DOCUMENTS

2020-12-01 46 1 4 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 1 December 2020

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 1

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

Second Reading 1 12:01 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Arrangements) Bill 2020 because I consider the merits of these bills to be fairly self-evident, and I think that's been reflected so far in the debate around the chamber. I want to place on the record my appreciation for the offer of bipartisan support for these bills that opposition senators have made. I think it is a very important signal that Australia sends at a time like this that we are all united in ensuring that the aims of these bills are reflected in our legislation, and that is that Australia's national interest will be set by Canberra on behalf of the nation and is not to be undermined by any subnational entity. What these bills do is what most Australians think is already the case. When Australians were told that it wasn't the case that Canberra had control over Australia's foreign relations and its external affairs, it came as a surprise to many of them. They think that it is just common sense that the government here in Canberra should be in charge of Australia's international relations and they think it is bizarre that a state government, a territory government, a local council or, indeed, a university could in any way undermine Canberra's view of our national interest and detract from it. Of course, these bills do not seek to prevent harmless or positive international engagement by subnational entities, as are most international engagements made by our state and territory governments, local councils and universities. But these bills ensure, though: firstly, that the federal government is at least aware of every instance of international engagement by these subnational entities; secondly, that the federal government retains the power to veto any agreement that it believes is not in our national interests; and, thirdly, that we have the opportunity to speak on the global stage with one voice. In the geopolitical environment that we are now operating in that is more crucial than ever, and so it's vitally important that members of this parliament stand together this week—hopefully today—to send that message. Unfortunately, in recent years, our united international position has been undermined. It has been sadly undermined, in my view, by my home state of Victoria and the Andrews government, which unwisely, against advice and in contradiction to the premier's own party's platform at the federal level signed up to the belt-and-road agreement with the Chinese Communist Party. No other state, no other territory and no other leader in our country, Labor or Liberal, has sought to do that—in fact, they all made clear that they would not do so. And, despite the calls from many in this place, on a bipartisan basis, for the Andrews government to change direction on the BRI, that government has refused to do so. That is one of the reasons this bill is necessary. If a state refuses to consult, refuses to see sense, refuses to consider our national interest, then they must be forced to do so. There has been one other group that has objected to their inclusion in this bill, and that is our higher education sector. In particular, I want to draw attention to a remarkable contribution to the debate by Vicki Thomson, the head of the Group of Eight, our elite universities. Writing an opinion piece for The Australian newspaper on 12 November, she said: Australia's leading research-intensive universities, the Group of Eight, have been saying for months that national security threats are a lot like COVID-19—you can try to eliminate them and devastate your economy or you can focus on the areas of greatest risk, suppress them and learn to live with it by quickly picking up weak points and putting a stop to them. Essentially, what our elite universities are saying, through Ms Thomson, is that we should learn to live with foreign interference, that we should tolerate a little bit of foreign interference and that it is an inappropriate public policy goal to seek to eliminate foreign interference in our democracy. There have been a few other more powerful examples of exactly why this bill is necessary and exactly why our universities must be included in it. Sadly, many of our universities have demonstrated a lack of prudence in their international engagements and, in particular, their engagements with China. They have demonstrated an overreliance on international students from China and they have demonstrated an inability to manage the financial, reputational and standards risks that exposes them to. It is sadly necessary for the federal government to have oversight of those relationships, as has been clearly demonstrated by the university's contribution to this debate. This was one of those very unfortunate what appeared to be pithy lines that you come up with as a lobbyist trying to influence public policy debate. It's an awkward analogy that unfortunately reveals more than I think it intended to about the view of our universities. To return to where I began, the merits of this legislation are self-evident. That is why I hope it will shortly pass this chamber with bipartisan support. Australians agree that Australia's national interest should be set from Canberra, that it should be set by the federal government and that there should be no capacity for any subnational entity to undermine it. 12:07 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to contribute to the debate on Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. I am glad to be presenting on this bill, because it is about time Australia stops taking its sovereignty for granted. Before I talk about the bill, in particular, what I would like to talk about is how exactly we've got here and the history of what has happened in Australia for the last 35 years. I feel like we've lost control of our economic sovereignty. I point out that this all really came about thanks to the neo-Liberal ideology of the Hawke-Keating government and some of what I would call quite bewildering decisions of the High Court of Australia, in particular the Franklin Dam decision, that have given greater powers to international treaties than our own state governments with regard to our natural resources. To me, that was the start of a slippery slope, with this idea that we should sign away our sovereign rights to a treaty. By all means, I'm happy to sign up to some of these things, if it's going to facilitate cooperation. In terms of actually giving up our sovereign rights over how we manage our resources, I have to say, I totally disagree. Many of those on the Left look at Paul Keating as being the economic Jesus of Australia's economic success. I would totally disagree with that; I would call him the economic Judas of Australia's economy. The first reckless thing that he did was allow foreign banks into this country. In 1985, the four major banks had about $10 billion in foreign debt. By 2008 we had $800 billion in foreign debt. Nearly all of that credit was pumped into the housing markets in Sydney and Melbourne and that has inflated house prices to, in some places, 13 times average earnings. In the same year that Paul Keating put those levers in to inflate house prices, he also brought in a capital gains tax but then left housing out of it. All the uber-wealthy in Sydney and Melbourne have been making millions and millions of dollars on housing gains and don't pay a cent in tax. Meanwhile, the workers and the battlers who work hard for a living have to start paying income tax, in today's dollars, at least—it was a lot less then; there used to be an income tax threshold of around $5,000 and it has been lifted up to $18,200—of 19c on the dollar. These things have basically diminished our productive capacity because we have an RBA that has allowed foreign banks to lend to domestic banks and then to lend to the workers to pay heaps and heaps of money for a house even though they can't necessarily afford it. But the diminishment of our economic sovereignty didn't stop there. There was then the reckless Button plan that basically reduced tariffs. I'm not in favour of tariffs either, but you have to be realistic about what other countries are doing. There is no point in us reducing tariffs if every other country in the world is still protecting their agriculture and manufacturing sectors. We have gone off on this neoliberal crusade that all markets are efficient and if we lower our tariffs we're going to become more productive. Well, no, we haven't actually become more productive. What we have done is destroy the great manufacturing state of Victoria, because all those manufacturing businesses that used to exist in Victoria have been unable to compete with the rest of the world. In the rest of the world they may have gone off fiscal tariffs, many of them would have boasted that they had, but they also then started using monetary tariffs through currency manipulation. Let me tell you: that is rampant. They started money printing to keep their currencies down, which has given them a competitive advantage. While we are all talking about fiscal tariffs and looking over here, in the background there are all these monetary tariffs that no-one really talks about or understands. That was also facilitated by the Hawke-Keating government. While they went and destroyed our manufacturing base, they then unleashed the beast, what we call the higher education sector, through the Dawkins plan in 1990. That basically commoditised our children's' future. It is now all about making money for the sake of those inner urban elite academics. Vice-chancellors are now getting paid over a $1 million a year to teach a lot of neoliberal ideology. I know. I can remember sitting in the Abel Smith Lecture Theatre in 1988 and a bloke by the name of Ted Hawkins was teaching me about efficient market hypothesis and how, somehow, by the time the news was announced on the stock market, that good news would be fully factored into the price. I can remember thinking: 'That seems a lot like insider trading to me. It is not really what I could call efficient because I don't see how, if there's no leaking going on, the price would actually move at all to recognise that news.' But this is the sort of stuff we are taught—that all markets are efficient and that if we just let the market rip then everything will be okay. If that were the case around the rest of the world—that they let the market rip—it might be okay. But the reality is we need fair and efficient markets and we need a level playing field. Our role as governors and politicians who represent the people is to protect the people. I happily stood up here in my maiden speech and came out of the closet and said I was a loud and proud protectionist. I am a loud and proud protectionist. I make no apologies for defending this great country, this country's great values, our children and our prosperity to make sure our children get the same opportunities that our forefathers gave to us. In order to do that, we need to control our economy. You cannot control your economy if you merely have control of the taxation system but don't have any control of your monetary system or your infrastructure system. That brings me to the next point about that wonderful Hawke-Keating government: they privatised everything. They privatised Qantas, CSL and CBA. The Hawke-Keating government sold CSL for $200 million. We—the federal government and the taxpayer—now pay $3.4 billion for a nine-year contract. So it's almost $400 million a year, twice what we sold it for 25 years ago, to get our blood cleaned when it gets donated to the Red Cross. That was all set up by the Australian government and paid for by the Australian people. We just gave away the rights to that for next to nothing and now we pay twice as much as that every year. That was a great economic model, wasn't it? It was really well done! We also privatised CBA. CBA was sold for $8 billion. That is about what it makes a year now. It certainly made more than that pre COVID; I am not sure what it is going to come in at this year. CBA has gone from two-thirds lending on business and one-third lending on housing to about 70 per cent housing and about 30 per cent business. So, when all those businesses are out there trying to look for cheap credit, it is hard for them to find cheap credit compared to the housing market, because it all goes into the housing market. That's another example of how we have undermined our economic sovereignty. But perhaps the worst thing—well, apart from superannuation, and that's a whole other story, where $600 billion of superannuation is invested offshore; meanwhile, don't worry about investing in any infrastructure here, because those on the Left over there would rather create jobs in other countries by building infrastructure in other countries and investing in foreign companies than use that $600 billion to build infrastructure here—the worst thing that was every done by the Hawke-Keating government was giving independence to the RBA. The idea was that by giving independence to the RBA they would be able to make decisions outside the political spectrum, that they wouldn't fall for populism or anything like that. Well, here we are, 25 years later and interest rates are at 0.15 per cent. The RBA has destroyed the incomes of retirees, who have got nowhere to go except to invest in a highly volatile stock market, which they're supposed to believe conforms to the efficient market hypothesis. It's amazing what these ideologies will get away with, in the dreams they peddle. But what's so annoying about the RBA is that they've been treated with this reverence—that they know what they're doing. And of course they haven't known what they were doing, because if they knew what they were doing then interest rates wouldn't be at 0.15 per cent. You see, they've only ever used qualitative easing—that is, manipulated interest rates—and this is the hypocrisy again, because supposedly we live in a free market, yet we've got a central bank that changes the price of money on the first Tuesday of every month. I mean, if that's not socialism-totalitarianism, I don't know what is, because if you can control the price of money every month then you're basically changing the price of every other good and service in the market. If that's not central planning 101, I don't know what is. What they've totally neglected in all this is the use of quantitative easing as a constructive, productive tool. The best example of where they've been found wanting is Victoria's Belt and Road Initiative. And it's not just China; it's plenty of other countries. Other central banks have been investing in Australia's infrastructure. So, the RBA has sat there and allowed other central banks to print money, lend it to their corporations or their quasi-semi-government corporations, and then those corporations come here and buy our infrastructure with money printed on their printing presses. Everyone stood by and said, 'Well, it's all free markets,' but we should have had capital controls there, because all these other countries—Japan's another one; they've been printing since 1989—get this cheap money that they pay no interest on, and they come here and buy our infrastructure. Another great example is the ECB. The ECB loves to issue corporate bonds at negative yield. They basically lend money to European corporations at a negative interest rate. They say, 'You don't even have to pay it back.' Then those European corporations can buy assets anywhere in the world, and they've been coming to Australia and we've been welcoming them with open arms, and then we wonder why all our domestic companies are closing down. Well, how can our domestic companies compete with foreign companies when those companies don't have a cost of capital? They're given free capital. You want to talk about a free market, but I don't believe in free markets; I believe in profitable markets, so that our people can earn an income to put a roof over their heads and some food on the table and provide for their children. But these guys are coming into the country with free capital and they're buying up all our infrastructure and many of our manufacturing industries. I remember great companies when I was first at university. BTR Nylex, Adelaide Steamship and Elders IXL were some of the great Australian conglomerates that have basically gone the way of the dodo because we've not been smart with our capital management; we've just opened the doors up to foreigners and said: 'Come on in! We won't look at what your central banks are doing, and you can print all this money.' I come back to the RBA here, because these people should have understood monetary policy. I don't expect everyone in the chamber or the people out there to understand monetary policy. But the RBA have been given the responsibility to control our currency, and they have failed shockingly in doing that. What's worse, we don't have a national bank. People often get confused between national banks and central banks. Central banks control the currency; national banks build infrastructure. As we come out of COVID, we've got to ask ourselves how we're going to do that. The people I see on the street ask me, 'How are we going to come out of COVID?' We've got to go back to basics. If we ended up on a desert island, would you go to the bank? Would you go to a bank on a desert island? I don't think so. You would immediately look to control the means of production. You would want to find some water and food sources. Hopefully, if you were on a desert island, you could climb up some coconut trees and get some coconuts. You've got to be able to feed yourself. You've got to be able to stand on your own two feet. That's what true wealth is; that's what true economic sovereignty is. It's the ability to produce goods and services so that you can stand on your own two feet. Let's get real here. Australia relies on a foreign military, foreign capital, foreign labour and foreign manufacturing. It's about time we started to stand on our own two feet again. In particular, we have to make sure our children can stand on their own two feet. It is much better to teach a man how to fish rather than to feed him fish. I've got to be honest: I think we've lost the art of the deal. My old man, in many respects, is much wealthier than me. He knows how to run a farm, he is an ex-butcher and he can do some fencing and all the stuff I used to be able to do, but I've lost touch after 30 years. The important thing is that we need to get our children back into those blue-collar trades. We need to get control of our infrastructure and our agricultural land so that we can make sure that our children get the same opportunities that our forefathers gave to us. With that in mind, I will finish by saying that it is important that all levels of government sing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to foreign affairs and trade. This legislation reaffirms Australia's Constitution, in that the responsibility for foreign affairs lies with the federal government. I'm glad that this legislation is being put through. There are few matters more critical than a robust, coherent foreign policy that places our national interest at the fore. I commend this legislation to the Senate. 12:22 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I rise to speak on Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and the related bill. This legislation is based upon the premise that Australia, at a Commonwealth level, should be responsible for foreign relations. Indeed, this is what our Constitution envisages. This is a reasonable and largely uncontroversial proposition and not one that Labor disagrees with. In fact, as a reminder to those in the chamber, it is the Labor Party, in its long and illustrious history, that has always supported the Commonwealth having power, and certainly to the placita of section 51. Our foreign relations, the way in which we engage with our external partners and other countries, should be set from the top at a federal government level, so as to put forward and pursue strategic policy, diplomatic and economic objectives but also to do this in a way that is true to our values as a nation—that is, the values of a Western liberal democratic nation. Despite recent forays onto social media from those representing another country, we should be very proud of our history and very proud of what we stand for. Throughout the past 100 years and what has been a century of turmoil, Australia has been and remains one of a handful of nations to retain liberal democratic institutions without serious challenges from the Left or from the Right. Although we tend to think of Australia as a new country, we are, in fact, one of the oldest democracies in the world, a tradition of democratic government stretching back to the 1850s, with state or then colonial-level governments. We should be proud of our inheritance of Westminster institutions and traditions and not apologetic about them. Any attempt to strengthen these, as this bill does, should be welcomed. However, this is not entirely the case, and I will get to where the Labor Party has some amendments to the legislation. In the 20th century, the liberal democratic world won major set-piece engagements: the two world wars and the Cold War. It was Social Democrats who played a critical role here. But the period also saw constant relapses into authoritarianism. After the Soviet collapse, some writers in the West hailed these years as the end of history or the unipolar moment. This, commentators said, was the final triumph of the liberal democratic ideal. The number of functioning democracies rose rapidly, particularly in Latin America and East Asia, but also in Africa. It was only in other parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East, where there seemed to be a veering towards authoritarianism. Sadly, this has not remained true. There has again been a tendency to retreat towards authoritarians and populism. The rise of belligerently undemocratic powers; the rise of ethnic nationalism and protectionism; the decline in the leadership of democracies; the need for cooperative global climate action; transnational criminality, such as human trafficking and undermining cybersecurity; and now the COVID-19 pandemic are all placing unprecedented strain on the rules based global order, which, for all its faults, has kept the peace and allowed seven decades of increasing prosperity for most, if not quite all, the people of the world. At this juncture we badly need a global cooperation capable of rising to these challenges. Frankly, we need rules and guidance as to how we as a nation can speak with one voice when pursuing our international aims. This is why a foreign relations bill, which sets out to place the national government at the helm of this, is a good idea in principle. Australia is placed in the most dynamic region in the world, the Asia-Pacific. In recent years, it has been home to many successful stories of democratic triumph. Since the 1990s, South Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia have established and successfully maintained stable and increasingly prosperous democracies. And I say that these are all independent countries. It would have been a bold prophet who predicted in 1990 that Indonesia would become the most successful democracy in the ASEAN grouping, but that is now the fact. Even Myanmar, after decades of enforced isolation under the 'Burmese way to socialism', has shown it can hold successful democratic elections, although the army there still retains effective control. The experience of these countries shows entrenched authoritarian systems can evolve, without revolution or civil war, into stable, prosperous liberal democracies, and we can only hope that that becomes the way of all countries in the Indo-Pacific and in Asia. Unfortunately, it isn't uniform. The most consequential strategic and economic question that Australia and the world will have to deal with in the coming years is how to maintain normalised relations with a rising and assertive China. This is important when discussing what we are here to consider today. This legislation, from its drafting to how it has been discussed in the media by the public and in this place, has often been framed around protecting Australia's democratic and private institutions from political influence by—and let's be frank—the Chinese Communist Party. No longer can China be seen through the prism of a benign actor more interested in its domestic matters. China is a great power and entitled to the respect that goes with great power status. I want to see a strong, stable, united, prosperous and peaceful China with a natural sphere of influence that should be resolving regional problems and not stoking them. But there is a broad consensus in Australian politics that the recent expansionist and irredentist tendencies in Chinese foreign policy must be confronted, along with serious human rights abuses within its borders. Not to do so would be an affront to our own values. I believe that, where there are human rights abuses, no matter where they occur, we are all the poorer, we are all the worse, for those human rights abuses. While, yes, some in the public space could better moderate their language so as not to deliberately stoke tensions, the deterioration in China's relations with the West, including with Australia, is largely due to the CCP's neo-Stalinist domestic policies and belligerent and hegemonic behaviour in the international arena, particularly in our immediate region. An expert in international law and a former DFAT official, Malcolm Jorgensen, has noted: China's rhetorical deference to international law masks the more subversive consequence of its actions: redrawing the boundaries between law and politics in a way that overturns foundational parts of the global order from within. He goes on to say: It is equally clear, however, that advocates for the rules-based order must take more seriously their own appeals to the foundational authority of international law. Seemingly legalistic challenges will ultimately transform into political challenges to a more secure and normatively desirable world. Yes, our mutual beneficial bilateral relationship with China has always been predicated on the assumption that it would be a rational player in the field of trade, would abide by the rules set down by the World Trade Organization, and would act in the interests of the growth and prosperity of all in an increasingly interconnected region. That assumption held good to a large extent until the reformer's rule of Deng Xiaoping and his successors Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. But China, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, has shown a willingness to use trade, investment, tourism, foreign aid and diaspora communities as weapons in its drive to establish a regional hegemony in the Asia-Pacific and challenge the liberal democratic world order. When addressing any of these legitimate concerns, we must reject arguments which can be construed as xenophobic and racist. We have to combat these evils wherever they may lurk, because they are evil. Doing this in a way which is not seen as an attack on the Chinese people, or on China's legitimate national interests, will not be easy, but is a necessary discipline. Under successive Labor governments we've promoted three vital pillars of Australian foreign policy: (1) support for the Western alliance, and in particular our alliance with the United States; (2) engagement with the countries of our region, most obviously China and Indonesia; and (3) support the United Nations' multilateral system. Throughout the committee's inquiry we heard from many witnesses about the need for the legislation and as to how this legislation would achieve its stated aims. There were a variety of views on that. My colleagues Senator Wong and Senator Ayres yesterday evening, in their second reading debate speeches, went into detail about both the committee process and the amendments that Labor will be moving in order to improve the stated aims of this legislation. I just want to address a few concerns we have. It's Labor's view that the legislation should form part of the suite of existing legislation and guidelines that work to safeguard Australia's sovereignty. This would build domestic institutional resilience and regulate international engagement, including foreign investment legislation to counter foreign interference legislation, defence export controls, the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme and the University Foreign Interference Taskforce. There is no doubt that more needs to be done in this regard. In recent days we have seen an assertive Chinese Communist Party become more than assertive, and one might even say aggressive. On a platform ironically not allowed in his own country, and that is Twitter, a spokesperson of the CCP put out a fake photograph. The week before there was a list of 14 grievances. To try to comply with those 14 grievances would offend all the pillars of a democracy. It would offend our right to a free press, our right to the rule of law, the rights of minorities, our right to freedom of association, and, frankly, it would also offend the right to disagree with your government and the right to have an alternative view. Australia is a wonderful country and should be looked at as an exemplar in our region, not as a country that is being attacked. 12:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Let me say that One Nation supports this bill, but I have a few things to say. For decades I have warned that the policies of both Labor and the coalition have left Australia dangerously exposed to the whims of a hostile communist Chinese government. I would encourage every Australian to look carefully at the origin of everything you buy now. Please try hard to buy Australian made and produced products. Think carefully about buying products made in China. I support the intent of the legislation proposed by the government, but the government needs to put its own backyard in order first. The government wants to have a narrow debate about foreign relationships by confining the debate to agreements made by the states, territories, local governments and universities. I want a broader debate. Foreign relationships are also about trade and foreign investment. We cannot talk about foreign relationships without also talking about trade and foreign investment. The government hopes that this bill will distract us from its own agreements with other countries, but we cannot ignore what is happening today with our relationship with China. China's position of 'my way or the highway' leaves us with a free trade agreement with China which is not worth the paper it is written on. Under this agreement, Chinese interests can spend over $1 billion in a single transaction without the government testing whether Chinese control of those assets or businesses is in the national interest. It has always been open to the federal government to recognise an Australian asset or business as being in the category of 'national security'. This recognition would trigger the national interest test for sales, from the first dollar, but the government didn't want to upset China. History instructs us that appeasement never works. While the government is looking at everyone else, it can look at agreements made by federal agencies. It can start with the strategic partnership agreement with the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics signed by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in 2019. What is the justification for working with the Chinese government on future energy sources, materials under extreme conditions and accelerator science when nuclear power reactors are prohibited under Australian law? The government needs to look at a host of issues related to China, including sustained cyberattacks on Australia. Are we so desperate for Chinese money that we want to graduate the students who are attempting to blackmail university lecturers into passing those who would otherwise fail? Is it not possible to talk about relationships with foreign countries without also talking about trade relationships and investment by those same foreign countries and their citizens in Australia? Let's look at our trading relationship with China. China takes 40 per cent of our exports. We have no market other than China for 30 per cent of Australia's exports and no alternative market for 20 per cent of Australia's imports. We are hopelessly dependent on China. We all experienced that dependence when personal protective equipment, or PPE, was not available. Australia has had a golden trade period with China, but it seems it has come to an end. It has been reported that a dossier reporting grievances was handed over by the Chinese embassy in Canberra to news outlets. The purpose of this exercise was to pressure the Morrison government into reversing Australia's position on key policies, such as academic, visa cancellations, calling for an independent inquiry into COVID-19, banning Huawei from the 5G network and blocking 10 Chinese foreign investment deals. The consequence of these grievances is that several categories of Australian commodities have been subject to rejection. The decision to delay and then reject 21 tonnes of live Australian lobsters was an act of bastardy, because they died on the hot tarmac of a Chinese airport. This year the Chinese government has directed power stations and steel mills to stop using Australian coal, and ports have been directed to stop unloading coal from 80 bulk carriers with $1 billion of Australian coal on board. Almost every week brings news of another commodity subjected to a new tariff or placed on a blacklist. China wants to damage our economy. The blacklisting of Australian commodities—including barley, beef, coal, wine and lobsters—means private businesses are being punished to send a message to the Australian government to stop saying and doing things the Chinese government does not like. There is an easy way to get back the goodwill of China. We simply have to say sorry and then change our policies to make them consistent with China's foreign policy. We have been warned to keep out of the South China Sea dispute, despite Beijing being found to be in contravention of international law by building artificial islands within waters claimed by its neighbours. We can regain some favour with China if we stop participating in freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. Putting so many trading eggs in the China basket was always a risk because China has a long history of using import and export restrictions as a means of gaining compliance with its foreign policy. While we have played our part in making China the factory to the world, we have allowed our own manufacturing industries to decline. This was a matter of policy for both major parties. It's a stain on both parties that we have not invested in manufacturing in Australia and provided globally competitive electricity prices. Instead of encouraging manufacturing jobs in this country, the government and Labor have subsidised foreign owned wind and solar companies which produce intermittent electricity. This is no use to manufacturing, which requires power 24 hours a day. Once manufacturing accounted for 40 per cent of the Australian economy. Forty per cent! Today it is six per cent. When long supply chains are disrupted, the just-in-time approach leaves Australia without essential goods. Countries with more manufacturing capacity than Australia were able to manage better through the COVID pandemic because they were able to change production from producing A to producing B. The Australian government has few options today because it has failed comprehensively to understand the way China thinks about itself. This brings me to the connection between trade and foreign investment with China. It is common ground that China has been our largest trading partner. We have sold more in dollar terms to China than they have sold to us. Our recent prosperity has largely been due to China buying our iron ore, coal, natural gas and high-quality protein foods. In practice, our economic reliance on China means that we have been unable to say no to foreign investment from China, including massive investment in residential homes in our major cities. In the past decade or more, Australia has been the second-largest recipient of Chinese investment, second only to the United States. The problem with Chinese ownership of Australian assets is that Chinese companies borrow from the communist state and, consequently, every loan forms part of China's political and economic strategy. When China or any foreign country buys our assets and businesses for political or military purposes, we should think carefully whether it is also in Australia's interests. Still, the third-term Liberal government has actively approved or passively consented to 99.9 per cent of all Chinese investments in Australia. The view that all foreign investment in Australia is good is the mindset of dinosaurs. The world has changed. Today, foreign investment can be used to hide another purpose: the sale of the Darwin Port is one such case. China provides no reciprocal arrangements in terms of foreign investment. There are a long list of industries that are off limits to foreign investment in China, as well as specific provinces and whole cities. In the limited areas where Australians can invest in China, the Australian investor must be the minority shareholder. The Chinese think we are stupid for allowing them to buy up in Australia when Australians cannot buy up in the same way in China. Public servants in Treasury and in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who advise government have let Australians down because the current trade war with China was foreseeable and therefore preventable. To put it plainly: our public servants are not up to the task of advising the government. They tell me they can do a trace and source the billions of dollars of Chinese investment in Australia, so they are confident the money is not borrowed from Chinese state banks. What a load of rubbish! China is the largest owner of food-producing land in Queensland. Unlike Treasury officials, China understands it's not making any more land and it's been investing in Australian agribusinesses and food-producing land. Prior to the arrival of the Chinese virus, COVID-19, the dollar thresholds were so high that few sales of Australian businesses were tested against the national interest test. After representation from me, the government reduced the dollar thresholds to zero for the COVID period to prevent foreigners buying distressed Australian assets. With one permanent member of the Foreign Investment Review Board, FIRB, and a few part-time members, foreign buyers can be assured of a cursory consideration before approval is rubber stamped on their file by the FIRB. In the past decade, out of 10,000 proposed sales, less than a handful have been rejected. The Security of Critical Infrastructure 2018 legislation details categories of Australian assets and businesses that are already in foreign hands, including electricity assets, pipelines and ports like Darwin Port, Brisbane port, Melbourne port and Newcastle port—the largest coal port in the word. This legislation, like the legislation in the government pipeline, is all too little and too late. The ownership of our water entitlements by foreign countries should set off the smoke alarm in every household. The Liberals are wrong to believe that assets bought by foreigners cannot leave Australia. Has the government done the broader maths? I have. With 20 per cent of our water in foreign hands and migration increasing our population at the rate of a million people every four years, there must come a tipping point when our food security is at risk. In 2015 we signed a free trade agreement with China. We have kept our promises; China has not. Just days ago a tariff of up to 200 per cent on wine was imposed, making exports of Australian wine to China uneconomic and leaving some companies in deep trouble. The government now says it will take China to the World Trade Organisation, but any remedy will take years and years. It is virtue signalling at best, meaning it makes the government look like it's doing something without doing something. They have been spending too much time learning from Labor and the Greens. Australians are fed up with the decisions of elites and politicians managing our foreign affairs. The 2020 Lowy Institute Poll found that nine out of 10 Australians, or 94 per cent of participants, want the Australian government to find other markets to reduce our economic dependence on China. Is anyone in the government listening to the Australian people? Clearly, our foreign policy and our foreign investment regime are not working for us in relation to China. Simply listing reasons would take another speech. Every time Australian assets or businesses are sold to a foreign company, foreign pension fund or multinational company there is a real danger the tax base of this country will be eroded and the tax burden will fall on the individual Australian workers. The Van Diemen's Land Company, with 25 dairies and 18,000 dairy cows, was sold to a Chinese businessman. One hundred per cent of the money was borrowed and none of the conditions of the sale have been met since 2016, yet the government has not acted to enforce the conditions of sale or issue a disposal notice; in fact, Treasury officials cannot remember a single disposal notice being issued since the introduction of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. This is not surprising, because the Treasury does not follow up to see if the conditions of approval are met. Does anyone wonder why I am so frustrated with the government? The government lacks a spine to do what is right for Australia. Where to from here? We need to permanently lower the dollar-value thresholds that trigger a review of proposed foreign ownership. We need an independent authority to make decisions which approve the acquisition and control of Australian assets and businesses—perhaps they can find some people with experience in business who have lived some of their life outside the Canberra bubble. Reforming the foreign investment regime is going to take a new government mindset. It is going to mean policymakers and government need to step out of the past and face the new reality of China. China uses trade and foreign investment to advance its foreign policy. We can never talk just about foreign relations without also talking about trade and foreign investment. In the interests of reform of the foreign investment regime, I propose an amendment to the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 which would see a 'benefits to Australia' test replace the 'contrary to the national interest' test in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. China is a non-market economy. They have been open and consistent about their use of trade and investment to further their political and economic aims. There is nothing wrong with that. It all goes wrong when we have weak politicians and poor advice from the public servants who think they can have their own cake and eat it too with China. 12:48 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia On the face of it this bill, the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, attempts to do something sensible. It seeks to give the federal government oversight of foreign arrangements made by state and territory governments, as well as those made by local governments and public universities, to ensure they do not contradict Australia's foreign policy or infringe on the national interest. Frankly, I'm not surprised the government has done this after its criticism of Victoria for signing an agreement under China's Belt and Road Initiative, which is well understood to be China's soft diplomacy approach to buying influence in the region, and also given the ongoing concern over the Darwin port agreement. Most Australians would agree that we need to be able to run a yardstick over foreign agreements because we need to protect Australia's interests; however, this bill is incredibly unbalanced. It doesn't give the Commonwealth the final say over foreign investments and arrangements; it gives it the only say. It gives the minister broad powers to approve or veto foreign arrangements both before they are made and at any time after they are made. State and territory governments will be prohibited from either negotiating or entering core arrangements with foreign governments unless they notify the minister first. The minister has 30 days in which to grant or deny approval and, if no decision is made in that time, this can be taken as approval to proceed. However, approvals can also be revoked later and the minister is under no obligation whatsoever to at any time provide reasons for any decision. Non-core arrangements, which are those made with provincial governments or state-controlled foreign universities, for instance, will be subjected to a notification scheme. This will capture arrangements made by LGAs and public universities. The minister must be notified of non-core arrangements in writing and must be provided with a copy of the proposed deal. The minister must then make a declaration about whether or not this non-core arrangement can proceed or whether it must be varied or terminated. The difference here is that the minister's approval is not required at the outset, as with core arrangements. But this still does not provide the certainty that state and territory entities need to make arrangements with confidence. Clause 5(2) of the bill states that the foreign policy guiding the minister's decisions does not have to be written or publicly available, nor: (d) has been formulated, decided upon, or approved by any particular member or body of the Commonwealth. It could be a finger in the air, a vibe—whatever the minister likes. But, unfortunately, this provides no guidance to people trying to negotiate foreign agreements, however innocuous they may be. What can they rely on if there's nothing on the public record? Clause 58 of the bill states: The Minister is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness … 'Not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness'—hence, there is no requirement for the minister to provide reasons for his or her decision. The fallout from all of this was summed up neatly by constitutional expert Professor George Williams, who told the inquiry: It means that an agreement may be overturned, but the parties will have no idea why. They won't know whether they can make a new agreement, if it was just one term in the agreement, if it was many terms—they will be left uncertain as to how to respond. According to the explanatory memorandum, excluding procedural fairness: … recognises that the provision of reasons itself could adversely affect Australia's foreign relations, especially to the extent that the decision may disclose Australia's foreign policy or position in relation to particular issues, which may disadvantage Australia’s position in international forums or negotiations. I understand why the government would need to keep its cards close to its chest. I appreciate that the approvals process will ensure that states, territories and their entities undertake due diligence before embracing foreign arrangements. But it is still not clear why the Commonwealth needs to take this blanket approach, an approach that allows it to keep its options open whilst undermining the ability of states and territories to act quickly and surely. Why isn't there a process for engagement and discussion? How will states know what to avoid when the bill doesn't provide for any consultation? And why can't the minister at least specify what aspects of arrangements are problematic, or provide reasons on a confidential basis? The Commonwealth has all the power in this act, and the states and territories have very little right of reply, little certainty and practically no guidance. But they don't get the courtesy of an explanation, because the minister is under no obligation to provide one. States and territories which submitted to the inquiry all agreed with the broad intent of the bill, but they raised concerns about their ability to proceed with certainty. Even parts of the bill designed to make the process administratively simple, such as the 30-day approval turnaround for core arrangements, are problematic, as there's no fast-track process for urgent matters and no exemptions whatsoever for low-risk arrangements. The arrangements that states and territories negotiate cover a range of areas—trade, education, tourism and research collaboration, for example—and they're not always the result of formal or premeditated processes. Many of the arrangements are a result of ministerial visits, trade missions and, as the Tasmanian government's submission puts it, even chance meetings at marketing events. They are often negotiated in a matter of days or weeks, not months. New South Wales gave the example of a 2017 trade mission to Japan, in which an MOU on teacher and student exchange was renegotiated and renewed in five days. It also negotiated a technology cooperation partnership with India during a three-day visit in 2018. The Northern Territory government's submission to the inquiry said the bill deprives states and territories of the agility and procedural certainty they require to successfully negotiate international arrangements. It recommended a shorter and more active approval process for low-risk, high-value foreign investments. I think this is very much a fair recommendation given that the minister can subsequently overturn agreements that don't meet Australia's foreign policy objectives. The minister has indicated that the only exempt arrangements will be those that deal with an emergency while that emergency is happening or that deal with minor administrative logistics such as accommodation arrangements or conference dates. Universities have also raised a number of concerns, including the significant uncertainty created by the minister's ability to revisit and vary arrangements in the future regardless of earlier decisions. They say it could deter international partners from making collaborative arrangements or funding commitments. The Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also expressed concern over what it called 'the unfettered discretionary power' of the minister, especially as it is coupled with a lack of procedural fairness and merits review and limitation of judicial review. We note that the government has amended the bill to provide definitional clarity of 'institutional autonomy' for foreign universities and to ensure a review of the act in three years to establish what improvements can be made. But these amendments do not go to the heart of the concerns raised by many submitters, and they don't address all of the recommendations put to it by even the government-led Senate inquiry. For instance, the government has not acted on the Senate report's recommendation to include hospitals in the bill to ensure arrangements are not made with foreign research hospitals engaged in unethical genetic or medical practices or organ harvesting. The government agreed with this in principle but said this would be considered in a legislative review. Centre Alliance supports the intent of this bill but agrees with many submitters that it is heavy-handed. We commend Labor and the Greens for their amendments, which seek to put some balance in the bill. We don't agree with all of the proposed amendments—including the blanket exemption for universities, as they are an obvious target for foreign interference. However, I indicate that we will support those amendments that seek to redress some of the imbalances in the bill so that state and territory stakeholders can operate with more certainty and fairness when they seek to make foreign arrangements in their interests. 12:58 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales I rise to support the passage into law of the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and related bill—a welcome and necessary step to ensuring Australia's sovereignty into the future. I have spoken here before about the importance of sovereignty; it's an old-fashioned word but it's still relevant. To me, sovereignty is the ability to act in our own interests as a nation. It means that the Australian people as a collective are the ultimate authority about what is good for Australia. So, when individual states, via their government or via institutions like their universities, start making arrangements that affect the interests of all Australians, we have a problem. I was disappointed by the trite political hacks taken by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate regarding this bill. Senator Wong, we know you are far better than this. You must realise that this bill shows that the Morrison government is indeed taking responsibility for Australia's foreign relations. The bill does exactly what you, Senator Wong, say is so important. This bill takes control by saying we need to act as a nation; we need to present a unified front; we need to stop those who would try to divide us; we need to block those who use seemingly innocuous agreements to exploit our openness so they can steal, incite and manipulate. The only way to do this is for the Commonwealth government to carefully consider the implications of all international agreements proposed by Australian governments. Only the Commonwealth government can identify the national interest and use its experts to advise the minister about the concordance of each prospective agreement with our national interests. This bill provides an important plank in our government's broad-based efforts to protect Australia's sovereignty. Control of foreign policy is vital. It's a core Commonwealth responsibility, enumerated in section 51 of the Constitution. Commonwealth leadership provides consistency. It provides an assessment of Australian interest using information and perspectives that institutions like local universities or state government bodies simply do not have. Yet, to my amazement, Labor cannot see a public policy rationale for this bill. I say maintaining coherence in our foreign policy is an imperative, and so a rationale. If you want to know why this bill is needed, look no further than this. This legislation will also shine sunlight on the agreements made with foreign countries. We know for a fact that the Andrews government's BRI agreement, Belt and Road Initiative agreement, was negotiated in secret. They did not want expert advice or national interests intruding on their plans. We also know that the BRI can be the Chinese Communist Party's way to interfere with their partners, apply economic coercion and give advantages to Chinese companies, as Senator Griff said, buying influence. These are aspects of the overall BRI picture that the Victorian government either did not realise or they knew, but thought they could outsmart the Chinese Communist Party. Either way, the Victorian BRI agreement highlights exactly why this bill before us today is necessary. We cannot accept the Victorian government's assurance that they will consider the national interest before committing to any activity. I simply say they cannot possibly do that because there is no way that the Victorian government understand the national interest. The Victorian government do not and cannot speak for all of us. I cannot be anything but appalled by the Greens' excuse for opposing this bill. In their view, the universities are too busy to do due diligence on these agreements, so, in curious Green logic, we should not be making them inform the Commonwealth before they start negotiations. The Greens will just let these ill-equipped universities go on making agreements, and excuse them of any need to actually consider the implications of their actions. Theirs is a parallel universe: let universities run free with things they don't understand. Two particular comments by those from this side of the house are worth reinforcing before we conclude this debate. My friend Senator Van, from Victoria, spoke about the need to maintain public confidence in our international relationships. He is spot on. I think the public would rightfully ask why we are not doing this already, given their expectation that Australia would have a consistent and interest-focused foreign policy. The remarks by Senator Fierravanti-Wells were also particularly perceptive. We cannot follow business as usual in this changed world. The Defence Strategic Update, launched on 1 July this year, clearly explains how the strategic environment has deteriorated more rapidly than anyone expected. The Indo-Pacific region is now the centre of strategic competition. While we don't want this, it is happening and we must prepare. We need to make changes to the way we operate, and this bill addresses just one. We need to do this, not only in Defence but across all sectors of the economy and across the nation. We need to prepare ourselves to meet challenges to our interests in whatever shape they come and through whatever vector they may follow. Countering foreign interference is just as important as physical defence when it comes to maintaining our sovereignty. That's why we need this bill. I give this bill and the amendments proposed by the government my wholehearted support. I also hope that it shows us all the importance of having a coordinated, strategic approach to protecting and promoting our sovereignty. One last note: this approach should be articulated through a national security strategy. Such a strategy would explain our goals and ways to coordinate activities like this, and explain this bill in context. It would provide benchmarks for success. It would help guide and explain how the measures proposed in this legislation will act in concert with others to promote Australia's future. I support this bill. 13:05 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Let me begin by thanking senators for their contributions to this important debate on Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and the related bill. The government recognises that, internationally, Australia's strength is greatest when we are united, consistent and speaking with one voice. This is the purpose that this bill serves. The bill will assist in ensuring a consistent approach to Australia's international relations and help to ensure that Australia is able to speak with one voice internationally. The bill reflects the Commonwealth government's fundamental role in conducting Australia's foreign relations, negotiating treaties and representing our nation internationally. Importantly, in terms of addressing the question of speaking with one voice as government, particularly internationally, it remedies a gap in our existing system by implementing a formalised method by which states and territories must consult with the Commonwealth on their arrangements with foreign governments. The mechanism set out in the legislation will protect our national interest and address the consistency of our foreign policy across all levels of Australian government. This bill is the next step in a number of measures the government has taken forward in recent years to protect our national security and our sovereignty. These measures are complementary, but they cover different issues. For example, the Foreign Investment Review Board regime, the FIRB, regulates significant foreign investments to ensure they are in the national interest. FIRB reforms announced earlier this year will strengthen this regime with a new test addressing national security concerns arising from individual investment proposals which would otherwise be below screening thresholds. It is this regime that applies to the acquisition or leasing of critical infrastructure, such as ports. Separately, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, FITS, is designed to provide the public with visibility of the nature and extent of foreign influence on Australia's government and politics. Individuals acting on behalf of foreign governments are therefore not dealt with under this bill. Those matters are covered by the FITS. Further, the investigation of foreign interference against Australia and our democratic institutions is also dealt with under our foreign interference and espionage laws, passed with cross-parliamentary support in 2018. The coalition government has also made decisions and implemented reforms to protect our telecommunications sector and our cybersecurity. These reforms, together, protect Australia's interests in relation to issues that this bill is not intended to cover. This bill is not intended to regulate purely commercial arrangements by corporations, even where a corporation is wholly or partly state owned. Arrangements by or with corporations are only within scope where they are entered into pursuant to a foreign arrangement with a state or territory entity and if the minister has deemed that arrangement as likely to be, or inconsistent with, Australia's foreign policy, or as likely to adversely affect our foreign relations. Corporate arrangements are also in scope if entered into pursuant to a state or territory arrangement with a foreign government that was not notified to the minister. While each piece of legislation addresses distinct processes, these reforms, taken together, demonstrate the government's very clear and strong commitment to protecting and preserving Australia's interests and our liberal democratic values. I thank the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for their review of the bill and their recommendations. The government has made amendments to the bill to define when foreign universities do not have institutional autonomy and to require a statutory review of the legislation after three years of operation in response to a number of the committee's recommendations. The rules allow the government to respond to changing circumstances without the need to amend the act in order to minimise regulatory impact when necessary, including by exempting arrangements that are less likely to impact on foreign policy. The draft rules to be made under the bill have been published on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. These rules exempt core foreign arrangements that deal solely with the sharing of information or resources for the management of a declared emergency in Australia, foreign arrangements that deal solely with minor administrative or logistical matters, and minor variations of foreign arrangements that do not alter the substance of the arrangement. I acknowledge the significant contribution that states, territories, local governments and universities make to Australia's international engagement, including through arrangements with foreign governments. The bill does not seek to prevent these arrangements, nor does it seek to interfere in states' and territories' business. What it does do is put in place a robust, proportionate process to assist states and territories in undertaking effective, appropriate and informed international engagement with foreign governments so that everyone can be confident that the arrangements they take forward are consistent with Australia's foreign policy. The vast majority of arrangements will remain unaffected by this bill, because they will be consistent with our foreign policy and in Australia's national interest. However, it is our view that if an arrangement is inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy or adverse to our foreign relations then it should not proceed. Only the Commonwealth is empowered to make these judgements. The bill, through the public register, will allow greater visibility of these judgements and will enable states, territories, local governments and universities to work in partnership with the Commonwealth when they engage internationally. Following the bill's introduction, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has conducted consultations with more than 60 stakeholders, including representatives from state and territory governments, local governments and Australian public universities. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Education and Training and I have also each engaged with stakeholders in respect of the bill. Detailed fact sheets for stakeholders have been published on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. The government has also established and funded a Foreign Arrangements Taskforce in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That task force will work closely with stakeholders on the implementation of the bill, including to ensure its efficient and effective administration. I commend the bill to the Senate, and I recall that this is fundamentally about engagement and collaboration, with due diligence. It is vital that the Commonwealth has oversight of arrangements concluded at all levels of Australian government with all foreign countries. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:17]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

30 AYES Ayres, T Chisholm, A Ciccone, R (teller) Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 34 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P (teller) Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:20 The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Rice, I understand you've foreshadowed a second reading amendment, so I'd just ask you to move that. 13:20 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria My second reading amendment has been distributed in the chamber, as on sheet 1111. I move: Omit all words after "That", insert: ", the bill be withdrawn; and (a) The Senate notes that: (i) the bill as drafted creates a significant new scheme with wide-ranging implications; (ii) no public consultation process was undertaken on an exposure draft bill and there was no regulatory impact statement prepared prior to the introduction of the bill; and (iii) stakeholders have raised a range of concerns about lack of consultation, the compliance burden and impact of this bill; and (b) The Senate calls on the Government to undertake more extensive consultation with the wide range of stakeholders impacted by this proposed legislation". The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to. Senator Wong is seeking the call. You need to seek leave if you want to speak, Senator Wong. 13:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This was not moved when I was on my feet, and obviously the minister has closed debate, so I'd appreciate it if I could seek leave to make a very short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted. Senator WONG 00AOU The substance of this amendment deals, to some extent, with some of the concerns that we have raised in our second reading amendment, but, of course, the difference is: the Greens amendment is operative and would essentially close the second reading debate. We want the opportunity to have the committee stage to seek to amend the legislation. And, whilst we have concerns, which I and other senators detailed in the second reading debate, about the way in which this bill was rushed, the failure to consult and the demonstrable failure by the government and the minister to engage with the entities covered by it, the principle that is behind the bill is one that Labor supports. For that reason, we are not minded to support the Greens' second reading amendment, which would effectively dispose of the legislation. I appreciate that. Thank you. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment of Senator Rice be agreed to. Bill read a second time.

The Senate divided. [13:23]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

9 AYES Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 46 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Chisholm, A Ciccone, R (teller) Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Neill, D Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sheldon, A Small, B Smith, DA Sterle, G Van, D Watt, M Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

In Committee 15 13:27 The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU The question is that the bill stand as printed. 13:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have a question to the minister. It is one that I have been asking for some time. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were going to answer it, but then they went away and they came back and started to talk about 'iterative processes', which is always a pretty clear indication that they don't want to answer a question. So I'm now going to ask the minister when Australian universities were added to the bill. 13:28 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Wong. I don't have that detail with me today but, as per the indications I made in my summing-up speech, there have been discussions with universities through this process, including a meeting Minister Tehan and I had with universities in the break between sitting weeks, and the consultations that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have had regularly. I have dates of those consultations, I think, in my notes here, but they go through the period of time since the bill was introduced. I have to confirm and advise, Chair, that the inclusion of universities in the bill, in one way or another, is a matter that was always in contemplation. 13:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia With respect, Minister, that's simply not true. A government senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, it isn't. A government senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU You can interject from back there, but you weren't in the committee, and you weren't at estimates. The reality is— The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Senator Wong, please ignore the interjections. Senator WONG 00AOU How about you tell them not to interject as well as telling me to ignore it? That would at least be even-handed—yes? I'll make the point that it is not true to say they were always in contemplation, unless the government simply thinks that refusing to talk to stakeholders is appropriate. The universities of Australia have said they were blindsided. They didn't receive information. They were not told they were in the bill. They didn't receive a copy of the bill. They found out in the announcement. So I find it hard to accept the minister's assertion that they were always in contemplation. That is simply at odds with the evidence that the Senate committee heard, but also, importantly, at the Senate estimates. I'd also make this point: I actually think there is a meritorious argument to include universities. I think the way in which this was done lacked the sort of engagement you would want. If you're actually serious about enhancing the nation's resilience, resilience to foreign interference and resilience to the sorts of challenges Australia faces, it's not simply engendered by a veto power that rests with the minister; it's also engaging with the entities, with institutions that are important to our democracy, whether it's parliamentarians, the parliament or the university sector, about what they both should and should not do in order to safeguard our sovereignty. There's a positive as well as a negative responsibility on government, not just veto but actually helping people do the right thing in the first place. That was the logic behind the University Foreign Interference Taskforce. That is the process in which they were engaged. And then they end up in legislation which they had no foresight of or consultation around. I think that really does undermine the minister's assertion to this chamber that they were always in contemplation. If she's telling the truth there, why didn't she tell them? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator Wong— Senator WONG 00AOU If she's accurate—what would you like me to say? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: 'Accurate' would be a better word. Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, sure. If she's accurate there, if her assertion is accurate, why didn't she tell them? Surely you'd actually engage with our fourth-largest export industry and institutions that are important to our democracy. They're not just about professional training; they're about ideas and research. Surely the government would engage with them. Why didn't the minister engage with them personally before announcing that they'd be covered by this legislation? That is the question. 13:32 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I think the expectation, given that Australian public universities are publicly funded institutions established by state and territory law with a fundamental role in international research and partnerships, is that they would be included. They enter arrangements with foreign entities that do have the potential to affect Australia's foreign relations and foreign policy. But, as has been said in discussions—including those that I have had and Minister Tehan has had—we do expect the majority of routine engagement between Australian universities and their foreign counterparts to continue, notwithstanding the requirements of the bill to notify the minister of certain arrangements, as we have said previously. Importantly, I want to reassure those opposite and those in the chamber that the bill is not intended to impede the beneficial business of universities with their foreign counterparts. Let me reinforce that it is expected that much of the routine business of universities will proceed as normal. 13:33 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I listened to the minister's answer to Senator Wong's question carefully. But I don't accept that the level of care and attention to the inclusion of the university sector is the way that the minister has characterised it. The evidence provided to the committee and the evidence provided during the estimates process clearly sets out that the university sector was never consulted during the process of the bill being established. The Australian university sector is a critical national institution. Our university sector is perhaps more important to us as a country than university sectors are in comparable countries. It is critical because, depending on the year, it's our third or fourth largest exporter. Our export of education services to people around the world is of enormous material benefit to Australia, but it also has enormous soft power and soft diplomacy potential, a potential that has never been taken seriously by this government. It's the potential to have thousands of people who have had a good experience of their education in Australia, in a liberal democracy and in institutions that value teaching and learning to spend the rest of their professional careers in countries all over the globe, in countries that Australia hopes to have good relationships with, as advocates for Australia, as people who have deep relationships with Australians in the public service and in business. We have squandered that capacity. We have squandered that soft diplomacy capacity no more at any other time than we have over the course of the last 12 months. Universities are profoundly important in a country that occupies a big continent with a growing population that is reliant upon them for its future prosperity and security. Our universities are fundamental as places of innovation and research, product development, the development of ideas, the development of ways of managing our economy more effectively and more efficiently and making sure that when we improve the economy it lifts the living circumstances of every Australian and the strength and resilience of our democracy. Universities are deeply important. But there is a profound hostility on behalf of some members of the coalition to the university sector. You may shake your head, Minister Payne, but at every opportunity some of these characters are out there denigrating our universities and driving a completely hostile and wholly negative government approach to the university sector. How else could you explain what has happened to the university sector this year that's culminated in this zero consultation bill that seeks to regulate the operations of universities in terms of their research work with overseas institutions? At the beginning of the year, when the coronavirus pandemic implications for Australia became clear, the Prime Minister's message to foreign students was, 'Go home.' It was not, 'We're going to look after you.' It was not, 'We're going to support you.' It was not, 'We're going to include you in the government's package to make sure that you are looked after and have decent access to work.' The message was, 'Go home.' When I walked through the inner suburbs of Sydney—I'm fortunate enough to live in a university district, sandwiched between the University of Sydney and the University of Technology Sydney—what I saw in my suburbs were two things that should never have been seen: furniture tossed out on the street as overseas students were pushed out of rental accommodation and food queues. I saw food queues in Australia for overseas students. How could this be? Our contract as a country when educating young people in Australia is not just a commercial transaction. It should be, if we've got an eye to our soft diplomacy and relationship issues with other countries, a solemn contract between us and the parents of those young people that we will look after their kids. Can you imagine if you'd sent your kids to an overseas jurisdiction and that was the treatment meted out to them? That's what happened during the coronavirus to the university sector. It's done untold damage to the capacity of the sector to market its services around the world. We saw a botched and mismanaged approach to university fees, with an absurd set of propositions that you would think that the party of the free market would be on top of. If you make it cheaper to do the courses that you want people to do but deliver less income to the people who deliver the courses that you say you want students to do, guess what that means? Cut classes, fewer tutors, fewer resources, bleeding universities dry and bleeding the very parts of the universities that you want to cut because of some misplaced hostility that some creatures on the coalition backbench have to the liberal arts and some courses that are pursued. I know that some of these backbenchers probably turned up to their first tutorial and were talked over by somebody who'd done that week's reading. This was a bitter humiliation for them and I understand their hostility to the arts and a series of these important things. So that was the second wave of hostile change. Now we have this: no package for the universities in terms of the coronavirus; a terrible message sent to overseas students and to people in the sector; and we have zero consultation. I agree with Senator Wong: there absolutely is room for more improvement and effective regulation of the university sector. Universities are global institutions. They are required to undertake effective research, whether it's sequencing the coronavirus genome, developing the Gardasil vaccine or whatever the work is, and that requires global collaboration. And in many cases it will require collaboration with universities in the People's Republic of China. That is no excuse for zero consultation with the university sector, because that doesn't send a message that the Commonwealth is here to help, here to enable more institutional resilience and here to support academics and university administrations to make sure that they get their engagement with overseas universities right—that there is probity, a regard for the national interest and transparency. None of those things has happened; the message instead is a punitive one. It's about a veto, not a process, and it completely flies in the face of all the other efforts the government has made to improve the sector's resilience and effectiveness. My questions are: does the minister support more or less collaboration between Australian universities and overseas universities? Does the minister believe that the amount of research collaboration between Australian universities and overseas universities will increase or decrease as a result of the legislation? How will that work be supported and evaluated over the coming 12 months, two years and three years with the review provisions of the proposed legislation? 13:43 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Senator Ayres has waxed widely on matters of education policy. But, to be very specific about this bill, I want to be clear and repeat that the bill is not intended to impede the beneficial business of universities with their foreign counterparts, which is strongly valued by this government—as indicated by a number of examples that the Senator has referred to, particularly in relation to vaccine development. Indeed, it's expected that much of the routine business of universities will proceed as normal. Not all university-to-university arrangements will be within scope. The bill addresses only certain arrangements between Australian public universities and foreign universities that are an agency or department of a foreign government—for example, a military university that does not have institutional autonomy. In addition to that, the foreign minister will make rules that exempt arrangements that deal solely with minor administrative or logistical matters and variations to arrangements that don't alter the substance of the arrangement. What the bill does is to categorise arrangements that are in scope into two tiers to ensure the less burdensome notification process applies to arrangements that have less potential to impact Australia's foreign policy. For that reason, the universities are subject to the notification scheme and may proceed with foreign arrangements without specifically awaiting the minister's approval, enabling them to get on with the sort of business that, in his wide-ranging comments, Senator Ayres in part referred to. 13:45 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, I've been listening very carefully to your speech so far today where you talk of having a collaborative approach, that this is not intended to impede the work of universities, and that it will only affect things that are within scope. What I want to ask is: when are the universities going to know whether or not things are within scope? The way that this legislation is currently drafted, it essentially talks about arrangements. The definition of 'arrangements' in the bill is 'any written arrangement, agreement, contract, understanding or undertaking'. At this stage, the universities don't know which of their arrangements are going to be, in your words, 'in scope'. What they can see is that there's going to be a massive regulatory burden in having to report on every arrangement and agreement they have with any foreign university or any foreign agency of a government, without knowing whether it is, to use your words, 'in scope'. You talked also of things being exempted. Can you also tell me what your intention is at the moment? What is the definition of 'things'? What do you intend to exempt? I understand that the universities, according to the legislation, have got to report on all of their arrangements within six months. Is that six months going to start when they know what is exempt and what is within scope? When are they going to know? 13:47 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As has been discussed and as was discussed, as I understand it, in the context of the committee hearings, the arrangements which are not in scope that I referred to in relation to the rules—exempt arrangements—will be those that deal with minor administrative or logistical matters; for example, travel visa applications, accommodation, the submission of paperwork, the timing of conferences or conference sessions and variations to arrangements that don't alter the substance of the arrangement. Part of the process will using the task force established within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for this purpose to work with state and territory governments and local governments and their respective agencies, as well as universities, to inform, as this process gets underway, the six-month period during which universities will be required to bring forward those arrangements that they have with universities which fall within the definition—those which don't have institutional autonomy. I think it is important to remind ourselves that we are not talking about every arrangement that a university has with another university. It is about arrangements that universities have with universities that don't enjoy institutional autonomy. Those are the discussions which the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Education and myself have been having, through this process, with universities. 13:49 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I have a follow-up question. You talk about minor logistical arrangements such as the timing of workshops and conferences. How about if there was a change in who was appearing at a conference or which researchers were going to be at a workshop or a conference that was being organised by these universities jointly? 13:49 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I want to rise to make a brief contribution in this discussion about universities' involvement in this bill. I note, having listened carefully to the contributions made by Labor senators, that both Senator Wong and Senator Ayres noted they agreed that universities should be included in this agreement. I think that's an important bipartisan consensus which recognises that— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 Senator Paterson, would you resume your seat. Senator Patrick, a point of order? Senator Patrick 144292 Yes. Senator Rice asked a question, and I would have thought it would be appropriate to get a response before— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 That's not a point of order, Senator Patrick. Senator PATERSON 144138 I would have thought, given his long experience in this chamber, Senator Patrick would know that any senator has a right to stand up to contribute to debate in committee. There is bipartisan consensus across the chamber that universities should be included in this bill. That is an important thing, which I think is in recognition of the fact that universities have not always prudently managed their international relations. Indeed, there is bipartisan agreement that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security should be conducting an inquiry right now into foreign interference at our universities, which stems from widespread concerns held by senators from across the chamber about incidents at a number of our universities. To take one example, the University of Queensland have themselves acknowledged that the agreement they struck with Hanban over their Confucius Institute initially did not have sufficient safeguards for academic freedom and autonomy of the university, and they have set about renegotiating that agreement to include better protections. That is one of many examples we could go into that demonstrate why universities do indeed need to be included in this bill. The disagreement that appears to exist across the chamber is about the extent of consultation on this issue. In my short time in this place I've observed that there's a lot of disagreement about what constitutes consultation. Sometimes, when people say a group was not adequately consulted what they really mean is that a group has not consented to its involvement in a bill, has not been given a veto power, has not been given the right to dictate whether or not it should be involved in a bill, whereas in this case— Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 Senators! Senator PATERSON 144138 In this case, Senator Wong—thank you; I'll take your interjection—what occurred is that universities were appropriately informed of their inclusion in this bill, were then— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator PATERSON 144138 Indeed, and thank you, Senator Wong. It's interesting that you think universities should have privileged access to government policy announcements before they are made. Senator Wong 00AOU No! I think they should be told they're going to be part of it. Senator PATERSON 144138 Thank you, Senator Wong. Indeed, they were told that they were included—as they should be—and then had the opportunity to have their input, both directly to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade about the provisions of the bill and through a Senate inquiry of the very committee that this Senate has formed to consider the bill. So the universities have been consulted. They didn't have privileged access to a government announcement before it was made, as indeed that wasn't appropriate. As the minister observed, it would be absurd if they, as publicly funded institutions established under state and territory legislation, were not included in this bill, which I think is a point of agreement across the chamber. 13:52 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Can I again ask the minister my question. Okay, we are not going to include minor administrative arrangements. When are universities going to know what falls into that category? Would something like a change of personnel on a workshop or conference have to be notified? 13:53 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Thank you very much, Senator Rice. The DFAT website has been updated with information that is intended to assist stakeholders to understand their compliance obligations. That currently includes fact sheets. It will soon include Q and A documents, subject to the passage of the legislation. It will also include information, such as the means for notifying the minister of arrangements, further to that which is already on the website. We will be working very closely with stakeholders on the implementation of the scheme. That is the purpose of establishing the foreign relations task force within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It's the purpose of the engagements that DFAT has had with the sector in the consultations and discussions on the provisions of the bill. What we are doing is making sure that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is working very closely with key entities, both the representative bodies and the universities themselves, to ensure the smoothest introduction of the scheme that we possibly can. 13:54 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I want to ask about the Port of Darwin. Is the lease of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company for 99 years against Australia's national interests? 13:54 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales That matter has of course been ventilated regularly since the decision was taken in 2015, if I recall correctly. What this government has done is ensure that we have implemented legislative provisions that now enable government to address those sorts of issues and to consider them appropriately in the context of foreign relations, foreign policy and the Foreign Investment Review Board as well. A retrospective looking glass is not a piece of kit that I have in my repertoire, Senator—I don't know about you. Obviously, these things are subject to circumstances at the time and are considered by governments at the time. If such a proposition were to be put to government now, what I would say, most importantly, is that this government has in place legislation which allows the government to address this. 13:56 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Can the minister guarantee that, if that deal or agreement were to take place today, it would be captured by this legislation? 13:56 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As I have said in relation to other similar questions which have been asked publicly in discussions on this issue, I actually don't think it's appropriate to pre-empt the implementation of this legislation and then the processes which will be required of the foreign minister to examine such issues under it. I'm not privy, for example, to the details of such an arrangement or commercial agreement between the Northern Territory government and the business concerned. I would expect that a responsible approach to matters such as this, and others which have also been asked of me, would be to ensure that, in the stocktake process, where the Commonwealth government receives from state and territory governments advice of arrangements into which they have entered, the details and context of those arrangements are provided. That will enable the foreign minister, whoever he or she is at the time, to make those decisions. But pre-empting that consideration is I think inappropriate. 13:57 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I'll firstly comment on my remarks in relation to Senator Paterson's comments. I wasn't seeking to stop or prevent him from raising a particular issue, I just note that normally in the committee stage we work together by allowing a question to be asked and then answered. We give everyone a fair shot. I know that it's not the usual process for a government backbencher to appear in the committee stage—normally that's a signal of filibustering. I wasn't in any way seeking to fetter him from making a contribution; it was just about the orderly manner in which we normally conduct this process. I note that there's very little time here, so I'll just foreshadow to the minister that I have a concern in relation to the lack of judicial review in respect of this bill. I note that judicial review is prohibited through the consequential bill in respect of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, which of course can't restrict a constitutional writ being brought against the minister. When we reconvene after question time, I'll be interested in understanding the different thresholds associated with a constitutional writ appeal versus an appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. 13:59 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Minister, what advice were you given during the drafting of the legislation in relation to the Port of Darwin? 13:59 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I'm not going to comment on the specific advice on a matter such as that, which was provided to me as the minister in the drafting process. The drafting process was a very long and complex one. It considered a broad range of implications of the act. Clearly, that agreement about the Port of Darwin—a commercial arrangement—is one which would now be covered by the Foreign Investment Review Board. That is a reform that this government has introduced, a commitment that this government made to address those concerns, and one which is an important part, as I said in my summing-up speech, of the government's initiatives to protect our national security and to protect Australia's interests. Progress reported. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pensions and Benefits 20 14:00 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, Senator Ruston. In question time yesterday the minister claimed, 'As soon as we became aware that the method of debt collection was not valid, the Morrison government immediately ceased the robodebt scheme.' When did the government first become aware that the Hon. Scott Morrison's robodebt scheme was not valid? 14:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you very much, Senator Gallacher. I will have to take on notice the exact dates so that I can give you the exact dates. Senator Wong 00AOU Come on! Senator RUSTON 243273 I will take the interjection from Senator Wong. I do not keep my diary with me; however, I can stand by the comments— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 You are asking me for a specific date. I will take it on notice and I will provide to the chamber the exact date that I became aware that the method by which we were determining debts through the income compliance program was not valid. The PRESIDENT I0Q I think Senator Ruston has concluded her answer. Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question? 14:01 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia My supplementary is: on what date did the government first seek legal advice? On what date was the government first advised robodebt was not valid? 14:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm assuming they're two separate questions in relation to legal advice and the date at which we were advised that income compliance and income matching was not a valid means by which— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 And I will stand by the assurance that I gave to the chamber, and I have taken on notice the exact date and I will provide that back to the chamber at my soonest convenience. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 Senator Wong, as soon as I have the opportunity to find the exact date. I was not asked yesterday for the exact date, I would also like to put on the record, despite those interjecting opposite. In relation to legal advice, as is the normal practice, Senator Gallacher—the practice that you undertook when you were in government—we do not provide advice. It is a longstanding practice of successive governments in this chamber and in the other chamber. Senator Wong 00AOU A point of order on direct relevance: the question did not go to the content; it went to the date on which legal advice was sought. The PRESIDENT I0Q Has the minister concluded her answer? There was three seconds remaining. She has. Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question? 14:03 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia Senator Ruston claims the government was 'very, very quick and responsive'. When the government stubbornly persisted with the program in spite of 76 warnings from the AAT between 2017 and 2019 and losing hundreds of appeals, why should Australians believe this minister? 14:03 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I stand by the comments that I made yesterday, Senator Gallacher. I said I will provide you with that advice. Once again I would point out, as I did yesterday, that each and every case that goes before the AAT is a unique case. Some of those cases found in one direction; some of the cases found an alternative outcome. So to come in here and suggest that the outcomes of an AAT form the basis of legal advice to government I think is a misrepresentation of what the AAT process actually does. As I said yesterday, as soon as the government was aware that the income compliance program was not collecting or determining its debts on a valid basis, which was income matching, we acted very quickly—and I stand by that—to cease that program and put in place a program to enable the repayment of those debts. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 21 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:04 The PRESIDENT I0Q Before we move to the next question, I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge members of the ADF parliamentary exchange program who are joining us in this Senate gallery today. Welcome to Parliament House—and I hope you find your experience here valuable—on behalf of the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COVID-19: Vocational Education and Training 21 14:05 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government is supporting small and medium businesses to keep apprentices in training through the economic impacts of COVID-19 and how the government is delivering on these commitments to ensure Australia has the skilled workforce it needs to build a stronger and more secure post-pandemic Australia? 14:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Antic for his question, and, as Senator Antic knows, the Prime Minister has made it very clear: Australia's economic recovery from COVID-19 will be a skills led recovery. That is why, as a government, we have put vocational education and training at the forefront of our economic agenda. In fact, this year alone, we will invest almost $7 billion in vocational education and training. That's right—almost $7 billion. When COVID-19 first impacted us earlier this year, the government understood that trainees and apprentices are the first to go in an economic downturn and that we needed to put in place the policies to ensure that employers, and in particular our small businesses, were able to keep their apprentices and trainees on the job, where we needed them. We did this through our Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy. It commenced in April this year and it runs through until March next year. Senator Antic, as at 27 November 2020, the wage subsidy has now assisted 56,000 businesses—98 per cent of which are small businesses in Australia—to keep, now, over 103,000 apprentices and trainees on the job, and we do this by covering 50 per cent of their wages. This now includes over 20,000 bricklayers who've been kept on the job because of the wage subsidy; 15,000 electricians, kept on the job because of the wage subsidy; 10,000 plumbers, kept on the job because of the wage subsidy; 5,000 hairdressers, again, kept on the job because of the wage subsidy; and 8,000 automotive mechanics and electricians. For those from rural and regional Australia, over 35,000 of the apprentices and trainees and over 20,500 small and medium businesses have utilised the wage subsidy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Antic, a supplementary question? 14:07 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Minister, how will the government's JobTrainer fund build on this success to support out-of-work Australians to undertake training, fill skills shortages and find employment, following the economic impacts of COVID-19? 14:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Access to free or low-cost training in areas of skills demand is so important as Australians and our economy recover from the impacts of COVID-19, and that's why, as you know, the government has partnered with the states and territories—all of the states and territories. The Commonwealth has put half a billion dollars on the table and the states and territories have matched this funding with another half a billion dollars, and we have the $1 billion JobTrainer fund. As you know, all states and territories—in fact, now including your home state of Victoria—have signed on to the JobTrainer fund. The fund itself, once up and running, will provide over 300,000 additional training places— Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator CASH I0M and, in fact, in six jurisdictions, Senator Keneally, it is now live. In six jurisdictions it is now live, with over 263,000 additional training places. They are already available and on the market—free or low-cost training in areas of actual demand. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order. Senator Antic, a final supplementary question? 14:09 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Minister, as we emerge from the economic impacts of COVID-19, how will the government's JobMaker budget build on the record of skills reform and support new apprentices into training? 14:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As I noted in my first answer, we've put in place the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy because we recognise that small businesses in particular impacted by COVID-19 needed assistance to keep the apprentices and trainees they had, in training, on the job. But we as a government also recognise that we need to assist businesses to bring on new apprentices and trainees, to ensure that employers have the pipeline of skilled workers that they need. That's why we've announced a $1.2 billion Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements subsidy. That will create 100,000 new apprentices and trainees. It really highlights the importance of skills and training to Australia's economic recovery. The subsidies are available to employers of any size and in any location to sign up a new apprentice or trainee and claim up to 50 per cent of their wages through to 30 September next year. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 22 14:10 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania [via video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Cash. The COVID-19 report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found that the Morrison government's failures led to it 'neglecting to develop policies specifically addressing the needs of people with disability'. Why? 14:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Bilyk for the question. As the government have said, we have welcomed the release of the disability royal commission's interim report. We acknowledge that we all have a role to play in stamping out violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation of people with a disability. It is completely unacceptable. We also thank the disability royal commission for its important work and we will carefully consider the findings in relation to COVID-19, as well as other issues and recommendations that emerge as part of this inquiry. The government is committed to ensuring our response to the global pandemic properly takes into account the needs of people with disability, and we will carefully consider all of the recommendations as part of this process. I can also advise that the Australian government will work across relevant portfolios and ministers to respond to the commission's recommendations as a matter of priority. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bilyk, a supplementary question? 14:12 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you, Mr President. The disability royal commission chair, Ronald Sackville, was clearly identifying that the federal government was responsible. He said: It was the absence of that consultation that led to significant failures in the responses of the Australian government. Why was the Morrison government willing to leave Australians with a disability behind? 14:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I reject the premise of your question. You would be aware that the government has consulted widely in relation to this. Again, we welcome the interim report of the disability royal commission. As I've also said, we will now work across portfolios and across ministers to respond to the commission's recommendations as a matter of priority. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bilyk, a final supplementary question? 14:13 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you, Mr President. The report found that the Morrison government failed to provide PPE to people with disability and their support workers, failed to provide access to essential food and medications, and left people with disability feeling forgotten and ignored. Why does the Morrison government keep leaving vulnerable Australians behind? 14:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I again reject the premise of your question. As I said, we have welcomed the interim report of the disability royal commission. Again, as I have already stated, one of our most important tasks during the course of COVID-19 has been to protect people with disability. As we have also stated, we all have a role to play in stamping out violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation of people with disability. The government has acted swiftly and decisively to help protect Australians with disability in response to the evolving impact of COVID-19. As I've said, we will now work across portfolios and across ministers in relation to the recommendations. Climate Change: Pacific Islands 23 14:14 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question without notice is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham, representing the Prime Minister. Today, the former President of Kiribati, Anote Tong, has written in The Sydney Morning Herald highlighting that climate change remains the single most pressing security threat to their region. He says that, without radical action, deadly disasters will become more intense and severe, Kiribati will become uninhabitable and there will be a wider global apocalyptic disaster. He calls for serious action on climate, including moratoriums on coal and gas. In this piece, Mr Tong asked our Prime Minister if he is now willing to listen to his Pacific family and take steps to protect all of us and said courage and leadership are what's needed here. Will the Prime Minister have the courage to listen and act on the climate crisis? 14:15 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Faruqi for her question regarding the media comments of the former President of Kiribati. I note the comments. I haven't read the opinion piece in full, but I have heard some commentary in relation to it, and obviously, Senator Faruqi, you have quoted from it to a degree. What I would say in that regard is that our government certainly takes our engagement with the Pacific island family of nations very, very carefully and importantly in terms of the approach we take, including on issues of climate change that we know are of very real and genuine concern to our Pacific island family. It is why we have taken every possible step to ensure that, time and time again, when we as a country make commitments in relation to emissions reductions, we meet those commitments and exceed those commitments. It's why, unlike some other nations, we haven't sought to outsource activities in relation to the meeting of those commitments either. Indeed, yesterday I gave some figures to Senator Waters about Australia's rate of emissions reduction relative to other countries that have not achieved comparable rates. Those countries, generally speaking, when it comes to meeting their Kyoto 1 or Kyoto 2 obligations, rely upon international credits purchased elsewhere to be able to offset the emissions within their own country. In Australia, through our work over many years and through the technological change and investments that have occurred across the Australian economy, we have been able to meet and exceed the targets that we have set. And it's through that continued investment in relation to technology that we will continue to meet and exceed our targets, and build upon those targets in a way that also protects Australian jobs and, indeed, job opportunities for the many Pacific island workers who come and enjoy opportunities in Australia too. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question? 14:17 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, in an open letter to the Prime Minister published today, 15 Pacific leaders, including Mr Tong, described their homelands and cultures as facing certain devastation from climate change. Does the government acknowledge that the worst impacts of climate change are being felt, and will continue to be felt, in poorer countries, including many in the Pacific region? 14:18 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government does certainly acknowledge the severity that Pacific islanders see in relation to climate change issues. It's why we engage very seriously and thoughtfully with them on those issues. It's also why we believe that the first responsibility for a country like Australia, in making commitments as we have done in relation to emissions reduction, is to meet those commitments, and, indeed, to strive to exceed those commitments. It's why we are pleased that Australia has consistently done that, unlike some others. We also acknowledge that it is, therefore, a global responsibility—you don't get outcomes in terms of the emissions reduction that Pacific island leaders may wish to see unless other nations not only make commitments but also deliver on those commitments. The delivery is a key part that seems often to be put aside in the virtue-signalling aspects of this debate. For our government, we see delivery as essential, and that's where our focus is when it comes to emissions reduction. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question? 14:19 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, in this open letter is a call for new and additional funding beyond the current aid budget to finance climate mitigation and adaptation under the Paris Agreement, including contributing to the Green Climate Fund. Will the government commit to this? If not, why not? 14:19 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Our government has made delivering specific assistance and support to Pacific island nations a great priority, and we see that as important across a range of different areas of policy import. Climate change adaptation and resilience is one of those, and we support work with our Pacific island family in that regard. Equally, we have scaled up support for Pacific island nations in response to COVID and we've delivered additional support focused very directly on Pacific island countries. And there, in building on that COVID support in a financial sense, has also been our acknowledgement of our responsibility in working with those less developed nations, those smaller micronations within our region, for their access to vaccines and to ensure their safety and their economic wellbeing. We take the responsibility of working with those nations across all of those areas, and in other development considerations, very, very seriously. COVID-19: Aged Care 24 14:20 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister outline how the Australian government has responded to the threat of COVID-19 to senior Australians in aged care? Senator Wong 00AOU It's a disgrace! The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Wong, that is not helpful before the minister has started answering a question. Senator Wong 00AOU We've already censured him. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, interjections are always disorderly. Before we be disorderly, I would like to at least hear from the minister. 14:21 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Thank you, Senator Henderson, for your question. From the very beginning, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has been a top priority for this government. We knew that our most vulnerable senior Australians were most at risk, and we acted at every stage to prepare for a worst-case scenario should this virus enter our aged-care facilities. We closed our borders. We planned for an emergency response with our medical professionals. We negotiated hospital agreements. We increased the capacity of our providers. We resourced a surge workforce for residential aged care. We secured and distributed a substantial national stockpile of PPE at a time of global shortage. We have invested, to date, over $1.7 billion to plan, prepare, act and recover. There are no countries where there has been widespread community transmission that have been able to avoid outbreaks in residential aged care. Here in Australia, we've seen the devastating loss of 693 Australians in aged care. Our condolences will always be with their friends and families. When community outbreaks occurred and COVID-19 hit Victoria and New South Wales, we came together with a collaborative response between federal government agencies, state government providers, professionals, families and senior Australians, hospital networks and others to do what we could to manage the outbreaks and to keep it out of the homes of our most vulnerable. As I noted yesterday, in our response to the royal commission, we've been able to stop the spread of COVID-19 to senior Australians in 97 per cent of our aged-care facilities. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Henderson, a supplementary question? 14:23 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria What is the government doing to ensure— Senator Polley interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Polley, I would like to hear the question, please. Senator Henderson. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 What is the government doing to ensure COVID-19 is kept out of aged-care facilities into the future? 14:24 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania It's very pleasing to note that there have been no cases of COVID-19 in residents in aged care since 28 October. While the rest of the world continues to battle this terrible virus, we mostly have it under control here in Australia. We now have the capacity to recover in time and to get on the front foot so that we are ready for any future threats. The government accepted and is acting on all six recommendations from the royal commission's special report on COVID-19, and yesterday I announced an additional $132.2 million of measures to help our senior Australians and to ensure we are even stronger into the future as we recover. We are committed to strengthening infection prevention control in facilities, including working with state jurisdictions to do so. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question? 14:24 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Can the minister provide a comparison of Australia's aged-care response to that of the rest of the world? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I will wait until there is silence. We are wasting time. 14:25 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As I outlined to the Senate yesterday, the response to fighting COVID-19 of one of the leading geriatricians in Australia, Associate Professor Michael Murray, was, 'Australia was as well prepared for a significant aged-care outbreak as any country or jurisdiction in the world, with the probable exception of Hong Kong.' We have learnt the lessons from Hong Kong, including the adoption of their model of infection control leads in each of our facilities. Globally, the impact of COVID-19 has tragically been felt in aged care. Australia has had fewer deaths, both in total and in care homes, than many other countries in the world, including those that we know are going through a second wave of infections. COVID-19: Aged Care 25 14:26 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Last night the Morrison government tabled its formal response to the royal commission special report on COVID-19. The document failed to state that 685 older Australians died from COVID-19 in the Morrison government's residential aged-care system. Why? 14:26 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I quite clearly stated in my statement to the Senate yesterday afternoon that 693 Australians have died as a result of COVID-19 and that it is an absolute tragedy in every single circumstances, and I just repeated that a moment ago. The response that we tabled yesterday was on the measures that were requested by the royal commission. It was our response to the royal commission report. That's what we tabled yesterday. In my statement to this chamber yesterday, I acknowledged, as I have done on many occasions— The PRESIDENT I0Q I have Senator Urquhart on a point of order. Senator Urquhart 231199 It's on relevance. The minister was asked why the document failed to state that 685 older Australians had died from COVID-19. I would like that question answered. The PRESIDENT I0Q I have allowed you to restate the question, Senator Urquhart. While the minister is talking about the number you referred to and the content of the report, I can't instruct him to answer a question in that form. I think he is being directly relevant to that, but I have allowed you to restate it and remind him of it. Senator COLBECK 00AOL I am not interested in the political games that the Labor Party are seeking to play with respect to this issue. As I said a moment ago— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I have a point of order on direct relevance. Minister, we asked you why your report did not include a reference to 685 Australians who died in your system. I would ask you to have the decency to respond to that. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Birmingham on the point of order? Senator Birmingham H6X Mr President, on the point of order, Senator Colbeck has been consistently directly relevant in his response to this question. Senator Colbeck, in responding to this question, has indeed identified this was a government response to the specific recommendations of the royal commission. He has equally identified that, in tabling that response and the statement made, the number that was referenced was cited. I fail to see how a senator could be any clearer or any more directly relevant in responding to an answer than Senator Colbeck is being. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, your point of order was substantively the same as Senator Urquhart's. I allowed you as leader to make the point again and to restate that concluding part of the question. In my view, while Senator Colbeck is talking about the report that was tabled and while he is talking about the number of Australians who have passed away due to this, I don't think I can instruct him as to how to answer a question that specifically. He is being directly relevant to the question at the moment. Senator COLBECK 00AOL As I said, the report that I tabled yesterday responded directly to the recommendations of the royal commission's COVID-19 special report. In the statement I gave in tabling that document I directly referenced all of the 693 who've passed away as a result of COVID-19 in aged care—685 in residential aged care and eight in home care—and acknowledged again, as I have done on many occasions in this chamber, the individual tragedy it is for each of those families and their friends and communities. We continue to work in the interests of all senior Australians in aged care in responding to the virus and managing its effects on the community. This government, as I outlined a moment ago, since the outbreak of COVID-19 has been working closely with the aged-care sector to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. We have continued to develop our plan as that process has continued. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question? 14:31 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Last week the minister tabled the annual report on the Aged Care Act. Again, the report failed to state that 685 older Australians had died from COVID-19 in the Morrison government's residential aged-care system. Why? 14:31 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania That report directly referenced the impact that COVID-19 had on senior Australians. And putting a date at a point in time, when that number— Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator COLBECK 00AOL I'll take Senator Keneally's interjection, because the date of the report was 30 June, and at that point in time the number of deaths had changed— Senator Keneally interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally! Senator COLBECK 00AOL Unfortunately, the number of deaths continued to escalate through July, August and September and through into October, until on 28 October we got to the fantastic circumstance where there were no cases of COVID-19 in residential aged care in this country, because Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the territories have managed to control community transmission of the virus. When there is community transmission of COVID-19 there is a risk to residential aged care. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question? 14:32 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Today in the Senate gallery we have nurses who have been at the front lines of this pandemic and have cared for older Australians in this minister's broken aged-care system. What will it take for the Morrison government to stop denying the 685 deaths on its watch, to take responsibility and to ensure that this never happens again? 14:33 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I completely reject the premise of the question, because at no point in time have we denied the tragic circumstances of COVID-19 in aged care. And it's quite dishonest, Senator, for you to actually frame your question in that way. Can I say that I pay tribute and give thanks to every aged-care worker, and not just the nurses—the personal care workers, the therapists and everybody who has worked on the front line in aged care. And thank you for being here today. I pay tribute to everyone. While this opposition— Senator Keneally interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally! Senator COLBECK 00AOL at the last election refused to give any additional resources to staff of residential aged care, we have on three occasions provided additional resources and payment to staff of residential aged care, in the form of retention payments. This government is the only one who has actually, in material terms, recognised— (Time expired) Health Care 26 14:34 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Turning from aged care to health care, my question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government, Senator Cash. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Liberals and Nationals in government are building our investment in regional and rural Australia through the 2020-21 budget to ensure that our regions have access to the most-effective health care possible? 14:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Davey for her question and I acknowledge, as all of us on the government side of the chamber do, her commitment to Australians who reside in rural and regional Australia. In particular I acknowledge this Liberal-National government's commitment to improving the health standards of those who reside in rural and regional Australia. In fact, in this year's budget, regional Australians will benefit from improved access to health services, and that's because we have made a $1.2 billion investment to boost health care in the bush. This significant investment of $1.2 billion builds on the reforms that the government has already put in place to expand rural training opportunities and also to address the complex workforce challenges in rural communities. Our reforms focus on addressing the distribution challenge and we are now investing in new approaches and localised solutions. As a government, we understand that one size does not fit all, in particular when you look at a country that is the size of Australia. In terms of the investment and the policies that we're putting in place, we are very much breaking new ground by investing in unique subregional models of primary care delivery. We are trialling different approaches to address the unique challenges to regional health care. As I've said, these regional models move beyond the one-size-fits-all approach. We're looking at empowering local communities with the tools to integrate the services that they already have, to increase their support in essential services and to find localised solutions. In addition to that, we have a $3.3 million investment that is going to support the delivery of primary care across five subregions in New South Wales, as Senator Davey knows. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Davey, a supplementary question? 14:36 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales To support this initiative, how is the government securing better training for rural GPs, which makes rural health practice more appealing to our regional medical practitioners? 14:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The government understands that rolling out health policies that are uniform across regional Australia hasn't always worked. When you have a country the size of Australia, one-size-fits-all is not always the way to go, so we, as a government, are looking at drilling down into more innovative and collaborative ways of supporting our regional health workforce. As Senator Davey would know, evidence shows that when students undertake their training in the regions they are more likely to stay in the regions. That's why the funding that we've provided in the 2020-21 budget includes an additional $50.3 million to enhance the rural training pipeline through the longstanding Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program. We understand that providing the funding to ensure that we can extend training into smaller rural communities and rural residential aged-care facilities will assist those in rural and regional Australia. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Davey, a final supplementary question? 14:38 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Finally, as we emerge from this pandemic and, thankfully, there hasn't been much of an outbreak in the regions, how is the government continuing to support our regional communities and our regional health systems to remain alert to the risks of COVID-19? 14:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I think we all acknowledge that we all need to remain alert in relation to COVID-19. Whilst cases in rural and regional Australian communities remain relatively low, it is important that we do remain vigilant while at the same time being ready to respond in the event that there is transmission in any part of our regional communities. Again, the 2020-21 budget continues to fund the government's COVID-19 health response to manage the impact of the pandemic in rural Australia. In terms of some of the policies that we have implemented, we've fast-tracked the expansion of temporary MBS telehealth items, including for rural and remote Australians. Senator Davey would be pleased to know that there have now been over 10 million telehealth services delivered to more than 3.2 million people in regional Australia. (Time expired) High Commissioner to Singapore 27 14:39 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Payne. Yesterday it was announced that the former Liberal Premier of Tasmania, Will Hodgman, will be Australia's next High Commissioner to Singapore. Mr Hodgman replaces Bruce Gosper, former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Mr Gosper replaced Philip Green, the First Assistant Secretary in DFAT's International Security Division. Mr Green replaced Doug Chester, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Mr Chester replaced Miles Kupa, former Deputy Secretary of DFAT. Mr Kupa replaced Gary Quinlan, former Deputy Secretary of DFAT. Mr Quinlan replaced Murray McLean, former Deputy Secretary of DFAT. I would like to know, Minister, did you run out of DFAT deputy secretaries or is the Liberal Party just a deeper talent pool these days? 14:40 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I am very pleased to acknowledge the strong service of former high commissioners for Singapore that Senator Lambie has been kind enough to read into the Hansard record. In fact, I will acknowledge Mr Bruce Gosper, the incumbent high commissioner in Singapore. He and his team have been doing an exceptional job in the context of COVID-19 challenge in particular, including supporting my most recent visit to Singapore, which is one of the very few international visits that we have been able to make as a government in the context of COVID-19. I will assume Senator Lambie's question, notwithstanding her humour, goes to the appointment of the former Premier of Tasmania, Mr Will Hodgman. Mr Hodgman is a highly qualified, very appropriate appointment to be Australia's High Commissioner to Singapore—one of the most important regional partners, a key member of ASEAN, a country with whom we have a very important strategic partnership and a digital engagement that is one of the most significant that Australia has undertaken in recent years. What former Premier Hodgman will bring to this role is a view of Australia as a key partner in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in ASEAN and particularly with Singapore. He is well known for putting Tasmania on the world stage, putting Australia first in everything that he does. He is eminently well qualified. I look forward to working with him into the future as he leads Australia's representation in Singapore. It will be welcomed by Prime Minister Lee and it will be welcomed by Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. It is a recognition of the important relationship we have with Singapore. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Lambie, a supplementary question? 14:42 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Thank you, Mr President. I'm glad you mentioned that Will Hodgman was highly qualified. If he is so highly qualified, what was the selection process you followed for his appointment? 14:42 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Senator Lambie, the government has a range of— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left. I'm going to ask people to take a breath after I call for order before they start being disorderly again. Senator Payne. Senator PAYNE M56 Thank you, Mr President. Mr Hodgman has extensive experience across key sectors of importance to the Australia-Singapore relationship, particularly trade and tourism. He will be an outstanding advocate for Australia's interests in Singapore and an outstanding advocate for our engagement through Singapore and with ASEAN in particular. He will complement the extensive work done by the incumbent, Mr Gosper, who as I said has been a fine high commissioner in Singapore and continues to be so. It is important to note that Mr Gosper does not conclude his term until January of next year. When our ambassadors and our high commissioners— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Lambie, a point of order? Senator Lambie 250026 I did ask what the selection process was—we haven't quite got to that yet. The PRESIDENT I0Q You've reminded the minister of the question. She has eight seconds, according to the Clerk. Senator Payne, have you concluded your answer? Senator PAYNE M56 Yes. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question? 14:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Besides being a job for a mate, what professional personal relationship does Mr Hodgman have with Singapore that could possibly qualify him for this role? 14:44 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I think it is important for Senator Lambie and for those opposite, it would seem from the cacophony opposite, to really appreciate the importance we place on growing our relationship in priority areas, continuing Australia's and Singapore's work together in responding to, particularly, the health and economic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Hodgman's extensive experience in government, trade and tourism, which are key aspects— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Lambie, on a point of order? Senator Lambie 250026 Mr President, I'm simply asking: what professional personal relationship did Mr Hodgman have with Singapore that could possibly qualify him? I just want to know what professional personal relationships he has to qualify him for that. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Lambie, I think, with respect, Senator Payne is being directly relevant. She is answering the question, if not necessarily in the form requested. She is being directly relevant. Senator Payne. Senator PAYNE M56 Thank you. I have spoken to Mr Hodgman's particular expertise as an outstanding leader of government in Australia—an outstanding leader of government who moved Tasmania into a place on not just the Australian stage but the world stage in trade and tourism terms— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Payne M56 which those opposite may wish to decry and which Senator Lambie may not accept, but which this government sees as— (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 29 14:46 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister confirm that, as early as 8 March 2017, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that no debt could be founded on the basis of a robodebt letter? 14:46 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia No, I can't. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question? 14:46 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Will the minister commit to taking that question on notice and providing us with an answer? The PRESIDENT I0Q I can't instruct the minister. Senator O'Neill, the minister has concluded her answer. You have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question. Senator O'NEILL 140651 Can the minister confirm that in addition to the decision handed down on 8 March 2017 the AAT held that the robodebt scheme was illegal on a further 75 occasions? 14:47 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia As I have said on a number of occasions in this place, the AAT plays a very important role in making decisions and providing independent merits reviews to a wide range of decisions. In doing so, I would note that each case is unique and turns on its own facts and circumstances and the situation. There have been decisions of the AAT that have upheld the debt decisions calculated using income averaging, and equally there have been those that have not. What I would say is that you cannot unilaterally come in here and make a determination on the basis of a specific case and make a general assumption that the decisions that are made on particular cases, and, as I said, some of the unique and individual cases before the AAT have been found not to have been upheld, and others have been upheld. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question? 14:48 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Hasn't the Morrison government known for years that the robodebt scheme was illegal? 14:48 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia No. Defence Facilities: Greenvale Training Area 29 14:48 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister update the Senate on how the development of the Greenvale Training Area is boosting jobs in North Queensland and helping build a stronger and more secure Australia? 14:49 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I thank Senator McDonald for that question. The Morrison government is resolutely committed to supporting Australian jobs and boosting the economy during COVID-19, and I'm so proud that defence is significantly contributing to this economic recovery. Since the beginning of COVID-19, we've been working with Australian industry to progress defence projects to both deliver essential defence capability and also to provide much needed cash flow throughout our economy. I'm pleased to announce to the Senate that we are proceeding with all of the scheduled work under the $2.25 billion Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative. Last month, I was delighted to announce that the Australian company CPB Contractors has been awarded a contract for works on the new defence training area in North Queensland. This $800 million investment near Greenvale will create long-term local jobs and support local industry in North Queensland. The construction workforce is expected to peak at 350, with 90 per cent of the workers drawn from the local area. This advanced new training area will provide significant long-term local economic opportunities for North Queensland and particularly Townsville. When the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative reaches maturity, up to 14,000 Singapore Armed Forces personnel will train in Queensland for 18 weeks a year. This will provide enduring economic and social benefits to Queensland for at least the next 25 years. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McDonald, a supplementary question. 14:50 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Can the minister advise the Senate of the economic and local industry benefits the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative will deliver in Central Queensland? 14:50 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In addition to Greenvale, the Morrison government is further investing in the Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Central Queensland. Both of these investments in North and Central Queensland coincide very happily with the 30th anniversary of the Singapore Armed Forces training right here in Australia. This $2.25 billion dollar Australian-Singapore Military Training Initiative will meet the future needs of both our own Australian Defence Force and also the Singapore Armed Forces. As part of this initiative, we're investing $800 million into Central Queensland's Capricorn region. The Shoalwater Bay investment will support 47 local companies and 450 workers at the peak of construction. This is further evidence that Queenslanders can trust the Morrison government to bolster regional growth and also to support local jobs. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McDonald, a final supplementary question? 14:51 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland How does the development of this training area benefit the ADF and our key bilateral relationship with Singapore? 14:52 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Singapore is a highly capable and very, very close defence partner of Australia, with a shared commitment to regional security and also to stability. In October, I made my second official visit to Singapore, where I met with Prime Minister Lee and also my defence counterpart, Dr Ng. It was very, very clear to me during this visit how much Singapore values its deep engagement with Australia, particularly so this year, in our 30th anniversary of Singaporeans training here in Australia. They appreciate this relationship just as much as Australia does. As close and enduring defence partners, these training areas support our interoperability right across the Indo-Pacific. This also ensures Singapore's ability to generate a force that provides strategic weight in the region. As Australian-owned and managed training areas, they also support a more capable and agile ADF— (Time expired) Australian Defence Force 30 14:53 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to Minister Birmingham, representing the Prime Minister. The Australian public, indeed the world, have been shocked by allegations of war crimes, criminality and human rights violations committed by Australian special forces in Afghanistan. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Defence Force personnel in here; I'm sure few people have been more shocked than they have at these allegations. Does the minister agree that the Australian community has a right to know about such things? Does the minister agree that the victims of these alleged crimes have a right to the truth being told? In short, does the minister agree that these allegations being made public is a good thing? 14:54 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his question. Let me too acknowledge the serving men and women of our Australian Defence Force who are in the gallery today, and say to all of you: thank you for your service. Thank you, indeed, for the contribution you make to our nation. I extend that around this chamber to the various colleagues who are veterans of the Australian Defence Force and thank all of them, as I do any of those listening, for their service and contribution. In doing so, it is crucially important that, when we discuss matters of the IGADF report, we first and foremost acknowledge the vast and overwhelming majority of the men and women who have served Australia's Defence Force with distinction and with honour. In doing so, we say to all of them, 'You should be proud of your service and we are proud of you and what you have contributed.' Part of the pride that Australians should take in the way that we conduct ourselves as a nation, and in which our Defence Force operates, is that we hold ourselves to a high standard. We hold ourselves to a high standard as a country, as do all those who go out under the flag of our country and serve under that flag. But we expect that in doing so they will operate with the type of distinction of the vast majority. But, in holding ourselves to that high standard, we also apply a degree of accountability and transparency that is unmatched by many other nations of the world and unrivalled by many others. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order. Senator Whish-Wilson on a point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Yes, on relevance. I asked, in three different ways, whether the minister agrees that the disclosure of these reports is a good thing and in the public interest. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, it was multiple questions with a substantial preamble. The preamble is part of the question. I have mentioned before, when people seek very specific answers, that very short and specific questions constrain what is directly relevant. In this case the minister is being directly relevant. Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X As I was just saying, as a country which holds itself to such high standards, there comes with that an element of transparency and accountability. Indeed, that is what the IGADF inquiry report has undertaken. It has ensured that the measure of accountability is in place and that it has been transparent through the release of the findings in the summary report of the IGADF. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question? 14:56 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The Brereton report made strong recommendations about protecting whistleblowers in bringing information of war crimes to light. Indeed, it recommended not only protecting them but also promoting them. David McBride is the only whistleblower facing criminal charges and a potential lengthy jail sentence in relation to these disclosures that the Australian public now has. Minister, will your government rule out the prosecution of Army lawyer and whistleblower David McBride? 14:57 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government is indeed grateful for the cooperation of many in relation to the conduct of this inquiry. We have responded in relation to this inquiry by establishing the Office of the Special Investigator to handle matters that relate to potential criminal conduct, to investigate those and to ensure that proper judicial processes, including presumption of innocence, are followed quite appropriately. Equally, we have put in place an implementation oversight panel to review Defence's response to the recommendations in the report and to ensure that in doing so there is, again, appropriate accountability to the leaders of the Australian Defence Force as they respond to this report. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Whish-Wilson on a point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Yes, a point of relevance, Mr President. Will the minister rule out prosecuting whistleblower David McBride— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, again, that was the conclusion of your question. The preamble forms part of the question and a minister can be directly relevant by addressing part of the question. Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Mr President, I am not going to make decisions that are rightly the matters of proper legal processes from a political pulpit in this chamber. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question? 14:58 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'll take that as a no, Minister. Along with David McBride, your government has aggressively pursued lawyer Bernard Collaery and Witness K, and has demonstrated a chilling complicity in the extradition trial and political witch-hunt of Walkley Award-winning Australian journalist Julian Assange. Minister, why is your government waging a war against whistleblowers and transparency? The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, I have sought some advice from the Clerk. The substantive question at the commencement was about another matter. The second supplementary needs to be relevant to the substantive question, not just to the second question. I am going to allow the minister to address the assertions made, because I don't want to have the situation where questions can be asked but then ministers don't have the opportunity to address them, even though questions might be ruled out of order. But I encourage people to make sure that both their follow-ups are within the standing orders with respect to the substantive question. Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 A point of order. I'm happy to talk to you about this afterwards. Are you actually ruling my question out of order? The PRESIDENT I0Q No. My practice on this form—and I'm happy to speak to you afterwards—is that I am reluctant to rule questions out of order so that ministers don't have a chance to respond because, quite frankly, I don't want to create an incentive for misbehaviour and questions that then cannot be addressed in the chamber, by assertions being made and then preventing ministers from responding to them. In this case, I think the question could be ruled out of order but I'm allowing the minister to respond to it. 15:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I will make three observations in response to Senator Whish-Wilson's attempted supplementary question: (1) I will not, on such a sensitive issue, seek to politicise it in any way, unlike the Australian Greens; (2) I will not, as a politician or a minister, seek to overturn what are appropriately the decisions of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or those in whom such authority to make legal determinations is vested; (3) I would note again that our country has held itself to a standard of accountability and transparency on this highly sensitive matter the likes of which I struggle to think of any other nation holding itself to. Aged Care 32 15:01 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is to the Senator Colbeck. In August the minister promised that he was requiring residential aged-care facilities to 'have a designated infection control officer on site'. In the government's response to the royal commission special report on COVID-19, it's revealed that the practitioners the minister promised in August will only be in place today. Why has it taken three months for the minister to deliver this protection for older Australians in aged care and support aged-care workers? 15:02 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Senator Pratt is correct. On 31 August we announced that we would require all aged-care providers in this country to have a nominated IPC lead within each facility. Just because we say it doesn't mean it magically happens; we had to give the sector time for it to occur. I wrote to every aged-care provider in this country and told them that they were required to nominate their infection control lead by 1 December, and that's what I expect they will have done. We in fact moved ahead of the royal commission on this particular issue by announcing at the end of August we would require every aged-care facility in this country to nominate an infection control lead. We gave them a reasonable period of time to get that position in place and we have given them a further period of time to ensure that the nominated staff member has the appropriate level of qualifications—and we've actually nominated the qualifications they will be required to have by a certain date. We have done exactly what we said we would do in August. We said to the sector we would be requiring them to nominate the lead. We have made it a condition of their accreditation, so they are required to do it. We have done exactly everything we said we would do and we gave the sector an appropriate period of time to get that position in place. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Pratt, a supplementary question? 15:03 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can the minister guarantee that as of today, 1 December, every residential aged-care facility has appointed an infection prevention and control clinical lead? 15:04 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As I've just advised the chamber, I have made that a condition of accreditation. Each residential aged-care facility is checked for its accreditation. We are conducting checks on infection control in aged-care facilities all over the country. We have been doing that for a period of time and we will continue to do that. This is not just a set-and-forget process; it is a continuous improvement process that we have asked providers to put in place. This will be, and is, a requirement of their accreditation. So that fact will be checked as a part of that process. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question? 15:04 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Given the minister's management of the Morrison government's broken aged-care system, which continues to be characterised by dawdle and delay, isn't it clear that this minister has learnt nothing from the tragedy he's overseen, the almost 700 deaths in aged care from COVID-19, and the censure of the Senate? 15:05 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Unfortunately, the senator suffers from not having listened to the previous answers in asking the second supplementary, because I have directly addressed every single issue that Senator Pratt has raised. We have done exactly what we said we would do in the time that we said, and we have, in fact, made the appointment of the infection control professionals a factor of accreditation of aged care to ensure that we continue to improve the system and keep out senior Australians safe. Senator Birmingham H6X I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 32 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS COVID-19: Aged Care, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 32 15:06 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians (Senator Colbeck) and the Minister representing the Minister for Health (Senator Cash) to the questions asked by Senators Bilyk, Pratt and Urquhart relating to aged care and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Here we have a minister for aged care who, while a pandemic raged through our country and took a terrible toll, most particularly on the most vulnerable, on residents in our aged-care facilities, was incapable of taking decisive and timely action to meet the government's responsibilities to this sector. He gave every impression of not being on top of his brief and freezing on the job. From his answers today, I have no more confidence in his abilities or the ability of the government that he's part of to manage or respond to serious infectious outbreaks and pandemics in aged-care residential facilities. This pandemic has taken the lives of 685 residents of these government facilities, leaving thousands grieving the loss of partners, husbands, wives, parents, grandparents and great-grandparents and often dear, life-long friends. It has left in its wake traumatised residents and traumatised staff. Six hundred and eighty-five Australians are dead. These are our loved ones; these are those who cared for us, loved us and deserved better—better care from their government and better respect for the contribution that they have made to our country. They deserved action and they deserved a government with a plan. They deserved a federal minister who could move fast, who could lead. At the very, very least they deserved a mention, an apology, even in the government's response to the royal commission's report, Aged care and COVID-19: a special report. But what did they get? They got a response from this minister no faster than a glacier moves. This is a lumbering government in denial, constantly trying to deflect and deny responsibility, constantly saying it had a plan and failing to show anything for it. I have looked through the government's response to the aged-care royal commission's special report into COVID-19. I have listened to this minister attempt to answer the questions that I put to him in the chamber here today and yesterday when he was in here talking to that document. I heard nothing but self-congratulations, slippery words and hubris, the same self-congratulations and hubris that the royal commission itself criticised. Minister Colbeck, the truth is that your response and the response of the miserable, careless government you are a part of has been totally inadequate, glacially slow and massively disrespectful to the lives of 685 Australians and their loved ones. The truth is that you are now only putting into effect actions that you should have taken in March and April. When infections tore through the aged-care facilities in Europe, this government should have taken action. When the first COVID-19 infections occurred in New South Wales, the government should have taken action then. It's December now, and that was March, and to date 685 Australians have died. They didn't get a mention from this government in response to the aged-care royal commission's special report into COVID-19. Even now, by your own admission, you've had no way of monitoring or knowing how effective the government's response has been. I point out to you recommendation 6: … the Australian Government should require providers to appoint infection control officers and should arrange for the deployment of accredited infection prevention and control experts into residential aged care homes. Here we are, 1 December, and the response is that it's in progress. Infection control surely should have been the No. 1 priority of this government back in March. In August, the government promised that residential aged-care facilities would have 'a designated infection control officer on site'. Here we are, in December, and the minister can't tell us whether they've been appointed, how many experts there are and how much training has been done. It's in progress, you say. That's not good enough. In fact, it's pathetic. A great many Australians have suffered because it's not good enough. The government is not good enough, and it's a sham. For many months, the minister's been saying that the government has a plan for aged care. And what do we find in December? You've accepted a recommendation that you have a plan for aged care. It beggars belief. It leaves us quite sure that we're right to be fearful and angry. If this government can't respond in an effective and timely manner to a pandemic, then imagine how hopeless its response is going to be to the final report. (Time expired) 15:11 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory Thank you for the opportunity to speak to what is a very important issue. Of course, it's an issue that this government treats with the utmost seriousness and urgency and gravity. One of the Prime Minister's first actions upon becoming Prime Minister was to call the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. This is a government that takes these responsibilities seriously and a minister who takes those responsibilities seriously. We heard Senator Urquhart's contribution, somehow claiming that Minister Colbeck doesn't care or that, in fact, his answer did anything other than respond to those serious issues. I think that is a complete misrepresentation of this minister, of the work that he has been doing and, in fact, of the answers that he was giving in question time to some of the Labor Party's questions that were put to him. I do want to go through some of the responses to the report. I just want to point out that the Labor Party, despite all of its promised tax hikes at the last election, couldn't bring itself to promise one extra dollar when it came to aged care in this country. Despite $387 billion of new taxes, there was not one dollar to show its priorities in this space. When it comes to the response, the Australian government accepted all six recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety's report, Aged care and COVID-19: a special report. In response to recommendation 4 of the royal commission's report, the government has updated the National COVID-19 Aged Care Plan to its seventh edition, in consultation with the AHPPC Aged Care Advisory Group. The national plan sets out how the government has and will continue to support the aged-care sector to prevent, prepare, respond and recover from COVID-19. It also provides links to guidance, information and tools to support aged-care recipients, their families, the aged-care workforce and providers of aged-care services. The revised plan builds on and consolidates the critical and successful work already undertaken by the Commonwealth government and allows flexibility to manage individual situations in each state and territory. It represents the seventh stage of national aged-care planning. Other measures which have been announced include that aged-care residents will now be eligible to receive up to 20 individual psychological services, in line with the services available to the broader community. They will also be eligible for double the allied health sessions under the Medicare chronic disease management plan. In addition to the recommendations of the royal commission, the government is also funding group allied health sessions for residents in facilities affected by COVID-19 outbreaks, including people who need rehabilitation after recovering from COVID-19 and people who have lost condition or mobility because of restrictions put in place to manage the outbreak. A range of actions have been undertaken by the Australian government to ensure the right balance can be struck between restricting visitations in residential aged-care facilities, where necessary, but ensuring residents are not isolated and lonely during these difficult times. So this is a government that takes these issues seriously and is carefully responding to these recommendations. But I would make this point in terms of the Labor Party's attacks, and we saw this again today, in question time. Even though we have seen tragic deaths—which the minister again acknowledged in his answers today, which wasn't acknowledged by those opposite—and those tragic deaths have occurred almost overwhelmingly in the state of Victoria, the Labor Party seek to deny that, for rank political opportunism and for rank political purposes. They seek to try and ignore the fact that virtually all of the deaths were happening in Victoria as a result of the huge outbreak there, as a result of the Victorian Labor government— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator SESELJA HZE Well, you're running a protection racket for the Victorian Labor government. We take this issue seriously, but pretending there is no issue to see in Victoria, and that it has nothing to do with the massive community outbreak caused by the Victorian Labor government, demonstrates your motives in this space. (Time expired) 15:16 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I rise this afternoon to also take note of answers given to questions by Senator Colbeck and Senator Cash. It is indeed a greatly disturbing event: the royal commission's report that has been handed down, in relation to the treatment of people with disability under the COVID-19 arrangements—or, should I say, lack of arrangements. The royal commission chair, Ronald Sackville, has found that the government was responsible for a 'serious failure' in its communications with Australians with disability. The report noted it was the absence of consultation that led to significant failures in the responses of the Australian government. It is the most basic and fundamental task of this government—of any government—to undertake consultation with those affected, in any time of change or need, and especially those who might be vulnerable to those circumstances. We have seen, in this time, people with disability left stranded at home, without meals, without being able to wash, without being able to move themselves in order to prevent bedsores, and without being able to take required medication and get required support. It was entirely predictable and obvious that these kinds of scenarios were likely to occur—entirely predictable. We know that disability care workers often need to work across a number of households of people with disability, and we also know they're poorly paid. We also know that those workers had their own fears and concerns at the height of COVID about their own susceptibility to catching COVID and their own caring responsibilities. So it was of surprise to no-one that disability support workers fell away and that the basic care needs of many people with disability went totally unmet. Because of the suspension, because of the lockdowns, we also saw the usual recreational and other outing activities suspended, and that again meant that people with disability were left further isolated and alone. Australians with disability have been treated as an absolute afterthought by this government during this pandemic. Not only were these outcomes for people with disability entirely predictable; people with disability were picking up the phone. They certainly called my office to ask for help and support, and I'm sure they would have been calling your offices as well. These Australians should have been our first and top priority, not treated as an afterthought. We also saw an appalling lack of personal protective equipment for disability care workers. This meant that care workers were afraid for their own health and also afraid of spreading COVID-19 to their own families. In that climate of fear, many of them didn't take their shifts, didn't go to work, in many instances because they were on casual employment contracts; frankly, they weren't required to. If you are permanent part-time or permanent full-time, it's a requirement of your job that you go to work or else call in sick or take personal leave. But in these circumstances, where large numbers of workers were concerned for their own wellbeing and safety and were on casual contracts, it was absolutely inevitable that they were going to feel vulnerable. But this government— (Time expired) 15:21 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I find it extraordinary that I'm going to respond to the matters raised in this take note of answers motion raised by the Labor Party, who, once again, are acting as if the actions of this government were taken with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as if the situation had been completely predictable, as if this wasn't the greatest pandemic that had hit the world in the past 100 years. With a sanctimonious glow, after being able to see what has happened, they now want to lecture the government on what could have happened and what should have happened. When you're in a position of responsibility, in government, you have to make the difficult decisions at difficult times, without the benefit of hindsight and 20/20 vision. But the government has at all times acknowledged and expressed sincere sympathy to those affected by the pandemic and our deepest condolences to those who have lost loved ones. Every time the minister stands up he acknowledges the 693 people in aged care who have lost their lives. As one of the few people in this place who've actually had COVID-19, I understand the fear of having the test, of having it come back positive and wondering what the impacts on you will be. My heart goes out to all those people who not only have been in that situation but have then had contact with people who are the most vulnerable and at risk in our society. I know the terrible price they will have paid, being in that situation. This government has prioritised the introduction of the Serious Incident Response Scheme to provide additional protection for aged-care residents. This is additional funding of $11.1 million, taking the government's total investment in the scheme to $67.2 million. Our response to the royal commission's report and updated plan highlights our ongoing commitment to improving care for senior Australians and keeping them safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. The government has now funded more than $1.7 billion in aged-care-specific measures to support the plan. This investment directly addresses issues raised by the aged-care royal commission and will improve and support the health and wellbeing of aged-care residents, who are the most significantly impacted by COVID-19. It must be noted that whenever there are high rates of community transmission the risk to older people, particularly those in residential aged care, increases, and we need to remain vigilant. The government will continue to work closely with aged-care providers and all states and territories to ensure the ongoing safety and care of senior Australians because, most tragically, it was in the state of Victoria where the hotel quarantine provisions, still subject to inquiry, were found to be desperately inadequate. They failed not only the people of Victoria and not only the people of Australia but also, most tragically, those most vulnerable and at risk in our society, our elderly people, who have paid a terrible price for that government's response. I am sure that they, too, wish they had this federal opposition's incredible hindsight, incredible 20/20 vision, to know exactly what could have possibly been done differently. As I have said already, this government is acting at all times to protect and take care of people, particularly in aged care. The government has accepted and is acting on all six recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, as announced in October 2020. The Morrison government will invest a further $132.2 million in its response to the aged-care royal commission recommendations on COVID-19. This government has also updated its aged-care plan. The plan has been developed in close consultation with the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee's Aged Care Advisory Group, which has been made permanent, meeting another recommendation of the royal commission's report. The minister has said on many occasions how carefully he has consulted and how carefully he has listened and taken into account the recommendations and views of not only that group but also others right across Australia who care about the aged in our community. 15:26 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Too little, too late—that's the reality of the actions, or the lack of actions earlier, by the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Richard Colbeck, and this government. Let's put things into context, shall we? On the 685 older Australians who died during the pandemic, we had a government senator explaining just now to the chamber how it is all the Victorian government's fault. It's amazing how it is okay for this government to shift the blame but not to accept responsibility for its failings not just since March this year by neglecting older Australians and some of the most vulnerable Australians in this country; in fact, it's been seven years. I have lost count how many ministers for aged care there have been in that time. I was talking to a colleague and I asked, 'Who do you think has been the worst aged-care minister in this country in the last seven years?' Names like Ken Wyatt, Sussan Ley, Greg Hunt and Mitch Fifield came to mind, but I think we agreed in our discussion that it is this current minister who has failed older Australians. He's been censured by this chamber. What we are seeing now is it's not only the 685 older Australians who have died; it's the impact on their families, their loved ones. During this pandemic, it's not only been about those who have lost their lives; it has been about the staff who have had the responsibility for caring for them. They have not been supported by this government. Not only were they not provided with the adequate PPE and support that they needed, being on the frontline; we know this government has also neglected them for the last seven years, not ensuring that they were adequately resourced. They certainly don't get paid the remuneration that they deserve. We have just seen cuts. Why should we expect anything different from the Prime Minister when, in fact, he cut almost $2 billion out of aged care when he was Treasurer and used this sector as an ATM? So the public have no confidence in this minister. They have no more confidence in him than we on this side of the chamber do. We know countless reports have outlined the issues very clearly, after days and days of evidence given to various committees and inquiries into the aged-care sector trying to get to the bottom of why this system is so broken, and put forward to the government of the day solutions for how it can do its job better by providing older Australians the support they deserve. But what have we got? Absolutely no response at all from this government. What we then saw was them calling for a royal commission into the aged-care sector, after they had been in government for a number of years and failed to address the concerns that had been collected in somewhere between 12 and 16 different reports into the failings of the aged-care sector. They were also told of the struggle that a lot of the providers themselves were having to keep their heads above water. But what we haven't seen is any leadership from this government. We have a minister who, quite frankly, is no more interested than the minister they had when they first came into government. We saw Senator Fifield take on that responsibility, but the only thing he was ever interested in was the arts. He certainly wasn't interested in older Australians. And we've seen no improvement over the seven years that they've been in government. What we see now—finally!—is that the spotlight has been shone on the aged-care sector in this country because of the royal commission, because of this government's failing. The media now has some interest in aged care, and this is the opportunity for this government to address all those concerns that the community has had, address all the recommendations from those countless reports that have been put forward and finally do something. Do something so that those 685 older, vulnerable Australians in the aged-care sector, who died because of the failure of this government to provide the leadership and the support that was needed in this sector, have not died in vain. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Climate Change: Pacific Islands 36 15:31 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate representing the Prime Minister (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to climate change. The climate crisis looms large in the landscape of global inequality. Those who have contributed least to the warming of the planet, amongst the poorest communities on earth, will experience the worst of the climate catastrophe. Today 15 Pacific islander leaders published an open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia. They describe their homelands and cultures as facing 'certain devastation' from climate change. They call on Australia to honour its international climate commitments and take urgent action to combat the climate crisis. Also today, former president of Kiribati Anote Tong has written to TheSydney Morning Herald. He says: Without radical climate action … deadly disasters will become more frequent and more severe … Kiribati will become uninhabitable, and there will be a 'wider global apocalyptic disaster'. He calls for serious action on climate, including moratoriums on coal and gas. Amongst their calls are for new and additional funds for the Australian foreign aid budget to finance climate change mitigation and adaptation. Climate justice must be central to Australia's foreign aid program. The Global North, including Australia, is responsible for the overwhelming majority of excess carbon emissions causing the climate crisis. The relentless pursuit of profit and power by wealthy colonial countries and multinational corporations has put the world on track for a global temperature rise of at least 3.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The climate crisis and global poverty are the results of colonialism, structural inequalities and grossly unfair trade and debt systems. These systems can't be fixed. These systems have to be torn down. That also means totally reconfiguring the way we think about international aid in this country. The provision of international aid should not be approached as a way of geopolitical positioning or exerting our self-interest, nor can it be thought of as kindness or charity on the part of wealthy nations. That wealth was stolen through exploitation, slavery and genocide, and wealth continues to be stolen. The provision of aid must be about justice and about repaying what is owed for the crimes of the past and the present. The story of the industrialisation of the global north is one of violence, exploitation and extraction. This wealth was built with the resources and labour of the colonised peoples. Australia has a bloody British colonial history and continues to perpetuate its own colonial projects. Last year it was estimated that Australia siphoned off more money in oil revenue from Timor-Leste than it provided in aid and more than Timor-Leste spends on health in a year. Our Pacific neighbours are paying a heavy price for Australia's absolute refusal to tackle the climate crisis. Communities face rising sea levels, the annual destruction caused by tropical storms, the loss of arable land and drinking water and the enormous social and economic challenges of displacement due to the climate crisis. The injustices of slavery, colonialism and imperialism do not just lie in the past. They are ongoing and fundamentally affect communities' capacity to survive this impending disaster. Unaddressed, the imbalance of wealth and resources across communities will result in a climate apartheid, as the poor bear the brunt and the rich can afford to evade the worst. Given Australia's role in producing vast amounts of climate changing pollution, we have a particular responsibility to compensate and work with affected communities to avoid a total climate meltdown. Australia must look at its history and the way we tell our histories. When we listen to our Pacific neighbours, we need to hear them. We have a heavy responsibility to take strong climate action to help communities manage and survive the climate crisis. We must increase our aid budget and cancel the burden of debt. We must turn the focus of aid from Australia's narrowly defined national interest to climate reparations, resilience and justice and to undo imperialism and colonialism. Our neighbours are asking us to show courage and leadership, and we must. Question agreed to. NOTICES 37 NOTICES Presentation 37 15:37 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2020 SPRING SITTINGS ELECTORAL AMENDMENT (TERRITORY REPRESENTATION) BILL 2020 Purpose of the Bill The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) to implement a new method of calculating the number of seats in the House of Representatives for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory by: setting aside the Electoral Commissioner's determination of 3 July 2020 to the extent required to ensure that the Northern Territory will have two members of the House of Representatives chosen at the next federal election; adopting a harmonic mean method for determining the allocation of House of Representative seats to the territories; repealing the margin of error provisions that are less generous than a harmonic mean and better align the redistribution provisions for the NT and the ACT to modernise and simplify the administration of the Electoral Act. Reasons for Urgency Legislation is necessary to guarantee the representation of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in the House of Representatives prior to the next federal election, and is considered a matter of priority. Presentation 37 Withdrawal 41 15:37 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No.2 standing in my name for today. Postponement 41 COMMITTEES 42 COMMITTEES Finance and Public Administration References Committee 42 Reference 42 15:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Ayres, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2021: The current capability of the Australian Public Service (APS) with particular reference to: (a) the APS' digital and data capability, including co-ordination, infrastructure and workforce; (b) whether APS transformation and modernisation projects initiated since the 2014 Budget have achieved their objectives; (c) the APS workforce; and (d) any other related matters. 15:39 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKIM JKM The Australian Greens are very concerned about trends in government that include an arbitrary cap on Public Service staffing numbers, permanent Public Service jobs replaced by contracting out through labour hire firms and privatisation by stealth through transfer of service delivery to the private sector, and so we will support this motion. But those things did not happen by accident; they are the inevitable end result of the neoliberalism that began under Labor four decades ago and has continued under the Liberals. The Greens will move today for a genuine and comprehensive inquiry into the failings of privatisation, and we understand Labor will not be supporting our inquiry. It's time for Labor to stop hiding from its shameful neoliberal record, which includes the privatisation of Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and the final tranche of Telstra. Corporatisation and privatisation will only end when the major parties abandon neoliberalism and admit that it has not worked. Question agreed to. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 42 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment Determination 2020 42 15:40 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That, in accordance with subsection 10B(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Senate approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment (Indexation) Determination 2020, made under subsection 10B(1) of the Act on 19 November 2020. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 42 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 42 Reference 42 15:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Brisbane Air Traffic Services Centre and Control Tower Complex Refurbishment. Question agreed to. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I table statements in relation to the works, together with the accompanying documentation. Reference 42 15:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport Tower Project—Refurbishment. Question agreed to. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I table statements in relation to the works, together with the accompanying documentation. BUSINESS 43 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 43 15:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings: Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020 VET Student Payment Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2020. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 43 MOTIONS Pensions and Benefits 43 15:42 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges that the Productivity Commission's report into mental health has been released, providing a suite of recommended reforms to improve the mental health and wellbeing of Australians; (b) notes that the Productivity Commission found that people receiving income-support are more than three times as likely to have depression than wage earners, and face additional barriers to finding meaningful work; (c) also notes that the Productivity Commission has acknowledged the distress and aggravation of mental ill-health caused by strict mutual obligation requirements for people receiving income-support payments; (d) further notes that we have witnessed over 250,112 payment suspensions since mutual obligations were reinstated after the COVID-19 suspension, causing distress for thousands of people; and (e) calls on the Government to permanently increase the JobSeeker Payment; abolish the Targeted Compliance Framework; and reform the employment services system and mutual obligations. 15:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The government has shown considerable flexibility in adjusting mutual obligation requirements in response to the impact of COVID-19. In return for an income support payment, jobseekers must take responsibility for meeting all of their mutual obligation requirements. The government recognises this continues to be a challenging time for those looking for work and encourages jobseekers to access the full range of assistance available to them, including access to skills training, assistance for other work preparation activities and referral to relevant support services, including mental health services, if required. The government remains committed to mutual obligation requirements for jobseekers as well as to ensuring Australians remain connected to the workforce. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 879 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:47]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

30 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 34 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 44 DOCUMENTS Western Sydney Airport 44 Order for the Production of Documents 44 15:49 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Watt, I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) on 12 November 2020, the Senate agreed to an order (862) requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure to lay on the table the 10 written briefings on the acquisition of the Leppington Triangle, (ii) by way of a letter dated 17 November 2020 the Minister refused to provide the documents, and (iii) claims of public interest immunity on the basis that the release of information may prejudice a law enforcement investigation should 'be raised directly by the law enforcement agency, not by some other official who can merely speculate about the relationship of the information to the investigation'; (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure, by no later than 3.30 pm on 2 December 2020, the documents outlined in order no. 862; and (c) if the documents are not tabled: (i) at 9.30 am on 3 December 2020, before government business is called on, the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure to provide an explanation of the Government's failure to provide the documents, and (ii) a senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice that the Senate take note of the explanation. 15:49 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 As the Senate is well aware, an AFP investigation is underway and the department has also commenced two internal independent investigations. It's critical that these multiple investigations currently underway are allowed to run their full course to ensure that due process is followed. The advice the government has received is that it would not be in the public interest to table these documents, for very clear reasons. These include where the Senate has recognised that where the provision of information would have the tendency to prejudice law enforcement investigations public interest immunity may be invoked. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 886 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:51]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

32 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 32 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MOTIONS 45 MOTIONS COVID-19: Aged Care 45 15:53 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Australia's aged care system was in crisis before the COVID-19 pandemic, (ii) sadly 685 older Australians have died in residential aged care facilities due to COVID-19, and (iii) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety's special report into COVID-19 stated that the Morrison Government did not have a COVID-19 plan devoted solely to aged care; (b) recognises the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, that: (i) the Morrison Government did not prepare for COVID-19 in aged care despite early warning signs, (ii) there was difficulty for aged care workers to access personal protective equipment, (iii) there was insufficient infection control training for aged care workers, (iv) there was no surge workforce strategy document, (v) the Morrison Government did not have any idea of how many aged care staff were working across multiple sites, and (vi) reports on the number of infections and the sites were not made public in a timely manner; and (c) calls on the Morrison Government to take responsibility for fixing their aged care system in crisis and take urgent action now. 15:53 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The government accepted and is acting on all six recommendations from the royal commission's special report on COVID-19, yesterday announcing an additional investment of $132.2 million of measures in response. They include funding for mental and allied health support, funding to support the costs of engaging infection prevention leads in facilities, and further funding towards a serious incident response scheme in 2021. This is in addition to significant investments to support our plan to prevent and combat COVID-19 in aged care. This brings the total COVID-19 investment by the government in aged care to $1.7 billion. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 889 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:55]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 47 COMMITTEES Treaties Committee 47 Reference 47 15:57 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, move: That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for inquiry and report by 30 June 2021: The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) which entered into force on 20 December 2015, including, but not limited to: (a) the implications of political and economic change in China for future bilateral trade relations; (b) China's compliance with the letter and spirit of ChAFTA; (c) the extent and consequences of Australian economic dependence on the Chinese market; (d) the wider economic, strategic and diplomatic context of Australia's trade relations with China; and (e) options for the future of ChAFTA. Question agreed to. 15:58 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The Australian government has called on the Chinese government to live up to its commitments under the World Trade Organization and ChAFTA, which require China not to discriminate against Australia. The government has repeatedly called for dialogue to resolve current trade issues in the interests of jobs and economic recovery post COVID in both countries and in our broader region. Such requests have been dismissed. The government is currently considering its options and working with industry, including on a possible WTO dispute. 15:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING Labor won't be supporting this reference. We note that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is currently undertaking a post-implementation review of ChAFTA, which parliamentarians will take great interest in. Australia's relationship with China is increasingly complex, but we cannot decouple. We must continue to engage; Australian jobs rely on it. This motion clearly reflects interest amongst senators about our bilateral relationship. It's the role of the government to provide leadership and to engage with parliamentarians to explain our foreign policy and how the government is managing our relationships in the national interest. That's why we continue to encourage the government to provide briefings to parliamentarians. Leadership also means working with Australian exporters to diversify export markets instead of overseeing an increasing reliance on a single trading partner. Senator Lambie 250026 I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. 16:04 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Mr President, I'll just ask for some clarification. I am the mover of this motion. It is being co-sponsored by Senator Lambie. She's not the mover of the motion. I'd just like some clarity in relation to this rule whereby leave is being denied on the basis that someone is a co-sponsor. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, technically you are moving a motion when your name is on it. Co-sponsoring is effectively moving a motion. One person stands up and does it in the chamber but the name is on the motion. On that basis it's a matter for the whips as to the practice of this. Everyone knows my views. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 875 be agreed to.

The Senate divided [16:01]
The President—Senator Scott Ryan

13 AYES Faruqi, M Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Patrick, RL (teller) Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 42 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Brockman, S Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Griff, S Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Pratt, LC Rennick, G Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Watt, M 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 48 COMMITTEES Privatisation, Corporatisation and Outsourcing Committee 48 Appointment 48 16:04 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee into Privatisation, Corporatisation and Outsourcing, be established to inquire and report on the following matters: (a) the privatisation and corporatisation of public services by Australian Governments over the last four decades, including: (i) the rationale for decisions to privatise and corporatise, including models of structuring the public sector and public sector agencies, (ii) the cost to the public of privatised and corporatised services, (iii) the quality of privatised and corporatised services and the outcomes for the public, particularly with respect to disadvantaged members of the public, (iv) the impact on employment rates, conditions and locations, especially rural and regional employment, (v) the profits generated, taxation paid and corporate structures of providers of privatised services, (vi) the remuneration and benefits paid to executives of providers of privatised and corporatised services, (vii) the effect on government budget policy and macroeconomic conditions, (viii) the effect on income and wealth inequality, and (ix) the effect on public participation, social cohesion, and public perception of the role of government; (b) the outsourcing of services, functions and positions from the Australian Public Service over the last four decades, including: (i) the rationale for decisions to outsource services, functions and positions, (ii) the cost of outsourcing, including the cost of engaging private service providers and sourcing staff through labour hire firms, (iii) the impact of outsourcing on service provision, and (iv) the profits generated from contracts between the Australian Government and private service providers and labour hire firms; (c) the effect of privatisation, corporatisation and outsourcing by the Australian Government on the public sector, including: (i) current and future public sector employment, (ii) displacement of functions from the public sector to private service providers and labour hire firms, (iii) the role of staffing caps (such as the average service level) in driving privatisation, corporatisation and outsourcing, (iv) public sector employment rates and conditions, (v) remuneration and benefits paid to public sector executives, (vi) measurement of public sector performance, (vii) the culture and ethos of the public sector, and (viii) public perception of the public sector; (d) experience in Australia and internationally of privatisation, corporatisation and outsourcing being reversed, including: (i) the rationale for these decisions and the processes that preceded them, (ii) the process of enacting these reversals, and (iii) the effect of these reversals; and (e) any other related matters. (2) For the avoidance of doubt, 'public services' and 'services' include services provided by entities that are or were publicly owned corporations or entities. (3) That the committee present its final report on or before 30 September 2021. (4) That the committee consist of 5 senators as follows: (a) 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate. (5) That: (a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and (b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee. (6) If a member of the committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, that member may in writing to the chair of the committee appoint a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee at that meeting, and if the member is incapacitated or unavailable, a letter to the chair of a committee appointing a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee may be signed on behalf of the member by the leader or whip of the party or group on whose nomination the member was appointed to the committee. (7) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (8) That the chair of the committee is to be the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and the committee is to elect as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. (9) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant. (10) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee. (11) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (12) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (13) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine. (14) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (15) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President. (16) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. 16:04 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The government doesn't see the need for another select committee to be established when there are other committees already capable of examining these matters. In relation to the proposed terms of reference, while 98 Commonwealth agencies are non-corporate, 71 are established as corporate entities and another 18 as Commonwealth companies. The scope of the proposed inquiry is excessively broad insofar as it looks at corporatised entities, potentially covering around half of all agencies, depending on how this is interpreted. The proposed inquiry could be better focused on particular services of government or better define the scope of corporatisation. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

11 AYES Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 44 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Brockman, S Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Griff, S Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Pratt, LC Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Watt, M 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MOTIONS 50 MOTIONS Australian Defence Force 50 16:09 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, committed to writing to the Governor-General to request he revoke the Meritorious Unit Citation for Special Operations Task Groups who served in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2013, as per the recommendation in the Brereton Report, (ii) despite General Campbell's statement, the Department of Defence told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Insiders program that the final decision on whether to accept the recommendations of the Brereton Report is a matter for Government, and (iii) stripping the Meritorious Unit Citation from the Special Operations Task Groups would punish over 3,000 troops who have bravely served our country for the actions of a small number of people; and (b) calls on the Morrison Government to reject the recommendation to strip the Meritorious Unit Citation for Special Operations Task Groups who served between 2007 and 2013. 16:09 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 No decisions have yet been made with regard to the appropriate options and approaches to implement the more than 140 recommendations as the complexity and sensitivity of the issues outlined in the report will take extensive and considered deliberation. The Chief of the Defence Force is leading the development of an implementation plan to action the recommendations made in the Brereton report and any other matters arising from the report that will require action. The government has established the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel to oversee all aspects of Defence's response to the Brereton report. The government will have input into the proposed implementation plan and any actions as necessary. 16:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING Labor won't be supporting this motion, but we do acknowledge it's a difficult and sensitive issue. As the shadow minister for defence has said, the alleged behaviour of a few cannot be allowed to overshadow the contributions made by thousands of men and women who have served our country with distinction in Afghanistan. Labor notes the statement released last night by the Chief of the Defence Force, that no decisions have yet been made with regard to options and approaches to implement the recommendations of the Brereton report and that further action in response to the report's recommendations will be considered as part of an implementation plan that is under development. The Brereton report contains over 140 recommendations. It is entirely appropriate that Defence is given time and space to methodically work through those recommendations and its proposed responses. 16:11 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator PATRICK 144292 I have a concern that removal of this citation will affect more than 3,000 people, most of whom served their country extremely well. The removal of the citation may, perhaps, wrongfully imply wrongdoing. We should specifically target those people who have done wrong in Afghanistan and be very, very specific and surgical about how we do that. That includes soldiers and officers. At this stage, we should rule out removing that citation unless we get an understanding that there was significant knowledge right throughout the units as to the conduct. The Brereton report does not in any way suggest that is the case. 16:12 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 All who served in Afghanistan and did the right thing deserve recognition for their service. The reality is that these war crimes are horrific and cast a shadow over everyone who served, tainting their service experience. Whilst the removal of the meritorious unit citation recognises this reality, the impact must not be felt by the troops on the ground alone. It is so important that the chain of command, the military top brass, are held to account for their failure to take action. We cannot allow Defence leadership to apply one rule to their subordinates and another rule to themselves. Top levels of Defence must face similar disciplinary actions whilst this investigation takes place, and parliament—MPs—must be held responsible for their role in deploying our forces overseas. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 890 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [14:14]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

2 AYES Lambie, J (teller) Patrick, RL 53 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Brockman, S Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Faruqi, M Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Pratt, LC Rennick, G Reynolds, L Rice, J Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA Steele-John, J Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Superannuation 52 16:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate— (a) notes Prime Minister Morrison's commitment to the Australian people at the 2019 federal election to deliver the legislated increases to the superannuation guarantee for all Australian workers; (b) endorses the legislated increases to superannuation guarantee for Australian workers beginning on 1 July 2021 with a 0.5% increase to 9.5%; and (c) supports the universal and compulsory nature of Australia's superannuation system. 16:18 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The Retirement Income Review was recommended by the Productivity Commission, and it comes 27 years after the establishment of compulsory superannuation. As the government has stated, it will now carefully consider the observations made in the review and will make a decision on the superannuation guarantee before its scheduled increase. Question agreed to. Electric Vehicles 52 16:19 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) electric vehicles are an important technology that will be crucial in reducing emissions and taking action on climate change, with transport comprising 19% of Australia's emissions before the pandemic, (ii) the Government of the United Kingdom has committed to investing more than £2.8 billion in electric vehicles, and (iii) making electric vehicles cheaper and more affordable will make it easier for Australians around the country to contribute to action on climate change; and (b) calls on all Australian governments to support electric vehicles as a technology to reduce our carbon pollution, and to take action to make them affordable and accessible to all Australians, and not place unnecessary taxation barriers in the way of their uptake. 16:19 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make another short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 New vehicle technologies should be treated equitably with traditional petrol and diesel cars to ensure that all motorists contribute to the upkeep of Australia's road infrastructure. The government is committed to enabling consumer choice for new vehicle technologies, including hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells and, of course, electric vehicles. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 53 DOCUMENTS Australian Energy Market Operator 53 Order for the Production of Documents 53 16:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, by no later than 10 am on 7 December 2020, the public version of the Australian Energy Market Operator – Generation Replacement Study, as referenced at Attachment D in the report of the Liddell Taskforce titled An assessment on the impacts of a Liddell closure on system reliability, electricity prices, industry, and the local region. 16:20 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The report is on the public record, and I table the report. Senator Waters 192970 Finally! The PRESIDENT I0Q On that basis, then, I assume that you will seek leave to withdraw the motion, Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 No; I'm just happy it's been provided! Thank you. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 53 MOTIONS Pensions and Benefits 53 16:20 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senators Bilyk, McCarthy and O'Neill, move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, was: (A) Social Services Minister when robodebt was first initiated in the 2015-16 Budget, and (B) Treasurer, and Mr Robert was Human Services Minister, when robodebt was expanded in the December 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic Fiscal Outlook, (ii) Mr Porter was Social Services Minister when the first iteration of robodebt, the Online Compliance Initiative (OCI), was piloted in 2016, (iii) Mr Tudge was Human Services Minister when the second iteration of robodebt, Employment Income Confirmation, replaced OCI in February 2017, and (iv) Mr Robert has refused to admit robodebt was unlawful and refused to apologise to the mothers of people who had taken their own lives after receiving a letter of demand; (b) recognises: (i) the Government failed to address the fundamental flaws of robodebt and continued to fight robodebt matters despite acknowledging it was unlawful, (ii) robodebt was designed to capture $4.7 billion in budget savings, but has cost $1.2 billion in the class action settlement, and (iii) it is in the public interest to reveal why the Government unlawfully took money from Australians; and (c) calls on the Government to listen to the many victims and outraged Australians and establish a Royal Commission into its flawed and unlawful robodebt scheme. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 54 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Pensions and Benefits 54 16:21 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I inform the Senate that, as at 8.30 am today, 23 proposals were received by the President 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 Polley: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The need for Mr Morrison to apologise for his role overseeing every aspect of the illegal Robodebt scheme as the Social Services Minister who designed it, the Treasurer who implemented it, and the Prime Minister who settled the claims of victims for $1.2 billion, and to establish a Royal Commission because that is the only forum with the coercive powers and broad jurisdiction necessary to properly investigate this fiasco. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:22 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I've always liked numbers, so let's start with some numbers for those opposite, who are all complicit in the 430,000 Australians who were illegally issued with robodebt notices. Yes; 430,000 Australians were targeted by the former social services minister, former Treasurer and now Prime Minister of Australia. There is a $1.2 billion payout, which is the biggest class action settlement in Australian government history. How about a round of applause for those opposite: you made history, guys, congratulations! You have cost the Australian taxpayer $1.2 billion. Then again, what's $1.2 billion to those opposite, who are racking up a trillion dollars in national debt? They're the worst economic managers in the history of this country. We know on this side, and the Australian people know, that ministerial responsibility is dead in this country, and, if this doesn't prove that, then I don't know what will. It's about the arrogance of this government, who were forewarned that their actions were illegal. The automation process and the computerisation of the robodebt was a decision made by the current government. Those opposite cannot escape that fact, as much as they try. We know how often they come into this place to try and rewrite history. Those opposite had been advised that the scheme was illegal, and it took them months and months to act on this and to stop sending debt notices out to vulnerable Australians. This could have been fixed quickly by the government. Instead, these people were dragged through the court process because of the government's ideological bent—they know best all the time and they are never wrong! Well, justice was served. The judiciary made a judgement. And now the taxpayer is forced to pay because of the utter incompetence and arrogance of those opposite. Let's be clear here: 430,000 welfare recipients were wrongly accused by the Turnbull and Morrison governments of misreporting their income. This was an appalling injustice done to people who couldn't defend themselves. The callous, ruthless and impersonal way of pursuing welfare recipients was always brutal, and you can understand why it was designed by Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister—it is right up his alley. In the words of Bill Shorten, who stood up for the 430,000 victims of this government, the Morrison government has been forced to give the money of those people back to them. Let's not forget that, when Labor first raised the concerns of the 430,000 harassed and aggrieved Australians who received robodebt notices, it was Stuart Robert, the Minister for Government Services, and the Prime Minister who said it was merely a political stunt. Can you believe that? We know the mentality of those opposite. They want to stigmatise people on Centrelink, stigmatise people who receive money from the Commonwealth. They demonise people; they talk them down. During this whole fiasco, the Prime Minister just said: 'There is nothing to see here. Move along. No-one has been aggrieved.' Well, how wrong the Prime Minister was. We knew all along that they were in the wrong. Prime Minister, $1.2 billion of taxpayer money is not 'moving along'. It's the taxpayers money and you, sir, cannot be trusted with the Australian Treasury anymore. This entire calamity could been avoided if not for your philosophical hatred of people who receive welfare at some point in their lives to make a fresh start, to provide assistance for a short time in order to get back on their feet. The government has paid out $1.2 billion in the biggest settlement in Australian government history. Yet they argued that they are not liable. This isn't a comedy set, Mr Morrison; you take the Australian people for granted every single day. This government cannot run away from this issue like they try to run away from accountability and transparency every other day. The government is yet to explain how the scheme was so poorly administered. The question must be asked: how did we get ourselves into a set of circumstances where ministers either knew that the law was being broken or never bothered to find out what the law was? How did we get to a situation where senior public servants—not the Centrelink staff at the counter, but the senior public servants—authorised a scheme which was illegal? There is a human toll to this whole fiasco—the 430,000 people, and their families, who enjoyed the torment and shame of being hunted and victimised by their government. The government's actions have had consequences for people's lives. Those on the government side really don't give a damn. Otherwise, they would have thought before they acted. These people couldn't get jobs because they had a debt finding—families and people who had shame and stigma, a lot of people who don't want to be on Centrelink and were embarrassed about their debt. Whether they really had a debt or not, they still felt that shame. People were mistreated and they deserve a sincere apology from the Prime Minister, from Minister Robert and from those opposite. I want to conclude by acknowledging that the settlement is justice for the victims who have been treated terribly, shamefully, by the Morrison government. For years the Morrison government has been in denial about robodebt's fairness and legality. Even after the robodebt scheme was proven through the courts to be illegal, what have we seen? Nothing in the way of an apology from either the Prime Minister or Minister Robert. We know the anxiety and the extra poverty that was caused. We know that there were even suicides because of the shame. Some of those people who couldn't fight because they perceived that the government would have to be in the right and they couldn't prove that they didn't owe a debt unfortunately took their own lives. Their families have been left devastated. It is only after the prospect of coalition ministers, such as the former Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, having to take the witness stand to answer questions on what they knew that the government have now agreed to pay a fair amount of compensation to these victims. What is the dirty secret about robodebt's origins that the government don't want anyone to know? Were they told it was illegal and ignored that advice from the outset? Did they not check its legality at all before unleashing it on the unsuspecting public? How much taxpayer money have the Morrison government wasted fighting this unwinnable case? Only a royal commission into the robodebt will give the public the answers that they deserve. In the meantime, Mr Morrison should have sacked Minister Robert. Everything that guy touches turns to stone. He's hopeless. He's indefensible in terms of his actions and the stupidity of the way this whole fiasco was handled. There are so many on that side of the chamber who don't deserve to be ministers. We have Richard Colbeck, another failed minister in his responsibilities. And Stuart Robert is almost like the gift that keeps on giving—every single time he has his fingers in a pie it turns to stone. This has been a national disgrace and a scandal. (Time expired) 16:32 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise today to speak on the matter of importance raised by Senator Polley regarding Centrelink's income compliance program. It is important for Senator Polley and those opposite to keep in mind that in a circumstance where Australians have received money from the taxpayer to which they were not entitled the government would seek to recover that money. The Australian public expect the government to do that, and that is what has been done and continues to be done. Our social security system requires income support recipients to meet eligibility requirements around income and assets to ensure support is being provided to those who need it most. The welfare system is an important safety net but, equally, it requires compliance measures to be undertaken so people receive the correct payment and meet their obligations. Such compliance includes checking discrepancies in reported income to identify potential overpayment and, as appropriate, recover debt. This is a welfare system that is sustainable and that has integrity. However, before I speak further about debts raised by the income compliance program, I wish to address a serious issue that has been repeatedly brought up in parliament in relation to this program and has been again this afternoon. I'm speaking about mental health and specifically the claims around suicides resulting from this income compliance program. Mental health is one of the biggest challenges of our society. The Australian government take mental health seriously, so seriously that the Prime Minister appointed Christine Morgan as the National Suicide Prevention Adviser last year. We are taking action on mental health so families, communities and people experiencing trauma can get the support they need. The suicide prevention task force briefed the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into the Centrelink compliance program. Task force representatives told the committee, of which I'm the deputy chair, that research indicates there is no single reason why someone dies by suicide. Drawing mental health into this debate does not help matters. In fact, it hinders them. It is time for my parliamentary colleagues on all sides to treat this issue with sensitivity so as to not place undue stress and trauma on those impacted by it. In dealing with mental health at the agency level, Services Australia has an extensive social worker network to support those in such critical situations. This social worker network can be reached by calling 132850. Too much is at stake to make people's mental health a political issue. Activities and policies relating to the recovery of money from social security recipients who have been over paid either inadvertently or through deliberate fraud are known as the income compliance program. The specific income compliance program we're discussing today was established in 2015 through the better management of the social welfare system measure announced in the 2015-16 budget. Resolving discrepancies and errors in social security payments, including errors of over payment, is a routine path of the administration of Australia's social security system. This has been the case for many decades with a range of integrity measures adopted during that time, including the income compliance program. As a result of feedback, the program has been through various iterations. The income compliance program was built on existing previous income compliance programs, and was designed to identify social security overpayments through discrepancies between the annual income reported by an individual to Centrelink up to seven years before the date of review, and income assessed by the Australian Taxation Office for that same period. Discrepancies were identified by averaging a lump sum income assessed by the ATO over the period the income was earned in and compared to earnings reported to and income support received from Centrelink across the same period. Data matching and income averaging processes, like the practice I have just described, have been used as a tool to help identify potential social security overpayments since at least the 1990s, with taxation information used to inform the practice since 2004. The methodology of averaging income was provided for in the Social Security Act 1991 and its predecessor, the Social Security Act 1947. The first data matching program was established under the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990 and involved an exchange of data about an individual's taxable income between the ATO and relevant government departments. Services Australia undertook a review of income compliance debts raised in 2009 and 2011 using a random sample of 500 cases in each year. The analysis found that 16.8 per cent of the sample debts in 2009 were raised through the use of average ATO income data and 24.4 per cent in 2011, noting that averaging of ATO income information was used when other information was not available or when people did not engage with Centrelink. Minister Stuart Robert announced changes to the income compliance program in November 2019 when announcing that averaged ATO income by itself was an insufficient basis on which to raise a debt. Further proof points were needed. Since Minister Robert's announcement about changes to the program, Services Australia has engaged with more than 35 organisations and advocacy groups. It has also undertaken 17 user research activities, piloted the refund process, engaged with the Ombudsman's office on draft refund letters and met with representatives of the Civil Society Advisory Group, with further updates on the agency's progress in refunding customers. Services Australia has made a number of changes to its systems to improve the user experience, including introducing registered mail to guarantee delivery of letters before reviews start, and dedicated phone support and assistance from compliance officers to help recipients understand what will happen and what is required during a review. In his April 2019 report the Commonwealth Ombudsman commented positively on this enhanced customer experience, including improved letters and income compliance correspondence. Now simplified income reporting combined with the Single Touch Payroll System means information can be accessed more easily, which will reduce errors. The court case to which Senator Polley refers in this matter, the income compliance program class action, or Prygodicz v Commonwealth, was the result of using income averaging to determine debts. We now know and acknowledge that this was not a valid method to determine debts. In June this year, the Prime Minister apologised to the people who had been impacted by that method of determining debts to be collected. The Department of Social Services and Services Australia also apologised for the harm and hurt caused by the program and committed to applying lessons learnt from it in the future. Importantly, as soon as this government became aware that this method of debt calculation was invalid, the practice was immediately stopped. Those Australians who received debt notices resulting from income averaging were paid back that money. As at 30 November, $707.7 million had been refunded to 406,889 people. This accounts for around 95 per cent of people affected and 95 per cent of refunds by value. Around 23,100 people are still to be refunded and/or have their debts zeroed if they hadn't made any payments. Under the settlement, the Commonwealth will make a payment of $112 million in the nature of interest to be distributed to eligible group members. It should be noted, however, that using this method to determine debt is not something this current government has developed. It was actually something that the Labor Party came up with and supported. Indeed, then Minister for Human Services Tanya Plibersek said on 29 June 2011: … if people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the Government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover that money. This statement was backed up by Bill Shorten, who said on the same day: The automation of this process will free up resources and result in more people being referred to the tax garnishee process, retrieving more outstanding debt on behalf of taxpayers. Senator Polley has called for a royal commission to investigate the income compliance program. A court case on this matter has already been finalised and the settlement agreed. While a royal commission provides a high level of investigation and inquiry—which is, at times, warranted and vital to ensure complex issues are investigated thoroughly—it is not a court and does not exercise judicial power. In the words of former Chief Justice of the High Court Justice Gibbs, a royal commission is a 'mere inquiry' which cannot lead to judgement. Further, Justice Gibbs said, royal commissions 'act in a purely inquisitorial capacity'. The coronavirus pandemic has resulted in a temporary pause on debt collection activity, to help ease the pressure on household budgets. However, existing income compliance debts will continue to be subject to recovery, ensuring the integrity of Australia's welfare system. The Prime Minister, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia have already apologised for the impact of the debt recovery practice during this income compliance program; the debt amounts have been repaid to those impacted; the court case has been settled and additional compensation agreed. A further inquiry in the form of a royal commission is unnecessary and unwarranted. (Time expired) 16:42 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise—somewhat out of breath—to contribute to this debate, which is, of course, about the need for Mr Morrison to apologise for his role overseeing every aspect of the illegal robodebt scheme—as the social services minister who designed it, the Treasurer who implemented it and the Prime Minister who settled the claims of victims for $1.2 billion—and to establish a royal commission, because that is the only forum with the coercive powers and the broad jurisdiction necessary to properly investigate this fiasco. And I agree. We absolutely need a royal commission. This government settled the robodebt—and I will always call it 'robodebt', despite what the government says, because it was robodebt. And it was illegal. There's this fiddling around with language to say it is 'legally insufficient'. It was illegal. And the government has settled this case because they didn't want public servants who knew what went on and ministers who knew what went on to be hauled into court to actually establish when they knew this was illegal. And they must have known, because we established it in estimates, just a couple of weeks ago, when we went through the process of the AAT. Perhaps they weren't reading the reports of the AAT—and, quite clearly at estimates, we were told people had been reading them. We were told the process that you go through in an AAT process and a decision is made. There have been a large number of cases that must have clearly pointed out that these debts were not legally based. The government don't want people in court being asked questions that may be slightly inconvenient, so, of course, they settled the class action. Of course they settled it. That's why we need a royal commission to forensically analyse what went on, who knew what, and when and where that information was held. We need to also go back before 2015, because this process isn't going back before 2015. We can't get access—when I say 'we', that is the Community Affairs References Committee that is inquiring into the Centrelink compliance program, which has asked for various bits of information. The government won't provide that under the claims of public interest immunity—including executive minutes, including their decision-making process and why they were looking at debts prior to 2015. In my opinion, it is in the public interest to release that information, but will this government release it? No, they won't. They hide behind public interest immunity. It's not quite settled yet, because I know it still has to go through the final approval process, but they have effectively agreed to settle. They think that people will stop asking questions about when they knew it was illegal and who knew it was illegal. The Prime Minister was the Minister for Social Services when this new accelerated process of income averaging—turbo charged through robodebt—was introduced. The Prime Minister knew then. Then he became the Treasurer. Now he's the Prime Minister. What did he know? What did he know about it? What did all the other ministers we've had know? Let me remember. We've had Christian Porter; he's the Attorney-General. We've had Dan Tehan. We've had Alan Tudge. We've had Stuart Robert a couple of times as the Minister for Human Services and now the minister for Services Australia. We have the current minister for social services, Minister Ruston. Did they not ask: 'Is this legal? What's the legal basis for this?' Of course they must've asked those questions. We also need to discuss the issue around the apology. Would this count as an apology? I would apologise for any hurt or harm in the way that the Government has dealt with that issue and to anyone else who has found themselves in those situations… Of course I would deeply regret any hardship that has been caused to people in the conduct of that activity. This is the Prime Minister's so-called apology. What? He doesn't know that people were hurt by this? Hundreds of thousands of people were subjected to their illegal robodebt fiasco. People were articulating very clearly their hurt and distress. If he hadn't listened to any of the radio stories about it, watched any of the TV stories about it or read any of the media articles about it, you would have thought that one of the ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, would have looked at the Senate inquiry and the Hansard transcripts, which clearly articulated people's deep, deep distress and anxiety. He says: 'any hurt or harm'. Of course there's hurt and harm. We know there's the worst possible harm. We know because we've had evidence from families about the impact on people's mental ill-health, and distress and anxiety to the point where some people, as a result of robodebt, did take their lives. It was the most distressing, awful thing for the people who took their life, and for their families. We've had evidence to the Senate inquiry, and I've had evidence personally from families, about the impact that robodebt had. Everybody in this country knows that it caused hurt, harm and distress. So that was not an apology. It was not a heartfelt apology that acknowledged the hurt, harm, anxiety and stress that robodebt caused hundreds of thousands of people because the government were once again picking on and demonising people on income support. They thought they could save money—in fact 'recoup money', so called—on the most vulnerable members of our community. It started, in fact, with the Howard government demonising people on income support. They accused people with disability of rorting the system and subjected them to Welfare to Work. It continued through the Howard governments and into the Abbott government, when Mr Abbott, as Prime Minister, accused people on the dole of sitting on the couch. He accused people of rorting the income support system. That was the mindset that was used to dream up robodebt while the Prime Minister was the Minister for Social Services—in other words, the person entrusted to look after and support those Australians who are the most vulnerable and most in need. What did the Prime Minister, as the social services minister, oversee? He oversaw the initiation of the robodebt scheme to make money off the back of the very people he, as minister, should have been working for. He should have ensured they got the support they needed, not letters saying, 'You could owe thousands of dollars.' When you get such a letter, or when the debt collector turns up at your door—which is what happened to people—and says, 'You owe thousands,' it has the most significant impact on you. This has caused deep hurt and trauma and it needs a full apology and a royal commission. 16:52 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania [by video link] I speak today about the matter of public importance that is robodebt and the Prime Minister's failure to accept fault for his actions as minister, Treasurer and Prime Minister. He's completed a trifecta that nobody would want to win on a program that was illegal and atrociously executed. He was the minister who designed robodebt, he was the Treasurer who cashed the money from robodebt and he is the Prime Minister who refused to fix it. We could look at the numbers—and they're large—but what are we dealing with? We're not dealing with numbers; we're dealing with the lives of hundreds of thousands of fellow Australians who have been put through the unnecessary stress and heartache of having to disprove their liability for debts they didn't owe. They were treated so badly that some of them took their own life. They've been put through this heartache because of the callousness and incompetence of Mr Morrison and his government. So those opposite can try to defend their position, deny the undeniable and talk about mental health programs being implemented, but the reality is that the government caused the angst and anxiety felt by participants caught up in the robodebt fiasco—it's all on them. I'm a member of the community affairs references committee. As Senator Siewert has said, we're undertaking an inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program, as robodebt is formally known. As a member of that committee, I've heard evidence and read submissions from witnesses whose lives were completely devastated by the program. We heard some really distressing evidence. Let me tell you about Ms Kath Madgwick, who believes her son Jarrad's robodebt contributed to him eventually taking his own life. She wrote a letter to the committee, which was read into evidence during a public hearing of the committee. I'll just quote part of it. She said: My son Jarrad Madgwick was an amazing, caring, intelligent boy. He was a loving + protective son. … … … If it were not for the Automative Compliance letter & the threat of a debt Jarrad would have been sabotaging my cooking with cayene pepper & giving me his cheeky giggle when he got caught that night & my son would be sitting next to me today. Instead he was extremely distressed & it pushed him to make an impulsive decision. Jarrad was not planning his death. … He was desperately applying for jobs & he had an interview scheduled with the Army on the 4th of June. I would like to express my condolences to Ms Madgwick and her family, and my condolences to all the families who have lost a loved one because of this awful program. But what has been truly shocking to me has been the reaction of the government and some of its officials. During the same hearing of the committee, a department official refused to accept that there were suicides caused by this program. This was even after being presented with the testimony of Ms Madgwick that I just quoted. Ms Madgwick is not the only grieving parent who has made this claim, so I really think it's time for the government to take seriously the parents and the loved ones of those who have taken their lives and who are saying that this program pushed them over the edge. Lives were ruined because of this program; lives were lost because of this program. Yesterday in question time in the Senate, the government warned us about speaking about the lives lost, supposedly out of a sense of respect. But I say this: it's a damn shame it didn't have that same sense of respect when it was harassing people about debts they didn't owe. This government treated 430,000 people as cheats and debtors, and these people paid the government thousands of dollars when they didn't owe it a cent. The government didn't show Australians respect, and, instead of admitting fault, former robodebt minister Stuart Robert denied for months that the standover scheme was unfair, inaccurate or illegal. Instead, the government spent years trying to defend the program, dragged its feet on the class action for months and then finally, just on the cusp of the trial but without admitting any liability, it decided to settle. I agree with Senator Siewert when she says that is because those ministers would not want to have to stand up in a court of law and swear that what they were saying was the truth. Minister Porter, the Attorney-General and former Minister for Social Services, still doesn't show respect when he continues to call the dodgy scheme 'legally insufficient' rather than downright illegal, which it has been shown to be. I think the government's understanding of respect seriously needs to be reconsidered. It's not showing respect to raise debt through illegal means, often for thousands of dollars, against people who are struggling to get by already. Shamefully, this program seems to have targeted particularly vulnerable people. I would like to take a few moments just to outline a case that appeared in the media. Mr Christopher Pascoe is a 53-year-old man living with epilepsy and an intellectual disability. In July 2018 he received notice of a debt of over $15,000 from Centrelink. The department alleged there was a mismatch between the income he declared to the department, dating from 2013 to 2016, compared to what he actually earned. Mr Pascoe doesn't declare his income to Centrelink, which is a common arrangement for people who have a disability that limits their ability to handle their own finances. Mr Pascoe's mother has described the situation like this: 'It's really sort of disability bullying to me.' Centrelink subsequently admitted they made a mistake, wiping $5,000 off the debt in February 2019, before offering to waive the debt after his story was aired on the ABC show 7.30. It shouldn't have to take going to national media to get an incorrectly raised debt wiped. This scheme has caused enormous heartache, but the government refuses to take responsibility. Under persistent questioning by Labor, in and out of the parliament, the former minister, Stuart Robert, said: 'We will not apologise,' and he spoke about the integrity of the welfare system. I'd like to remind the minister that integrity isn't illegally stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians. Robodebt victims need and deserve an apology from Minister Robert. We need a proper apology from the Prime Minister, who will only say that he has 'deep regret'. Seriously, that was not an apology. If an apology isn't genuine, it's not worth the breath people use to say it. More than apologies, you need to determine what went wrong and how. The Australian people have the right to know, and deserve to know, who was actually responsible. You need to determine how it happened—that ministers either knew that the law was being broken and did nothing about it or never bothered to even find out if the law had been broken in the first place. We need to discover how we got into the situation of senior public servants authorising a scheme which was illegal. If we don't know how this disaster occurred, how can we ensure that it won't happen again? Labor is calling for a royal commission into robodebt, and we will continue to do so, because it is the most appropriate way to investigate this absolutely disastrous policy. Royal commissions have broad powers to hold public hearings, call witnesses under oath and compel evidence. I can see why the government don't want to have one. We've seen the power of royal commissions recently with the disability royal commission and the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. In both of these cases, what we already knew was shocking but what was revealed through the proceedings of the royal commissions was even worse. It begs the question: how bad is what we don't already know about the robodebt debacle? How bad is it? It's important to remember that robodebt was the brainchild of Mr Morrison when he was the Minister for Social Services. He was the Treasurer who announced it and, finally, he was the Prime Minister who failed to stop the implementation of his own botched policy. Now the government have to pay out $1.2 billion in refunds, debt elimination and compensation. That explains why we can't find out what the government knew and when. I really think there's a fair bit of the PM protecting his own bum going on here. Only a royal commission can determine what really happened and who is to blame. The fact that it took the biggest class action in Australian history before the government finally started to put things right is extremely disappointing. The government knew years ago that things weren't right. They had made an enormous change to the system without thinking through the practical outcomes or the legalities. While governments have previously matched ATO data with Centrelink data, this government automated it, took out the human oversight element and moved it from 20,000 cases a year to 20,000 cases a week. It was once used as a last resort but under this government it turned into an extortion racket. The government unjustly enriched itself with $720 million that was stolen from vulnerable Australians and it did so at the cost of over $600 million—(Time expired) 17:03 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I love a good novel. I love a good bit of creative writing. But this parliament is no place for creative writing. It's no place for rewriting history. It's no place for the weaving of fantasy novels in the context of parliamentary speeches. Labor would have you believe that income averaging and debt recovery had its beginnings in 2015, and the fact— Senator Pratt interjecting— Senator STOKER 237920 I'll take the interjection from Senator Pratt, because the very fact that she insists on perpetually yelling over me shows how much she wants to go 'la, la, la' and pretend she doesn't have to hear the truth. But these are the facts, and the Australian people have more open-mindedness than we'll get from Senator Pratt. When it comes to the issue of when debt recovery started, it's important to understand that this government did not invent income averaging. Income averaging has been a program in our Centrelink compliance system for a very long time—we actually need to go back not five years, not 10 years, but 26 years. So, let's take a look at the evidence, but first let's put a bit of a definition around the term 'robodebt'. It's used by those opposite as a bit of a slogan to cover all manner of ills, but in the minds of Australians—the mums and dads who might be listening at home—robodebt means the use of computers to compare actual income with declared income to work out whether there are any discrepancies and to make sure the person is getting the right amount in their welfare cheque. I've got a letter right here, sent to an Australian citizen in 1994, under the Keating Labor government, about data matching pertaining to their Newstart allowance. It says: 'If you do not reply, we will use the tax office's information about your income and we will write to you about how much money you need to pay back.' I've also got here, from 1994, a Department of Social Services example letter that was used in all cases at that time to alert citizens to the fact of ATO income matching processes going on in relation to their Centrelink accounts. These letters demonstrate that data matching, income averaging and ATO cross-checks were all commonplace under what was the last Labor government to deliver a budget surplus. It is a far cry, I would suggest, from the allegations that are made in the text of this matter of public importance. Let's fast-forward to the next Labor government. In 2011 the Gillard government introduced an automated system of cross-matching data from two agencies. I've done the homework. I've got a couple of documents here that prove it: first, a joint press release from 2011 by the then human services minister, Ms Plibersek, and the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Shorten, announcing an automated system of income matching from the tax office and Centrelink. It sounds an awful lot like robodebt to me, but it's titled 'New data matching to recover millions in welfare dollars'. It states: If people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the Government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover that money. It goes on— Senator Pratt interjecting— Senator STOKER 237920 to state: The automation— There's a key word that Senator Pratt won't like— of this process will free up resources and result in more people being referred to the tax garnishee process, retrieving more outstanding debt on behalf of taxpayers. Now, if that's not enough, I also have here a press release from the member for McMahon—yes, Mr Bowen—in which he boasts: … Centrelink conducted 3.8 million payment reviews, resulting in the reduction of 641,000 payments, saving $2.27 billion using— You guessed it: data matching—robodebt, no less. I also have, right here, an article from The Australian, a well-respected newspaper, titled: 'Labor flips on "robo-debt" system that Shorten, Plibersek pioneered'. It goes on to state, in what must be devastating words for those opposite: Labor's leadership team of Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek pioneered the robo-debt data-matching system Centrelink is using to target current and former welfare recipients for apparently not declaring their income properly, but now they argue it should be suspended. That's really very interesting to me, given the outrage—the confected outrage, the froth and bubble—that we get from those opposite. You'd think, from the way they're talking, that this was a recent invention. But no, that's not the case at all. If you don't like The Australian or if you're inclined to say, 'Oh, that's just some right-wing rag; don't believe them', well, the far-left publication The Guardian decided that it met their test, too. When you're getting the same thing published in The Australian and in The Guardian—those opposite love to quote The Guardian—then I think you can feel a little bit more comfortable that we aren't mincing things up. The Guardian concedes that the automated income-matching process was designed and implemented by Mr Shorten and Ms Plibersek. The Guardian article states: The former Labor government did introduce the process— You wouldn't know it from what you're hearing from those opposite. In fact, even all the way up until last year, Labor was all aboard the robodebt train. When they protest now, it's just not very convincing. Let's do another little fact check. The policy costings that Labor took to the 2019 federal election were released by the Parliamentary Budget Office. When you have a little dig through those you'll notice they haven't made any of the changes that would be needed in their costings to reflect a reversal of the policy of robodebt. In fact, Labor's social security policies—the ones they, the very team we see opposite, brought to the 2019 federal election—did not include the reversal of the policy of using robodebt. Labor's own budget plans from the 2019 federal election did not include that reversal. In fact, they banked the expected savings from the operation of the robodebt program to fund their big-spending election commitments. They stand here and tell us they had nothing to do with it. It's pretty galling, if you ask me. It's another one of those occasions where it's fair to say that hypocrisy by name is Labor. Mr Shorten couldn't defend his own tragic record on robodebt when interviewed last year by journalist Patricia Karvelas. Even she wasn't buying the line. She said: KARVELAS: You've spoken today about how much harm this program has done. Do you regret creating it and do you regret not opposing it before the election? … … … SHORTEN: Labor didn't create— KARVELAS: No, Labor did create robodebt. SHORTEN: No, well— KARVELAS: I know; I've watched it. It did. SHORTEN: Patricia, this is not government propaganda hour. KARVELAS: Yes, but you created this computer generated system, right? And of course the truth was a little too awkward to bear. In fact social welfare activist Asher Wolf also knows Labor's hypocrisy when it comes to robodebt. She tweeted on 30 May this year, 'Shorten only jumped on board the campaign against robodebt after he lost the 2019 election.' What can we learn from all this? We know that income averaging and the automation of data crosschecking is an intergenerational Labor scheme invented, designed and championed by two Labor governments. It's Labor who should be apologising. They should be apologising for failing to be frank with the Australian people. It's Labor who should be apologising for their short memories or their creative writing or their looseness with the truth. Or maybe they should also apologise for their list of epic fails in boats, pink batts, cash for clunkers and school halls. We can add this one— (Time expired) 17:13 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania That indeed was a very, very unfortunate contribution to this debate, because it neither accepted the hurt to 400,000 Australians that this government's robodebt has impacted on nor seemed to take the matter seriously. That contribution was an absolute disgrace, because this is, indeed, a very grave and serious matter of public importance. For 400,000 Australians, this is a deeply personal and painful matter, because their own government effectively lied about them and stole from them. You can only accept two things: either that was their objective in the first place—they were just out there to get money back to bolster their bottom line—or they're just incompetent. It can only be one or the other. I'd be happy, and I'm sure the 400,000 people that they vilified would be happy, if they could just fess up. But what this government did with the robodebt they did with a very heavy hand, meting out pain and suffering based on flimsy and false evidence that debts were owed. It did so in a particularly galling fashion, in a very patronising way, saying to everyday Australians—pretty much like the contribution we just received—'You know you owe us money. We know best. Don't challenge us. Fess up. Cough up.' But these Australians had done nothing wrong. They didn't owe the government any money. There was no debt, only a fantasy debt dreamed up by the social services minister desperate to prove himself by preying on the weak and vulnerable, because that's the sort of thing that earns you brownie points among the Liberal Party circles of the chattering classes. As social services minister, Scott Morrison bragged and boasted about this illegal scheme, designed with the intent of scaring, intimidating and thrashing about with a big stick. But the people on the receiving end were many hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians who had done absolutely nothing wrong. They didn't deserve this treatment. The damage to people's mental and physical health wrought by this scheme has been profound. In the state that I represent over 15,000 Tasmanians are estimated to be victims of this Prime Minister's botched, dodgy, dehumanising and, indeed, malevolent scheme. It was his scheme as social services minister. He designed it. As Treasurer, Mr Morrison was the implementer and the enforcer of this scheme. And now, as Prime Minister, he has been forced to come to the biggest settlement of any Australian government in history over this illegal scheme—a $1.2 billion settlement. What a blunder. What a backflip. What a disgrace. Yes, this settlement—as humiliating and humbling as it must be—goes some way towards justice for everyday Australians who are victims of this illegal scheme, but the fact is they deserve so much more. They deserve more from their government. Australian governments are vested with the responsibility of protecting Australian people, securing them from harm and predatory behaviour. But in this instance it was their own government the Australian people had to fear. The victims of this illegal scheme deserve nothing less than a royal commission, because a royal commission is the only forum vested with coercive powers and broad jurisdiction that can properly investigate this blight on our nation—this fiasco of the Prime Minister's own making. The truly extraordinary thing about this scandal is that it has followed this Prime Minister through every portfolio he has held since the coalition came to office. As social services minister, it was his baby. As Treasurer, it was meant to be his cash cow. As Prime Minister, it landed him a spot in history as the man responsible for the largest ever settlement by a government in Australian class action history. That is why he remains uninterested in getting to the bottom of this matter. He's uninterested in finding the truth, uninterested in the transparency needed to reveal just how badly this went wrong, uninterested in holding anyone to account, because the person who needs to be held to account more than any other in this sorry saga is none other than the Prime Minister himself. No wonder he hasn't held anyone to account for it. 17:18 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I rise to speak to the income compliance program. The term 'robodebt' was first used in 2016 in relation to debt raised through the online compliance intervention program. The catch-all robodebt name has been used incorrectly for all Centrelink debts, creating confusion amongst the Australian public. Labor would have you believe that they would do things differently, but in fact Labor created this computer generated system while it was in government. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator HUGHES 273828 You might remember that because you probably won't see it again for a while. Anthony Albanese cannot escape that harsh truth. He is so disingenuous that, in fact, Labor's policy costings for the 2019 federal election, released by the Parliamentary Budget Office, did not include the reversal of robodebt. Labor's social security policies, which they brought to the 2019 federal election, did not include the reversal of robodebt, and Labor's own budget plan from the 2019 federal election didn't include the reversal of robodebt but banked the savings from robodebt to fund their election commitments. In stark contrast, the Morrison government remains committed to the continued improvement of the income compliance program and the Prime Minister has apologised for any hurt or harm this program has caused. If we go back to 9 May 2019, when Bill Shorten was directly asked about the robodebt system, he said: We want to make sure that people aren't receiving welfare to which they're not entitled to. And no one gets a leave pass on that. The income compliance program was developed to make identifying welfare overpayments more efficient. It assisted with reviews where customers didn't respond or fully engage with requests to clarify discrepancies between income and earnings reported to Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office. In recent times Services Australia, as part of its commitment to continuous improvement, has engaged with more than 35 organisations including advocacy groups and it has piloted the first refund process, engaged with the ombudsman's office on draft refund letters and met with the civil society advisory groups with further updates on the agency's progress in refunding customers. In fact, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, in his most recent report, commented positively on the enhanced customer experience, including improved letters and income compliance correspondence. From July this year Services Australia commenced repayments made on debts using income averaging based on ATO data. The number of debts or debt notices raised wholly or partially using income averaging of Australian Taxation Office data is approximately 525,000. The total value of refunds, including recovery fees and/or interest charges, is estimated at $741.6 million, with 430,000 people to have their debt zeroed. Of these, approximately 378,000 people will also receive a refund and approximately 52,000 won't receive a refund as no repayment was ever made. But, with regard to refunds and the progress made to date, as at 30 November 2020, 406,889 people have had their refunds completed—that means they've been processed or their debt zeroed—with a total value of $700.7 million in refunds paid, about 95 per cent of people and 95 per cent of refunds by value. Approximately134,050 former customers have completed the online task for a refund, with payments being processed, and approximately 23,100 people are still to be refunded or have their debt zeroed. Of these, 10,150 customers require tailored servicing by Services Australia due to their individual circumstances, such as incarceration or bankruptcy. Then there are 12,950 former customers who need to complete their refund pending task in myGov to trigger their refund. There have also been advances in simplifying income reporting, with 1.2 million income support recipients who report earnings to benefit from a simpler way of reporting their employment income. From 7 December 2020, income support recipients will find it easier to report their income by using the amount found on their payslip, rather than trying to calculate what they've earned in a fortnightly entitlement period. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Consideration 63 COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee 63 Corrigenda to Report 63 17:24 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, I present a corrigendum to the interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 63 BILLS Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 63

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020

Report from Committee 63 17:24 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's Advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 17:24 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. I note Labor members and senators support the recommendations of this report. To reach the point of bipartisan consensus on this matter with this bill is truly gratifying, but it has not been without substantial effort and commitment from those advocating for the rights of Territorians. I want to acknowledge in this place Senators McCarthy and McMahon for their advocacy. It's also important, I think, to acknowledge the author and co-sponsor of this bill, Senator Farrell, for the hard work of placing this on the table and pursuing this matter of fairness well before the government came on board. I'd also like to thank the chair, Senator McGrath. This report and the government's subsequent drafting of its own bill has really been a case of the government coming on board only following a sustained campaign by the Labor Party and, indeed, pressure from the National Party. Labor certainly welcomes the fact that the government has now agreed to legislate to guarantee a minimum two seats in the House of Representatives for both the Northern Territory and the ACT. The committee's inquiry into this bill followed the bill's introduction into the Senate by Senator McCarthy on 11 June this year. I do want to particularly acknowledge Senator McCarthy's efforts on this campaign but also the tireless way in which she fights for Territorians every day in this place. The committee's inquiry received over 60 submissions and heard from over 20 witnesses at its public hearing. It should be noted that all but a few submissions were strongly in favour of Labor's bill. As it noted, while the Constitution mandates the states a minimum representation of five seats in the House of Representatives, it leaves the matter of territory representation in the lower house as entirely a matter for parliament. Therefore it was more than appropriate for this place to take action to prevent one of the most remote parts of this nation, with a high proportion of First Nations people, from effectively having its representation in the place that forms government slashed in half should no action be taken. As the inquiry examined, this would have been the outcome if representation were determined based on the Australian Electoral Commission's population determination as made on 3 July this year. This was particularly concerning to the committee and had troubled Labor for some time, given competing estimates of Territory population projections from the Northern Territory government vis-a-vis the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and ultimately other submissions to the committee. Recommendation 1 of this report deals with this, the key issue of this bill, by recommending a floor of two seats for the territories rather than one—a recommendation that Labor has been pursuing and that many in the Territory had advocated for some considerable time. It is pleasing to see that the government have listed their bill, which will make this enhanced representation floor a reality, for debate in the Senate later this week. Labor have always flagged our support for this bill. Again, I commend the efforts of the many people who have campaigned for fair representation for the Territory and I commend the report to the Senate. 17:28 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory This is a significant moment in history for the Northern Territory and indeed for the Australian parliament. Right now, as of 3 July this year, the geographical area of the Northern Territory and its more than 140,000 enrolled voters are just one electoral division. Over 1.3 million square kilometres of the Northern Territory is one single seat at the moment according to the Australian Electoral Commission. That's why this report today in the Senate and the decision of the Senate to protect the two seats in the Northern Territory are absolutely critical. If an election were held tomorrow, all of us in the Northern Territory, including the offshore territories of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island, would be casting their vote for just one federal representative. It would certainly be back to the future for Territorians. I'd like to share a little bit of the history of the Northern Territory, and I'm going to do it over a couple of days, as I'm sure my Senate colleague Sam McMahon will also do. The Northern Territory was represented by just one seat between 1922 and 1998. Before this, it was a mixed bag, electorally speaking. From 1863 until 1911, Territorians were basically South Australians. No offence to the South Australian senators, but we do like to be Territorians! We did have the same voting rights as people living in South Australia for representation in both houses of the South Australian parliament. We qualified as South Australian voters in elections for both houses of the Commonwealth parliament after 1901. It's incredibly fitting, I think, that it is actually a South Australian senator who has assisted the Northern Territory senators and members fight to protect the two seats of the Northern Territory. And can I just throw in there that, when we look at the history, it was actually the surrender act of 1907 which saw the Northern Territory transferred from South Australia to the Commonwealth, so it seemed like no-one ever really wanted to have us. There's always been this struggle about representation. And even prior to that, I think there was even mention of making sure the north returned to Britain—they didn't seem to know what to do with us even before the 1900s, so there you go. In 1911, Territorians lost all political representation for the next 11 years, when we were transferred to the Commonwealth. In 1922, the Northern Territory gained its first representative in the House of Representatives. In two years time, that will be 100 years ago. However, it was for a non-voting seat, so we didn't have voting rights, even though we had one representative. It stayed this way until the single NT member received full voting rights in 1968. This was an interesting time—it was a year after the referendum that recognised our First Nations people in the population. That's when we got the actual voting rights, even though we had a person in the House. It certainly stayed this way until the single NT member received those voting rights, and, in December 2000, the Australian Electoral Commissioner determined that the Northern Territory electorate would be divided into two seats—Solomon, which covers the Darwin area; and Lingiari, which covers the remainder of the Northern Territory—as well as the territories of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. A big shout-out to the residents of Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) islands because you fought so strongly in terms of making sure that these two seats stayed in the Northern Territory. A few years later, in 2003, a determination by the AEC removed this second seat because of further changes in relative population sizes between the states and territories. So you can see that there's been a complete toing and froing—still!—in terms of the status of Territorians and our voices in the Australian parliament. Following the 2003 determination, during the 40th Parliament, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducted an inquiry into representation of the territories—similar to this time, with JSCEM doing the same thing. The committee recommended the 2003 determination be set aside by the passage of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Representation in the House of Representatives) Act 2004. It restored the second NT seat, but only for the October 2004 election. The Northern Territory continued to maintain two divisions beyond the 2004 election, and now we come to 2020, when the Electoral Commissioner made a determination that sees the NT revert back again to one seat. The process of a federal redistribution is complex. It relies on objective information and has the capacity to take into account the opinions of those who are affected by redistribution decisions. Importantly, the process is undertaken independently of the government and the parliament. It is transparent and accountable, and, generally, the outcomes of these redistributions are accepted by the parties and the public. Australia's redistribution process is certainly independent, but this does not necessarily mean it is fair in every case. This determination, while completely correct under the present legislation, certainly isn't fair to the residents of the Northern Territory. Territorians, though, aren't shy about fighting for what they see as their right to be fairly represented and doing things a little bit differently to the rest of the country. I'll just take you back, again, in a little bit of history. In December 1918, the pressure from issues that arose from a lack of political representation manifested in what became known as the Darwin rebellion, with mass protests, riots and the removal of the then NT Administrator, Mr Gilruth. The federal government of the day took the events of the rebellion very seriously and sent gunboats to monitor the situation and be ready should the protests turn violent. The rebellion itself led to a royal commission and the creation of a seat for the Northern Territory in the federal parliament, albeit a non-voting one. In 2020, Territorians again banded together to protest against the move to reduce our political representation. This time we did it by working together on all political sides with a petition of thousands of Territorians and Australians. We didn't need the gunboats up there this time to get the Territorians settled down, as we did in 1918. It just shows the passion of the people of the Northern Territory to be heard when they see something that is as unfair as this decision was. I'm enormously grateful for the bipartisan approach and the people from all walks who've come together for a common cause here. In a very rare move, one that certainly made this possible, all the NT federal representatives from both parties—Senator Sam McMahon and members from the House, Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, and Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon—made submissions to the JSCEM inquiry. I'd like to acknowledge the support of many across all parties, in particular, the National Party, the Independents, the Greens and especially our crossbenchers for standing strong with us on this. While the government hasn't adopted all the recommendations of the JSCEM report, what it has done is guarantee Territorians two representatives in the House for the foreseeable future. I have always got so much to say about the Northern Territory. I will continue to do this when the bill comes before the Senate here tomorrow. I'd certainly like to commend the report by the committee members of JSCEM, but also acknowledge the work of my colleague Senator Don Farrell in pursuing this so vigorously and so proudly—even if he is a South Australian!—for the people of the Northern Territory. Thank you, Senator Farrell. 17:37 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory I rise today to welcome this report from JSCEM on behalf of all Territorians. Most people probably don't know what a joint standing committee is or what it does, and Territorians are no different. Yet today, whether they know it or not, they are applauding the work of this committee. One thing that's vitally important to Territorians is their representation. Strangely, a lot of people in other jurisdictions would probably tell you that the world will be a better place with fewer politicians, not more. Yet, this is not the case in the Territory. Everywhere I go, travelling throughout the Northern Territory for these past six months, there's been one burning question on everybody's mind: what's happening with our two seats? So I'm very proud and happy on behalf of Territorians, who are rejoicing over this report and the work that this committee has done on this inquiry. Even though they may not know what a joint standing committee does, they know that it has delivered them the retaining of two seats in the Northern Territory, which, as I said, is vitally important to Territorians. Recommendation 1 of the report states: The Committee recommends that instead of the Senate proceeding with the Bill— that being the private senator's bill— the Government introduce a Bill to provide for a consistent floor of two seats for both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. As a consequence, the 2004 margin of error rule for the Territories should be repealed to provide consistency with the formula applying to the States. It further recommends that as part of a new Bill, the two Territories should also be subject to the same rules as each other in the process of redistributing boundaries between electorates, under Part IV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Recommendation 2 states: The Committee recommends that the Government review the existing provision of additional resourcing to MPs with large electorates, and consider whether further targeted resourcing would assist with representation by MPs of their constituents in these large electorates. That's another thing that is important to the Northern Territory. As we've heard from Senator McCarthy, the electorate of Lingiari also encompasses Christmas and Cocos islands. For Senator McCarthy, the member for Lingiari and I to get to those places, we have to fly to Perth. We'd be one of the few jurisdictions in the world where you have to leave your electorate and go to another electorate to get back to your electorate. It's a week-long trip. So it's absolutely vital that we remain with our representation and that we're also able to resource these important parts that form part of the Northern Territory. Recommendation 3 states: The Committee recommends that if the Parliament does not enact a two seat floor for the Territories, it considers instead either: enacting a harmonic mean for allocating seats between States and Territories, with appropriate public explanation to build understanding for the reform, or developing options for JSCEM to consider for additional Senate representation for the Northern Territory. So, effectively, this recommends guaranteeing a minimum of two seats for the foreseeable future. This is vitally important to Territorians. As I said, they are rejoicing today with the tabling of this report in the Senate. I would like to thank Senator James McGrath and his committee for the excellent work they did, for the excellent consultation and inquiry and for the outcomes they have recommended in this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee 66 Corrigenda to Report 66 17:42 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland A corrigendum to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System was tabled earlier today. The Greens opposed this inquiry from the outset, not because the family law system can't be improved but because initiating another inquiry while so many recommendations from previous inquires remained on the shelf would delay action, and because the inquiry had been politicised by unfounded public comments made by the deputy chair regarding women allegedly abusing the system to punish men and allegedly lying about family and domestic violence. Specialist services across the women's safety sector raised the same concerns about this inquiry. They reported that survivors were contacting them terrified that the inquiry would embolden their abusers and concerned they would not be believed when they spoke about family violence. Throughout the inquiry, we heard from nearly 1,700 submitters sharing their experiences of the family law system. This has largely re-agitated issues discussed at length in previous inquiries, highlighting the extent to which matters in the family law system are impacted by the scourge of family and domestic violence. Meanwhile, women continue to be killed. We are now at the stage where 48 women have been killed by violence this year. We know that the COVID crisis has turbocharged the risks that face women and children. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that one in 10 women in a relationship this year has experienced intimate partner violence during the pandemic, many either for the first time or with increased severity. Women are seeking refuge from abusive relationships at record rates. It's exposing the constrained capacity of our prevention programs and support systems for housing, counselling, and financial and legal advice. Without more funding, services like the Women's Legal Service are currently having to turn away nearly half of the women that seek their help. The Family Court is overworked and underfunded. It leads to significant delays in the resolution of complex matters. We know what needs to happen. Countless recommendations from previous inquiries have set it out. The government should urgently respond to the ALRC's family law inquiry report and ensure that child safety is at the heart of family law reforms. The government should also immediately repeal the presumption of shared parental responsibility—a presumption that, despite its intentions, leads to a culture of entitlement that emboldens abusers to weaponise access to children in disputes. The government needs to implement a national accreditation scheme for family report writers and to facilitate access to superannuation in family law matters as it promised to do in the 2018 Women's Economic Security Statement. The government must also properly fund the Family Court, the Federal Circuit Court, legal aid and women's legal services, to ensure that families have access to legal support and do not experience unnecessary delays in resolving family law disputes. The government, finally, should abandon plans to merge the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court—which, of course, just passed the House approximately 20 minutes ago—in light of the concerns expressed by the legal profession, by former judges, by the Law Council and by the women's safety sector. Those concerns are that the merger will jeopardise the expertise needed to manage complex family matters, especially those involving domestic and family violence. The issues raised in this inquiry are not new. The solutions are not mysterious. The government knows what needs to be done to ensure the family law system can support families and protect those escaping family violence. It just needs to get on and do it. Joint Standing Committee on Migration 67 Report 67 17:46 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the final report of the committee on the working holiday-maker program. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 67 Report 67 17:47 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the final report of the committee on NDIS planning, together with documents presented to the committee, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As an accessible, approachable and timely planning process is central to the success of the NDIS, and as with any significant piece of reform, participants, service providers and the NDIA must always be alive to opportunities to reform the planning process, with a view to making it an even better experience for NDIS participants. With that in mind, the committee makes several recommendations on how to address the longstanding issues in the NDIS planning process. Of significant concern to the committee was the evidence we received that there are likely to be major inconsistencies in plan funding between participants with the same disability. These issues were first raised when the trial sites were operating and persist to this day. The committee was particularly concerned with the evidence we received of plans that did not include funded supports as the presumption was that informal supports would be available through family members, despite these participants having no family support or having elderly parents with dementia. The jurisdictional issues of responsibility for providing support also persist, with the NDIA still refusing to fund supports that they deem will be provided by health agencies. These approaches are contrary to one of the fundamental principles of the scheme, which is that it remain person-centred and that the planning process should address all the participants' needs as they relate to their disability. The majority of our recommendations in this final planning report relate to the NDIA's communications process. Access to timely, accessible information is key to the planning process. The committee has made a number of recommendations that we strongly believe will improve the efficiency, transparency and overall satisfaction with planning. Our leading recommendation is that the NDIA provide fully costed, detailed draft plans to participants and their nominees at least one week prior to the meeting to approve the plan. Other recommendations go to the provision of information to caregivers where they are involved in the planning process to help ensure that they are informed about the types of support that are available and able to be included in a plan. The committee remain concerned about the NDIA's level of engagement with participants who are in custody. We have recommended that the NDIA develop, implement and report on a strategy for engaging these participants and that the Commonwealth, states and territories meet and consider and agree on the appropriate action of responsibility for the funding of supports for participants in custody. The need for the NDIA to advertise and provide training is also covered in the report. Training needs to be readily available to planners, local area coordinators and other professionals involved in the process in accessible formats and locations. The NDIA often points to the participants' satisfaction ratings to demonstrate that participants and their nominees are happy with their performance. However, the committee received evidence of planners either taking months to respond to queries from participants or not replying at all. We also heard the wording of the survey may not allow for accurate reflection of participants' views and experiences. The committee has made 42 recommendations in this report. It is the committee's view that these recommendations would bring greater transparency, consistency and accountability to the NDIS planning process. As is noted in the executive summary of our report, the recent announcements by the government and the NDIA about joint planning, improved transparency and the commitment to clear time frames are welcome. However, the announcements do not mean that these issues have been resolved. This work, along with the committee's recommendations, should help improve the planning process. As always, we will continue to monitor the implementation of these reforms and conduct further inquiries should we need to. Finally, I would like to place on record my thanks to the many participants and their family members and supporters who have contributed to this inquiry. The time you took to provide submissions, give evidence and share your personal experiences was invaluable. I'd like to also thank Bonnie Allan and her team at the secretariat for their work on this report. As always, it was of a very high standard and captured the experiences of those accessing the planning process. I commend the report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Public Accounts and Audit Committee 68 Report 68 17:52 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the annual report 2019-20 and the review of the operations of the Parliamentary Budget Office 2019-20, listed at item 13 on today's Order of Business. I will also make a statement concerning the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I'm pleased to report to the Senate that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has ratified the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Dr Stein Helgeby. He was appointed on 18 November 2020. Prior to this he was the deputy secretary of governance and resource management at the Department of Finance. Dr Helgeby joined Finance in February 2010 as the deputy secretary of the former financial management group. Before that, Dr Helgeby worked in the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance, where he was responsible for budget and financial management, long-term policy research, taxation, business tax reform and intergovernmental relations. He also worked in the Department of Premier and Cabinet on national reform and climate change issues. Prior to joining the Victorian public service, he held various budget and corporate services senior executive positions within the then Commonwealth Department of Finance and Administration. I'd also like to put on record the committee's thanks to Linda Ward and Colin Brown for their work over the last 12 months acting in the role of Parliamentary Budget Officer. The committee are excited to see the appointment of Dr Helgeby and we look forward to his work and the service that he will bring to this parliament. Migration Joint Committee 68 Report 68 17:54 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria by leave—I want to take a few minutes today to speak on the report that was tabled by Senator Davey in respect of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration about the Working Holiday Maker program. The Working Holiday Maker program is undoubtedly a significant contributor to many regional communities around Australia. Founded as a means to facilitate cultural exchange, the Working Holiday Maker program has allowed millions of young people from all around the world to travel to Australia and, in many cases, establish lifelong bonds with our people and our great places. But today the program has become more than just about cultural exchange—rather, it has turned into something which has become, unashamedly, an unregulated labour scheme. Travelling throughout regional Australia and meeting with primary producers, you come to appreciate just how important this program is, particularly to horticulturalists, who rely on these young travellers to ensure that our fruit and veggies are picked, packed and made ready for market in our supermarkets. This reliance, however, has come as a result of the failure of successive Liberal and National governments to systematically address labour supply issues. It is incumbent upon all of us in this place—indeed, incumbent upon this government—to develop meaningful solutions to the problems that arise in our community, and we have heard many, many examples of this throughout the course of the last couple of years. Whilst I acknowledge that there are certainly recommendations in this report which, if implemented, will improve the circumstances of those who need labour and those who supply it, it should be noted that too often many people who work under this program face exploitation, unfortunately, by a lot of employers. These workers are seeking help and, quite frankly, are lacking in support from many government institutions and agencies. Unfortunately, these people are abused—economically, physically and sexually. And I'm afraid that there is still much more to be done in this policy space. But, putting all that to one side, the issues that were raised by many stakeholders in the course of the committee's inquiry are real and concerning, and they deserve thoughtful and considered solutions. No doubt, this place will have many more discussions about this through the temporary migration inquiry, chaired by the opposition, by me—and by yourself, Madam Acting Deputy President Chandler, as deputy—where those issues will be fleshed out in greater detail. Simply increasing the size of the Working Holiday Maker program isn't going to give our farmers the certainty that they need, nor will it do anything to systematically address the circumstances of exploitation that workers still face. Nonetheless, I thank my colleagues on the committee, especially the chair, the member for Berowra, and the deputy chair, the member for Calwell, for the good faith in which we have worked together throughout the course of the inquiry. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants 69 Report 69 17:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I present the interim report of the Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I move: That the Senate adopt the recommendation in the report to order the production of a document. Question agreed to. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The Senate Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants tabled the interim report to update the Senate on its efforts to get to the bottom of what really went on in what has become known as the sports rorts scandal. From the very start of this inquiry in February this year, the government has been hindering the committee from getting to the bottom of this. They have found numerous ways of trying to stop this committee from getting to the bottom of what has been an outrageous abuse of public funds—whether it be the Gaetjens report, which they have not provided in full to the committee; the release of the spreadsheets they used in making their decisions; or the former Minister for Sport, Bridget McKenzie, not being prepared to front up and answer questions about her role in this, which I would have thought goes against the very basis of democratic principles. And we have just dealt with the public interest immunity claims they have been using to hide behind and not provide advice to this committee. I will return to that issue shortly. This is an opportunity to remember what is at the heart of this inquiry. We know that there were many applications; hundreds of groups applied for funding under this program. The government tried to use this as an excuse to pork-barrel marginal and targeted seats in the lead-up to the 2019 election. But what that popularity really shows is that funding is needed for community sports infrastructure. Funding should be provided for those projects that give more Australians the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of sport. We know that hundreds of projects that Sport Australia assessed as highly meritorious missed out. As the election approached, the number of grants approved that weren't recommended by Sport Australia increased. It was 40 per cent in the first round, 70 per cent in the second round and 73 per cent in the final round as the election loomed. As the election got closer, the political decision-making around these grants became more heightened. The Auditor-General found that the minister's office ran a parallel assessment process which drew upon considerations other than the assessment criteria, such as project locations including coalition marginal electorates and targeted electorates. That is from the Auditor-General's report itself. We also know that there were 136 emails between the minister's office and the Prime Minister's office about these grants, which shows you the political nature of this decision-making. This was being used as part of their election strategy—with versions of the colour-coded spreadsheets attached, which identified applications by electorate, zooming between the two offices. We've heard compelling evidence from those clubs that missed out. The Gippsland roller derby club, in the safe Nationals seat of Gippsland, missed out on funding despite attracting the highest Sport Australia merit score of 98 out of 100. The club provided evidence to us of their overwhelming need and how important it was that they received funding. But the substance of this report today actually goes to the legal authority. We received evidence from many eminent legal scholars, and they didn't think there was legal authority for the minister to be the decision-maker. I want to talk briefly about some of that evidence. We heard from Emeritus Professor in Law Geoffrey Lindell. He suggested that the then minister, Bridget McKenzie, didn't have the legal authority to be authorising these grants. He said: I have serious doubts as to whether she had that authority. I certainly couldn't find it. I went through all the various possible steps that could be invoked. Professor Lindell also disagreed with what the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General had suggested—that the minister had a broad power to give directions. He said: … as I've indicated that's a power that would've not supplanted individual decision-making. It was a power to give directions to practices and policy, not individual decision-making. I looked at the power of delegation that the commission has, and the minister is not mentioned amongst those. We also had compelling evidence from Professor Twomey, an expert in constitutional law, who, like Professor Lindell, disagreed with the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General about the broad ministerial powers, suggesting section 11 gives the minister the power to direct the commission with respect to the policies and practices to be followed by the commission in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers. It does not permit the minister to exercise the commission's powers, being one of the key points. Further, Professor Twomey disagreed with the Prime Minister about the program guidelines, saying about Senator McKenzie as the decision-maker: You can say that the guidelines said it, but the mere fact that the guidelines say it doesn't mean that the guidelines were valid. If the guidelines are inconsistent with the act, if the act doesn't give you the authority, then the guidelines are irrelevant. We also heard from the then chair of Sport Australia, Mr John Wiley, who told the committee with regard to the legal advice: Since the board in proper execution of its role has directors responsibilities and saw fit to obtain legal advice from a senior Queen's Counsel after this issue was raised, I would be happy to provide that opinion to this committee to you if you would like. The committee subsequently agreed to accept that evidence in camera, and Sport Australia were willing to comply, but it was Minister Colbeck who wrote to the committee on 16 July claiming public interest immunity from those questions taken on notice on the grounds of legal professional privilege and prejudice to legal proceedings. The minister's letter does not cover that Sport Australia was happy to provide the legal advice in camera to the committee. The committee has not been able to identify a previous case where a statutory officeholder has been willing to provide information, only to be blocked by the responsible minister. That is the substance of why we brought forward this interim report today. This committee feels that it is vital that we have access to that information. I'm pleased that the Senate has voted in favour of that today, and we look forward to the government meeting the directions of the Senate in its response to the motion we just voted on. 18:06 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I also wish to take note of this report. It is almost a year since the ANAO's explosive report revealed the corruption in the administration of the sports grants program. The report revealed that a huge amount of public money was being used by this government to try to buy votes. What's been going on since then has been attempt after attempt by this government to cover up, to not share with the Senate the information that lays out how the use of public funds to try to win votes to win the last election took place. In particular, as is outlined in this report, the fact is that there was no legal authority for the minister to be directing how this money was spent. This is clearly a case of an absolutely appalling misuse of public funds. We've got a situation where ordinary Australians, volunteers with sports clubs, were offered an opportunity to apply for a grant for their sports club. The guidelines were set out by Sport Australia, and so they thought that if they put in all of their information, it would be assessed according to the guidelines that Sport Australia had set out. That's what they committed to doing and, as we heard during the inquiry undertaken into this matter, many clubs have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours putting their information together. We also know that Sport Australia did do their assessment and they ranked all of the various applications—indeed, the program was oversubscribed because there is a great need for more investment in sporting infrastructure in Australia—but the government didn't like the answers that turned up. The government didn't like the fact that Sport Australia would actually apply grants on merit, because that did not suit their political purposes; it didn't suit their pork-barrelling purposes. Then Minister McKenzie intervened—in fact, it wasn't just the minister intervening; the intervention was clearly done in collusion with the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. We have got the evidence of the hundreds of emails that went between the then minister's office and the Prime Minister's office, and we know that there was a meeting with the Prime Minister that the minister, Senator McKenzie, had, which basically said: 'What can we deliver? If we increase the size of this grants program, how many projects in our targeted seats can we deliver on?' It was clearly a program that was being rorted by the government. They were trying to get projects that the government thought were going to help them win the election. There it is, in terms of the documents that we have been able to cobble together. But there have been critical bits of evidence that the government has been sitting on—that the then minister has been sitting on. The then minister, Senator McKenzie, has refused to appear before our committee. She needs to come out of witness protection. She needs to front up to our committee and actually lay out what happened in her office and the negotiations and the discussions between her office and the Prime Minister's office that led to these outrageous happenings occurring. The other bit of information that today's interim report goes to is that it is pretty clear from the legal evidence that she actually didn't even have the authority to be intervening in this way. Sport Australia is meant to be an independent statutory authority. It's meant to have control over its decisions on where these grants are spent. We cannot find any legal authority as to how the minister actually had the ability to say where the money was going to be spent. In fact, we had Sport Australia being willing to share with us, on a confidential basis, their legal advice. But suddenly, there's intervention and the government said, 'No, you can't share that legal advice with the committee.' Since then they have been sitting on that legal advice. Today's OPD that we have just passed is basically giving the government the opportunity, once again, to present that legal advice to us, so that the community can see what happened and so that the extent of the lack of legal authority can be laid clear. I'm also hoping that then minister, Senator McKenzie, will see and realise that she really needs to come out of witness protection. She really needs to appear before our committee. We need to have the information that has been hidden from us there in full view so that the extent of the rorts, the extent of the corruption and the extent of the misuse of public money can be laid out for us. That is only fair for ordinary Australians and these sporting clubs right across the country to keep faith with them. As it stands at the moment, they know that they did their bit—they put in their hundreds of hours to put their grant applications together for very worthy infrastructure projects—and that they were done over. They need to know what happened, and then we need to get a commitment that those clubs that should have been funded will be funded. I've had a private senator's bill in this place that I'm very happy to bring on for debate again to say that those clubs that scored highly, including clubs like the Gippsland Ranges Roller Derby, which scored the top amount in terms of Sport Australia's criteria—they scored 98 out of 100, but missed out on funding—deserve to be funded. Until those clubs are funded, there will just continue to be a stink about this. There is this realisation that there is corruption that is riddled through this government and that there is no fairness: that basically, if you're associated with the government, if you're living in a marginal or targeted seat, then you get special treatment. Otherwise, you just get left behind. Nothing is on merit. Nothing is to do with fairness. People expect better of their politicians, but the cynicism that people have about politics is because of this type of behaviour. I am concerned about that increasing level of cynicism and lack of trust in government. Until we get to the bottom of this, so that we can lay it out and have an acknowledgement and an apology from this government about what has gone on, we will continue to pursue this. We are not giving up on it. The government is hoping that we will just give up on it, because of attrition and because they just keep on saying, 'No, no, no.' But we're not giving up, because this goes to the heart of our democracy. 18:14 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'll keep my comments on this interim report brief. The report sets out the reasons the committee does not accept this public interest immunity claim by the minister. It is incredibly important that such public interest immunity claims are scrutinised and not used by ministers to avoid public transparency and accountability. The minister has not made out the grounds for the public interest immunity claim, and the Senate needs to consider whether it is in the public interest to allow the minister to claim immunity over these documents. I am pleased that the Senate has resolved to ask the minister for these documents. This PI claim and this inquiry—this entire, disgraceful sports rorts saga—demonstrate the lengths to which Prime Minister Scott Morrison will go to avoid transparency and accountability. This advice that we have asked for goes to the legal authority of the minister to make these decisions, and it is crucial that the committee considers the advice. But we have been denied these documents, even on a confidential basis. The Auditor-General found that there was no legal authority for the minister to make these decisions. Instead of acting on the report of the Auditor-General, the Prime Minister sought two separate inquiries of his own—the Gaetjens report and advice from the Attorney-General—but we haven't received those documents either. The Gaetjens report, funnily enough, says, 'Nothing to see here.' And the advice from the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, says: 'Yes, it's all good. There was legal basis, but we're not going to share that legal advice with you.' The question really is: why all this secrecy? Why won't this government come clean? Why won't the former minister appear before the committee? Why won't they give us the documents that we desperately need? There's one answer to that: 136 emails. There were 136 emails between the Prime Minister's office and the minister's office discussing this program—passing the spreadsheet back and forth, requests from the minister's office to change decisions to make sure that applications got through. And, as the Auditor-General report found, in one instance the Prime Minister's office said, 'We need to be able to crosscheck against our lists and also be able to pull out individual projects to coordinate announcements with material from CCHQ.' This was all about getting the government re-elected. It was all the Prime Minister's idea, and the transparency and accountability that the government has shown is all about protecting the Prime Minister. The Senate has a job to do, and the government needs to give the Senate the information that it needs. That is the job the government should do so that this inquiry can table a final report—one the public can read and use to understand exactly what happened in this circumstance. 18:17 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I'd like to speak on this motion to take note of the interim report. I start by congratulating the work the committee has done in starting to get to the bottom of what went on in the sports rorts affair. In particular, I thank my two Senate colleagues on the committee, Senator Chisholm and Senator Green, who've worked tirelessly and thoroughly to try and get to the bottom of what continues to be a terrible scandal for this government. This committee has been trying to get to the bottom of this matter in the time of COVID. That's given the government some cover, which it has used to try and deflect from the inquiries. I say to the government and, in particular, the Prime Minister that we're not giving up here. We are going to continue to make inquiries. This afternoon the Senate passed a very clear and deliberate motion that makes it very clear that you can't hide behind a public immunity screen—that the Senate expects all of the documents which the minister, up until this point in time, has been trying to hide will be delivered to the committee so that the committee can continue its inquiries and get to the truth of what has happened here. I'd like to go back to where this whole sorry tale started. It started with the Auditor-General's determination on this matter. A lot of people talk about the need for an ICAC in this country. Well, I can tell you that, in the absence of an ICAC, some excellent work has been done by the Auditor-General and, in particular, Mr Brian Boyd and his team in the Auditor-General's office, and they have been punished for that by losing some important funding. It was their original report that started this inquiry when they made this comment after reviewing the early documentation that was available, the so-called colour-coded spreadsheet. The report said it: … reflected the approach documented by the Minister's Office of focusing on 'marginal' electorates held by the Coalition as well as those electorates held by other parties or independent members that were to be 'targeted' by the Coalition at the 2019 Election. Now, you might say to yourself, 'Why has the government been so keen not to release all of the documentation that has gone between the then minister's office and the Prime Minister's office?' Well, I think we know the answer. The answer's in that little description there by the Auditor-General. What we'll discover, when we finally get to see that documentation, is that what the Auditor-General said was going on was in fact backed up by all of those emails. This wasn't just an ordinary pork-barrelling exercise; this was pork-barrelling on an industrial scale. And we still haven't had a satisfactory answer from the Prime Minister about his role in this process. We're meant to believe that former minister Senator McKenzie—who, unfortunately, took the fall for this—worked this whole scheme out by herself in her own office. We'd like to be able to test that proposition, if she'd do us the courtesy of turning up to the committee. She has so far decided that she's not going to do that, but we're hopeful that she'll come and tell us exactly what's happened in order to provide some transparency to the Australian people and, more particularly, to sporting clubs around the country who were diddled by this sports rorts process. In the meantime, the Senate has made it very clear that all of the documentation that has gone between the minister's office and the Prime Minister's office needs to be released so that the committee can make a thorough investigation, and, in that way, we're going to get to the bottom of what has gone on here. And if the government think that the COVID pandemic is going to give them cover for escaping responsibility and transparency for what has gone on here, they will have to have another think. We will get to the bottom of this. We will get this information. The former minister will, I think, ultimately give evidence to the committee, and we will get to the bottom of it. During the course of this process, we had the advantage of all of those clubs who scored extremely well in this process, clubs that took, on face value, the criteria that the government had originally set out in order to proceed with these grants. We heard from those clubs and we heard what they said about it. We heard about the disappointment that these volunteers—volunteers who had spent hours and hours and hours preparing an application which, right from the start— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Farrell, would you please resume your seat? The time for the debate has expired. Senator FARRELL I0N I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate interrupted. DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS Inland Rail 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 18:25 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I table documents relating to the order for production of documents concerning the Inland Rail Interface Improvement Program. 18:25 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. I thank the government for tabling the documents and sending a copy to my office. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. BILLS 73 BILLS Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 73

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

In Committee 73 18:26 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, I want to continue on the discussions about the impact of this legislation on universities in particular, but also local governments and other agencies who are going to be impacted. We have heard that there was basically zero consultation before this legislation was being proposed with the universities. I also know that local governments only realised after the fact that they were also going to be impacted. There is a considerable concern from universities, and from local governments in particular, that if they enter into arrangements that can be retrospectively deemed to be not in our foreign policy interests and then be overturned, that—let's go to the universities—this is going to have a chilling effect on the ability of universities to enter into cooperative research arrangements with countries and other universities. I'm wanting to know what discussions you have had with the universities about the potential of this chilling effect? What can you say to assure universities, who basically told us during the committee hearings that it would mean that they would not feel that they are in a position to be able to enter into these arrangements because of the prospect that they couldn't guarantee that they would be able to be continued, because retrospectively, at some stage in the future, it could be decided that these arrangements were not in Australia's foreign policy interests? 18:28 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Rice. DFAT has been engaging in a number of stakeholder consultations—I think over 60 in total—following the introduction of the bill, which includes with local government through August and September, a number of representatives of local government, largely the peak bodies, and a number of city councils themselves. In terms of university consultations, they have been part of that. These issues that you have raised have been discussed as part of those consultations—again through peak organisations as well as others who are on my list here. Universities Australia itself, for example, has met with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on 4, 9 and 30 September, 7 October and 13 November. The Group of Eight has also met with DFAT on two occasions. There have been a number of other consultations, which I can provide to you. I want to repeat what I said earlier today in the chamber when we were discussing this matter, particularly in relation to the limited number of arrangements which will be captured by this legislation: it's only arrangements between Australian public universities and foreign governments or foreign entities that will be required to be notified. In terms of institutional autonomy, that includes foreign universities that are an agency or a department of a foreign government—for example, a military university that forms part of a country's department of defence or those where a foreign government has substantial control over the university's internal governance, education and academic staff. That is a limited group. We've defined institutional autonomy in that context so as to assist with this. The work that will be done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade through the taskforce will be very much focused on familiarising state, territory and local governments and universities with the sorts of issues which are to be captured. You asked earlier today about an example, if I recall correctly. That would be a minor issue which would not be captured. It would be exempt under the changes that I spoke about this morning. 18:31 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria It is good to get that clarification. If there were a change in personnel at a workshop or conference, that would be an exempt minor issue. You talked about the consultations that have been had with the universities, but you didn't go to my question, which was: what assurances are you able to give them so they have confidence in entering into research arrangements and contracts with the entities that are captured? I want to ask that question again. I also want to follow up on your response that there is a limited number of these universities or other organisations that don't have institutional autonomy. Does the department have an estimate of how many of these there are that Australian universities already have arrangements with? How many would be currently captured, and how many of these organisations globally are covered? If you say it's limited, you must have an approximation of what that limited number is. 18:32 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Part of the implementation that will be undertaken if the bill is passed is this stocktake process that we've referred to that will enable us to review those arrangements and determine some of those issues that you are asking about. That is something which has been discussed at length between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the universities. It was raised in my meetings with Minister Tehan, Universities Australia and with the Go8 as well. As I said before, the bill is absolutely not intended or expected to impede the beneficial business of universities with foreign counterparts. We absolutely understand the value of that contribution in academic pursuit, in research and particularly in the Australian context. We absolutely expect that much of the routine business of universities will proceed as normal. The concerns that you raise are most certainly issues that have been discussed between DFAT and universities in their consultations. Things like scholarships, research grants and university exchange programs are not expected to be affected by the scheme, unless and until they're assessed on a case-by-case basis as being inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy or as adversely affecting Australia's foreign relations. Our expectation is—and in the consultations we have had we provided this information—the vast majority of these arrangements will be unaffected. It is also open to the minister to make further rules excluding certain types of arrangements from the requirements of the scheme. As you and I spoke about earlier in this exchange in the chamber, those exempted arrangements that deal solely with minor administrative or logistical matters are an example of that. 18:35 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, I hear what you're saying. You're essentially saying: trust us that it's not going to impact on too many and most of the arrangements will be considered beneficial. But there is a cloud hanging over those arrangements. In having 'unless and until', it is entirely in your hands currently, or in the hands of future foreign ministers, to determine that something suddenly is no longer in our foreign policy interests. And that is on a basis that doesn't have to be laid out, that there are no guidelines for and that there is no analysis of. So a university or a state government entering into an arrangement with another government agency cannot have certainty that the arrangement they're entering into, which may be for 10 years, won't at some stage in the future be determined, on the basis of whatever is in the head of the foreign minister at the time, not to be compatible with our foreign policy interests. What certainty can you give them that they can confidently sign an agreement that will last for the next 10 years and not, potentially, have it overturned at some stage in the future? 18:36 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Senator Rice, thank you very much for your question. That is one of the purposes of establishing the task force in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It is so there is a distinct entity with which state, territory and local governments and universities are able to work through these processes. It is to provide guidance and advice in the context of the arrangements that are undertaken between state and territory and local governments, and universities. I'm not shying away from the fact that this is a new piece of legislation and will require compliance by relevant parties, and they include universities and state, territory and local governments, but it is in Australia's national interests to ensure that we are able to achieve this degree of consistency, and it is absolutely in my interests—in the government's interests and in the department of foreign affairs' interests—to work constructively with relevant entities in the process of doing that. That is overwhelmingly our intention and it is indeed what we have been doing through the process of the 60 stakeholder consultations since the bill was introduced. 18:37 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria It will move on. It is basically, 'Trust us that everything's going to be okay,' and my experience has been that that's not a good basis for public policy. I want to move to the issue of how constitutionally sound this legislation is, given the opinion from Professor George Williams in his appearance before our committee. What confidence do you have that the bill is constitutionally sound and cannot be overturned in a High Court challenge, given that the external affairs power is shared between the states and the Commonwealth? 18:38 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I appreciate that a number of views have been expressed on this matter. Indeed, Professor Williams was in a meeting that I was engaged in on these issues and has been in a number of meetings with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In terms of the measures within the bill which fall under the external affairs power, what the bill does is to expressly link the discretionary powers of the minister to the management of Australia's foreign relations and therefore to the foreign relations aspect of the external affairs power in the Constitution. Those discussions with Professor Williams included discussions around the concurrent power in the Constitution, which indicates that the Commonwealth doesn't have exclusive responsibility for external affairs, but only the Commonwealth can set foreign policy on behalf of Australia—although acknowledging, as this bill does, that both the Commonwealth and the states can legislate with respect to external affairs and states and territories can, for example, as we are contemplating in this conversation, enter into relationships with foreign countries. 18:40 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, have you sought advice from the Australian Government Solicitor on the constitutionality of the bill? 18:40 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales We have sought advice. We are confident, and I'm not going to go into the contents of that advice. 18:40 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria When did you receive that advice? 18:40 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales In the process of development of the legislation. 18:40 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Can you be more specific than that? 18:40 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I don't have that information with me right now, but I'll seek some advice from officials. 18:40 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I have a supplementary question to that. Have the states expressed any concern to the government in respect of constitutionality? Has any state indicated to government that they see that there are constitutional problems? 18:40 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Not that I've been advised of, and I've checked with officials that that is not the case. 18:41 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I just want to ask some questions that relate to the judicial review processes and options under this bill. In some sense they go to amendments that have been moved by either the Greens or Labor, and I'm genuinely trying to get an understanding of whether or not it's worth supporting those particular amendments. Just to give perhaps anyone who is listening a common level of understanding, in relation to decisions made by the minister— An honourable senator: You're an optimist! Senator PATRICK 144292 Okay! In relation to decisions made by ministers, there are normally different ways in which they can be challenged. The simplest one for a litigant, particularly a litigant in person—an individual—is through the AAT, for a $930 fee, and they would then seek to have that decision reviewed in a quasi-judicial environment. Perhaps the next level up is through a court, either the FCC or the Federal Court, using the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act or some other provision in an act that permitted that. And then the final stage, which of course can't be legislated out, is a review by way of constitutional writ of prohibition or mandamus or such things. I'm just trying to work out the logic behind—actually, I understand the logic behind it—not wanting to have a review that goes to national security matters or national interest matters necessarily played out. At the moment, the only option is a constitutional review. I wonder what the difference is in terms of burden for an entity to initiate that constitutional review versus something under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. In some sense that will inform the chamber as to why you sought to cut out the AD(JR) Act. 18:43 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I will endeavour, with the advice of officials, to provide you with a response on some of those issues. Let me start by saying that the grounds for judicial review in the AD(JR) Act of course largely mirror the common law. We see substantial overlap between the scope of judicial review under the Judiciary Act and the Constitution—that is common law, which is already available—and the grounds for judicial review under the AD(JR) Act. So, there's not a great deal of meaningful difference between the nature or prospects of success of applications for review under either avenue. A key difference—and you adverted to this in your comments—is the requirement to provide reasons for a decision. The government is of the view that the provision of reasons would have the potential to adversely affect Australia's foreign relations by potentially disclosing Australia's foreign policy or position on the sensitive issue which is in question, in the context of the arrangement that is being examined. It has the potential to damage bilateral relationships and to disadvantage Australia's interests in international fora and negotiations. I do think that the provision of reasons in that context in these circumstances would defeat the object of the bill, which is to protect and to manage Australia's foreign relations. I also want to emphasise that judicial review does remain available under the bill by the Federal Circuit Court under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 and by the High Court under section 75(v) of the Constitution. And, like the ADJR, these avenues of review do allow a court to do several things, including setting aside a decision which has been made unlawfully, requiring the performance of a duty that a decision-maker has failed to perform, ceasing proceedings where a decision-maker has failed to exercise their powers properly, and also to grant an injunction that can prevent or require certain actions. I think and the government thinks that the judicial review mechanism in the bill is appropriate. There are comparable schemes which also exclude the AD(JR) Act review on the basis that they involve complex political considerations. There are a couple of examples of that that I think are useful for the chamber to be aware of—for example, decisions under the FIRB regime, because those decisions are exclusively a matter of government policy and the ADJR judicial review could result, in that case, in public disclosure of classified and commercially confidential material. Certain decisions under the Australian Passports Act fall into that category, which is also an act I deal with, as well as extradition and prison transfer arrangements and a range of decisions which relate to intelligence and national security, and some in relation to taxation, corporations and charities. These are issues that we have considered; they're issues that we have examined in the context of the development of the legislation, and they are the determinations that we've come to. 18:47 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Thank you. That was quite helpful. I will try and digest that. I don't have the advantage of being a lawyer. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator PATRICK 144292 Senator Wong, I will come back to it, because I note that your amendment deals with that. With those mechanisms you've talked about under the Judicial Act and the Constitution, the normal process in any judicial review is to often look at reasons. So, even in those circumstances where someone wants to make an application to the court, are they not fettered by the fact that they are not privy to the reasons that you've made the decision? You might want to seek leave in the High Court, for example, and you would have to at least state an argument, and you would be completely blind to those reasonings. I'm wondering how, in effect, you are able to make an appeal to those particular avenues without an understanding of the reasons in respect of the way you've made the decision. 18:48 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I would say in the same way they occur in the context of those other comparable schemes that I outlined. The process works in that context, whether it is the examples I gave, such as the decisions under the FIRB regime, certain decisions under the Australian Passports Act, extradition and prison transfer, and a range of other matters which might relate to intelligence and national security, and even taxation, corporations and charities. They are dealt with in a similar way and are able to be assessed in the context of the arrangements which are provided for in this bill. 18:49 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I'll give you a practical example of an issue that does raise security, and it's a very publicly known example. I raise this because you talked about the Australian Passports Act. We know that Witness K, for example, had an application for a passport. It might have been revoked on the advice of ASIS. That was fleshed out in estimates by former Senator Xenophon and others. That's a matter that did go to the AAT and did go to the special security division of the AAT and seems to have played out without any harm to national security, because the AAT's security division does deal with some of those issues on a regular basis. So in your consideration of this bill—and I take it you genuinely have a concern about national security—I wonder why Senator Wong's motion, which actively refers matters to that security division, would be problematic in the context of what you just said? 18:50 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Senator Patrick, those decisions which are reviewed by the AAT are, in my understanding, genuinely truly administrative decisions. I think the AAT is a separate question from the discussion we were having previously. In relation to the AAT, the concept of stretching merits review of what are truly administrative decisions—because that's what they broadly do—to ministerial policy decisions on significant public and foreign policy issues is not something that I understand the AAT to be either equipped for or designed for. I think that would undermine the bill. It would, as I said, in the context of this discussion have the potential to damage our bilateral relations and to undermine our global interests. The Treasurer, for example, is not required to explain his decisions on national interest on the FIRB applications given the sensitivity, and the same goes for these sorts of decisions. What we are contemplating would be covered here in the bill. The way in which it is drafted is more about error of law or failure to take account of relevant factors and an error which infects or affects the decision-making—obviously acting outside of the scope of the bill, for example. It doesn't require reasons for the decision to be able to pursue that. If the minister makes a decision that's not authorised by the act you can take that to court without knowing the reasons for the decision. So I think the AAT's role is for truly administrative decisions and is not something which is necessarily appropriate to apply here. 18:53 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Some of those examples you just provided, I recall, are actually reasons under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and in fact are questions of law, so a question as to whether or not the decision-maker gave relevance to information that was irrelevant or didn't give relevance to information that was irrelevant. Again, those sorts of things would normally require a decision. Just to get an understanding of how this might work—and it also goes to Senator Wong's amendment—there was a series done a long time ago by, I think, the Law Reform Commission that looked at better decision-making in an administrative sense. It basically said that all decisions should be set out in writing. I am just differentiating that from being made public at this point. But, if you make a decision, you make a better decision if you write out the reasonings yourself so that you understand exactly what you have included in the information. If you do get to a point where a matter is brought before a court, that might become relevant. Is it the case that in making decisions under this bill—notwithstanding limited or no review rights in the AAT, for example—the intention is that you would record the decision reasoning for file purposes? 18:54 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I'm not sure that I understand your question, Senator. But if your question is in relation to how the process occurs then, obviously, the minister takes advice and works with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, with the task force which has been announced and which will be established within the department. We would definitely have carefully considered reasons in the process of this decision-making. What I would say is that one of the reasons for the stocktake process is to enable government to make an assessment. I think I said publicly at the time of the announcement of the legislation that a public, open-source review had indicated that there were over 130 arrangements with more than 30 different countries just for the states and territories. As that material is returned to the department as part of the stocktake process I think that the nature of the sorts of arrangements which are made, and those which fall on either side of the provisions of the legislation, will become clear. So there will be carefully considered reasons. 18:56 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I understand that as good process you will, in effect, annotate reasons, and that's a good thing. Senator Wong's amendment proposes that reasons might be given where you might extract out some of the detail. Do you see that as a possibility, or is it just hugely problematic even to provide that level of reasoning? 18:57 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I understand that those proposed amendments do propose a redaction of a statement of reasons to remove information that is, or is likely to be, protected by public interest immunity, for example. I think that that, in and of itself, acknowledges in part the complexity in providing reasons under this bill. Any reasons provided, in the government's view, will almost always be subject to public interest immunity because the provision of reasons has the potential to damage Australia's international relations and to damage Australia's defence or national security. So the application of public interest immunity will play large here, in our view. If you're going to extract detail and to redact in that way, I think that, arguably, it renders this unworkable. You'd just end up redacting everything. 18:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I was going to ask some questions—obviously, when we move these amendments, which are further down the list, I'll make more detailed remarks—but I have to submit or suggest that I think the answers by the minister to Senator Patrick's reasonable questions really did not hold water. Firstly, I think that comes down to the view that one takes about the extent to which executive government actually ought to be accountable. There is a very significant power in this legislation; it's a power to veto agreements across many entities. I understand why the government want to do it. I've been critical of the process and I've been critical of the way in which they failed to consult, and of the political timetable around the announcement. But I understand the reasons for it. I also think they should get out of the habit of trying to bash the Victorian Premier through the media and perhaps sit down with him and try to resolve these issues. But, leaving that aside, I understand the reasons for the federal government wanting this power. However, it seems to the opposition that, as a matter of principle, you don't give executive government a power, except in very important circumstances, that has no accountability, or so little accountability. I would have thought that that would have been something that those on that side would actually have thought about. The Labor Party has been very careful in drawing up amendments. We've asked the minister's office on a number of occasions to provide feedback if they don't like our amendments. We were hoping for some bipartisan engagement on this. But do you know what we're asking for in the amendments on sheet 1114 that Senator Patrick has been speaking to? Firstly, we're asking for notice of a decision so that if, surprise, surprise, the bureaucrats get it wrong—an amazing proposition—people would be able to say, 'Actually, it's the wrong agreement,' or, 'That's not the right point,' or, 'You've got this fact wrong.' Secondly, we're asking for a statement of reasons, which I think is pretty reasonable. Thirdly, we ask that there be protections: To avoid doubt, subsections (2) and (3) do not require information to be included … if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that disclosure of that information is or is likely to be protected by public interest immunity. I think it's absolutely absurd that the minister came in here and airily said in a generalised way, 'We don't want any requirement to give reasons or to give notice to make sure the decisions are right, because it will affect our foreign relations.' Even under the terms of our amendments—and we're open to a discussion about how to protect the sorts of issues the minister is describing—you have the capacity to exclude content on the basis of public interest immunity, which clearly includes some of the issues to which you're referring. The minister brings up that classic argument: 'It's too secret' or 'It's too risky'. There's nothing in this bill to stop the exercise of what is a quite substantive power. Let's talk about the BRI in Victoria, which has been the subject of Senator Paterson's petition and lots of media coverage. Leaving aside the politics of that, if the federal government decide that they want to cancel an agreement that an elected state government has undertaken, I don't think it's that unreasonable to say that we probably should have some reasons for the decision. As Senator Patrick correctly pointed out and reminded me, we also referred this legislation to the security division of the tribunal. We do this for far more sensitive issues. I was on the PJCIS for many years. I'm quite pleased that I'm no longer on the PJCIS, given the workload. But there are many areas, as this minister knows, particularly from her previous portfolio, where highly classified decisions are made. These decisions are protected by the principles that we have in a liberal democracy that you don't allow executive power to go completely unchecked or without accountability and the issue of confidentiality or national security is resolved by the way in which legal rights have been drafted. I think the reality is that you don't want to have to give reasons for decisions, and I don't quite understand that. I understand that Mr Newnham's role is to give you very conservative advice, but if one is actually trying to explain to various entities why certain things are problematic, the guidance that comes from that process is important. As I said at the outset of the debate, what we want is our sovereignty to be resilient. Resilience doesn't just come from a minister in Canberra having a power of veto. It comes from people understanding and institutions understanding what they should do and what they shouldn't do. This situation, where there's not a requirement to provide reasons and there's not really any effective capacity for review—we all understand the parameters of judicial review—I don't think provides the best outcome. I don't think it furthers the national interest that the bill is supposedly about. I've got plenty of material I can go to, but I did want to respond to the minister's point there. There are some substantive questions. Why have there been no review rights included? Why did you exclude review rights? Why did you exclude the requirement to provide reasons to people whose agreements you were cancelling? I don't think those questions have been answered adequately. 19:05 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, there is an extraordinarily broad definition of 'Australia's foreign policy' in this bill. Can you tell me what ensures, for the purposes of this framework, that that's going to be a meaningful definition? As to 'foreign policy', what is going to be in place to ensure that it doesn't change from week to week or even minute to minute? Will there be any public guidance on what Australia's foreign policy is, given that the whole basis of the bill is that these arrangements can be overturned on the basis that they are inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy? 19:06 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Rice for her question. I think there are a number of aspects to the question of the definition per se of 'foreign policy' that the senator raises. The government is of the view that it is appropriate for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to hold a broad discretion to determine Australian foreign policy. Australian foreign policy and foreign relations are the prerogative of the Commonwealth government to determine, and they do evolve—they change in response to a range of domestic and international factors. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as I've said before, has work that it is going to do in the context of the task force. And the department itself, of course, has offices in the states and territories that work very closely with the state and territory governments. They will continue that work with states and territories and their entities on implementing the scheme, including to help them understand Australia's foreign policy objectives. I think there will be transparency provided. We didn't get to this with Senator Patrick, but transparency will be provided also through the establishment of a public register, which will make clear those foreign arrangements which are the subject of the minister's decision. That will assist the states and territories in building a picture of what kinds of arrangements might be deemed to be adverse to or inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy. As I have also said, Senator, the changing current international environment is one which is obviously increasingly complex and subject to rapid change. That means that our foreign policy and our foreign relations don't remain static. They will also evolve and change, in response to a range of domestic and international factors. The Commonwealth government, the government of the day, is best placed to determine that, taking the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the advice of other government departments and working with the Prime Minister and relevant ministers, as has always been the case. I don't think changes in foreign policy, though, are a threat to legal certainty—if that's a part of your question—and certainly that is a matter which has been raised in consultations with the department and, I think, addressed. 19:09 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Can I get more information as to how that has been addressed given that legal certainty? Although you say you're going to be issuing information that will inform people as to what sorts of things will be taken into account, to me the lack of a definition of foreign policy means that legal certainty is absolutely going to continue to exist. What will be done to overcome that? Will there, for example, be public guidelines issued—even if they change, even if it's new guidelines every couple of months—to say what foreign policy in Australia at the moment actually is? 19:10 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales We were speaking earlier about information that is provided to affected entities, including state, territory and local governments and universities. There will be a very significant level of engagement and consultation with the states and territories. That is a feature of the bill, and it is a very significant step forward. Those discussions will be ongoing, but I don't think you can presume that our positions on foreign policy and foreign relations remain static. They have to change; and they do change, due to a range of domestic and international factors. I think this will provide greater transparency than we have seen before in engagement on questions of foreign policy in a context of constant communication, considerable consultation and transparency. That's one of the reasons we have established a Foreign Arrangements Taskforce within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Their role is to work closely with state and territory entities to implement the scheme, including to assist them to understand Australia's foreign policy objectives. That consultation is demonstrated by the 60 or so stakeholder discussions we have held since the bill was introduced. Senator Rice, I think I was speaking to you earlier about a number of those stakeholder consultations across local government at the time. I also think it's important to note the matters that the minister has to take into account. Looking to the bill itself, section 51(2) states: (2) When making the decision, the Minister must take into account the following matters in relation to the State or Territory to which the arrangement relates: (a) the importance of the arrangement in assisting or enhancing the functioning of the State or Territory; (b) the extent of the performance of the arrangement; (c) whether the declaration would impair the continued existence of the State or Territory as an independent entity; (d) whether the declaration would significantly curtail or interfere with the capacity of the State or Territory to function as a government; (e) whether the declaration would have significant financial consequences for the State or Territory; (f) whether the declaration would impede the acquisition of goods or services by the State or Territory, including, for example, for the purposes of infrastructure; (g) whether the declaration would have an effect on the capacity of the State or Territory to complete an existing project that is to be delivered under the arrangement … That guidance on matters that the minister must take into account is also very important for states and territories and associated entities which will be subject to the act. 19:13 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Can I get some clarification. You are saying that the states and territories and local governments and universities—and all the people affected—are going to have information to assist them to understand Australia's foreign policy objectives but you are not willing to actually commit to issuing guidelines as to what those foreign policy objectives are. That's the fundamental thing—that people can have some certainty as to what the foreign policy objectives are so that they can determine whether their arrangements are going to be at risk. 19:14 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Under the bill, there are a number of steps on implementation. They include the stocktake, for example. They include the work that will be done with the states and territories to examine those arrangements and to effectively engage on their implications for foreign policy and foreign relations. This process—which will be one the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is deeply, deeply involved in—will be part of providing that support to the states and territories, in relation to the implications of the arrangements in question. In terms of the practical and process aspects, we also have a number of fact sheets—which, as I understand it, have already been provided on the DFAT website—and the development of a set of Q and As, which are also helpful for stakeholders. There is no question and I understand that, when you seek to implement a new system such as this, it does raise concerns in affected entities about what its impact will be. But the role of the task force, the role of my department, is to work comprehensively with those entities to seek to provide them with support and guidance in bringing forward those arrangements for consideration. I think the production of guidelines itself creates a frozen-in-time judgement. I don't think that that's necessarily productive in this context. The approach that we take is one which is responsive to evolving global developments and which is not, as I said, frozen in time. 19:16 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Can I just complete this line of questioning, then. So, given evolving global developments—not frozen in time; evolving foreign policy—do you acknowledge that this creates uncertainty in organisations' ability to plan for the long term, that is, to enter into arrangements that they know are actually going to continue over the next five or 10 years? This is because of the risk that, because of the retrospective nature and the far-reaching nature of this legislation, an arrangement that they put in place now, in five years time, could be overturned quite arbitrarily. This would be at the whim of a foreign minister—who may not be you; who may be somebody else. They can decide that on the basis of—they don't have to provide reasons; they don't have to provide guidelines. We just have to trust that a task force within the department is doing acceptable work. Can you see that this provides a great deal of uncertainty and concern for organisations and their ability to enter into these long-term arrangements? 19:17 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Senator, with respect, I don't actually agree with you, no. I do think that the implementation of the legislation will, in fact, provide greater certainty, greater awareness, greater communication and greater transparency in the engagement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, for example, and in universities as well. I don't think that shifts or changes in foreign policy that are responsive to current international developments are a threat to legal certainty. There are contractual frameworks which already account for changes to laws or changes to foreign policy. They would include changes to sanctions laws. They would include counterterrorism laws or anti-money-laundering obligations. That can occur very quickly to address national security concerns. I've seen that happen myself on multiple occasions in my time in the Senate. So I don't agree with you, Senator, that it's a threat to legal certainty. I do think that the process of implementation of the bill will establish, if you like, a rhythm and a system with which state and territory governments will be strongly engaged and deeply embedded with the department's Foreign Arrangements Taskforce. Part of the stocktake process will be doing that analysis which will provide that guidance—that direction, if you like—for arrangements that are developed in the future. I know there have been questions raised in relation to legal certainty, but I think those points I've made around the changes in law or foreign policy that flow from changes in the international environment are a good example of how arrangements are able to withstand that. This will make them more robust. This will give them greater certainty and a greater underpinning that they are consistent with Australia's foreign policy and Australia's foreign relations. 19:19 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Following on from that, is it not the case that the publication of reasons can help people understand the policies and how they might decide on a course of action, just as court cases, when published, assist the general public in understanding— Progress reported. ADJOURNMENT 81 ADJOURNMENT Davies, Major Bruce, MBE 81 19:20 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales Today in this place and in front of all Australians I rise to commemorate an Australian soldier, a father, a grandfather and a husband—a man who established an intellectual reputation which was quintessentially Australian—an Australian soldier whose name was Bruce Davies MBE. As we farewelled Bruce in front of his friends and family last week in Melbourne, I read A Soldier's Prayer, Psalm 144. It was the same prayer I quoted in my first speech several years ago. It's the kind of prayer that robust Christians, not just soldiers, have relied on for centuries when faced with the greatest challenges, not just in war. I repeat it here today in honour of Bruce. It goes: Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. He is my loving God and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield, in whom I take refuge— Bruce Davies was an Australian soldier of the Vietnam generation, and I know that, at least later in life, he would have liked that prayer. Bruce's life was long and productive. He was 77 years old when he died. He was an historian and a distinguished veteran of the Vietnam War. When we met, Bruce and I were the only two full-time officers on the staff to run a battalion of reserve soldiers stretched halfway across South East Queensland. At this stage in our lives, work was central. Just as in our later years we grumbled and mumbled to each other about the world, about military events and about the government, in those days we had a common focus for our frustrations: those unfortunate Reservists in our care. Fortunately, it was before social media, and what we said and what we did is lost forever. As you can imagine, my entry into politics gave Bruce a whole range of issues to verbally attack me on, but it was with that almost unique characteristic that marks Australian sledging. Bruce, of course, would never miss a chance to use what little influence I might have had as a first-term backbench senator for something he wanted. It was in this period that I heard of his good works in support of the Vietnamese community in Melbourne. He was generous to a fault. Most recently, the most I had to do with Bruce was over two of his many books. The smallest was a well-researched but very controversial book on a particular battle in Vietnam, which contentiously involved several members of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam. It was exhaustively researched and very well written. I found it absolutely fascinating. Bruce then asked me to write the foreword to his larger book, a history of the Vietnam War from Australia's point of view. I read the manuscript and once again learnt so much about the war and the context of Australia's involvement. It was a scholarly but very practical work. How strange it was to talk last week with Bruce's daughter, Peta, with the television on in the background, and to suddenly realise that Bruce was talking to us coincidentally from a documentary on the AATTV, the Vietnam training team. I hadn't seen it before, and anyone who wants to understand the compassion of Australian soldiers, especially at a time when we've been presented with the alleged failings of certain soldiers in Afghanistan, should consult this documentary with Bruce and others on the AATTV. Duty was a topic that Bruce would discuss with me. He recognised that we all have rights but not unfettered ones. We all have rights that we should be free to enjoy. More importantly, he understood instinctively that each of us has commensurate, if not greater, responsibilities to exercise. We saw that when Bruce spoke to us from the AATTV documentary. Bruce might have had many motivations to be a soldier, but my impression, and his approach to instructing us to be soldiers, was that he believed that, in order to protect what Australia is and what it stands for, soldiers need to prepare and train hard and be the best they can be. Protecting and preserving is best achieved by preparation. A life well lived is a life worth remembering, and our good friend Bruce Davies is certainly one to remember. Bruce was a proud Australian soldier who served his country for many years. Bruce served with absolute distinction in the 1st Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, and then twice in the highly decorated AATTV. In the period 1965 to 1970, Bruce spent all or part of every year on combat duty in Vietnam. Vale Major Bruce Davies; you will be both missed and celebrated. Pensions and Benefits 82 19:25 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Who is going to be held accountable for robodebt? Who is going to be held accountable for the harassment, for the hounding, for the stress, for the anxiety, for the lives derailed and for the lives destroyed? Because this is robodebt's legacy. It was a scheme that caused hurt and despair. It was a scheme that caused so much misery; some people even took their own lives. Despite this record of destruction and despair, no-one has been held responsible. And you just have to ask yourself exactly what you have to do in this government to get the sack? The impact of robodebt is all too real for some Australians. Miranda from Melbourne was in hospital receiving treatment for advanced spinal cancer when she received a $4,000 robodebt. She was unemployed and applying for disability, but Centrelink took $40 a week from her payments. Nathan from Brisbane says he lost over two years of his life to the scheme. He was served with two robodebts, totalling more than $6,000. He had to move back home and work 50 hours a week to pay it back. He says: "I feel like I got put back a couple of years in life because of this … I would be closer to where I want to be at 31 years old if it hadn't been for robodebt." Dimity from Adelaide was handed a $4,500 robodebt, and she knew it was wrong, but Centrelink made her prove it. They wanted pay slips from years back, which she no longer had. She was bluntly told to either pay the debt or the debt collectors would come. Nathan sums up this scheme well when he says: "I wanted to know why those ministers felt that it was appropriate to use this illegal system and to target the most vulnerable people … He says he wants someone to ask them: … 'Why did you think that it was OK to take money from the poorest people without giving them a chance to argue their case?' Nathan's question is a good one. Just how on earth did this government think it was okay? And just how on earth did the government let it go on for so long? In 2015, there was a risk assessment that raised alarm about unleashing this program without manual oversight, but no action was taken, because nothing was going to stop Scott Morrison from unleashing this revenue-raising scheme. By the end of 2016, they were handing out 20,000 debts a week. Shortly after, the complaints started flooding in—complaint after complaint of Australians being wrongly targeted by their own government. Between 2017 and 2019, the government continued with robodebt, even though they lost hundreds of appeals and received 76 warnings from the AAT. From their first warning that the scheme was illegal, it took 1,198 days to finally suspend the scheme. They then waited a further six months to announce refunds to victims. And now they continue to dodge responsibility and accountability, despite a record-breaking settlement of $1.2 billion. So why has no-one been held accountable for robodebt and the damage that it has caused? Could it be because the Prime Minister himself is responsible? He set it up. He bragged about it. He ignored the advice. He ignored the warnings. He ignored the pain, the distress, the anxiety. And he repaid over a billion dollars to victims. But he will never accept responsibility. This government will never voluntarily give us the truth or give victims the truth about how this illegal scheme was allowed to go on for so long. The public want answers. They want a royal commission to uncover the truth—the truth that this government is trying to hide, the truth that Scott Morrison is trying to hide—that it was his program, that he is responsible and that the buck should stop with him. Pensions and Benefits 82 19:30 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Two weeks ago the latest results from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey, otherwise known as the HILDA survey, were released. The survey results painted a picture about the life of single parents that was devastating. Unlike other family types, who experienced a boom in household wealth, single parents witnessed a substantial decline in their median income between 2016 and 2018. Single-parent families also had a sharp increase in poverty rates, rising from 15 per cent in 2016 to 25 per cent in 2018. The researchers were surprised that such a large increase had occurred over such a short period of time. I was devastated the read the poverty rate for children in single-parent families increased from 16 per cent to 28 per cent between 2016 and 2018. There was also a steep fall in the use of formal child care by single-parent families, possibly demonstrating that single parents can't afford child care. I want to stress tonight that these are not just statistics; they are devastating trends about the real-life impacts on single parents and their children, and these can be lifelong impacts. Many researchers have looked at the outcomes for children growing up in poverty. If poverty isn't addressed early on, children can carry the scars with them into adulthood. Children living below the poverty line are more likely to experience deprivation in their relationships with friends, yelling in the home, less enjoyment in exercise, inadequate fruit and vegetables, mental ill-health, lower school attendance and learning at home, and less involvement in extra-curricular activities like sport. Kids growing up in poverty too often go to bed hungry, feel left out and worry about their parents. We would all agree that kids growing up in Australia deserve better. The results from the HILDA survey show the consequences of decisions by the Howard and Gillard governments when they forced single parents onto the Newstart payment as soon as their youngest child turned eight. The Howard government started it and then the Gillard government moved those grandfathered single parents on to Newstart. It is a clear indication that parenting payment single must be reinstated until the youngest child in the family turns 16. As we can see today, this political decision has condemned hundreds of thousands of children to a life of disadvantage and poor wellbeing—direct life consequences. The government is condemning even more single-parent families to poverty by further cutting the coronavirus supplement. The original rate of the coronavirus supplement of $550 a fortnight had a transformative effect for single parents and their children. Before the pandemic, single parents were struggling to put fresh food on their tables and had to borrow money from friends or payday lenders, and some found it difficult to leave abusive relationships. The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children has since reported single parents being able to afford healthy food, being able to buy their kids an ice cream and being able to help them participate in school activities. We need to do better. Single parents, especially single mothers, in this country deserve better. We have some solutions at our fingertips. We can act now by retaining the coronavirus supplement at the higher rate of $550 a fortnight, we can immediately increase the rate of the JobSeeker payment so these families do not have to live below the poverty line and we can reinstate the single parent payment to single parents until their youngest child turns 16. This survey result clearly demonstrates the real-life impacts of cutting payments to single-parent families. Hundreds of thousands of children are growing up in poverty. Their wellbeing has been damaged and their lives have been scarred by the fact that they've been condemned to live in poverty as a direct result of decisions taken by the Howard government and the Gillard government. Fix it before too many more children's lives are damaged by these damaging policy decisions. Business Investment 83 19:35 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to address one of the great opportunities of our time: the changing geopolitical environment, especially in relation to Hong Kong and China. It is my view that some of the commentary on China is quite unsophisticated. In relation to Hong Kong, having spent a bit of time there before I was elected to parliament, my sense is that it will remain an important gateway to China and it will transcend any of the short-term political changes we are living through. I don't think it will have the same resonance for companies that want to have regional headquarters in Hong Kong. Frankly, people won't want to have their executives in danger or in the line of the national security law. That means there will be opportunities for Sydney and Melbourne, in particular, to capture some of the business that will leak out from Hong Kong. Sure, the obvious competitor may be Singapore, but it may also be Tokyo. Certainly my experience was that the changes that Shinzo Abe made, especially in relation to the increasing role of female executives in technology and in finance, were significant. Japan is now a more open financial and tech centre which will genuinely compete with Singapore as we try to win some of the business that will definitely be leaving Hong Kong. I want to congratulate and put on the record my very strong support for the actions the Prime Minister has taken to establish the Peter Verwer committee, which is looking to attract talent and new investment into Australia. This is something that we should have been doing for a long time, frankly. In some ways, Singapore operates like a business. It's able to go into other jurisdictions, cut deals and bring investment and jobs back to Singapore. That is what I'm hoping we'll be able to do as a result of the Verwer process which the Prime Minister has established. One of the key focuses that I'm hoping the Verwer process will take is in relation to fintech—financial technology. This is an area where we have considerable expertise. We have developed half a dozen unicorns, which are valued at over $1 billion, in just the last few years. We've developed industries like buy now, pay later here in Australia, which is a great source of national strength. It is true that we have taken Uber from California, from the United States, but it's also true that in 2020 there are people in the US—Californians—who are using Australian based software like buy now, pay later, which is truly a very good development. I have established a committee to support Peter Verwer, led by former Macquarie banker Andrew Lowe, which brings together 15 very sound business minds so that there can be every opportunity for a market focus of these efforts. I do worry—being new to Canberra in many ways—that here in Canberra we can be a long way away from the market. Certainly in terms of technology and fintech we're a very long way away from the market. I want to note, for the record, that I think we have a great opportunity to win some business from Hong Kong as we face our first recession in almost 30 years. As with everything else that we have ever done as a country, we must be competitive, and this will take a cultural shift. My sense is that the architecture and the framework that's been established in this Verwer process is very positive. It could result in us being as ambitious and as focused as Singapore has been in attracting investment and growth into what is, frankly, a very small city state. We have many more advantages than Singapore has had, but culture is what has dragged us down in the past. My strong hope is that we will turn the tables with this very exciting Verwer-led process. Suicide 84 19:40 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia COVID-19 has claimed the lives of over 900 Australians this year. Each of these lives has been a tragic loss, one that has deeply affected families and communities. Governments have mobilised to prevent that number growing, which has been an appropriate and necessary response. But it also raises the question of whether we should be doing more to prevent deaths from other causes; 3,318 Australian lives were lost to suicide last year. Over the past decade almost 30,000 lives have been lost to suicide. That is absolutely a national tragedy. It is even more tragic that so many Australians who are lost to suicide are young people. Too many of our children go through school and lose one of their peers, one of their friends, along the way. They will carry the loss for the rest of their lives. But it is not just young people. Half of Australians who are lost to suicide are aged 25 to 49. It is crushing to see that so many Australians are struggling with depression, with trauma and with mental illness to the point that they decide they cannot go on. The Productivity Commission has undertaken a two-year inquiry into mental health, and the government recently released its 1,200-page report, which makes for very grim reading. The report estimated that there were 30,000 to 90,000 suicide attempts in 2018 alone. Suicide is the leading cause of death for young people and disproportionately affects Indigenous Australians, males, those living in regional areas and those with mental illness. The report estimates the economic cost of mental illness and suicide to be $600 million per day. Despite government's significant spending on mental health, there is little evidence that things are improving. The report is clear: we can do better; we must do better. The report recommends a national mental health and suicide prevention strategy to align governments, agencies and other groups. It also recommends transparent evaluation of prevention strategies so we can better understand what works and, just as importantly, what doesn't work. It recommends that aftercare be offered to anyone who presents to a health provider after a suicide attempt. There are many stories of people being turned away from emergency departments after acts of self-harm. Ensuring that they have the appropriate support is vital to preventing future suicide attempts. Putting health workers into emergency departments will let people get the help they need when they need it. Although it has had access to the report since June, the government is yet to publish its response. This report should be an absolute priority. The delay is a reminder of why Australia should have a minister for mental health. Several state governments have made mental health a ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister should consider making it a responsibility of the federal ministry as well, because 3,318 were lost to suicide last year. Just let that sink in: 3,318 have been lost to suicide. That is too many. Our existing policies are not working, but now we have a road map for reform. I hope, and I expect, that the government will act on this report and we will see a comprehensive response soon, followed by legislation and budget initiatives in the new year. The time for change has well and truly arrived. Child Abuse 84 19:45 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Between 1 July 2019 and 30 June this year, the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation received more than 21,000 reports of child sexual exploitation—an increase of 50 per cent on the previous year. This is, by any measure, a national emergency. Research indicates that Australia is the third-largest consumer of live online child abuse. This is a disgrace. Every act of child abuse has the potential to completely ruin a child's life. As a nation, we owe it to our children to protect them from this abhorrent abuse, which in so many cases equals a life sentence from which they're unable to escape. The Australian Federal Police, state and territory police forces and other partners in the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation are doing fantastic work to track down offenders and to rescue children from these awful situations. Just last month, a major operation with the AFP removed 16 children from harm and arrested and charged 44 Australian men from every state and territory with sharing abhorrent child abuse material online. But, with the number of reports the ACCCE is now receiving each year, they are facing an uphill battle. Clearly, there are tens of thousands of paedophiles and child rapists hiding in communities across Australia and preying on children. Surely it should be our priority as a nation to identify these dangerous criminals and to put them behind bars, where they can never harm children again. After all, it's only when they're in prison that we can know for sure that they're not harming children, because we do know that a high percentage of convicted sex offenders go on to reoffend again and again. Earlier this year, I asked the AFP commissioner about the impact of courts releasing convicted child sex offenders back into the community. Commissioner Kershaw said, 'I think if you asked our frontline officers, their view is that these people are not able to be rehabilitated so it's only a matter of time before they reoffend.' And we do see a lot of reoffending occurring. Very few Australians would disagree with the proposition that, if you lock up known paedophiles and child rapists and keep them locked up, then you're reducing the threat to children and allowing the police to focus on catching other offenders. But that's not what's happening in Australia. Instead, on a weekly basis, child rapists are walking free after being given suspended sentences or very short periods of time in prison. They're being released back into the community, where we raise our children, and they're back onto the internet and the dark web, looking for and commissioning child abuse material. The briefest search uncovers hundreds of recent cases of child abuse where the offenders will be back on the street in the blink of an eye. Just a handful of examples from court decisions handed down in the last couple of months in Australia are: a 35-year-old woman who produced and distributed child abuse material featuring a child known to her was given a three-month sentence, fully suspended; a 38-year-old man who repeatedly sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl and filmed the acts is eligible for parole after just three years; a 41-year-old who raped an intoxicated and most likely unconscious 14-year-old is eligible for parole after 2½ years; a 51-year-old with previous convictions for sexual offences was sentenced to just six years and is eligible for parole after four years for repeated sexual assault of a 13-year-old boy with a severe intellectual disability; a 37-year-old was sentenced to just two years and nine months, with parole after half that term, for sexually assaulting his eight-year-old niece, boasting about it in an internet chat room and possessing a large quantity of child abuse material; a 26-year-old who searched for child abuse material on the internet and asked an eight-year-old girl to send him sexualised videos; and a community corrections assessor reported as an above-average risk of sexual recidivism who was given just six months on a home detention order. How is this acceptable? Instead of putting child safety first, courts are simply kicking the can down the road for a few months or a couple of years. Are we seriously expected to believe that someone who rapes a 14-year-old won't be a danger to children when they are released in three years time? Are we supposed to accept that a six-month home detention order is going to keep Australian children safe for the next 50 years from a 26-year-old child abuse enthusiast assessed as being at high risk of recidivism? Who will accept culpability when these offenders inevitably abuse another child, when they should have been in jail, where they belong? If courts don't learn to prioritise community safety ahead of the interests of sex offenders then another generation of children will be condemned to a lifetime of pain and suffering. Australia must do better. North Africa 85 19:50 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales This evening I want to make a short contribution on a region that's too often neglected in the parliament and in Australian public debate—that is, North Africa. The ceasefire between Morocco and the Western Sahara independence movement, Frente Polisario, has been an uneasy but longstanding source of stability in the region. It's been a hard-won peace built on decades of careful negotiation and statecraft overseen by the United Nations and backed by an international peacekeeping force. In fact, more than 200 Australian military personnel have taken part in the United Nations mission for the referendum in Western Sahara. Indeed, in 1993 Army doctor Major Susan Felsche was killed, becoming the first Australian servicewoman to die on an overseas military operation since World War II. The news that the ceasefire has broken down is a source of deep concern across the entire international community. The presence of military forces in the Guerguerat area and the buffer strip is a clear violation of a military agreement signed by both parties in 1997 and in 1998, as is the firing of weapons over the region. A breakdown of the ceasefire in Western Sahara is a threat to both regional and global stability. Already there are concerns about a spillover affecting Mali, where the political situation is widely understood to be one of the United Nations' most challenging and complex peacekeeping missions. I urge both parties to respect human rights in the territory of Western Sahara, adhere to the humanitarian law of armed conflict as outlined in the Geneva convention and positively engage in negotiations towards a settlement of this situation. I urge the United Nations Security Council to take immediate steps to restore the ceasefire and to organise a resumption of negotiations and a plan to deliver a lasting solution to the conflict in Western Sahara. Any resolution must include the right of the people of Western Sahara to choose their own future. Decades of diplomacy have failed to give what was promised to the people of Western Sahara in 1991: a referendum between independence or integration with Morocco. The vote has been delayed several times. As a country that believes and has a deep, abiding interest in a rules based international order and the multilateral institutions that allow nations to resolve disputes peacefully, and as a country that has sent its service men and women to oversee the peace in the region, Australia has a close interest in the peaceful resolution of this conflict and will be watching the situation in Western Sahara closely. I think we all hope for a peaceful outcome that respects the will of the Sahrawi people, their right to self-determination and their right to peaceful coexistence in their region. Banking and Financial Services, Land Clearing, Foreign Investment, Water 86 19:53 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I draw attention to the Australian parliament's failure to protect the interests of the Australian people. In the Senate yesterday, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Labor Party united in standing beside big banks against the interests of everyday Australians. Together they voted down my bill to prevent bank deposits being bailed in—meaning that when banks get into trouble they can steal depositors' money. Their madness is simple: Australia has the world's safest banks; the only thing that could bring our banks down is a loss of confidence; that's the very thing my bill was designed to stop. Not once has the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or APRA, the banking regulator, come out and said, 'We will not bail in your deposits.' It's time the Australian people heard those words. The right to use a banking service without losing our money is just one of many rights that everyday Australians have lost—another is the loss of property rights. Prime Minister John Howard's government's response to the UN's Kyoto Protocol in 1996 was to use the deceitful trick of protecting junk vegetation from destruction. The carbon dioxide that this saved counted to our UN Kyoto targets and it still does. It enabled his government to bypass its constitutional duty to compensate farmers for stealing their property rights. This is a perfect example of mad climate policies that are about bowing to unelected, unrepresentative foreign UN bureaucrats, rather than showing actual environmental outcomes. The land that John Howard's capricious actions supposedly protected was not something worthwhile like an old-growth forest or riparian vegetation; no, it was agricultural land that was stolen. John Howard's government stole our farmers' rights to clear junk vegetation that grows on a field not used for a few years. It prevents farmers making productive use of their land. To this day the general public think this ban on land clearing relates to actual forests. This conjures up images of evil farmers chopping down virgin forests and sending koalas to their deaths. The reality is this ban stops farmers clearing salt bush and junk vegetation that's stopping productive agriculture on land that has been farmed many times. The old parties never let the truth stand in the way of virtue signalling. The Liberal-National government with John Howard as Treasurer is largely to blame for banking misconduct. It was John Howard who deregulated banking. This exposed bank customers to the atrocious behaviour that was found during the Senate inquiry into rural and regional lending that I chaired. Our inquiry led to the banking royal commission finding even more wrongdoing. The Morrison government recently demonstrated another failure in looking after small business. Aussie company CuDeco operated the Rocklands copper mine near Cloncurry in Queensland. It was driven into insolvency from the actions of the minority Chinese owners. The mine was sold to a local Chinese company who promptly onsold it to a Chinese government entity. China now owns an important Australian copper mine, thanks to the ineffective Morrison government. The mine's workers will never get their missing wages, and local contractors are out of pocket $60 million. The only way we will see CuDeco's copper again is if we buy that copper inside Chinese manufactured electronics. Chinese corporations continue to cherrypick their way through our resources sector. China is buying mines, real estate, farms and even our water. I do compliment Treasurer Frydenberg, though, on his recent decision to block the sale of PURA milk to the Chinese, resulting in the Australian company Bega buying PURA. It's a welcome break after the Liberal-National and Labor parties selling Australia out for a generation. Since my return to the Senate last year, the Liberal, Labor and National parties have been acting together and have voted down One Nation's motions—many motions—to restore farmers' water rights. The 2007 Water Act takes their water rights and forces Aussie farmers, family farmers, off the land. Even now, with all the rain this year, farmers are on as little as 39 per cent allocation. Who passed the 2007 Water Act? Prime Minister John Howard. Who introduced the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 2012? Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The whole point of the Water Act was to remove family farms from the land, then to remove their water rights to new irrigation areas on cheap land belonging to corporate agriculture—windfall profits all round; Australian farmers and local communities being gutted. The Australian parliament must decide whether it represents the interests of big business or the interests of everyday Australians. Black Lives Matter Movement 87 19:58 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I rise tonight to speak regarding the need for Australian corporations, organisations and institutions to proceed with caution when endorsing political movements such as Black Lives Matter or BLM. The radical left knows a thing or two about effective communication and language. This is how they have sold the Australian people pup after pup. The Trojan Horse of language has been used to great effect, and arguably no greater example of this exists than the use of the name Black Lives Matter. Who could argue with it? Racism is deplorable, as every reasonable Australian agrees. But the name, however, tells only a fraction of the story. BLM is a much more sinister movement, one which no reasonable Australian could support were they armed with the truth. Why, then, are we finding example after example of organisations endorsing BLM when they really don't understand what BLM truly stands for? Several weeks ago, I spoke publicly about my disappointment regarding the news that the Australian one-day international cricket team were planning to conduct an on-field barefoot ceremony in support of BLM before the 27 November 2020 one-day international match with India. Australian coach Justin Langer told the media: Racism is wrong, that's a universal law, simple. Well, thanks, Justin; I'm with you on that. And Australian vice-captain Pat Cummins told the same newspaper that his team was absolutely against racism and, in speaking about BLM, that: … as soon as you try and learn a little bit about it, it becomes an easy decision. In my respectful submission, it would have paid for everybody involved in this decision to have learned a little bit more about the movement, because I'm fairly confident that if they knew the truth about this organisation they would run a mile. So what do we actually know about BLM? One of its founders describes herself and her fellow organisers as 'trained Marxists'. That is, they are adherents to the radical left-wing political ideology which opposes the free market and freedom of speech. This is just one example of an organisation rushing blindly into the endorsement of BLM without properly understanding what it means. Earlier in the month I was contacted by a constituent who forwarded an email addressed to all students from the acting vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide entitled, 'University of Adelaide, Black Lives Matter.' That email stated that 'the University of Adelaide endorses the broad principle of the Black Lives Matter movement' and that 'the university's endorsement of Black Lives Matter is one such step and we shall stand against all manifestations of racism'. I wrote to the chancellor to seek clarification and I was advised that the university indeed supported the broad principles of BLM and as a result of its ongoing commitment to tackling the grand challenge of Indigenous health and wellbeing the university was committed to closing the gap of disadvantage faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people both in the university and in the broader community. But which of the broad principles outlined in BLM's now removed 'What we believe' manifesto does the university endorse? Is it the radical Marxism? Is the anti-police rhetoric? Is the opposition to freedom of speech? Is it the opposition to the free market? Is it the anti-West ideology? Is it the anti-nuclear-family structure? These don't seem like broad principles which a public university would want to associate themselves with, do they? If this were another example of gesture politics, I would be far less concerned. But what we have here is different because what this is actually doing is dragging the important institutions of sport and learning into a tacit endorsement of a political wolf in sheep's clothing. With great privilege comes great responsibility, and it's time that bodies like the Australian cricket team and the University of Adelaide start doing their homework rather than blindly ticking off on these projects. Superannuation 87 20:03 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on Australia's world-class superannuation system and how the government is trying to attack it to undermine Australian workers. There has been an incredibly important role played by superannuation in the lives of Australians. During this crisis, the Morrison government allowed people early access to their superannuation accounts and the impacts of this will be felt for decades to come. The early release scheme has been incredibly poorly administered. It has been subject to fraud and abuse, something that should be seen in the full glare of an independent audit and commission inquiry. Now 600,000 Australians have reduced their superannuation to zero, which will really hurt them in their retirement. This is accompanied by the fact that over 1.4 million Australians have accessed their super during this pandemic to the tune of $36 billion—hurting all Australians in retirement. Our world-class superannuation scheme may not be celebrated by all members opposite, but it's recognised around the world as one of the best in class. The Mercer global pension index, an annual assessment of private pension schemes around the world, has consistently ranked Australia's superannuation system in the top two or three. Last year, it was ranked No. 3 out of nearly 40 countries, a significant achievement. We have the fourth largest pool of superannuation retirement savings anywhere in the world. Australian workers' retirement savings are equal to 140 per cent of GDP. As a proportion of GDP, this is greater than that of the United States, whose pension fund amounts to 135 per cent of GDP, and the United Kingdom, whose pension fund amounts to 104.5 per cent of GDP. But the Morrison government wants to continue to undermine superannuation. The Prime Minister wants to cut the legislated super guarantee increase and freeze your super at 9.5 per cent. This would lead to many Australians losing up to $100,000 once they retire. Those opposite want to undermine your super, yet we all receive 14.5 per cent in super. How is that fair? We know it's in the DNA of those opposite to undermine super. Tim Wilson and Andrew Bragg now want young Australians to be able to raid their super so they can use it to put a deposit on a house. Housing affordability is a major issue in Australia and it's one that we've been facing for quite some time. In 17 of the last 25 years, Australia has been led by conservative Liberal governments. Have they tried to address the real issues around housing affordability? No, they have not. This government needs to focus on creating conditions for economic development, growth and jobs, instead of hare-brained schemes which don't add up. The government's super reforms do not end there. The government wants to attack industry super, which would lead to the undermining of investment in job-creating infrastructure. This is why wages have flatlined over the last five years. Construction industry workers receive tailor-made life insurance as part of a construction industry super fund membership, which takes into account the dangers at work. Under the Morrison government's ill-conceived stapling changes, new entrants to the construction industry would in most cases miss out on that specific insurance. Strongly performing super funds should not be undermined, because it hurts every Australian worker. Any supposed reform must be discussed and worked through, instead of being kept in secret and then rushed through parliament. Superannuation must be guarded and protected so it can thrive to ensure that individuals can retire with dignity and with a good quality of life. We should be encouraging more people to put their savings into superannuation, not undermining them. The fact that this government is hell-bent on attacking industry super funds just goes to show that it's so entrenched in its DNA that it's another opportunity for the government to attack Australian workers. Each and every day that we sit in this chamber, we on this side will defend Australian workers. We will always defend Australian superannuation, because it's essential for a quality retirement in this country. Women's Economic Security 88 20:08 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the plight of older women. Before this year, the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people was older women aged over 55, but this year it's women aged over 45. There are 405,000 women aged 45 and older who are at risk of homelessness. The retirement income review released last month shows that people over 65 who don't own their own home are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, with 48 per cent of them living in poverty. Women are at increased risk of homelessness if they rent on the private market and if they don't have full-time employment. And if they are, or have been, a single parent their risk of homelessness increases by 65 per cent. Many women sacrifice a significant amount of their working life to unpaid caring work for their children and then, as they get older, for their elderly parents. And women retire on average with half the superannuation of men, despite having a life expectancy of five years longer. This means, of course, that more women are relying on the full age pension, and currently 40 per cent of single women in Australia aged 50 or over are living in poverty. A growing number of older people are stuck on the poverty-inducing JobSeeker payment, with 42 per cent of people on JobSeeker aged over 45. All of these statistics are worse if you're a First Nations woman. The government's COVID stimulus focus on the construction and gas sectors will do nothing to help women. When we consider the government's failures in aged care and the disaster of privatisation, it's important to remember that two-thirds of aged-care residents are women and 80 per cent of aged-care workers are women. At every stage of our lives, women have been let down by this government, which has always chosen to prioritise the profits of the private sector over the lives and wellbeing of people. As we near the end of the year, we know that it's women who'll be doing the heavy lifting of unpaid work to make festivities special, but there's also the unacknowledged emotional labour that women do to bring families together. There are so many policy responses that this government should be considering. Close the gender pay gap, to finally boost women's financial and economic security. Permanently increase JobSeeker to a livable rate. Pay superannuation on parental leave. Double the low-income superannuation tax offset or LISTO—and we know twice as many women as men would benefit from that. Remove that threshold of $450 a month income, below which superannuation isn't payable by an employer—again, it's women who miss out because of that threshold. Make early childhood education universal and free. Build one million social homes to address the long waiting list for public housing in this country. Lastly, look at how to financially value unpaid care work, looking at both workplace and social security reforms, and both for people who take a temporary break from paid employment to fulfil caring duties, such as parental leave, and for full-time carers who are permanently out of the workforce. This should include considering things like caring credits on superannuation, but also bolder reforms, like a universal basic income. We know that, so often, for older women, the reward for a lifetime of care is retiring to poverty. And surely, in this nation, we can do better than that. Sport: Horseracing 89 20:12 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise today to put on the record my support for one of Australia's great pastimes, a sport that is enjoyed by many and which, as an industry, is a major employer across our country—in particular, in my home state of Victoria. Of course, I'm talking about horseracing. While the racing industry as a whole should be praised for the economic activity and the jobs it delivers, today I want to focus on one particular element of the industry: jumps. Jumps racing is a unique part of the racing industry in Victoria and in neighbouring South Australia. It is particularly popular in regional areas, with 15 of the 16 jumps tracks in Australia there. Within the racing industry, jumps accounts for thousands of jobs, including over a quarter of all trainers in the two states in which it is active. Most of these jobs can be found in regional areas, where they contribute significantly to the prosperity of country towns both big and small. In fact, over 63 per cent of racing employees, volunteers and participants in Victoria reside in regional areas. This makes racing a big employer throughout my state. Not only does it provide direct jobs, it also provides a multitude of indirect jobs as well—jobs in transport, hospitality and tourism, to name just a few. One initiative that has been implemented by the Australian Jumping Racing Association and Country Racing to further enhance its economic contribution to regional areas has been the introduction of the jumps racing trail. This is a series of races over winter, where meets are scheduled in such a way as to allow fans to follow the jumps racing circuit throughout country towns, encouraging tourism and overnight visitors, increased per person spend and local engagement with other events being coordinated with the races. This is an example of jumps racing working with local communities to help multiply the economic activity associated with the sport—and, boy, do they need it right now! I'm disappointed, though, when I hear that some seek to talk down this industry and the workers who make their livelihood from it. Whilst jumps has in the past had its problems, there is no doubting the commitment that participants have for the welfare of these magnificent animals that partake in this sport. Make no mistake: no-one cares for these horses more than the owners, the trainers and the jockeys who work with them every single day. In particular, I note the recent decision by the industry to roll out the innovative one-fit modified hurdle frame to all hurdle races and trials across Victoria and South Australia. The one-fit design, conceived, trialled and tested in the United Kingdom, has already been installed at tracks in Cranbourne and Warrnambool to great success. In the United Kingdom, it has seen falls drop to just 1.59 per cent and has also contributed to a reduction in the risk of injury to both horse and rider when falls do unfortunately occur. There can be no doubting the commitment of jumps to always doing more and more to further enhance safety. As we move into 2021, and with Victoria—and indeed Australia—moving into a post-pandemic economy, it is important that we all work together to support our regional communities who have done it tough this year. I commend the work of the Australian Jumping Racing Association in not only promoting their sport to the public but working to ensure that it supports the communities in which it operates. I thoroughly look forward to visiting these regional communities next year and encourage others to do the same. Not only is it a fun day out and a great weekend away, but it is also an opportunity to support our fellow Australians post COVID-19. South Australia: Forestry 89 20:16 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise tonight to speak about South Australia's forestry industry, but in terms that will be of interest to everyone in the chamber, especially the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. We have a proud history of forestry in South Australia. In 1875, South Australia established the first government forest management organisation in the then British Empire. When first settled by Europeans, South Australia had only limited native forest of commercial interest, so it was imperative that the young community be provided with quality building and timber products. Early farming practices and the demand for timber quickly caused the depletion of a large proportion of the higher-rainfall vegetation. So the South Australian government had to work to establish forests, and, in 1876, tree nurseries and plantings were initiated in the Mid North and in Mount Gambier, in the south-east, to find suitable tree species and locations for plantations. Bundaleer Forest Reserve, near Jamestown, became Australia's first commercial plantation forest, and I will come back to talk about Bundaleer shortly. The forestry industry is vital for my state. Forestry exists in the Mount Lofty Ranges, the Mid North, Kangaroo Island and the south-east, as part of the Green Triangle. South Australia's forestry industry plants approximately eight million trees each year. It encompasses more than 170,000 hectares of softwood and hardwood plantations, and it does need to expand. It's worth $2 billion to the economy. Almost 500,000 cubic metres of hardwood logs are harvested in South Australia for export as logs or woodchip. I don't have an issue with exporting woodchips, as we've undertaken the processing here in Australia, we've done the value-add here, and it's unlikely that we would reimport wood chips at greater value than we exported them. The forestry and wood-processing industry is an icon of south-east South Australia, responsible for about 35 per cent of employment. The South Australian government has been supporting the sale of forest logs to China. Two and a half weeks ago, the Chinese government escalated its assault on Australian trade by banning imports of Australian timber due to bark beetle having been detected. The convenience of that timing is not coincidental. No-one thinks it's anything other than part of a planned sequence of punitive measures by the Chinese government. But I say that brings about opportunity. There are a couple of points to consider. There are about 17 trees in an average house frame, a timber floor for an average house uses three trees, and one pine tree can produce 2,000 rolls of toilet paper. So let's stimulate the economy and create jobs. Let's build some social housing. Let's re-fence our farms. Let's make toilet paper. If COVID-19 hasn't taught us anything, the one thing it has taught us is that we should be making toilet paper here. In 2013, fires took place in the Bundaleer Forest, and no tree planting has occurred since. Earlier this year, our sawmills were watching as South Australia burned and bushfires went through plantations that were necessary for their livelihood. These mills need timber. In South Australia, sawmills have suffered for some time and struggled to secure timber for their mills, not necessarily because they've lost their logs in the fire, but because the South Australian government has been selling the logs to the highest bidder. It is a case of best price, not best value. They have no regard for what's in the best interests of South Australia. The risk is that we lose our sawmills, and we lose the ability to value-add. Indeed, the US Department of Homeland Security deems its wood product industry as an essential, critical infrastructure workforce. The South Australian government don't seem to care about value-add, because they don't pay the unemployment bill. The federal government does that. They're just about getting the best price for their log. If that means the log goes to China, that's what happens. Governments need to start appreciating that there is a difference between best export price and best value to the nation. South Australia's government needs to wake up on this. South Australia: Bushfires 90 20:22 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia The date of 20 December will mark 12 months since more than 200 bushfires started burning across my home state of South Australia, part of what has now become known as the Black Summer bushfires. The devastation of these fires saw four lives tragically lost, multiple injuries to our brave firefighters combatting the flames, and a damage bill in excess of $186 million. Last year, our communities endured blazes in the Murraylands during late October and on the Yorke Peninsula in late November, which saw seven houses destroyed and 5,000 hectares burnt. In the lead-up to Christmas, with temperatures in the west of the state reaching around 50 degrees Celsius and following four days of hot weather, a major fire at Cudlee Creek in the Adelaide Hills spread rapidly, threatening townships ranging from Mount Pleasant to Gumeracha and Lobethal to Woodside. Over 40,000 hectares would be burnt before the fires were brought under control. The devastation caused by these fires saw 84 homes and over 400 outbuildings as well as 292 vehicles destroyed. On that very same day, Kangaroo Island experienced multiple lightning strikes, which caused further fires to burn through around 200,000 hectares, destroying 56 homes and damaging hundreds of other buildings before being contained some 11 days later. The devastation and tragedy those fires caused are still felt by those affected today. But the communities ravaged by the fires have not been defeated. It is inspiring to see these communities stand together and rebuild. I commend those who worked tirelessly to protect life and property and those organisations who stepped up to provide crucial relief in the wake of these harrowing natural disasters. One such organisation is the national not-for-profit Disaster Relief Australia. Their mission is to unite the skills and experience of military veterans with emergency service specialists to rapidly deploy disaster relief teams in Australia and around the world in the wake of natural disasters. From the beginning of January this year through to March, DRA, as they are more commonly known, deployed 194 volunteers from all over Australia in three operations across the Cudlee Creek and Kangaroo Island firegrounds, and that is not counting the international and sponsored volunteers who joined their ranks. Through operations named Hannaford, Tiger and Turner, DRA delivered almost $786,000 worth of services to the community at no cost to those in need. This is an impressive achievement. Importantly, DRA did not fly into South Australia and then disappear—they came and stayed. DRA's assistance to the community has continued through their ongoing Adelaide Hills service projects, which has deployed 28 volunteers to assist with further works on properties affected by the fires. They've been further deployed on Kangaroo Island, with only the restrictions of COVID slowing down their drive to assist communities requiring assistance. DRA now have an enviable reputation of being able to deliver critical disaster relief to communities by deploying volunteers rapidly across the nation and further abroad. They utilise the unique skills of their volunteers, innovative technology solutions and their accomplished leadership team to provide the greatest impact on the ground, with the singular focus to make a difference in the lives of those affected by natural disasters. In the 2019-20 bushfire season alone, DRA deployed 523 volunteer members on disaster relief operations, contributing over $2.2 million in support to communities. I want to pay a particular tribute to their director of development, Anastasia Bougesis, a South Australian volunteer for DRA. Despite her family being dramatically affected by the fires in the Adelaide Hills, she refused to think of herself, thinking only of others. She volunteered to be the state commander for DRA in South Australia and led their damage assessment team and subsequently their bushfire relief operations. I commend her for her self-sacrifice and dedication to her community, and as one of the key leaders of DRA. She is a shining light in the volunteer community in South Australia. As a consequence of the work of Ms Bougesis, we now have in the state a vibrant and very active team of DRA volunteers who continue to work for our country communities and change lives. Western Australia: Climate Change 91 20:27 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The WA community wants climate action. They want to see their government take advantage of the opportunity created by the urgent need to rebuild in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic to address what we know as a community is the urgent crisis that faces us in the form of climate change. We want to see the new jobs in the clean industries come to our communities and we want to see our precious places cleaned up and preserved in the process. Many of us have waited four years to see whether Mark McGowan's Labor government would bring itself to produce a climate policy. Recently the government has produced a document titled Western Australian climate policy. It was with great disappointment and profound frustration that we cracked the lid on this so-called policy and found that it contained no emissions reduction target and no renewable energy target, leaving many to ask the question, 'Well, what the hell is a climate policy without such measures inside it?' In addition to this question, the resounding message that is born up from the WA community is: Why? In a state so gifted with natural, renewable resources, that is so well-positioned to take advantage of the job opportunities of the renewable energy boom, why are we the only state in the nation to lag behind without an emissions reduction target and without a renewable energy target? Why, when there is so much support for action, does the government find itself unable to act on climate change? An answer can be found within the recently released, excellent report produced by the organisation 350 Boorloo, which details in the most breathtaking way the relationship that exists between the gas industry in the state of Western Australia and Mark McGowan's Labor government. Entitled Captured state, it takes us on a dark journey through an insidious relationship of corporate influence, of donations and of a quite revolting revolving door between the gas industry—Woodside and Chevron—and the regulatory bodies that are designed and created to keep a check on these very industries, leading right back to the Premier's office. One of the wonderful things that the report does for so many people in the community is finally take two pieces of information that have been on the public record for a long time—the diaries of our Premier and our energy minister and the donations disclosures made to the Electoral Commission—and cross-reference them so that we are at last able to see the link between meetings that are had and donations that are made. I will outline just two of the most worrying examples within the report. On 25 July 2018, energy minister Bill Johnston took a meeting with Woodside to discuss the Burrup Hub development. Just a few days later, Woodside made a donation to the WA Labor Party of no less than $6,600. Fast-forward to 19 March, when the environment minister, Stephen Dawson, took a meeting with Chevron for an unknown reason, followed quickly by a meeting with Mark McGowan. That elicited a donation of $1,700. This level of corporate influence is repugnant to the people of Western Australia, and it shows us clearly why there is such a brokenness at the heart of the ridiculous policy that Labor has put forward. Pell, Cardinal George, AC 92 20:32 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales In my first speech regarding Cardinal Pell, I indicated my intention of laying out the details of the attack against him that resulted in him being unjustly imprisoned for more than a year. The High Court of Australia looked at his unjust imprisonment when it determined that the implausible nature of the claims against him meant that there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted. It was a unanimous decision, seven-nil. The High Court's analysis considered events in and around the days when the crimes were alleged to have occurred. The assaults were said to have been committed in a public place, in a room where the door remained open, accessible to numerous persons engaged in functions ordinarily performed after mass. The two alleged victims were each said to have witnessed the assault perpetrated on the other victim. Hence, corroboration on that day, the next day or any time in the years before the second boy died an untimely death ought to have been straightforward. Pell's regular practice was to remain on the steps outside after mass, greeting people in the company of his master of ceremonies until his vestments were removed. They were, most importantly, of such a weight and style that committing the assaults as described was impossible. It wasn't only the events of the day that made the offending implausible. A consideration of the historical context of events in Victoria from 1993 to 1996 renders the committal of the alleged assaults by the newly appointed archbishop intrinsically improbable. This broader context is relevant to evaluating the inherent improbability of the assaults ever having occurred. This historical context has been ignored, and accordingly it is important that it be placed on the public record. The announcement of Pell's appointment as Archbishop of Melbourne on 16 July 1996 did not take place in a vacuum. By then the more notorious clerical paedophiles in Victoria had been exposed, charged and prosecuted. By 1996, the community had become well aware of the appalling breaches of trust committed by Glennon, Ridsdale, O'Donnell and Gannon, just to name a few. There was consistent media reporting of the scandal as it developed before an incredulous and dismayed Catholic community as well as the general public. Ridsdale was first jailed in May 1993. O'Donnell and Gannon were both convicted and jailed in 1995. A Four Corners program on clerical abuse was shown in July 1996. During that year, forums on child sexual abuse were held in the archdiocese, one of which took place at Sacred Heart Parish in Oakleigh. In late July 1996, a matter of days after the announcement of Pell's appointment, Brother Edward Dowlan was imprisoned for nine years and Brother Robert Best received a suspended sentence for his sexual assaults on minors. Describing this period in the history of the church in Melbourne, Pell told the Victorian parliamentary inquiry into the handling of child abuse allegations by religious and other non-government organisations of the challenges facing the archdiocese when he assumed office. He said: At this time, the media was full of accounts detailing sex abuse in the Catholic community. As an auxiliary bishop to Archbishop Little I did not have the authority to handle these matters and had only some general impressions about the response that was being made at that time, but this was sufficient to make it clear to me that this was an issue which needed urgent attention and that we needed to do much better in our response. It was my job when I became Archbishop to address this problem within the Archdiocese of Melbourne. And address it he did. After the announcement, but prior to his appointment taking effect, then Archbishop-elect Pell announced that there would be a shift in the church's approach to payment of compensation for clerical sexual abuse claims. The new archbishop knew that his credibility in addressing historical sexual abuse would be measured by whether, and how quickly, he could get his program up and running. One of his first acts as archbishop was to seek legal advice about how the church in Victoria had responded to the increasing number of claims. He was told that 'legal technicalities' had been employed as part of taking a hard line against plaintiffs, which included the issuing of summonses seeking dismissal of plaintiff's claims. No cases had been settled because to settle a case would have been an admission that a priest had acted disgracefully and such disgrace would damage the reputation of the church. Pell publicly stated that this intolerable situation would no longer be countenanced and wasted no time in acting. He spoke with then Governor of Victoria, Richard McGarvie QC, who suggested that he appoint a senior legal person who would be given independence and authority to make recommendations to the archbishop. Pell discussed the matter in some detail with the then Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett. Pell established an informal advisory group comprised of experts in the diverse fields of social welfare, criminal law, civil law, personal injury compensation, canon law, counselling and support services, as well as administrative and financial officers of the diocese. From July to October 1996, Pell consulted intensively with the group for the purpose of creating a new system of inquiry, compensation and counselling for victims of clerical sex abuse in the archdiocese. There was consultation with senior members of Victoria Police concerning protocols to be followed where investigation by the church's independent commissioner revealed conduct which may amount to a criminal offence. On 30 October 1996, within his first 100 days in office, Pell formally announced the Melbourne Response. This was a new process by which justice, compensation, counselling and professional support services would be offered to victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests, religious and lay people under the control of the diocese. There was also a panel to oversee the administration of the Melbourne Response. Membership was not confined to Catholics and included some of the state's best legal practitioners. It is important to note that Victoria Police welcomed the initiative as 'a positive step in tackling this very sensitive community issue' and welcomed the appointment of Peter O'Callaghan QC as independent commissioner. On 12 August 1996, prior to the formal announcement of the response, even the editor of The Age described Pell's undertaking that the church would negotiate settlements for genuine claims of sex abuse, even if it meant putting the church into debt, as an 'important and auspicious step forward for the Catholic Church in Australia'. It would seem unthinkable now that the Premier of Victoria, Victoria Police and The Age would all be saying positive things about the Catholic Church, and, in particular, about Pell, on addressing the scourge of child abuse in the church's history. However, Pell's rugged determination to show leadership was noticeable and impressive. With the backdrop of this broader context, the implausibility of the allegations against Cardinal Pell take on a whole new dimension. At the time of the alleged offending, Pell was a newly minted archbishop, publicly addressing the scandal of clerical sexual abuse and personally invested in the establishment of a church response. He was in discussion with Victoria's governor, its Premier, high-ranking police and leading figures in law, medicine and social services as to the design of the program. Given all the publicity and the fact that child sexual abuse was front of mind for government, police, media and the Catholic faithful, can any reasonable person actually believe he would threaten his own reputation and credibility by engaging in criminal assaults of a random, violent and palpably risky nature upon adolescent choirboys in a busy cathedral? This was implausibility heaped on improbability. It ought to have been clear to reasonable members of the community that the offence could not have happened. So why, then, was he convicted? We will need to continue this incredible tale, because there are many parts to it. One of them, perhaps most fundamental of all, was that an understandably angry public wanted an identifiable villain. The church had seemingly fallen down; someone had to pay for this, and, in looking for a fall guy, Pell seemed to fit the bill. Melbourne crime journalist John Silvester described Pell as 'a lightning rod on the worldwide storm of anger at a systemic cover-up of priestly abuses'. Like the scapegoat of the Old Testament, he was to be punished for the sins of others. The sad irony of all of this is that, instead of being the one to blame for the abuse crisis in the church, particularly in Melbourne but even across the world, Pell was the first to address it. For all the criticisms hurled at the Melbourne response, the royal commission, after years of consideration and millions of dollars expended, came up with a national redress scheme which has no obvious advantages over the scheme that Pell created more than two decades prior, during his first three months as Archbishop of Melbourne. This is something his more hostile critics seem incapable of acknowledging. To be continued. COVID-19: Northern Territory 93 20:42 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I rise to pay tribute to the people of the Northern Territory and, indeed, all Australians as we come to the end of the year. It is December, a time when we're starting to prepare for Christmas and thinking about those in our lives who matter. It's been interesting to see, in the last few days, families wanting to connect and reconnect with loved ones throughout different jurisdictions across Australia. We're mindful, too, of the thousands of Australians who still wish to come home from abroad. When I talk about the Northern Territory in this instance, it's an opportunity to really say thank you: thank you to the Chief Medical Officer and the staff involved in caring for and protecting the people of the Northern Territory and to members of the AUSMAT who punched way above their weight as the first to step up, back in January-February, to assist with Australians who were caught in China at the time that COVID-19 became a phenomenon known to all Australians. I say thank you to the residents of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. We're thinking of you—in particular, we're thinking of the residents of Christmas Island. You took in many families; the first planeloads that arrived in Australia went to Christmas Island for protection and for support. As we come to the end of 2020, I think it's fair to say that most Australians will be pretty happy to see this year end. This is also an opportunity to reflect on what is important to not only Australians but people around the globe. We all recognise that it has been an extraordinarily difficult year of challenge because of this pandemic. Again, one of the beautiful things is seeing humanity rise to the call and to the fore in trying to assist and help one another. Yes, here in this place and certainly the other house, we have to have combative moments, but we are coming to the end of the year. I think that now is a time for real moments of reflection and this is one of those. I sincerely wish every family in the Northern Territory a safe and very happy Christmas. Wherever you are—in the remote regions of the Northern Territory, in the towns, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt—make sure you stay safe; make sure you still have time for one another. It is the wet season in the north. Naturally, we will be preparing for the cyclones—it's what we do when we live in northern Australia. We recognise that we still have to look out for each other when the waters rise, the floods come in and storms hit. I think that resilience is a characteristic of the Northern Territory that I saw come through strongly during this COVID pandemic. We punch above our weight. We certainly reached out to assist wherever we could across Australia, and we also reached out to those Australians who have come home from abroad and are now quarantining at the Howard Springs facility. It has been a strange year on other fronts as well, when we think of the issues. I reflect on the Black Lives Matter protests across the country, and the passion with which thousands and thousands of Australians took to the streets. I commend them, and I commend the leadership of those state and territory jurisdictions who recognised the importance of those passionate marches that did take place. I thank them for what they were able to achieve, and, again, for highlighting the pain for First Nations people and bringing humanity to the forefront. The high rates of incarceration and the deaths in custody of First Nations people and people of colour are still way too high and unexplainable in Australia, which is just not good enough. These are important issues to pursue vigorously as we go into 2021. There is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flag, and the Senate's inability to move beyond a very conservative style that I think our country has outgrown. We do embrace our First Nations people and our First Nations culture, and I look forward to 2021 where we can, in this Senate, reflect that in flying and displaying those flags here in the Senate. I'd like to thank my staff. I think most members would agree that we can't really do this job at all without our incredible staff. I would like to pay tribute to those who work beside me and walk with me every single day in this job as I represent the people of the Northern Territory, as a senator for the Northern Territory, but, indeed, here in the Australian Senate as a senator for all Australians. Charlie, to you and your family, have a very happy and safe Christmas. Mandy, thank you for what you do; you are just amazing. Martha, you're extraordinary. I'm going to get into trouble now! To Sharon, who's just joined us, it's wonderful to have you on board. And I pay tribute to two people who've worked with me throughout this year—Ella and Mai-Mai. I sincerely wish each and every one of you and your families a safe and happy Christmas. I'd like to make mention of the First Nations caucus, and every member who works with me as chair of that caucus. In particular, I'd like to mention Linda Burney, our shadow Indigenous affairs minister, and Senator Pat Dodson, whose wisdom I seek in so many areas. We try to pursue the policies we need to have, and to do so in such a collective way, and hopefully that continues to bring a greater sense of unity, not only in the parliament, but in our country on the issues that matter to First Nations people and all Australians. I thank each and every member of the First Nations caucus, and wish you and your families a very safe and happy Christmas. To the National Indigenous Labor Network, to all our Indigenous Labor members across the Australian Labor Party in every state and territory jurisdiction, and all of those ministers for Indigenous affairs: as we work together through COVID, through our many teleconferences, thank you for your support. And thank you for what you do in trying to ensure that, whilst we are protecting all Australians, there is recognition of the vulnerability of First Nations people. I commend each and every one of you. To our Aboriginal community health organisations, our ACCHOs and NACCHOs, all of you, the men and women who work to protect and to maintain the health and dignity of the patients and people in your communities—thank you for what you do. I'm also mindful of the many millions of Australians who have lost their jobs, who don't and will not have the kind of Christmas they perhaps would have hoped they would have. I think that we as a nation must always remember those who are struggling and who need to never be forgotten. In particular at Christmastime, as we think about things individually in terms of our own needs and desires, we must also think of those who are desperately in need of support and in particular those people who are struggling with mental health illnesses and the loss of loved ones throughout this incredibly difficult year. I would certainly like to wish each and every member of the Senate and their families a safe and happy Christmas, but it's also a time for us to reflect on how we can be better representatives as we go into 2021 and make sure that we don't leave any Australian behind. Human Rights, Climate Change: Pacific Islands, Pauga, Mr Talalelei 95 20:51 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise again tonight to speak on the issue of human rights around the world. The Australian Greens believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected and protected in all countries and for all peoples. I had the privilege recently of speaking at two roundtables organised by the Humanism Project on human rights in India and particularly the concern that we have, as my speech was about, the RSS, which is a fascist organisation that openly admits admiration for Adolf Hitler and the appalling genocide that occurred under his Nazi regime. The contemporary RSS rides roughshod over people's human rights. Time and time again, the RSS has attacked Indian people's rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and safety. Their advocacy of a Hindu Rashtra is for an India where, by definition, minorities are denied rights and privileges. They demonise and encourage persecution of some of the non-Hindu citizens of India, particularly those of Muslim background. At the second of these forums, I particularly raised my concern that Australia's High Commissioner to India, Barry O'Farrell, had recently met with the RSS. He's only the second senior diplomat from any country to meet the RSS at their offices in recent times. This is a disgrace. We believe that the high commissioner should resign. I'm seeking further information about what advice the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade provided to him before that meeting. There were a range of speakers from around the world at these two roundtables, including at the second—Mr Raju Rajagopal, Professor Anjali Arondekar and Pieter Friedrich. They provided important perspectives on human rights in India, on international connections and particularly on what we can do next, working together globally, to champion human rights in India. I'm keen to continue this discussion here in this parliament in the new year, because I believe that issues related to the erosion of human rights and democracy are things that needs to be drawn to people's attention and for us to discuss here in this national parliament. Today is the 59th anniversary of the first raising of West Papua's symbol of independence, the Morning Star flag. The Australian Greens have long advocated for West Papuan independence. It was the former Australian Greens leader Richard Di Natale who in 2012 launched Australia's chapter of the International Parliamentarians for West Papua. When the Indonesian President visited here last year we took the opportunity to raise the issue of human rights in West Papua with him. So today we support the people of West Papua; we call on the Indonesian government to withdraw its combat troops from West Papua and to allow the UN Human Rights Commissioner to visit West Papua. We are incredibly concerned at the likelihood of violence by Indonesian police, military and militias against protesters who are marking this day today. This concern is particularly important for us here in Australia because we have provided training and support to Indonesian police. When Indonesian police commit brutalities and human rights violations in West Papua, that is of real concern to us here as Australians. We must examine whether we are enabling these violations and take serious, urgent action if we are. This is, again, something that I'll be seeking further information on. We must not, as Australians, be enabling human rights abuses in West Papua. Another crisis point for human rights is occurring right now, of course, in Ethiopia. This is a tragic situation. The crisis has been ongoing for some time now and has reached a point where devastating impacts are displacing thousands of people. We are calling for an immediate ceasefire, including protection for civilians, and the international community must provide support to negotiate a political solution to this conflict. The United Nations must have full access to provide humanitarian support and address this crisis. Here in Australia, the Greens believe that the Australian government should be doing everything it can to address this crisis, including supporting a peaceful resolution and humanitarian aid, and providing assistance to bring home Australians who are stranded in the conflict zone. It should urge the Ethiopian government to lift the telecommunications blackout which has had devastating impacts on many who are seeking news of their loved ones. The tragic reality is that this crisis is going to result in more deaths, more impacts on vulnerable communities and prolonged conflict unless the international community steps in. The Australian government should be advocating for and providing international support to help this to occur. Of course, human rights often intersect with environmental crises in profound and important ways. I want to thank the writers from the Pacific nations of the open letter in The Sydney Morning Herald today for their courage in calling out our Liberal-National government's inaction on climate and what that then means for their communities. They called for Australians to work together with Pacific island peoples. They had five key requests. They wanted us to commit to zero net emissions by 2050 and to develop a long-term low-greenhouse-gas emissions strategy by next year, 2021. They want us to cancel Australia's leftover Kyoto protocol credits, which legally cannot, and morally should not, be used to meet our 2030 Paris Agreement targets. They want Australia to double our current nationally determined contribution, in line with the 2014 advice from the independent Climate Change Authority. They want to maximise the opportunities associated with the COVID-19 recovery package to boost the renewable energy sector and the low-emissions transport sector. And they want us to provide new and additional funds beyond the current aid budget to finance climate mitigation and adaptation under the Paris Agreement, including contributing to the Green Climate Fund. These are all very important things that Australia should be doing. But, of course, we actually should be going much further. The truth is that the Liberal Party's inaction on the climate crisis doesn't just hurt Australians; it's devastating our regional neighbours, who deserve so much better from us. Australia must do its part, and that means taking urgent, serious action on our climate crisis. I want to conclude tonight by mentioning a particular case of a Samoan Australian, Talalelei Pauga, who is in custody in Brisbane awaiting extradition to Samoa. It's important, of course, that there is an independent, fair process to examine any allegations against him. However, it's a concern where we believe an individual may potentially not receive a fair and independent process. In this instance, I am particularly concerned at reports that the Prime Minister of Samoa has intervened by writing and criticising bail decisions in Samoa by the ministry of justice in relation to two individuals who were also charged in the case associated with Mr Pauga. An Amnesty International Pacific researcher has said: The concern here with the extradition charges is that we don't know what evidence they have to allege this person has been involved in any crime in Samoa and yet he's been detained and held in custody, … Talalelei Pauga has been a critic of the Samoan Prime Minister. We think it's incredibly important that a person's political activities should not result in political interference in what should be a fair and independent judicial process. Amnesty International has particularly raised concerns about this potential political interference. They said: We've seen the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers communicate with the Samoan Government this year around some of their concerns about the lack of separation of power. In conclusion, I want to be very clear: we are asking that the government pay very close attention to this case to ensure that there will be an independent and fair process to examine the allegations against Mr Pauga and to make sure that this process is not being influenced by political considerations before allowing Mr Pauga's extradition to proceed. Staines Memorial College 96 21:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm delighted to rise this evening to speak about a memorable day I had on 3 November this year at Staines Memorial College in Redbank Plains, where I opened some new facilities: a student amenities block and four primary general learning areas. The coalition government provided $950,000 in funding through the Capital Grants Program. That's a program where the coalition government supports schools on a needs basis. This is a school in one of the areas in South-East Queensland, the western corridor, which is growing at an exponential rate. This is a school where 31 per cent of the students come from a non-English-speaking background. I'm a passionate believer in our system of education, where we have both private and public schools and both receive support from the federal government. Staines Memorial College in Redbank Plains is a non-denominational Christian college and is part of the Christian Community Ministries school network. It is a great educational institution and I pay tribute to the whole school community: the Christian Community Ministries leadership, the teachers, the parents and the students. Its values are: relationships, respect and responsibility. I'll speak more about my day at the school and all the fun I had there on 3 November, but first I want to make some comments in relation to the name of the school, Staines Memorial College. Before attending the school I did some research on how the school came by its name. The school is named in honour of Mr Graham Staines and his sons, Philip and Timothy. Mr Graham Staines worked in India for 30 years as a missionary. He and his wife, Gladys, his sons, Philip and Timothy, and his daughter, Esther, lived in India and helped people suffering from leprosy in Odisha province. Graham and his two sons were murdered on 23 January 1999 in the Indian province of Odisha by religious extremists. They were literally burned alive in their car—an awful, awful evil act. On 11 March 1999 in this place, Senator Brian Harradine moved a motion of condolence in relation to Graham Staines and his sons, Philip and Timothy. After this awful event, Graham's widow, Gladys, and daughter, Esther, kept working in their community in India to help people suffering from leprosy. Gladys Staines received one of India's highest civilian honours for her social work helping people with leprosy after her husband and two sons, Philip and Timothy, were killed in those tragic circumstances. She was an absolute inspiration. On 3 November, I had the honour of attending this school, the Staines Memorial College in Redbank Plains, to open these new facilities. As I sometimes do here, I'll read the run sheet to give you a feel for the nature of the event. After our arrival there was an opening prayer by Deputy Principal Adam Marsh, and this was followed by a wonderful rendition of the national anthem by the junior choir of the Staines Memorial College. Primary Captain Soraya Okini and Primary Captain Dante Monteporte then gave a welcome to all the guests, and they spoke tremendously well. I really do congratulate them on their presentations. The then Acting Principal, Mr Nick Makin, spoke to those who'd gathered. I'm delighted to say that Mr Makin has now been appointed Principal. At the time I attended the school he was waiting to be interviewed for that permanent position, and I'm absolutely delighted that Mr Makin was appointed. There were then some student responses to the Acting Principal's address, and these were absolutely delightful. I was blown away by how articulate these young students were. They were Sofia Amos, from year 5; Peter Jose, year 5; Abigail Robinson, year 1; and Jasper Algate, year 1. It was hard to believe that they were year 1 students. They were articulate, they'd thought about what they were going to say, and they presented their remarks extremely well. They would not be out of place in this place. We then had the lower primary choir give a rendition of a beautiful musical composition called 'Our Beautiful World'. I note that it was composed by the music teacher, Miss Naomi Murphy, and written for 2020. A dedication of the buildings was then made by Mr Norton Sands, the Executive Principal. Mr Sands afterwards told me how, when he had first walked across the site where the memorial college has been built, the grass was shoulder high. Now there's a great school there providing education to over 500 students—just tremendous. A senator then gave a speech—but you've heard many of those before, so we'll skip straight over that—and there was then a closing prayer from the Deputy Principal, Melissa Coluccio. We had an opportunity to tour the facilities, and it was really then that I gained an appreciation of what a wonderful place this is. Think about it: 31 per cent of the students come from non-English-speaking backgrounds. There was a great atmosphere in the school. I'll make three reflections. First, the standards: I went into the grade 5 classroom, and on the door there was a guide to the meaning of words like 'alliteration' and 'hyperbole'. I was so impressed that they were learning that. They don't have to enter politics and come to the Senate to know about hyperbole; they are learning it in grade 5. It's a tremendous thing. Then there was the atmosphere. The students were so polite, courteous and well-behaved. I give credit to all of you, Grade 5. And then I want to talk about the culture of the school and how they include the parents of some of the students from non-English-speaking backgrounds in the school community. One example that was given to me is that they celebrate the birthday of each of the students. A teacher sat down with a mother who came from a non-English-speaking background and wasn't sure what she should do to celebrate. They came up with the idea that she would cook some cupcakes and bring them to the school. That was a significant event—for that lady to be included in the school community in that way. That comes back to the three values I spoke about, which Staines Memorial College is representative of: relationships, respect and responsibility. I pay tribute to the leadership of the school, I pay tribute to the teaching staff—indeed all of the staff; the school has beautiful grounds—and I pay tribute to the students and their parents. I say to you, Mr Acting Deputy President: the school community bring honour to the Staines name. They bring honour to Mr Graham Staines and his two sons, Philip and Timothy, who lost their lives in that tragic incident in India back in 1999. Queensland Government: Budget 97 21:09 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland The Queensland government released their budget today. Because I was raised to find the good in everything, I want to express in my chamber how pleased I am to see the Queensland Labor government come to the party and deliver on a commitment to match the federal government's funding of $3.5 million for the establishment of a Holocaust museum in Brisbane. I had the pleasure of announcing the federal contribution to that on behalf of Ministers Tehan and Frydenberg a few months ago. It's great to see the state government come on board in circumstances where both the federal government and the Brisbane City Council team, led by Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner, are already such great supporters of this important project. It will educate young Queenslanders in particular about this important and tragic chapter of history and help make sure that something so horrific never happens again. But I'm sorry to say that that's where the good news in the Queensland budget stops. Around four weeks ago Queensland had an election—an election that Queenslanders were asked to go to without the benefit of seeing the budget that had been due a few months earlier from Queensland Labor. During that election campaign, the Queensland Labor government promised that it would borrow $4 billion, on top of its existing $102 billion worth of state debt, and that was all that would be required to fund their spending promises and operational commitments. You'd expect that figure to be accurate; they have access to all the departmental data and Treasury modelling that are necessary to try to get that pretty close to right. Well, we're now four weeks down the road, and that promise has not even lasted for that period. Senator Scarr 282997 How much is it? Senator STOKER 237920 The extra $4 billion that they promised to borrow in the name of every Queenslander has not blown out twofold and it hasn't blown out threefold— Senator Scarr 282997 Fourfold? Fivefold? Senator STOKER 237920 Senator Scarr, it has not blown out fourfold. Would you believe that it has blown out sevenfold? Sevenfold! Senator Scarr 282997 Which is $28 billion! Senator STOKER 237920 Yes, $28 billion—not the $4 billion promised just four weeks ago, knowing all of the complications of COVID and the impact that was having on the economy, particularly in light of border closures. No, it took just four weeks and the most important of their promises were broken and out the window. But perhaps the worst part of knowing they're borrowing against the future of your children and my children is knowing that they're not even borrowing to fund anything that lasts. They're not borrowing to build the great infrastructure that will set up the economic recovery of Queensland for the next 50 years. They're not borrowing to build great water projects that will sustain agriculture. They're not borrowing to invest in the growth of regional Queensland, to help it to reach its potential. No, they're borrowing to pay a public service which has ballooned by 40,000 people since 2015 without delivering any measurable improvement in service delivery. Indeed, you would be horrified to know, Mr Acting Deputy President Griff, that some departments, like the department of the environment, are more cantankerous and ineffective than they've ever been! The public service wage bill in Queensland will now top $26 billion a year. Let that sink in for a moment. Queensland Labor have even now abandoned the self-imposed constraint they once announced of capping public service job growth to population growth. Do you remember that promise, Senator Scarr? I remember that promise. Senator Scarr 282997 One of many. Senator STOKER 237920 One of many promises abandoned, broken, left behind. Maybe their union bosses told them to do otherwise. Maybe they just gave up on any charade of fiscal responsibility. But it begs an important question: if we have so many public servants—and I tell you that is one statistic on which Queensland leads the country—why do we still fork out so much for consultants? I assure you that that too is a record Queensland is breaking. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet alone spent over $5.5 million on consultants last year. They've borrowed to pay for millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funded pre-election propaganda. They have borrowed to pay for more ministers and assistant ministers than ever before. Senator Scarr 282997 Do they have anyone who isn't a minister or assistant minister? Senator STOKER 237920 I don't think so. I think everyone gets a prize in this government. It's a bit like going to a fair with your children: every child gets a prize. And perhaps the most horrific part is that they are overseeing the least productive executive in Queensland's history. Let that sink in for a moment. By every possible measure—economic output, unemployment rate, state GDP—this is the least productive executive in Queensland's history. The parliament barely sits, assistant ministers have empty diaries, and estimates has been reduced to a sideshow. Senator Scarr 282997 No upper house. Senator STOKER 237920 Maybe that's what they need; I'd be a fan of that. Queensland Labor have not aspired in any way to use this record borrowing to return Queensland to the top of the national economic ladder as is their duty, as Queenslanders expect them to. New South Wales are forecasting unemployment of 5.25 per cent in 2024. Queensland Labor? They are happy for us to keep running last in the country. They've set an underwhelming target of 6.5 per cent. In 2021-22, New South Wales will see revenue growth of 6.7 per cent. The Queensland government is happy to aspire to 4.7 per cent. The only growth we are assured of in Queensland is in the operating deficit. Queenslanders can count on that growing—not by 10 per cent, not by 20 per cent. By how much do you think it will grow by, Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 Twenty five? Senator STOKER 237920 The operating deficit will grow by 50 per cent in 2021-22. It is a succession of great disappointments. Queensland Labor flatly refused to release a budget before the election. We Queenslanders now know why. They went to the election promising to borrow $4 billion and to spend that just on jobs and infrastructure. Well, today we have found out what they were really about. They will borrow seven times that amount—$28 million—not for more jobs, not for more roads, not for more schools, not for more dams but just to keep the lights on. I think that is the saddest part of their addiction to waste, their largesse and the economic ineptitude that characterises everything we have come to know and depend upon day in, day out from Queensland Labor. Senate adjourned at 21:18