of people to say no to sex, to have their own friends and to have space away from their partner angered Ms Arndt, who tweeted: 'Young women at Griffith University are being taught to be uncaring, demanding bitches.' This is not just abhorrent and despicable; it is also dangerous. For men's violence against women to end, we need zero tolerance of misogyny, sexism, harassment, control and abuse. There is absolutely no excuse for police or the justice system in minimising violence or questioning the victims as if their story is not real. How long will we continue to do this? Enough is enough.</para>
<para>Hannah Clarke had an AVO against her murderer. Child safety were aware of past incidents of violence perpetuated by the man who incinerated their children. The terror that they must have felt in those final moments before their deaths should shake us to our cores. Instead, it brought out apologists.</para>
<para>The system failed Hannah and her three small children. The system fails women every day. In Australia, one woman is murdered every week, 61 women were killed in 2019 and nine have already been murdered this year. This International Women's Day, let's start a revolution to end misogyny, to end violence against women and their children, to stop these murders by men and to do everything we can to change a culture of violence that is fuelled by patriarchy, power and privilege.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland Government</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to rise this evening to talk about a great event in Townsville that's going to occur over the weekend, and that's the opening of the new Townsville rugby league stadium. I'm proud to be a member of a government that has contributed some $100 million to the opening of that stadium. It's a great thing for Townsville, it's a great thing for the Cowboys rugby league team and it's a great thing for a city that's been doing it a bit tough with floods and other issues over recent years.</para>
<para>I was reading the Premier of Queensland's, Annastacia Palaszczuk's, media announcement today, which was announcing the opening. Members here will remember that Annastacia Palaszczuk is the only Premier in Australian political history who has been found in contempt of her own parliament—that's our Premier for the good state of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk. I'll quote from her media statement:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This stadium is being delivered on time thanks to the local tradies and apprentices who have been working hard since 2017 to make it happen.</para></quote>
<para>That's good that the project has been completed on time, but what about the budget?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Tell us! Tell us!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll tell you, Senator McGrath. I know you're interested in these matters. What about the budget? There's nothing about the budget referred to. The project is on time, but is it within budget? Well, you wouldn't know from reading the Premier's two-page self-congratulatory media announcement.</para>
<para>The truth is that the project blew the budget by $43.5 million. Why? The construction division of the CFMEU blew the budget by $43.5 million. What happened was the project reached a critical point in time and then the CFMEU construction division held the project to ransom. They held the project to ransom because they knew it was time critical. So the Queensland government entered into a deed of variation with the head contractor, Watpac, to pay them an extra $43.5 million. It's a form of industrial relations extortion.</para>
<para>Do you know how the Queensland government characterised this extra $43.5 million? They characterised it as a best practice industrial relations variation agreement. That reminded me of George Orwell's doublethink, where the department of peace is actually responsible for war, the department of plenty is responsible for starvation and the department of love is responsible for torture. When I read George Orwell in grade 12, I actually took it as a warning to modern society. I didn't assume my Queensland Labor government would use it as a blueprint for government. But that's what they do in Queensland; they actually use it as a blueprint for government. They don't consider it a warning; it's a blueprint for government.</para>
<para>Here we have another infrastructure project in Queensland that's blown out by $43.5 million. Does this matter? The Cowboys fans have got their great stadium. Does this extra $43.5 million really matter? Well, it does matter. The annual budget for the Queensland Rural Fire Service is $40 million. That's less than the blowout from that single infrastructure project. Ten mental health community organisations in my home state of Queensland get annual funding of $7 million a year. That $43.5 million would have provided funding for them for 4½ years. That's the cost. Two hundred and fifty schools in my home state of Queensland, where primary school children are sweltering in demountables, could be provided with air-conditioning. That's the cost. That's just one of the many costs to my home state of Queensland, and to the people of Queensland, as a result of the extortion tactics of the CFMEU construction division. The people of my home state of Queensland are waiting for the CFMEU construction division to be held to account and for all Queenslanders to be able to attend workplaces without fear of harassment and bullying. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Timber Industry, Bairnsdale: Indigenous Australians</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week I had the pleasure of travelling to East Gippsland to meet with a number of locals and hear about their current concerns and about support around the bushfire recovery efforts. I thought I'd use tonight's adjournment debate here in the Senate to touch on two points around the future of many timber workers in the East Gippsland region and the work to support young bushfire impacted Indigenous Australians in Bairnsdale and surrounding areas.</para>
<para>On Thursday of last week, I was delighted to visit Heyfield with Labor shadow minister for agriculture and resources Mr Fitzgibbon. For those senators who are not familiar with Heyfield, it's a small regional community, around 200 kilometres east of Melbourne, on the Thomson River. It has a proud population of around 2,000 people and is home to Australian Sustainable Hardwoods' timber-processing facility. The products that come from this Heyfield facility are primarily used for construction, both structural and decorative. They're created out of beautiful Victorian oak and iron ash, and the facility also offers some really innovative products, such as alpine oak, which is created by salvaging smaller pieces of hardwood to create long, straight product full of character and variation. The timber-processing facility is the lifeblood of Heyfield. It offers employment to around 200 workers, and almost all of them are locals. The managing director, Vince Hurley, told us that the plant has an apprenticeship retention rate around 100 per cent. As you might imagine, most of the workers are young men. But Vince and his team are working hard to recruit and train women into the business as well.</para>
<para>Mr Fitzgibbon and I met with many of the workers at the plant. Senator Scarr is not here now, but I will say that the vast majority of them are also members of the CFMMEU's manufacturing division. It was concerning to hear from them as they shared their thoughts about the future of their industry and the challenges ahead. All workers deserve respect. We have to make sure that there are sustainable regional jobs so that workers can live close to home and make a life for themselves and their families. The workers at the Heyfield plant deserve that respect, just like any other worker in this country. They are manufacturing Victorian products made from Victorian resources in a highly sustainable and innovative way. Victorians can and should be very proud of the timber products coming from Heyfield. What they make there is being used locally and being used in a number of homes and businesses around the country. It's being used to create masterpieces such as the wooden interiors of many of our landmark icons in Australia as well as being shipped not just around Australia but also worldwide.</para>
<para>Putting the future of the Heyfield facility at risk would, of course, mean that Victoria could lose a product that we all really should be proud of. But it may also mean that the town itself could experience significant decline. You just can't take away 200 local jobs from a small town and expect the community to survive. All workers deserve respect. They deserve to have their jobs respected and should be able to count on their representatives to support all of them. This includes the workers at Heyfield and the timber workers all across my home state.</para>
<para>I was back in Gippsland last Saturday. This time, I went down to Bairnsdale for a fantastic event to support bushfire affected Indigenous youth. The Bairnsdale Aquatic and Recreation Centre hosted an all-stars basketball match to raise funds for Bairnsdale Regional Unlimited Sports and the Koorie Basketball Academy as they work closely to support Aboriginal youth who have been affected by the recent bushfires in East Gippsland. It was great to see sports stars participate in the great match and also to see one of my close friends, Indigenous basketball coach and strong advocate in Indigenous affairs, Ricky Baldwin. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've been campaigning to protect our oceans, environment and community for nearly 15 years now, in and out of parliament. I must say that the fight to protect the Great Australian Bight from oil and gas drilling is one of the most grassroots, positive, energetic and successful people-power campaigns I've had the honour to fight in. The news today that Norwegian oil giant Equinor has pulled out of its three-year plan to drill this part of the pristine Southern Ocean is stunning, and so welcome to coastal communities right around this nation. I can't thank and congratulate enough all those thousands of people right around Australia who protested, paddled out at their local beaches, agitated, advocated and were ultimately successful in their goal to kick out big oil and gas, to not put at risk an area so precious that it must be protected.</para>
<para>Wins are hard to come by in this constant fight to protect, preserve and prosper on our Mother Earth, but when they do happen we all need to give each other a pat on the back. There are way too many people to thank in the Australian Senate tonight but I would like to acknowledge a few fantastic people and organisations and some leaders, many of whom I have worked directly with on this campaign. I do sincerely apologise, as I've left so many good people out. Starting in Tasmania, I'd like to acknowledge Danny Carney and Alex Wylie, who organised the two big Hobart paddle-outs; Marti Paradisis; Mikey Brennan; the Holmer Cross Bros and the rest of the Shippies Crew, who lent their support to this campaign; the hundreds in the Clifton Beach surf community who turned out to paddle-out; Nick Headlum, Tasmania's own techno-Viking; and the other legends in Bicheno: Michael Brune, Sea Shepherd and Wilderness Society Tasmania.</para>
<para>On the main island, I'd like to acknowledge Damien Cole—he ran as an independent in Corangamite and went way beyond the call of duty to fight for the oceans, and did a sterling job—and his crew, especially Darren Noyes Brown, who is also with the Surfrider Foundation. I'd like to acknowledge the crew at Patagonia, Heath Jozza, who travelled to Norway to lobby Equinor directly, and the other Patagonia crew, such as Daniel Hann, Belinda Baggs and, of course, Sean Doherty, who did an amazing job, day in, day out, advocating for surfers and environmentalists around this country. I'd especially like to thank Jeff Hansen from Sea Shepherd, who has been a leader from the beginning, nearly eight years ago. The same applies to Peter Owen of Wilderness Society South Australia, who never, never gave up. Thanks to my colleague Sarah Hanson-Young and to Tammy Jo, TJ, in her office, who has also been there since the beginning. I'd like to acknowledge Nathaniel Pell of Greenpeace, the Surfrider Foundation, Suzi Crick and Branko. I'd also like to put on record my thanks to the Australia Institute for the amazing work they have done over this campaign. I also acknowledge the Bob Brown Foundation, who were there right at the beginning. I also acknowledge the World Surf League, WSL, and in particular Reece Pancho, who runs WSL Pure, who covered this many times. I'd also like to throw in the names of a few pro surfers, who also threw in their lot with the protestors: Ace Buchan, John John Florence, Mick Fanning, Layne Beachley, Occy, Tom Carroll, Sally Fitzgibbons and many others. As an ex-Surfrider Foundation board member, it really heartens me to see so many surfers standing up and showing leadership on environmental issues and fighting for healthy oceans.</para>
<para>The fight isn't over yet until the bight is permanently protected and given the World Heritage status it deserves. Senator Hanson-Young has a Greens bill to do this. I hope that is the next chapter in this fight. Unfortunately the battle is a long way from being over for our oceans. They are rapidly warming and dying, while fossil fuel interests are chasing profits, continuing to blast our oceans with seismic guns in an attempt to open up more areas for offshore oil and gas exploration and production.</para>
<para>I'd like to finish by saying that for every one person who turned up around this nation, on beaches in Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Northern Territory—indeed, everywhere—for every one of you who turned up, I'm hopeful that four of your friends will turn up next time to join you because they're feeling empowered and they want to press home the fight for healthy oceans and the need to stand up for our marine life.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Day Awards, Roma Saleyards</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been a month since I joined the Roma and Maranoa community for their annual Australia Day celebrations. This year's Australia Day was particularly special for the Roma and Maranoa community. I'll get to exactly why that is shortly. Before I do so, I'd like to congratulate the new Australian citizens who pledged their commitment to our Queen, country, laws and values and officially joined our Australian family on 26 January. I'd also like to recognise the Australia Day Award recipients: Citizen of the Year Donna Sutton; Young Citizen of the Year Hannah Hughes; Donna Nugent, who received the Sports Award; Brodie Hewitt-Bryant, who received the Junior Sports Award; Heather Hall, who received the Member Contribution Award; and Judy Blinco, who received the Andrea Murray Memorial Award. And of course I would like to recognise members of the Roma Clay Target Club for holding the Community Event of the Year and Roma Performing Arts for receiving the Cultural Award. Congratulations and thank you all for everything you've done and are going to do for Roma and the broader Maranoa community.</para>
<para>This in itself is special, but what made this year's Australia Day all the more special was that it coincided with the opening of the new multipurpose facility at the Roma Saleyards. Instead of the traditional celebrations at the Cultural Centre in town, this year's Australia Day ceremony and celebrations were held in the new stud stock arena at the Roma Saleyards. The Roma Saleyards is the largest livestock selling centre in Australia and the largest in the Southern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years the Roma Saleyards have sold over 11 million head of cattle. It is such a huge number it is enough to make you blush. In the 2018-19 financial year alone, 319,035 head of cattle were sold through the saleyards.</para>
<para>Not only is it an agricultural powerhouse, it's an economic dynamo for rural and regional Australia and the local Roma and Maranoa community. Not only has it sold over 11 million head of cattle; it has also injected around $5 billion into the Australian economy. It is an agricultural powerhouse and the large gem of Western Queensland. That's why the new multipurpose facility is so important, not just to the saleyards or to the Roma and Maranoa community, but to regional Queensland and Australia. The new multipurpose facility is more than just a building with a work space, canteen and amenities; it's more than just an interpretive centre to showcase the industry and attract visitors; it is more than just a stud stock selling arena to buy and sell prized cattle. It is a community asset, a meeting place, a place of work and play. The Australia Day ceremony and celebrations were proof of this.</para>
<para>But this asset did not come about by chance. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither were the Roma Saleyards. It took a lot of work by a lot of people over a lot of years. It is impossible to thank everyone, but I'd like to mention a few champions. First of all I'd like to thank Roma Saleyards Advisory Committee and its Chair, Councillor Peter Flynn. Councillor Flynn has been a long-term advocate for the saleyards over many years and has sweated many buckets of sweat making this come about. I'd like to thank the Maranoa Regional Council, in particular councillors Chambers, Newman, Chandler, Schefe and Stanford for their backing. I thank the counsellors who are going to step down at the coming elections for their years of service to the Roma and Maranoa communities. I missed one person on that list deliberately, and that is Cameron O'Neill. I don't think a day when by without Cameron O'Neill buzzing in my ear, and those of my colleagues, about the Maranoa and Roma saleyards, making sure that he was advocating on behalf of his community.</para>
<para>Thirdly, I'd like to thank my state and federal colleagues, the member for Warrego, Ann Leahy and the member for Maranoa, Minister Littleproud, and not forgetting John McVeigh, a former minister, and Barry O'Sullivan, a former senator. Finally, I'd like to thank, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, in particular Queensland, the three levels of government, local, state and federal, for their contributions and for working together to make this project come about.</para>
<para>In closing, I'd like everyone to visit the Roma saleyards. Go and watch the sale days. Go on a tour. Look through the interpretive centre. Grab lunch. Grab a coffee. Get an icy pole. It's everyone's to enjoy. Buy some cattle; sell some cattle. It is the place to go. Rome and Maranoa, you've done well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Holden</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I begin I just want to say to Senator McGrath I look forward to enjoying an icy pole at the Roma saleyards with you. It sounds like a fantastic place to visit. I too am going to talk tonight about regional Queensland, but, first, I wanted to address what has been an incredibly devastating blow for Australia.</para>
<para>Last week Australia's car industry was dealt a devastating blow when General Motors announced it would shut down the quintessentially Australian Holden brand last week. This means we're going to see between 600 and 6,000 workers lose their jobs and 185 Holden dealerships scrapped. It marks the end of an iconic 160-year legacy after nearly seven years of neglect from the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. It is a disappointing but not surprising outcome, given this third-term Liberal-National government have treated manufacturing workers and the Australian car industry with contempt.</para>
<para>This decision can be traced back to the early days of this government when cigar-smoking former Treasurer Joe Hockey dared Holden to leave Australia with six words, 'Either you're here, or you're not.' These words came at a time when the Abbott government's extreme right wing agenda to cut, slash and burn culminated in a failed 2014 budget. We have not forgotten that budget. The Liberal-National government slashed $500 million of support at a time when the Australian dollar was at a record high. In 2017, as a result of these cuts, Holden ceased manufacturing in this country and now they have abandoned the Australian market altogether. Instead of advocating for the workers and the dealerships affected by this decision, the Morrison government is once again only thinking about itself. The Prime Minister said he was angry at General Motors because they only gave him 15 minutes notice of the company's decision. Was he angry because of the loss of jobs and the end of an iconic brand? Was he apologetic? Was he sad for the loss of those jobs? No. He was outraged because he was caught off guard and embarrassed by the company's timing.</para>
<para>Australian manufacturers are facing serious challenges, and they need a government that will back them. They want an energy policy from a government so they can plan for the future, but they aren't getting it. In regional Queensland, when I visit manufacturers, that is the number one thing they want from this government—that is, not handouts but certainty. The government can't even give them that. They want a government that backs Australians who build things here, but instead we've got a weak Prime Minister and an even weaker economy. Manufacturing directly contributes almost $20 billion to the Queensland economy and supports 170,000 jobs.</para>
<para>Figures from the September quarter of last year show that in regional Queensland, manufacturing injects billions of dollars into the economy and employs more than 36,000 workers. That is why the Queensland Labor government backed manufacturing jobs and will build trains in Maryborough: trains built by Queenslanders for Queenslanders. The LNP, when they were in power, wanted trains to be built overseas. That is because the LNP don't back manufacturing workers and they never have.</para>
<para>Given that Australian automotive manufacturing generated $4.1 billion in revenue last financial year and employs nearly 7,500 people, you have to wonder why the Morrison government couldn't care less about the industry. It was only a few days after the General Motors announcement that the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics labour market data came out. This is at the same time unemployment remains stubbornly above five per cent and underemployment is at 8.5 per cent. The government has no plan to turn around the poor performance of the economy. The government cannot blame the bushfires, coronavirus or even General Motors' bad timing of decisions for their longstanding failures on the economy and their longstanding failures to support manufacturing workers.</para>
<para>It is a very sad day when Holden leaves these shores. I wonder what Senator Doug Cameron might say if he were here in the Senate tonight, a night when we mark the closure, the final nail in the coffin, of Holden. He would say one word, and that is 'shame'.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Politics</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Everyone should be able to put a roof over their head without having to choose between keeping it there and being able to eat. Everyone should be able to have access to a good education without plunging themselves into debt; everyone should be able to live free from poverty and in an environment that is clean, with precious places that are protected to be passed to the next generation; and every First Nations person should have their sovereignty recognised in a community that tells the truth about its history and is travelling that journey of justice and healing. These are universal human hopes. These are universal human rights, and communities come together to lend their power to representatives to make these rights a reality.</para>
<para>Yet here in Australia the major parties, instead of serving the community, have served themselves and their corporate donors for decades. This betrayal is being perpetuated around the world, and as a result our climate is in crisis, inequality and poverty are rising, an entire generation is worried for our future and the wrongs done to First Nations people continue and are being made worse.</para>
<para>Against this backdrop, communities from Europe to the United States are rising up, pushing back and creating solutions as big as the challenges we face. These global movements for change are bound together by a shared vision of a relationship reforged between the community and the decision-making spaces that we empower. They're demanding that this relationship be grounded in an acknowledgment that we all share this blue planet together. These movements for a new beginning, for a new approach and for a green new deal draw their strength from the knowledge that, no matter how rich a corporation is or how many politicians it owns, when people come together powered by hope change is possible. Our Green movement is building that vision with community right here in Australia. Together, let's build a future for all of us. I thank the chamber for its time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South Australia: Maronite Community</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ANTIC</name>
    <name.id>269375</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to speak regarding my attendance at St Maroun's parish and community hall on Saturday, 15 February, with my friend and state colleague, the member for Elder, Carolyne Power, MP. We were fortunate enough to be invited for a celebration of 41 years of service for Mr Elias Nemer, the Honorary Consul for Lebanon in my home state of South Australia. That visit not only afforded me a rare opportunity to reflect upon a marvellous career but also gave me an opportunity to reflect upon the contributions made to South Australia by the Maronite community.</para>
<para>The first Lebanese people arrived in Australia in approximately 1850, and the Maronite people first arrived in South Australia in around 1854. At first, only a small number of Maronite people made the long journey to Australia but, as religious persecution continued in Lebanon and as new shores beckoned, they emigrated in more numbers in search of a new life and new beginning for them and their children. These people came chiefly to live openly and without discrimination or persecution. For these people, family and church are one and the same, such being their way of life in the mould of a St Maroun. The Maronite people are a stoic people who held fast to their culture and heritage, working relentlessly for their families in a new land. Their story represents a lesson to all Australians on the value of faith and tradition—to not just the current generation but also future generations to come. The Maronite movement had a profound influence in Lebanon and its monks remained faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church.</para>
<para>Two weeks ago I was fortunate enough to celebrate the life and achievements of Mr Nemer. On that occasion, his daughter, Anne, spoke of his life, his achievements and his generous nature, attributable to his lifelong pursuit of the principles of St Maroun enshrined in the church. At age 17, Mr Nemer travelled solo from Lebanon to Australia where he met his wife, Violet. Together they formed a dynamic relationship that would span close to 60 years, being blessed with seven children, 18 grandchildren and, more recently, two great-grandchildren. Mr Nemer and his wife sponsored and settled numerous Lebanese immigrants, helping them to adapt to their new homeland and helping them to seek employment and to find housing and schooling for their growing families.</para>
<para>In 1971, Mr Nemer was first elected as the president and chairman of the Lebanese Maronite community in Adelaide and was instrumental in establishing the first Maronite church. In 1978, Mr Nemer was appointed Honorary Consul for Lebanon, which allowed him to facilitate numerous visits from members of parliament from both Lebanon and Australia.</para>
<para>In the recounting of Mr Nemer's life, the lessons of education, hard work and dedication showed the importance of building a positive, meaningful and enjoyable life. Recently, Mr Nemer was awarded the Medal of St Maroun and the Lebanese embassy trophy to commemorate his 41 years of service. Mr Nemer has instilled in his family the value of education, hard work and dedication. His life and achievements and the impact he's had on those around him should stand as an example to all Australians as to what can be achieved when one honours faith and tradition and bestows upon the next generation the same noble and robust systems of learning, hard work and dedication which enable them to flourish and provide success for themselves and their community.</para>
<para>I take this opportunity to thank the Maronite community of South Australia and St Maroun's parish for having me at the celebration of Mr Nemer's 41 years of service. I would like to acknowledge Mr Nemer, his family and the Maronite community's contribution to this country and to my home state of South Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Exploitation</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Child exploitation is a global problem, heightened by modern technology and the myriad of platforms that are used to access such material. Only last week the heads of the three law enforcement agencies addressed the National Press Club warning of the problems Australia is trying to fight in respect to online child exploitation, and the Prime Minister said that he would kick down doors to save an abused child. As legislators, we have a critical role to play in stamping it out. There is much more to be done, and areas where we need to focus more attention, such as the child abuse material that comes into Australia via Japanese amine and manga.</para>
<para>Anime is a style of Japanese animation and manga are the graphic novels which serve as the basis for anime. They both share a unique visual style and they are popular the world over, especially amongst teenagers. But there is, unfortunately, a dark side and a disgusting side to anime and manga, with a significant proportion of the two media featuring child abuse material. They contain depictions of wide-eyed children, usually in school uniforms, engaged in explicit sexual activities and poses, and often being sexually abused.</para>
<para>Experts that advocate against child exploitation have referred to this type of anime and manga as a gateway to the abuse of actual children. Experts also say that explicit anime and manga can be used by paedophiles as tools to groom children. It makes me sick to the stomach to even speak about this.</para>
<para>Incredibly, in Japan the definition of child abuse material specifically excludes child porn anime and manga, as these media don't include real children. Chaku ero, which means erotically clothed, is a type of child exploitation material that features sexualised images of actual children and it remains legal in Japan as long as it doesn't involve full nudity. So sexualised images are legal, provided they don't involve full nudity. How does that work? Every expert combating child exploitation will tell you that this is very wrong.</para>
<para>At the time of the 2014 changes to child pornography laws in Japan, lobbyists on behalf of the Japan Cartoonists Association argued that a total ban on explicit content would damage the entire industry. Their argument was that imaginary images, unlike real child abuse, mean that no-one is actually hurt. I don't buy that argument. Child pornography, even in animated form, is child abuse material. There is absolutely no question about it.</para>
<para>The law in Australia is very clear. The Commonwealth Criminal Code prohibits the sale, production, possession and distribution of offensive and abusive material that depicts a person, or is a representation of a person, who is or appears to be under 18. It is unambiguous.</para>
<para>In 2015 the UN Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography visited Japan and also declared this type of manga was child abuse material. In Australia the law in respect of child abuse is very different to Japan's, and for good reason. I was horrified to learn that this type of child abuse material is freely available in some of our country's most popular retail outlets, despite being in clear breach of the definition of child abuse material in both Commonwealth and state laws.</para>
<para>My staff recently alerted me to a series that was distributed in Australia by Madman Entertainment called <inline font-style="italic">Sword Ar</inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Online</inline>. <inline font-style="italic">Sword Ar</inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Online</inline> appears in various media platforms from light novels, manga, anime and video games. The series takes place in the near future and focuses on protagonists Kirito and Asuna as they play through virtual reality worlds. One particular episode <inline font-style="italic">Sword Art Online</inline><inline font-style="italic">Extra Edition</inline> has an M classification, which allows children under 15 to legally access the material. This classification rating is advisory only and is described as having 'moderate impact', with no legal restrictions.</para>
<para>The movie undoubtedly features the abuse of children. In one explicit scene that takes place in the virtual world the character Asuna is raped by her captor Sugu, who threatens to also rape her in the real world, where she is lying in a hospital room in a catatonic state. He also states that he'll make a recording of the virtual rape to shame her as well. The rape, incredibly, is referred to as a 'fun party'. Asuna is chained and her clothes are ripped from her while Kirito is forced to witness the rape. Asuna is described as a 17-year-old girl.</para>
<para>In another scene high school girls are at a swimming pool and one of the girls indecently assaults another character by repeatedly squeezing her breasts and bullies her because of her physicality. The Classification Board's decision report for this movie justifies the M rating by saying that the nudity through the film is 'moderate in impact' and 'justified by context'. How can the sexual assault of a child, even in animation, be justified by context?</para>
<para>Further research by my staff uncovered another series called <inline font-style="italic">No Game No Li</inline><inline font-style="italic">f</inline><inline font-style="italic">e</inline>. This series is hypersexualised and features incest themes between the two main characters: brother and sister Sora and Shiro. The Classification Board's decision report for <inline font-style="italic">No Game No Life</inline> states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Throughout the material the female characters are frequently depicted in sequences that feature panning visuals of or close focus on their crotches, breasts, legs and/or buttocks.</para></quote>
<para>They are describing images of children. These images are in contravention of the law, plain and simple.</para>
<para>The worst anime my office discovered is <inline font-style="italic">Eromanga Sensei</inline>. The plot is beyond what any person would consider normal or appropriate. The series features 12-year-old Sagiri, who draws pornographic manga while her 15-year-old stepbrother writes the books. Revealing clothing and sexually provocative poses are frequently depicted throughout the series, with the characters seen copying these poses and referring to genitalia. The series also heavily features incest themes, and many scenes are so disturbing I just won't—I just can't—describe them.</para>
<para>Whilst the series has a restricted MA15+ classification, I say again that this falls within the definition of 'child abuse material' contained in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and should be banned. It beggars belief how it passed through the classification board who, in their decision report, provide justification for scenes including 'upskirting' as comedic. There is nothing funny about it. It is repellent. The series should have been denied classification and should be banned.</para>
<para>The Classification Board appears to be making decisions in isolation to criminal law. This must stop. There is also the issue of explicit manga graphic novels, which are not vetted at all by the Classification Board. Often, the images they contain are more harrowing than anime. This must also change. The rape of children is abundant in manga, like the series <inline font-style="italic">Goblin Slayer</inline>, which, in my office, we showed to a number of people today and they were absolutely horrified. In <inline font-style="italic">Goblin Slayer</inline> children are often portrayed as frightening or resisting but they're also shown as enjoying sexual abuse—enjoying it. As I've said, experts say that paedophiles are using this material to groom children: 'Have a look at this; this is normal.' It's certainly not normal.</para>
<para>I've already made a submission to the review of Australian classification regulation, currently underway, to raise these issues, but we cannot wait for the review findings. We must act now. The Australian Federal Police have said that they do not condone any form of child exploitation or activity of any kind that reinforces the sexualisation of children. I agree, and I think they must look at this material urgently.</para>
<para>I've written to the Minister for Home Affairs about the issue and to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. I'm calling for the immediate review of all Japanese anime movies currently accessible in Australia. I am also seeking the banning of particular titles I have referred to and, indeed, any other anime and manga featuring the abuse and exploitation of children, very much as a matter of urgency. I've also written to the Japanese justice minister in relation to these issues. I expressed my hope that the Japanese government will open its eyes to the insidious effect of these materials and take action to put the best interests and safety of children above all. South Korea has managed to ban anime and manga of images of child sexual abuse. The safety and wellbeing of children in Australia must be a paramount consideration for all of us in Australia and across our borders.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>GetUp!</title>
          <page.no>104</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When you go into a shop and you pick up an item—let's say a blender—it says what you're going to get, on the side of the box. It tells you what's inside and, when you put it all together, what the blender can do. But if you buy the blender and you get it home and you open up the box and there's no blender inside—maybe just a few bits and pieces of scrap metal—the store is held accountable. The shopper exercises their rights under Consumer Law because they didn't get what they paid for. That's fair. It's right.</para>
<para>Let's think of a different scenario. You're told that if you donate to GetUp! every dollar will be used to build a fairer Australia, with spending on billboards, hard-hitting TV ads and rallies. You and many more Australians tip in to the tune of $12.4 million. But less than 30 per cent of that is spent on campaign expenses. In fact, for every dollar you donate only 29 cents goes on the campaigns you were promised. The rest goes on administration, hefty salaries for GetUp! executives and of course all their travel costs. You didn't get what you paid for, but you've got no remedy. You can't get a refund, and the organisation of GetUp!—described in today's paper as 'terribly secretive'—isn't interested in transparency, accountability, honesty or any of the other moralistic values it purports to fight for.</para>
<para>Now, this isn't some fictional scenario, despite my talk about a blender. It's GetUp!'s conduct throughout 2019. And for the donors who idealistically chipped in, well, they got cheated. GetUp! did not spend every dollar on the campaigns it promised. Here's an example. In Dickson, GetUp! ran a specific campaign to fund a mobile billboard. They collected the dollars, but the billboard never materialised. The people who volunteered, believing they were going to be part of what GetUp! calls 'a million-strong mass movement' that would be committed to arguing for the big ideas—well, they too were sorely disappointed. In fact, GetUp!'s corporate structure does not have a million members but nine plus three founding members, for a total of 12. GetUp! claims that everyone who gives them an email address is a member.</para>
<para>You might say, 'That's semantics; what's the difference?' Well, everyone but the 12 real members have absolutely no rights: no say in its direction, no vote and no right to hold the group accountable for how they use the public's donations—more dishonesty. And those actual 12 members, the ones with the real rights? They're people with deep links to the Australian Labor Party and the Greens, and they will do whatever it takes to destroy the careers and, if necessary, the lives of those who stand in the way of their extremist agenda.</para>
<para>The fact is that GetUp! isn't about making the case for the big ideas; it's about tearing down people who refuse to conform to their hard leftist ideology. My colleague the member for Boothby was subjected to a deeply personal, aggressive campaign from GetUp! Now, you might think all's fair in campaigns, and any serious politician should expect it to be hard fought. But what about relentless stalking by an individual with links to GetUp!—following her everywhere she went, a zoom-lens camera always on her, to local events, to her home, day or night, with her every move, public or private, posted online? The member for Boothby, for those who don't know her—a slight female of great intellect and integrity—confronted this man and asked him to stop. This emboldened him. He was reported to the AFP, but his conduct still escalated. The South Australian police had to take out a stalking order for her protection. GetUp! and this man worked hand in glove. GetUp! supported his Facebook page, re-posted his posts—including those that were the fruit of his stalking—and posted my colleague's location in real time to encourage others to confront her. They didn't even ban him from the site when they knew a stalking order had been issued. Ms Downer, a candidate in Mayo, faced similar stalking.</para>
<para>GetUp! trains volunteers to engage in what's called bird dogging. It's the practice of forming teams to physically and verbally disrupt candidates at meetings, public appearances and media interviews or while attending community events and facilities like kindies, parks or shopping centres. They yell and chant defamatory statements and slogans. They used handheld speakers to drown out, interrupt and intimidate Ms Flint everywhere she went. Bird dogging is a tactic developed by the US Democratic campaign activists, and it's named after an American hunting term. It might have a funny name, but it's no joke. It was a tactic that empowered extreme elements to go even further—graffitiing Ms Flint's office with sexually explicit slogans and engaging in phone canvassing that descended into lies, hate and vitriol, including of a misogynistic kind. Campaign vehicles were vandalised. The office was egged. Bird dogging was used in Dickson, in Flinders and in Wentworth, too.</para>
<para>It's not just bad manners or bad behaviour. It's relentless harassment and intimidation designed to psychologically crush and scar the target, and it's wrong. Yet, GetUp! trains and directs people to do it. I've seen the toll this conduct took on my friend, Ms Flint. She's strong, she's a fighter, and even she was more than shaken. She reported being scared in her own home at night, not knowing whether the stalker would take it even further.</para>
<para>This week we've spent a lot of time reflecting on violence against women. But, if we're serious, we can't turn our backs and ignore this abhorrent conduct, pretending it's fair game in politics. And what about those volunteers who didn't want to be a part of this kind of grubby play? Well, they got dumped on polling booths, with volunteers describing the material they were left with as being 'so off topic and irrelevant to local voters'—not a billboard, rally or TV ad in sight.</para>
<para>As GetUp! burns its reputation by treating people as commodities to be fleeced and then deployed for the nastiest of work, don't think GetUp! will end. It's a beast with many heads, each one looking different so it can continue to trick naive Aussies into giving them more money and time. With scarcely concealed front organisations like ColourCode and the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, this monster will keep morphing so that it can keep its cohort of hard Left executives in a job.</para>
<para>GetUp! says it's a grassroots movement about making Australia fair, but it doesn't play fair. It says it wants to give people a voice, but it doesn't give the people it calls its members a say. It says it wants a better democracy but it shouts down and intimidates to the point of criminality those who aren't a part of its tribe. It says, 'Every dollar raised will fund campaigns,' but it spends most of it on funding executives' own salaries and travel.</para>
<para>The guts of it is this: if we want this country to be its best, we need great people to want to be in parliament. We need young people to aspire to it. We need to encourage Australians from all walks of life to want to make the sacrifices needed to make a contribution in politics. When groups like GetUp! scrape the barrel with this conduct, they make good, honest Australians reach the rather sensible conclusion that it's just not worth putting their families and themselves through the trauma. I can't blame Aussies for making that call. But every single Australian is the poorer for it. Toxic, hysterical, negative and polarised—that's the conduct of GetUp! And, sadly, that's its real vision for Australia and Australian politics.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>In My Blood It Runs</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to speak on a film called <inline font-style="italic">In My Blood It Runs</inline>. I had the opportunity of hosting the film this evening. I'd like to read and put on the parliamentary record the words of the young man who the film is about: young Dujuan, who is 13 years old. This is his story. I'd like to read it to senators here:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My name is Dujuan. I am 13 years old and I am from Arrernte and Garrwa Country. I grew up at Sandy Bore outstation and at Hidden Valley Town Camp in Alice Springs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Last year I spoke to world leaders at the United Nations and showed them my film In My Blood It Runs. Now I'm showing you so you can understand what it is like for kids like me, and then maybe you can find a way to make things more better.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">In My Blood It Runs </inline>tells the story of me when I was 10 years old. It shows what it's like to be an Aboriginal kid and how we are treated everyday in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The film shows me getting in trouble with school. They were going to take me away with welfare. I was getting in trouble with the police and I nearly got sent to jail.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But I was lucky because of my family. They are strong. My family love me. They were worried for me. They found a way to keep me safe. I am alright now, but lots of kids aren't so lucky.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There's lots of things I say in this film. Lots of things I think about and I am worried about. I am going to read some of these things now.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I ask… <inline font-style="italic">"Why do only rich people have good houses and not us?"</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the film, I wished I was living on that side of the hill in Alice Springs where the houses are nice. Why are those houses so different to ours?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I say… <inline font-style="italic">"The history in school is for white people. But the history that I'm told at home is in language and is for Aboriginals."</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the film, we were taught that Captain Cook was a hero and discovered Australia. That's not true. Before there were cars, buildings and houses there were just Aboriginal people. The first people who had the magic were the first people on the land. Aboriginal people had the land.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It made me confused and then not want to listen at school.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the film, my school report cards said that I was a failure. Every mark was in the worst box. 'E' 'E' 'E'. When I saw that I thought, <inline font-style="italic">"</inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">s there something wrong with me?"</inline> I felt like a problem.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The film shows me working hard as an Ngangkere. That means a traditional healer. Many people don't see my strength, my culture and me learning from my Elders and my land. This is who I am, and they don't see this at school.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I think that if you want kids to go to schools and learn, then schools should be run by Aboriginal people. Let our families choose what is best for us. Let us speak our languages in school and learn about what makes us strong. I think this would have helped me from getting in trouble, and getting locked up or taken away by welfare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the film, I watched the kids on TV being tortured in juvie and it scared me. I say… <inline font-style="italic">"I know lots of kids that have been locked up in Dondale. The coppers tortured Dylan Voller. They treat him like they treat their enemies."</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I don't why those guards didn't get locked up for treating kids like that.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I want you to stop cruelling 10-year-old kids in jail. I know I was really cheeky, but no kid should be in jail. I learnt that Australia is one of the only countries in the world that locks 10-year-olds up. I needed help, why would you do that?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the film I say, <inline font-style="italic">"This story is about me and what I think is stop taking Aboriginal kids away from their parents - that's wrong."</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I also think welfare needs to be changed. My great grandmother was taken in the stolen generation. My other great grandmother was hidden away from government. That story runs through my blood pipes all the way up to my brain and it's still going. I was worried they were going to take me too.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My film is for all Aboriginal kids. It is about our dreams, our hopes and our rights. Aboriginal kids are smart. I hope you think of me when you are making big laws about us.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Because of what happened to me, when I grow up I want to fight for rights for black people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">What I want is a normal life of just being me. I want to be allowed to be an Aboriginal person, living on my land with my family and having a good life.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I hope you can listen to my families who have come from all around Australia to sit with you in Parliament today.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They are clever. They have answers and they are asking you to let us run our own schools, Aboriginal schools. They are teaching our little kids already. They are trying to change education and they need more support to do this properly.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I hope you—</para></quote>
<para>the leaders in the parliament—</para>
<quote><para class="block">will watch my film and listen.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Baddiwa - that's goodbye in my other language, Garrwa—</para></quote>
<para>the language of the gulf region.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 12 February, the Senate passed my motion to extend the joint parliamentary committee's inquiry into the regulation of auditing in Australia to 1 September. I thank the Senate for doing so. Further to my previous statement on the matter, I'll put more material on the record today that focuses on EY—Ernst & Young—as well as the auditing and consulting industry in general as an exemplar of the problems that need remediation in the national interest.</para>
<para>I first turn to EY's governance arrangements for performing the APRA CPS 220 risk review for NAB, which has been explored during previous hearings. I advise that Mr Scott Ward is a senior partner who, at the time of the CPS 220 review, led EY's financial services risk management technology risk and internal audit teams. Mr Ward's financial risk management team delivered the CPS 220 review for NAB at the same time his technology risk team performed the controls assurance review for NAB's external audit. This establishes a clear conflict of interest and a breach of professional standards. In addition, evidence heard at the auditing hearing on 9 December last year about Sarah Lowe, from EY, as lead auditor for NAB showed a deeply concerning conflict of interest.</para>
<para>We now know of two senior EY partners who were involved in NAB's external audit and were also directly involved in what was purported to be an independent CPS 220 review. This may explain why EY attempted to manage the optics by assigning Mr Ward the role of subject matter resource instead of engagement or delivery partner despite his financial services risk management team delivering the work in Melbourne; and they allocated Mr Doug Nixon, the partner assigned, as the engagement or delivery partner, being based in Sydney.</para>
<para>I have also been made aware that it is very difficult for EY officers to be promoted to senior manager, let alone director or partner, unless they can demonstrate consistent achievement of ever-increasing sales targets and an undying devotion to working extended hours, such as from 8.15 in the morning to midnight. Utilisation is a key performance measure for officers in the industry because it measures to what extent they are chargeable on client engagements. Despite officers charging all their time to charge sheets, as instructed, I am aware of isolated cases, but nonetheless cases, where officers have been stripped of utilisation hours when an engagement runs over budget. This practice does not accord with the evidence given by Ms Lowe during the public hearing into these matters in December. When utilisation hours are stripped to preserve the engagement margin, it is done so as to protect the performance measures of the engagement manager or partner at the expense of the officers concerned. This is a very sophisticated form of wage theft and gross exploitation.</para>
<para>During the hearing in December last year, EY CEO Tony Johnson asserted that officers and partners at EY act with the utmost professionalism. I hear that claim and acknowledge Mr Johnson's affirmation of the importance of professional standards and actions. Perhaps someone needs to remind Mr Johnson of an incident in 2014-15 at RACV in Healesville, Victoria, where members of the Melbourne financial services assurance team allegedly were involved in an alcohol fuelled bender resulting in the destruction of property to the value of $15,000 and a subsequent lifetime ban being imposed on EY by that venue. I have also been informed of claims of partners being under the influence of alcohol, behaving inappropriately and sometimes undermining, humiliating and ostracising officers in the presence of other employees while off premises as well as officers coming to work under the influence of illicit drugs in a desperate attempt to fiercely compete for that sales credit. This says a lot about the cultural tone set at the top by partners at EY and the relationship between power and alcohol in fuelling inappropriate workplace behaviour, which also allegedly included sexual harassment, assault and fraud over a number of years. I hear that the alcohol consumption of the cybersecurity practice in particular is considered legendary across the firm. This again maybes a mockery of the consulting business.</para>
<para>Why are people coming forward with these alarming concerns to a senator? What internal channels and practices are failing to such an extent that whistleblowers are turning in sheer desperation to the parliament to shine a light on this behaviour. If EY is concerned about the mental health of its workers then perhaps it should consider the introduction of random alcohol and drug testing. I say this mindful that EY is not the only company in this industry where this is embedded, and practices are reported across all of them.</para>
<para>I also have been contacted by many people across the broader auditing and consulting industry expressing serious concerns about breaches of confidentiality and subsequent victimisation when workplace complaints are made. Specific concerns raised with me include so-called independent investigations performed by third parties being far from independent when the same firm funds the investigation and classifies the report as privileged in order to prevent complainants from accessing it. It's been reported to me that, where investigations include a review of emails, instant messages and other communications, this is likely to be performed internally, raising further concerns about contagion. Partners talk about officers who raise workplace complaints amongst themselves sometimes overtly and vexatiously in front of the complainant on the open floor because they have no legal obligation to maintain confidentiality amongst themselves. Indeed, partners have a duty to protect each other given they are jointly and severally liable, so they share information with each other as they see fit. Such behaviour by partners increases the risk of breach of confidentiality of officers and the workforce in general. This propagates gossip, rumour and innuendo as well as other inappropriate behaviour towards the complainant by persons not a party to the matter. This creates a very uncomfortable and unsafe workplace environment for the complainant, despite being guaranteed confidentiality.</para>
<para>Partners are indifferent to confidentiality, because they have plausible deniability. The complainant typically ends up either resigning or being paid out through a redundancy, which is convenient for the partnership but often paralysing for the person who receives that payout. This covert and damning management behaviour is enabled by a partnership model where solidarity is the currency that all too often trumps ethical action and procedural fairness. I am also advised that controls are usually ineffective in preventing retaliation against a complainant by the respondent, despite reminding them of their confidentiality obligations under the various firms' codes of conduct.</para>
<para>In conclusion, a firm's values, culture and behaviour bleeds through to its business decisions, practices, risk profile and control posture. Enormous trust and reliance are placed on the character and integrity of partners for doing the right thing to prevent, or effectively manage, all conflicts regardless of how and when they manifest.</para>
<para>If there's anything that this government has learned from the banking royal commission it's got to be that where there's smoke there's fire. Quite frankly, the voluminous documents, dossiers, recordings and transcripts out there on this subject are enough to shock any reader, listener or viewer. The PJC must, therefore, continue its work and scrutiny of the audit sector in accordance with the will of the Senate, established in this chamber. I look forward to doing that work with my colleagues to further unearth the dangerous practices that are now being reported to me as a senator. It's frightening what's happening to people. There is much more work for us to do. I once again, in my closing remarks, encourage people of good character, people who have signed up to the auditing profession who want to act to the fullness of professional standards—they know what they are. Sadly, some of the people who are leading them have failed them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans: Suicide</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I asked Lynn Chilcott what message she wanted to send to the government today. She said to me, 'I've read the articles, I've listened to the speeches and I still don't understand. How does the government's never ending commission help me save my husband?' Damien O'Neill served in the Navy for 25 years. He saw active duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, East Timor and the Gulf. He has well and truly served his country.</para>
<para>In February 2020 he was on life support at the Monash Medical Centre. Another overdose of prescription medication, another suicide attempt, another veteran feeling like all hope is lost. I am telling you Damien is beyond struggling. He needs help. He has been suicidal for years. He has made multiple attempts on his own life, His children have found him in that way. He has been placed on breathing tubes and he's torn them out in fear because the sensation on his skin brings back memories of being strangled. He has withdrawn from all social life. He doesn't see his kids anymore because, like all kids, they are noisy. The noise of them playing triggers his post-traumatic stress. None of this needed to happen—none of it!</para>
<para>Half of this trauma was inflicted not by war but by what happens when you come home from it. Damien was assessed as highly incapacitated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs hand-picked medico-legal psychiatrist. Hand-picked—this is a first. DVA found that he would require full-time institutionalised care due to the nature of his trauma. That would normally entitle him and his family to a higher than average rate of compensation. But this assessment from Damien's treating psychiatrist was challenged by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. DVA—here we go again—did not disagree that Damien was highly incapacitated. They did not disagree that Damien needs full-time institutionalised care. No, the Department of Veterans' Affairs issue was that Damien was already receiving full-time care courtesy of his wife. Like many other veterans out there, he is already receiving care because his wife is helping him. Then he doesn't need as much help. What a load of rubbish!</para>
<para>People can have their own views about whether that's the right way to make a decision like that and whether it's right for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to decide that Damien's kids don't need as much help because Lynn is looking after Damien instead of working and instead of having her life. Here's what I don't understand and can't agree with: the Department of Veterans' Affairs made the decision to undercut Damien's compensation because he was already receiving carer services from his wife. Let's make that clear. The Department of Veterans' Affairs used his wife's care to justify not giving Damien's family financial assistance. There's also a payment available to help veterans with their everyday basic care. That's a payment that Lynn is eligible for. That's a payment for exactly the services the Department of Veterans' Affairs knew that Lynn was providing since as far back as 2016—doing the department's job. What's new? That's exactly the reason why they docked Damien's compensation. In fact, when the department saw a chance to use Lynn's support to cut Damien's compensation, guess what the department did? You guessed right. They took it. And when DVA had a chance to offer Lynn herself some financial support, they didn't do a thing. They sat in silence and didn't do a thing. The very service she was offering Damien was enough to dock his compensation but wasn't enough to get someone in the department to say to her, 'By the way, you're actually entitled to this payment as well.'</para>
<para>Damien's psychiatrist wrote in a report that the single largest stress in his life is the financial strain he and Lynn are under. Why are they under that strain? Because of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. More than anything else, it's the pressure they feel that is causing them that harm. Damien's psychiatrist says that Damien feels like the only answer to his family's financial strain is his death, and he is one of hundreds out there who feel this way. I don't want any veteran to feel like that. Nobody should have to give that much. And the kicker to all this is that they were entitled to nearly $300,000 in payments that they never received. They lost their family home. They were hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they were entitled to a payment from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. And guess what? The department never actually told them. They didn't bother to tell them that they were entitled. The department had all the information to know that they were eligible, and nobody told them and they lost their family home. How bloody incompetent is this department!</para>
<para>Lynn receives a payment because she is serving as Damien's full-time carer, because once again the department won't help her. When I say full-time, full-time is what I mean—24/7. Damien sleepwalks and has nightmares, like many other veterans. He wakes up in fear or he wakes up in anger. Over the last six years, he has spent more time in ward 17 than he has at home. And this gets even better: whenever he's in the ward, Lynn's payments are cut. She can never work again because her husband spends half the time in the ward and half the time at home and she is supposed to, over a four-week period, go out and find a job and then go back to caring for him. How ridiculous is this! This is government policy. It stinks and it's killing people. Effectively, Lynn is told: 'Your husband's in hospital after an attempt on his own life and he's going to be there for a month, so go out and find a job that lasts for four weeks.'</para>
<para>It gets worse. While he's in ward 17, Lynn is told by the Department of Veterans' Affairs that he has been taken off client coordination support. That's the support that goes to veterans with the highest risk and the most complex needs. Her husband's in the ICU and she's being told she's losing support. It's her job to tell him this, by the way. Imagine having to have that conversation. Damien is on a trial called the Wellbeing and Support Program, or the WASP. That trial gives intensive support to veterans with the highest need for help. While Damien was on life support, Lynn was told that that trial is ending. The help it was offering him and Lynn evaporates; problems don't go away so easily. Why would you end a trial and leave nothing in place for the 200-plus veterans who are on it? Why would you do that to a veteran who's clearly on the edge of the abyss?</para>
<para>DVA, you have a duty of care. That is your service and that is what you owe them. Damien has done his service many times over. Lynn has done hers. Look what she's given up, look what she's been asked to do and look at yourselves. Lynn can't go to the shops without taking all of Damien's prescription drugs with her, just in case. When are we going to say enough is enough? Over and over again, reviews and reports into the Department of Veterans' Affairs find that its actions are making veterans sicker, and it's taking their lives. Do you realise what that means? Does the government realise what that means? That means the department's procedures, attitudes and culture are creating mental health problems and killing our veterans.</para>
<para>They are a department that are meant to help the people who served our country and instead they break them down more. The end result is that 440 veterans who have just returned from service will plan their own suicide every year. Around 50 will put their plan into action and will succeed, trust me—and I am being conservative. Fifty families every year have to bury their children, their parents, their brothers and their sisters. We can't keep going on like this. Veterans and their families can't keep going on like this.</para>
<para>That is why the government must establish a royal commission into veterans affairs. Only a royal commission will let us come together as a country and have a frank conversation about how we treat our veterans and their families. Only a royal commission that finishes with a set of recommendations for the government will work. It has to have a start date and an end date. It has to be impossible to ignore. It has to be out there in front of Australians every day. Only then will people like Lynn and Damien have a chance to hold the government's department accountable for their actions—and my God they need to be held accountable!</para>
<para>We all know that the government have said that they've offered something better than all that to families who have lost their loved ones. They say that they will have a never-ending inquiry, a commission that can conduct piecemeal inquiries and make recommendations to parliament. The problem with a permanent inquiry is that you never get closure; you never get a moment to move from the problem into the solution. That sort of moment can only come when you are given a final set of recommendations. You don't get that from a rolling review into veteran after veteran after veteran. Tell me this: why should Lynn and Damien's story only matter to the government if, heaven forbid, he were no longer with us? That's the only way he would get noticed by the government's proposed coroner on steroids. That's all it is: it's a coroner on steroids. That is the problem with the proposal.</para>
<para>The government has just announced a never-ending inquiry fronted by a glorified coroner—just great! Veterans don't need another person telling them why their mate has taken his life. They can tell you why. The real issue here is bigger than any one suicide. Our problems are about the way the system drags people down; they are about the lack of trust—there is no trust, trust me, between the DVA and the people it is meant to serve; and they are about the culture of that department that too often puts its own financial concerns above the needs of the most vulnerable people who have served their country and been prepared to die for it. Damien and Lynn deserve a royal commission that can fix these problems. So, Prime Minister, it could be great if you could finally show some backbone and make that call.</para>
<para>While I am up, I want to say to the national RSL and ADSO: I have never come across two oxygen thieves like you lot. We don't want you old cronies moving out of defence and representing us. You are not representing us; you are there for your self-interest. You are there for yourself. To the national RSL: it's about time you went into retirement—and, ADSO, you are right next to them. See you later.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Great Australian Bight: Oil Exploration</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I rise to speak on the welcomed decision by Equinor to abandon plans to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight. Centre Alliance has been opposed to drilling in the Great Australian Bight for a very long time. But we didn't just oppose it on political or philosophical grounds. As we do for all propositions, we examined it on its merits and, in the end, it just didn't stack up.</para>
<para>As part of that consideration process, I met with Statoil—now Equinor—and asked a range of reasonable questions. I asked them about the capital investment that would be involved, about the jobs they would create and about what their supply chain arrangements would be. I also asked them about what sort of experience they'd had in similar waters to those in which they were going to drill. I asked them about tax payments across the project life both in terms of petroleum rent resource tax and corporate tax. None of my questions were answered. I actually met with them a second time and put the same questions to them and reminded them that I had asked them and received no answers—and, again, I got no response.</para>
<para>To find answers, I searched for any public domain analysis and, in particular, any economic analysis that existed that would shed light on whether or not there would be economic benefit. I came across a report by ACIL Allen Consulting. It was a glowing report that talked up the economic benefits. The report claimed to be independent, but, as it turned out, it was commissioned by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, APPEA, the oil and gas industry lobbyists. Not only was the report funded by APPEA but the data they were using for the study was derived from APPEA. If I go to the document and look at the very, very fine print—I sometimes struggle with my glasses to see the fine print and in this case it was quite small—it says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">ACIL Allen Consulting has relied upon the information provided by the addressee—</para></quote>
<para>in this instance it's APPEA—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and has not sought to verify the accuracy of the information supplied.</para></quote>
<para>So APPEA commission a report and supplied the data for the report and the people generating the report didn't look at the sources of the data. They didn't verify the accuracy of the data in the report. It's quite astounding really.</para>
<para>The reality is there was very little benefit for my home state of South Australia or indeed for Australia. Offshore processing means that there's likely to be, or there will be, no royalties for South Australia. Those royalties would normally come to the Commonwealth. It was likely that the program was going to involve offshore processing with fly-in fly-out workers. There were going to be very few jobs. This is probably why Equinor at no stage spelt out what their plans were.</para>
<para>For Australia, it's highly likely that there would be no corporate tax paid and very little PRRT. This parliament has examined PRRT and we know that it is not effective in providing a return to Australian taxpayers for our oil and gas. I say that with knowledge of companies like ExxonMobil, who have, over the last five years, received $42 billion in revenue. You might wonder how much corporate tax is being paid on $42 billion of revenue. I know that Senator Brockman won't be surprised, because he's the chair of the economics committee. They paid zero dollars in corporate tax. Chevron had $15.7 billion in revenue. Senator Duniam, I wonder how much corporate tax they paid? The answer is zero. Shell had $4.6 billion in revenue and zero company tax was paid.</para>
<para>Technically I'm incorrect, and I don't want to mislead the chamber. Chevron ended up going to court, trying to defend themselves against the pursuit of the ATO—good on the ATO—and were ordered by the Federal Court to pay $866 million of unpaid tax. They had set up a regime where the parent companies received loans in the US for 1.2 per cent and they charged through the Australian entity at nine per cent interest rates—hardly arm's length; hardly proper. Shell is now being pursued for an estimated $755 million in unpaid tax. All of these companies are unquestionably tax dodgers. They are corporate thieves. They steal from Australians. They are guided and instructed by real people who are directors of these companies, which operate without social licence.</para>
<para>It's highly likely Australia would not have ended up with any taxes being paid. All we would have got was the risk. Where they were going to drill was in deep water and in rough seas. In the event of an oil spill, it would have been a catastrophe. There would have been suffering, in terms of the pristine environment in and around both South Australia and extending to Victoria, and there would have been a huge negative impact to our tourism and fisheries industries in South Australia.</para>
<para>The reality was there was nothing for South Australia and nothing for Australia. If the project had proceeded, we would have had a foreign controlled company extracting oil and exporting it overseas, paying no tax, giving low employment opportunities for Australians, and with a high impact if a spill were to occur. Who wants to have a Deepwater Horizon in our backyard?</para>
<para>In the end, although Equinor claimed that they withdrew for commercial reasons—they say it wasn't economically viable—it was simply people power that brought this to a halt: widespread lack of support in and around all the coastal communities in South Australia and down in Victoria. There were protests held in Brighton, Victor Harbor—I went to that one—Torquay. Thousands of everyday quiet Australians gathered to protest against drilling and to protect their local beaches. We also had protesters in Oslo. I recall a South Australian parliamentary delegation going to meet parliamentarians in Norway to say, 'We do not want this.' Sadly, the federal government was happy to proceed with the project, blind to the lack of benefit, blind to the risks and failing to listen to the views of Australians.</para>
<para>In some sense we have to stop and ask ourselves: 'How did we get to that point? How did we get so far along to where our regulators and our government support this when there were no benefits and Australians did not want this to proceed?' But as we pause to celebrate the announcement, we do need to pause and reflect on the value we place on our sacred, pristine beaches, unspoilt shorelines, clean oceans, wildlife and the enjoyment of all of that. We shouldn't ever take it for granted. We have to protect it now and into the future. This is why, sadly, the fight is not over. We need to pursue a national heritage listing for the bight because oil and gas is there. We need robust protections for this pristine environment to protect it from the constant threat of companies seeking to drill for oil and gas there.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations, Morrison Government</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I again draw to the attention of the chamber and the nation the absolute hypocrisy of the Liberal-National government in its continued pursuit of the union movement in this country. The government has decided that, despite this chamber rejecting their previous attempt to silence workers and hamstring the union movement, it is set to have another go. The ensuring integrity bill was rejected. It's bad for workers. It's bad for nurses and teachers, cleaners and carers. It's bad for police and for firefighters. It's bad for workers who just want decent pay and conditions in their workplaces. But just days after the Senate rejected the bill, the government, so driven by its ideological agenda and hatred of the union movement, reintroduced the same bad and ideologically driven legislation—albeit, amended by members of the crossbench.</para>
<para>But it is nothing short of sheer arrogance that you run with your confected fights with the union movement in order to paper over the fact that you have no agenda as a government. You have to confect an enemy in order to mask over your own dirty laundry: Minister Angus Taylor and his accusations against the City of Sydney; sports rorts; sports rorts 2.0; now the Urban Congestion Fund rorts, where 83 per cent of the $3 billion allocated from the fund went to seats held by the coalition or to marginal seats.</para>
<para>Even more concerning, on top of that arrogance, until this weekend the government had all but buried their head in the sand on wage and superannuation theft. But it does appear that Minister Porter and the government seem to have finally realised that Australians are sick and tired of companies that rip off their workers. It wasn't the government trying to find out how many workers had been ripped off; it hasn't been the government trying to make sure that workers are paid what they are owed; it has been the union movement. In fact, Mr Porter acknowledged as much. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Unions do a good job in uncovering underpayment …</para></quote>
<para>He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The unions are a fundamental part of the architecture of the Australian industrial relations scheme, and in many instances they do fantastic work.</para></quote>
<para>Well, he's right. And so they should remain uninhibited by this government's conservative ideology.</para>
<para>Australian unions have an integral and necessary role to play in our society and they underpin the foundation of our democracy and fairness within it. They uphold the basic standards of safety and human rights and things that Australians value in their workplaces and in their communities. The role they play in representing some of the most vulnerable people within our communities and their positive impacts are felt across the whole of the Australian community. They've largely been responsible for the fight for developing inclusive and supportive workplaces. They've undertaken significant work of addressing gender inequality, campaigning for workplaces free from discrimination, in all its forms, and have a proud history of taking action on many different forms of social injustice.</para>
<para>So why is it that this government wants to undermine the representation, support and advocacy that workers have in the union movement? The push to follow through with the ensuring integrity bill just reinforces the fact the Morrison Liberal government is not interested in governing for all Australians. They would not allow for a Senate inquiry into the new iteration of the bill. And that is what has motivated me to speak tonight. It is an entirely different bill that has been amended by the crossbench, and still you thought you'd go away and have your secret negotiations about it before reintroducing it to this place. You don't want unions and workers to have an opportunity to ventilate their well-founded and serious concerns about the proposed legislation. Perhaps you don't want to hear the very real evidence that is there to be put forward, evidence from nurses, cleaners, electricians, workers from a whole range of industries—and the hole that is left in your justification for this bill and the exposure of your arrogance and hypocrisy.</para>
<para>The responsibility of good government is to represent its entire population and people in good faith, further their economic and social prosperity, and guarantee their basic rights to participate in a free and democratic nation. The government has abandoned these principles. This legislation abandons workers and families and is all put forward in the interests of their ideological agenda.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Local Government</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I address the Senate tonight about corruption in local government in Queensland. As a Senator for Queensland I am deeply concerned for people's wellbeing. My connection with Queensland includes being a former candidate in the City of Ipswich and I am a strong supporter of local government. So you think democracy exists in Ipswich, in Logan and in Moreton Bay? Let me explain why it has failed for voters in these areas.</para>
<para>Mayor Pisasale in Ipswich was widely approved by voters. He was even loved. Voters were deceived. He was a crook and is now in jail. Videos and video crews following in his wake making propaganda does not constitute good governance. Corruption does not constitute good governance. Being in jail does not constitute good governance. Some voters have been supporters of the Local Government Association of Queensland, the LGAQ. The evidence is in now of their involvement with the corrupt practices of corrupt councils around Queensland. Operation Belcarra in Queensland highlighted the corruption in local government in my home state of Queensland, and none more so than in Ipswich, Logan and Moreton Bay city councils. These are three of the largest city councils in our state.</para>
<para>There was a common thread to this corruption, and this is the Local Government Association of Queensland, the LGAQ. In Logan, the LGAQ advised the elected councillors to ignore the directives of the Crime and Corruption Commission. Can you believe that? The council then sacked their CEO, Sharon Kelsey, who was exposing the corruption. That's what they do at local governments in some cities in Queensland with people who want to restore democracy. The LGAQ chief executive officer, Mr Greg Hallam, said in correspondence in support of those dodgy councillors that he would 'back them to the gates of hell'. The investigation after that resulted in the arrest of seven of the councillors and the mayor, who are facing charges over a total of 14 criminal offences. The council was then sacked by the Queensland government in 2019.</para>
<para>In Moreton Bay Regional Council, while the council was under investigation in March 2019, the mayor issued a contract to a company owned by a colleague and a former executive of the LGAQ to conduct a review—by a mate. The company, Grassroots Connections Australia Pty Ltd, was a preapproved company to supply management services through the LGAQ Local Buy system. This system has sent many local companies broke because they can no longer get work from local governments.</para>
<para>Former state MP for Cairns Mr Rob Pyne showed his courage. He tabled documents in state parliament in 2016, claiming the LGAQ was a 'rehoming service for dodgy and sacked council CEOs and officers'. In June 2019, Moreton Bay councillor Mr Adrian Raedel was arrested and charged with official corruption. In December 2019, the Mayor of Moreton Bay Regional Council was arrested and charged with misconduct in public office. In Ipswich, the entire council was sacked and the mayor gaoled, and the subsequent mayor was found guilty of serious misconduct.</para>
<para>The LGAQ funded personal defamation cases on behalf of councillors against people who criticised those councillors when those councillors were exposed as being corrupt. Why? Because they wanted to shut down any dissent and any complaints about corruption. The LGAQ intimidated. The LGAQ were again involved through a company set up by the jailed Mr Carl Wulff and his also-jailed associate Mr Claude Walker. The LGAQ used to be just a group of councillors in an organisation lobbying federal and state governments for funds and services. Now the LGAQ is a billion-dollar organisation run as a purportedly private not-for-profit political organisation. What a sham! The LGAQ, in the 2020 Queensland election coming up next month, have not changed. They are still trying to destroy candidates who don't agree with their corrupt policies, and they are involved in or have set up social media troll pages to defame and discredit candidates. They want to influence, corruptly, the outcomes of the elections. There should be a full investigation into all local government associations in Australia, as currently they appear to operate outside the law and operate as unelected government entities.</para>
<para>I can understand what the voters and electors in these local council areas must be thinking—deceived, let down, betrayed. Some voters will be feeling angry, frustrated and disappointed. So what needs to be done? Voters need honesty and to be heard and served. Voters want good governance and service. But the simple answer rests with the voters. Corruption can be weeded out by ensuring voters exercise their democratic choices when voting in the forthcoming local government elections. Their choices must be well informed, and the candidates need to show a sound track record of integrity and a strong history of fighting corrupt practices.</para>
<para>One such person is Mr Gary Duffy from Ipswich, who can be trusted. He has worked hard—despite physical, emotional and legal intimidation—along with his wife, Conny, and they have exposed the corruption. Many people from Ipswich have trusted him and come to Gary. Mr Duffy, a long-term Ipswich local community member, has provided valuable support in identifying and calling out those whose conduct was both deceptive and, in some cases, criminal. Some of these persons were councillors and some were working closely with those councillors.</para>
<para>In the future, I will seek leave to tender the responses of Mr Duffy to a discussion paper issued by the Queensland state government entitled 'Council's reporting of budget versus actual figures'. Mr Duffy examines and comments on the lack of transparency that may occur in local government spending when budget figures do not reflect actual figures. That's putting it politely. His paper and his comments relate directly to the lack of transparency when these councils have made questionable decisions in an attempt to cover their tracks. Here's a little trick that apparently—I'm told by people in Ipswich—the Labor Party use. In a division within the local government area, the Labor Party will put up a candidate, and then four affiliated people will be candidates as well and direct their votes to the Labor Party. Labor are absolutely terrified that they will not continue to manage that council, because if new management comes in then it will dig deep into the corruption and expose it.</para>
<para>The facts that I have presented today are true and remain an ongoing concern. I believe in democracy. This is where politicians represent the interests of their constituents and then act accordingly. Transparency is one of the ways to counter corruption. Put in it the open. Voting carefully, armed with facts and a belief in the integrity of your preferred candidate, is another way to exercise our democratic rights. People want to be heard. They want good governance. In local government, people want low rates and good services. They want honesty and they want trustworthiness. The forthcoming Queensland local government election next month will give Queenslanders an opportunity to exercise their voting power and replace those shown to be corrupt—replace them with good men and women. This is democracy in practice.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 21:37</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>